Yesterday

[Greenlander]

What a great cross by delicatemoth headed home by Sporting, but I really want to see that Fall version in full.

[Sporting]

Think you may be out of luck...

[Hot Pepsi]

There are some people trying to figure out the full implications of the Beatles never happening. There’s one hypothesis that that the Kardashians would not be a thing without The Beatles, but I don’t recall the details.

I suspect the movie doesn’t really get into all that.

[ursus arctos]

Chaos theory stretched to the breaking point

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

There are some people trying to figure out the full implications of the Beatles never happening. There’s one hypothesis that that the Kardashians would not be a thing without The Beatles, but I don’t recall the details.

I suspect the movie doesn’t really get into all that.

What difference would there be? The beatles didn't exist in a vacuum, and were doing much the same stuff as their contemporaries, just maybe a bit better, and maybe a bit earlier, if not always. The Kinks would be a lot more famous I think. They too were a band that had a very good understanding of american music of the fifties, while also being really into music hall. They even did the whole Indian sitar thing two years before the beatles. (See my friends) and they were also into concept albums. The Who would have been more famous, earlier, and perhaps not so thoroughly forgotten until CSI came along to remind everyone they were once a super mega huge band. (The Beatles seemed to have eaten up so much of the airspace for 60's bands in the eighties and early nineties). They were the first to go mad in the studio and make that work for a mass audience, but the Beach boys were also doing similar, and this was a revolution that was always going to happen, once people started to realise the artistic possilbilities opened up by this new technology.

[Hot Pepsi]

Explained here.
https://www.theringer.com/movies/201...s-implications

OK, so: If Paul McCartney doesn’t exist, that means he never makes “The Girl Is Mine” with Michael Jackson in 1982, which means a couple more things. One, that the world never gets to hear him play-fight over a girl (“She told me I was her forever lover, don’t you remember?” says Sir Paul McCartney). But more importantly, if that song never gets made, then Brandy and Monica never remake it with “The Boy Is Mine” in 1998. And maybe Brandy still would’ve reached a high level of fame without that no. 1 hit, but probably not, which means she wouldn’t have been famous enough for her younger brother, Ray J, to ride her coattails. And if Ray J never gets famous, we never get “Sexy Can I.” We never get “Danger smashed the homie.” We never get the Ray J moving hat meme. And ladies and gentlemen, if Ray J never gets famous, he never dates—and makes a sex tape with—Kim Kardashian. And you know what happens if Kim Kardashian never makes a sex tape. It seems obvious to say that the erasure of the Beatles would deeply change the landscape of pop culture, but seriously: The Kardashians maybe don’t exist without the Beatles.

[San Bernardhinault]

There are at least 9 things I am totally unaware of in that linkage. It's quite incredible how an entire tranche of pop culture completely bypassed me.

[Hot Pepsi]

There are at least 9 things I am totally unaware of in that linkage. It's quite incredible how an entire tranche of pop culture completely bypassed me.

Me too, mostly. I know who the Kardashians are in general and I vaguely recall the existence of a pop star named Brandy from a while ago. I definitely recall that McCartney/Jackson duet. They also did “Say, Say, Say” which was a lot better.

[Satchmo Distel]

What difference would there be? The beatles didn't exist in a vacuum, and were doing much the same stuff as their contemporaries, just maybe a bit better, and maybe a bit earlier, if not always. The Kinks would be a lot more famous I think. They too were a band that had a very good understanding of american music of the fifties, while also being really into music hall. They even did the whole Indian sitar thing two years before the beatles. (See my friends) and they were also into concept albums. The Who would have been more famous, earlier, and perhaps not so thoroughly forgotten until CSI came along to remind everyone they were once a super mega huge band. (The Beatles seemed to have eaten up so much of the airspace for 60's bands in the eighties and early nineties). They were the first to go mad in the studio and make that work for a mass audience, but the Beach boys were also doing similar, and this was a revolution that was always going to happen, once people started to realise the artistic possilbilities opened up by this new technology.

I agree with all this. Add in Motown, Dylan, anti-Vietnam protests, Black Power, all mostly independent of The Beatles.

What you wouldn't have is the strands of humour, music and style that were incorporated into other bands. No ELO, a less interesting Abba, obviously no Oasis, maybe no Slade, less interesting Glam.

And I think some musical innovations would happen at a slower pace. Pet Sounds was responding to Rubber Soul so would have needed a different trigger. All the albums responding to Sgt Pepper would have been different although San Francisco would have filtered through eventually.

A Hard Days Night as a movie was revolutionary and its absence would slow down the acceptability of UK regional accents in TV and film. No Cilla, maybe no Lulu or Twiggy. London would still swing but with even less connection to other cities. England would still win the World Cup. Liverpool might have fewer fans outside the city itself due to less name recognition.

I really don't think the songs individually matter in daily life, so that whole conceit is bollocks. I had never paid any attention to them until Lennon was murdered when I was 14. Punk had made them redundant until his death put them back on the radio. Had he lived, I'm not sure I'd have checked out Sgt Pepper until much later.

And remember that there are many notable musicians post-1970 who got by perfectly well without any Beatles influence, sometimes even actively disliking the group.

[delicatemoth]

James McCartney
"Jack" Lennon
George Harrison
Stuart Sutcliffe
Peter Best


You must have heard of them?

Well I've never heard Lennon called Jack, or McCartney James, and George is the only one of the other three you mentioned, so...

I was very impressed by that bloke's interpretation of 'Repetition' on an acoustic guitar, good work.

[jwdd27]

The Kardashians hypothesis relies on "The Girl is Mine" going unrecorded because McCartney wasn't around.
I'm not sure Michael Jackson would struggle finding someone else to duet his song with in 1982. It was for a little album he had planned called "Thriller". Quincy Jones was attached.
McCartney was getting a leg up there rather than vice versa. Another singer might even have made a better go of it, perhaps someone with more credible sex appeal.

[Hot Pepsi]

Good point.

But it's not a great song. Would it have been a hit without the "It's Michael Jackson AND a Beatle!!!!!!! The Starpower is BLINDING!!!" aspect? Would it have made it on Thriller without that? Would it be remembered enough to be covered with a gender-switch without that?

[Guy Profumo]

Something that struck us at work today from those of us who've seen it.

If Oasis didn't exist in this universe, how did Jack sing "Wonderwall"?

[Lang Spoon]

Yeah, without that, poundshop Kiera Knightley would never have begun her lifelong crush on him.

[Guy Profumo]

Poundshop Kiera Knightly?

If we're resorting to immature infra dig, as opposed to the 99p one then?

[Satchmo Distel]

The Kardashians were going to become famous in some form. Their dad was already famous as was stepdad Jenner.

[ursus arctos]

I was going to say that a theory that they wouldn't have been a thing without the OJ Trial was rather more plausible (while still not being completely convincing).

[Hot Pepsi]

Certainly, even without the Kardashians, there'd probably be something like the Kardashians on TV and it would probably be just as popular if not moreso, but if just a few things had gone differently, it might not have been them. There are loads of wealthy LA families with some connection to famous actors or athletes that just as easily could have sold out their privacy for fame and (more) fortune.

I'm not a keen celebrity follower, but I get the impression that the sex tape did more for their fame than the OJ trial. Robert Kardashian would have been a wealthy LA lawyer with or without that case and his role in it is not as well-remembered as several of the other lawyers. Jenner's connection is probably more important, but Bruce Jenner wasn't really very famous any more by the early 2000s, certainly not among the age-range that watches the Kardashians. Decathalon is not popular in the US.

[ursus arctos]

I am far from expert on this, but would posit that the significant increase in her former husband's profile after OJ was the mother's first big break in terms of "celebrity" and accounts for why her family enterprise continued (and continues) to trade on his name (which is also more distinctive than either Houghton or Jenner).

[Hot Pepsi]

Good point. I wouldn't be shocked if a hired consultant told her to keep the name.

[jwdd27]

A nice detail of Jackson and McCartney's friendship was Jackson seeking advice from McCartney on managing/spending the huge wealth he was suddenly amassing. McCartney suggested getting into music publishing and outlined how lucrative it was to own the rights to other people's music.
So Jackson went out and bought 50% of Northern Songs, and began coining it in on all McCartney's Beatles compositions. The friendship ended soon after.

[Hot Pepsi]

Yeah.

Is that still true, or did the remaining Beatles get their songs back? I haven't heard one in an ad in a long time.

BTW, is that what "music publishing" means? As a kid, I imagined that it meant the right to sell the sheet music, you know, with the actual notes and lyrics, like you could get at The Music Mart or The Big Red Note at the mall, but I'm sure that's not it.

[Lang Spoon]

Surely publishing covers airplay/jukeboxes and the likes.

[hobbes]

There are two sets of royalties in music. One for the performance, one for the writing of the music. The latter is encompassed by the publishing rights.
Often when bands are young and stupid they'll sign away the publishing rights to the label either for cut of the publishing royalties or for nothing if they're badly advised.

Performance royalties tend to be much smaller than publishing royalties. Which is why Ken from Take That is considerably richer than the surly one. And why Robbie Williams is down as co-writer on all his solo stuff despite not having a jot to do with it. And why these shady Scandinavian song writers all have shit tons of cash.

[Felicity, I guess so]

I agree with all this. Add in Motown, Dylan, anti-Vietnam protests, Black Power, all mostly independent of The Beatles.

What you wouldn't have is the strands of humour, music and style that were incorporated into other bands. No ELO, a less interesting Abba, obviously no Oasis, maybe no Slade, less interesting Glam.

And I think some musical innovations would happen at a slower pace. Pet Sounds was responding to Rubber Soul so would have needed a different trigger. All the albums responding to Sgt Pepper would have been different although San Francisco would have filtered through eventually.

A Hard Days Night as a movie was revolutionary and its absence would slow down the acceptability of UK regional accents in TV and film. No Cilla, maybe no Lulu or Twiggy. London would still swing but with even less connection to other cities. England would still win the World Cup. Liverpool might have fewer fans outside the city itself due to less name recognition.

I really don't think the songs individually matter in daily life, so that whole conceit is bollocks. I had never paid any attention to them until Lennon was murdered when I was 14. Punk had made them redundant until his death put them back on the radio. Had he lived, I'm not sure I'd have checked out Sgt Pepper until much later.

And remember that there are many notable musicians post-1970 who got by perfectly well without any Beatles influence, sometimes even actively disliking the group.

Maybe so (on accents etc) but I have a particular obsession with pointing out the big box office of British New Wave films (especially to students who tell me ‘people didn’t want depressing realist films’):
’Saturday Night and Sunday Morning’ was no.3 film in 1960, before the Beatles had left Hamburg