The British Invasion! NEED HELP!!!

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 11-03-2011, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

this would encompass The Searchers, The Tremeloes, The Hollies, Gerry & The Pacemakers, Dave Clark 5, Herman's Hermits, Peter & Gordon, Cilla Black, Dusty Springfield, Sandie Shaw (to a lesser extent), Shirely Bassey

See, I have practically no exposure to these bands being more acquainted with the Beatles/Stones/Yardbirds/Who(who might have even came a little later) bunch. I mean, Dave Clark 5 is the only I've really heard of. I know a little of the early movement in the sense that it started as sort of a youth trend in the late 50s with skiffle bands.

I also have been told the sort of catalyst for it was Cliff Richard, and the Shadows. Found this clip from 1958, and it still very much reminisces of early American rock(Elvis Hair, crooning, etc.) but I can see the traits.

SATCHMO · 11-04-2011, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eraser.time206

It was their marketing that made people pay too much attention to them. If Zappa was as marketed he would share a similar popularity. The British Invasion had great sounding music but garbage lyrics. Those artists with garbage lyrics were marketed brilliantly. Therefore people listened mostly to those artists. People grew accustomed to that type of music.

This is pure and unadulterated rubbish. The Beatles made pop music. Bob Dylan and Frank Zappa did not. The Beatles music appealed to a much larger demographic of the American public than either of the artists that you have or may care to mention. That's all. England did not assault our country with their music; we demanded it. There was a huge market for The Beatles in America and other British invasion bands. If The Beatles hadn't been introduced to America, some other american pop artists who wrote "garbage songs", probably of lesser caliber, would have taken their place in our popular culture. Don't try to assert that the British invasion is the reason why Americans as a culture love pop music. We loved it long before any British invasion band hit our shores.

I'm sorry, but if The Beatles and the rest of the British invasion didn't hit America, Bob Dylan would be no less famous than he is or has ever been, He's absolutely legendary and teenage girls wouldn't be crying over Frank Zappa at his concerts. Blonde on Blonde would not have sold more units and none of Zappa's albums would be any more culturally relevant to us than they already are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eraser.time

I shouldn't have to explain the evolution of this. The Beatles, Rolling Stones etc were great bands and made some of the greatest albums of all time but with that came a false sense of security for the American public. They endorsed a lifestyle of extreme conformity. People followed them. Because of that and many other factors present in the 60s and 70s the music in the modern age is as lifeless as it looked like it was going to be.

How did their music endorse a lifestyle of conformity and how did any American music that was being produced before or around the same time as the British Invasion endorse a lifestlyle of that was any more individualistic? What other factors of the 60's and 70's contributed to the music lifelessness of the contemporary age and aren't we as an autonomous nation responsible for the quality of the music we produce, not some Brits who "invaded' our country 50 years ago with music we obviously wanted nothing to do with?

eraser.time206 · 11-04-2011, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

what kind of underground music?

rock n roll, psychedelia, hard rock, folk, showtunes were all quite popular then

the only thing underground about the Beatles was Revolution #9 and nobody likes it much, besides me and Jack Pat

I wasn't around at the time but a few baby boomers I have talked to have told me that the Beatles introduced music that the general public were not used to listening to. The Beatles started out making music as crappy as Nsync. For the life of me I can't figure out how they went from making garbage like Meet the Beatles to making classic albums like Rubber Soul, Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band etc. The evolution of the Beatles is intriguing.

eraser.time206 · 11-04-2011, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Pat

No, sir. The part I bolded confirms that you are the one who is trolling. There's no reason to act like that here, and it's also just a fickle and inappropriate thing to do. Look, we all have moments like these, so let's just drop this "debate" and move on before things get any worse...

You have to understand. I was extremely offended when he called me a troll. Too many people look at my comments without thinking of their meaning % wise in the conversation. For instance if someone says the Beatles are overrated then people assume that person thinks the Beatles suck. All of my comments make sense if you don't exagerate their meaning.

Howard the Duck · 11-04-2011, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

How did their music endorse a lifestyle of conformity and how did any American music that was being produced before or around the same time as the British Invasion endorse a lifestlyle of that was any more individualistic? What other factors of the 60's and 70's contributed to the music lifelessness of the contemporary age and aren't we as an autonomous nation responsible for the quality of the music we produce, not some Brits who "invaded' our country 50 years ago with music we obviously wanted nothing to do with?

The Beatles were pretty counter-cultural than conformists - drugs, indian mysticism, peaceniks

this was pretty much against the general culture at that time, only when the hippie movement caught on, did these things became the norm

saying that, it was probably a more interesting time than now, and the reason why it's so dull now has fuck all to do with the Beatles

eraser.time206 · 11-04-2011, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

This is pure and unadulterated rubbish. The Beatles made pop music. Bob Dylan and Frank Zappa did not. The Beatles music appealed to a much larger demographic of the American public than either of the artists that you have or may care to mention. That's all. England did not assault our country with their music; we demanded it. There was a huge market for The Beatles in America and other British invasion bands. If The Beatles hadn't been introduced to America, some other american pop artists who wrote "garbage songs", probably of lesser caliber, would have taken their place in our popular culture. Don't try to assert that the British invasion is the reason why Americans as a culture love pop music. We loved it long before any British invasion band hit our shores.

I'm sorry, but if The Beatles and the rest of the British invasion didn't hit America, Bob Dylan would be no less famous than he is or has ever been, He's absolutely legendary and teenage girls wouldn't be crying over Frank Zappa at his concerts. Blonde on Blonde would not have sold more units and none of Zappa's albums would be any more culturally relevant to us than they already are.

How did their music endorse a lifestyle of conformity and how did any American music that was being produced before or around the same time as the British Invasion endorse a lifestlyle of that was any more individualistic? What other factors of the 60's and 70's contributed to the music lifelessness of the contemporary age and aren't we as an autonomous nation responsible for the quality of the music we produce, not some Brits who "invaded' our country 50 years ago with music we obviously wanted nothing to do with?

Agree to disagree? It's obvious I'm the biggest Beatles fan on this forum. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to see their flaws so clearly. But everyone has their own opinion. What you gonna do?

eraser.time206 · 11-04-2011, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

The Beatles were pretty counter-cultural than conformists

That's not what the baby boomers said. In fact they say that John Lennon was the only rebel. I have to agree. John Lennon was one bad son of a *****.

Howard the Duck · 11-04-2011, 04:34 AM

mr. eraserhead, i think you're better off riffing off on something like Motown in the 60s if you want to talk about neatly packaged consumerism - none of the acts wrote their own stuff, besides early stuff like Barrett Strong, it was made for the tennybopper market, and is dumbed-down soul and r n' b - i garner that they were the main culrits responsible for pop music being marketed in such a manner as of today

to rub salt into the wound, early Beatles took a lot from Motown as well

(a similar case can be made for Tin Pan Alley, but they were at least trained songsmiths)

Howard the Duck · 11-04-2011, 04:48 AM

shoot! Smokey Robinson, Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye also wrote their own stuff, but none of them are anything particularly individualistic or artistic, only in the 70s, did they come into their own

SATCHMO · 11-04-2011, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eraser.time206

Agree to disagree? It's obvious I'm the biggest Beatles fan on this forum. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to see their flaws so clearly. But everyone has their own opinion. What you gonna do?

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of sociological probability. It's like saying that if it weren't for Justin Beiber everybody would be going crazy over The Arcade Fire, or better yet if it weren't for McDonald's everybody would be eating a lot more broccoli. Both statements are ridiculously false and for obvious reasons.