Yesterday movie question?

Nothing would have happened, without the beatles we would still have been listening to perry como and pat boone! the film is stupid.

The Beatles were only one act to emerge from the VERY active rock music scene that was growing throughout all of Europe and especially England. Liverpool was far from the only place rock groups were forming. The Dave Clark Five first began in 1957. The Stones in 1962, and they were far more blues-based than the Beatles ever were.

Certainly the music of today was heavily influenced by what the Beatles did, countless artists have cited them as an important influence. But they had very little influence on acts who were their contemporaries/competition. Definitely not on the Stones or the Davies brothers Ray and Dave (who had started the Ray Davies Quartet in 1962 and for a short time, had a lead singer named Rod Stewart). You can't say that The Kinks were much like the Beatles at all.

There would still have been a 'British Invasion', it just might have officially begun a little later than it did, on the Ed Sullivan show in early1964.

That's an interesting question. It's something I hadn't really thought about but without The Beatles, I don't think The Stones would have “made it” and there would have been no “British Invasion”, UNLESS there had been some other band in their place.

A lot of people can't grasp the importance of The Beatles. They were a British band and it was in Britain that they became “successful”. Going to America just made them more successful but they would never have crossed the Atlantic without already being HUGE.

Before The Beatles, in the UK, the charts consisted of American records, British singers trying to copy American singers, novelty records, and stuff that appealed to parents. The band Johnny Kid and the Pirates had had a hit single with Shakin’ All Over (great record but it sounded like a 50s song), and we had The Shadows - an instrumental group who didn't compose their own hits.

People laugh at Decca's rejection of The Beatles and their claim that “groups of singers with guitars are on the way out”, but that was the way it seemed. I guess the “singers with guitars” they had in mind were the many folk and skiffle groups that had formed a few years previously.

There MAY (though I doubt it) have been any number of groups just “as good” as The Beatles but they weren't well-known, had NO commercial or critical success and never appeared in the charts - they didn't even have record contracts. Search for some examples of the UK top thirty before The Beatles and you'll see what I mean. There was NOTHING remotely like them. British young people listened to American acts or singers like Billy Fury or Marty Wilde.

As is always the case, as soon as The Beatles had their first success every record company looked for “similar” acts. I don't think people have ever stopped looking for “the next Beatles”. Also, of course, many new bands formed because of the influence of The Beatles and their success.

Many of the bands that people mention as contemporaries of The Beatles - The Kinks, The Dave Clark Five, The Small Faces, The Who, The Animals etc. etc. didn't exist before The Beatles were successful. The Stones didn't even form until the year The Beatles had their first hit, and it was 1963 before they had their own hit (a cover of a Chuck Berry song). It was some time before they managed a hit with one of their own songs.

Without The Beatles influence it's doubtful that Jagger and Richards would have tried writing their own songs. Encouragement from Andrew Loog Oldham, and from seeing Lennon and McCartney finish off I Wanna Be Your Man gave them the impetus to do it. Of course, without The Beatles success The Stones probably would have had no record contract anyway.

Of course, it's just a film.

Added, The thing that some people just seem unable to grasp is that there may well have been “an active rock music scene” in the UK before The Beatles were signed but if so it wasn't apparent in the media, in the charts or in the record shops. There were NO vocal/instrumental rock/pop bands that wrote their own material and had any impact at all on the charts. I'm not even aware of any that had recording contracts. Bands were signed as quickly as possible to cash in on The Beatles success.

The Beatles were a HUGE influence on their contemporaries and on the bands that followed in that these other bands were signed and were not only allowed, but actually encouraged, to write their own material.

Yes, of course, if The Beatles hadn't have been “discovered, then one of these other bands might have been and they might have had the same success and influence as The Beatles did. But that's not what happened.

Yeah your claim isn't true at all.

The Beatles weren't the sole reason for the British Invasion. This is a bit like claiming no English bands existed playing American blues rock covers.

They're not an Eureka moment. They're the band which caught first.

American rock had grown stale, a lot of Brits with similar takes were around at that point in time. Maybe the Stones would have been known for the rivalry with the Animals or some other Merseybeat band instead.

Even some of the things they're heralded for inventing, when you look at them closely turn into "well isn't that just a successful version of what _____ tried?"