What direction would rock have gone without The Beatles?

The awesome spectacle of huge festival crowds, pumping their fists into the air, listening to dubskiffle.

 

I agree. Less British (way less). Maybe a garage Pacific Northwest song occasionally cracking the Top 40 with a great song. Rocking' Twist sounds endure as do pompadours, slicked-back hair, beehives, shortish hair for men, hair-straightening and early 1960s styles evolve more slowly (if at all). Maybe some guitar instrumentals pushing in (Ventures, Link, Eddy; maybe that's where Hendrix could break in). R&B, Soul, Motown stay strong. Beach Boys chug along without getting too personal; Brian makes a folkie solo album. Dylan stays roughly the same c. 1962-1964, probably marries Baez. Folk/Jug/Country Blues/Roots music stays strong. Electric Blues still has its champions but doesn't get too psychedelic. Jazz stays strong and less psychedelic. Straight Country as well. There is less of a mixing of genres or there being a 'new' focal point with which to react from - original Rock and Roll being the last big rock thrown in the pond. Maybe in the absence of the Beatles, some other 'new' concoction, innovation, or blend of musics happens, but it's conjectural at this point.

The London Blues scene might still be going, but people like Mick Jagger would be more inclined to leave to pursue a career in banking. The Beatles made it a lucrative career path to follow for a lot of folks their age and younger - popular music.

The big question is whether Folk Rock happens without the British Invasion, and whether the British Invasion happens without the Beatles. Other factors in sea-changability would be the effects of LSD on culture and how widespread, and how the Vietnam War unfolds and its effects.

 

Well those last things you mentioned were already in existence though the surf music craze sort of died. Only The Beach Boys continued on.


First to start off I don't think one should mention just The Beatles they might have been the group to kick off the 1964 British Invasion but another band could of ended up being first including other bands including American bands would of formed and done well.

 

It's as if you believe that everybody on this forum is a bunch of general pop and rock fans who think music started the day that they first turned on a radio and that it ended the day that they graduated high school (or college). When you say that the British Invasion had an immediate impact, it makes me incredulous. Do you somehow think that we don't already know this?​

 

Hey my post wasn't meant to be condescending. I just explaining my thoughts on how to answer this question. .

 

If the British Invasion hadn't happened, would that have made Crosby, Garcia, McGuinn, Sebastian less talented?

 

..lots of misunderstanding and misinterpretation going on here. No one is doubting anyone's knowledge on anything. Everyone is presenting their potential scenarios based on how they're interpreting previous posts. No need to get "angry" over it. My posts, incidentally, are largely based on posts made by someone only a couple of pages back )other than yourself); I wasn't responding directly to the OP. After 18, 19 pages discussions tends to drift a bit, correctomundo?

 

It's not a question of anyone's innate talent being diminished; but how that talent is nurtured and develops depends largely on the influences around it. The same can be said for The beatles and *their* influences. McCartney himself has said that the chord structure of some of Buddy Holly's music played a great part in how he and Lennon approached their own songwriting.

 

But my question isn't about McCartney or Lennon. It was about Crosby, Garcia, et al.

 

It would have went up Cripple Dick Rd. and then turned left at S**t Creek.

 

both of them had backed off of extreme distortion long before the Beatles arrived...

 

All the endless alternative doors. It's interesting. If Hitler had not started world war 2, would somebody else have done it? And how would it have affected music?