The British Invasion! NEED HELP!!!
 

Hello guys,

I'm from Iceland and i'm doing an essay about the British invasion and the influence it had on America. One of the things i have to do is to get a source from America. Basically to get an American to tell his opinion on the British Invasion and its influence on America.

Your answers don't have to be long, just an opinion would be fantastic! :)

Thanks in advance!

British Invasion
 

There were good bands in the British Invasion but in the long term it ruined music as a whole. Another thing to mention is that American culture has deteriorated because of the British Invasion +other things.

Please elaborate.
Making a claim such as those, although potentially interesting, is rather vague.
I'd like to know how British Invasion music, or any other kind of music for that matter, can ruin music as a whole. Let alone be responsible for the deterioration of another nations culture.
Also, what "other things" do you speak of?

The Brits were just trying to keep up with the Beach Boys, then discovered they were pretty good at rock n roll, hahaha. Seriously, England had profound impact on the US in the 60s, so much so that Jimi Hendrix felt he had to move to "Swinging London" to get a break. I can't quantify this, but it seems England in the 60s had more skilled and talented musician per square mile, than any other place in the world. It was also the beginning of the globalization of rock music...being from Iceland, you should be aware of the equally important influence Norwegian countries have more recently had on the US.

Our culture has also deteriorated thanks to fast food chains, shopping malls and crappy sitcoms imported from the US, none of that has anything to do with music btw................just sayin though!

Honestly, the British invasion did a lot for moving blues into psychedelic. The Beatles, The Who, The Yardbirds, Cream, The Rolling Stones(in their early years), etc. were all good bands, and did impact the mainstream significantly.

The pro is that they supported a youth music, and could be said came from being true lovers of rock n' roll, and the blues.

The con is they were, are, and forever will be ridiculously overhyped. Not that they were bad bands, per se. But their grasp on the media swelled up to the point to where it overshadowed whatever else was going on in music. Effectively killing the mainstream appeal of other genres who deserve equal praise.

So, it was a decent era of musicians, vastly overrated, that created a groundwork for rock importing from the UK, but in the long term created a ridiculously biased rock media(I mean with magazines named 'The Rolling Stone') that ignored all interest in competing movements/genres.

British deterioration
 

The British Invasion had good music but it's music overshadowed the other music genres of the time. People associated great music with popularity. In many ways the popularity of the Beatles, Rolling Stones etc was a setting stone for the mediocre artists of today. I also believe that because of their massive popularity overshadowing artists such as Frank Zappa and Bob Dylan the American public was being patted on the back for their hypocritical and laughable personality that was the 60s and 70s and then so on.

Everything matters. From the childish lyrics of the Beatles to the fake rebellion of the Rolling Stones and all other bands of the time to the delusional Americans it all adds up to what we have today.

...What? Both Frank Zappa(even if for the wrong reasons) and Bob Dylan are household names. Especially Dylan who is massively overrated, and got over in an equally overrated trend of hippy protest songs.

I think acts like Red Krayola, Sun Ra, Gyorgie Ligeti, even Beefheart(who is somewhat cult popular now, but I doubt so much in the 60s), etc. are the kinds of infinitely more interesting things in music going on that got the shaft.

I think we're being a little too harsh on the British Invasion in this thread. After the string of crap luck that the American rockers had (Buddy Holly RIP, Chuck Berry arrested, Elvis drafted, Jerry Lee Lewis screwing his underage cousin, Little Richard going to the priesthood) it was these British artists who were trying to emulate them as much as possible. And, no doubt that saved rock from dying out all together by keeping the torch lit.

And, the music was so young at the time, can you really accuse them of trying to be simple and commercial and that being a negative thing? If these artists wanted any chance of exposure, it's what they had to do. And as time went on, they proved themselves as truly talented artists. It may have taken time to develop, but many of these artists went on to make album that went beyond the music they were making earlier. Beatles, Kinks, Animals and Zombies are all great examples of these simple British Invasion bands that started off simple, but went on to make some amazing albums, especially the Beatles and the Kinks.

So, I say the importance of the British Invasion is that it kept rock and roll alive in the early 60's. And it helped spur the birth of Garage Rock and some early Psychedelic bands. Both of which are very crucial in the evolution of rock into the genre we know today.

Household names
 

Bob Dylan and Frank Zappa are known (not widely) but their music was overshadowed by the inferior. Not only was their music overshadowed by the inferior but the inferior had lyrics that are overrated and garbage. This garbage was accepted and lo and behold the trend of Americans. We (excluding me of course) always accept garbage and in the 60s and 70s it was no different.

The British Invasion symbolizes that popularity>talent. It symbolizes that people are just sheep and will listen to any garbage on the radio as long as everyone else is.

The British Invasion had very good music but the lyrics were garbage.

All of that has to do with sound. Their lyrics were garbage. "we are the village green preservation society"....garbage...."There's nothing you can do that can't be done"..garbage. They brought a great sound but their lyrics were garbage. The British Invasion inspired sound + garbage lyrics.

I agree, they were probably not very well known in Tibet.

That album is based around character sketches from traditional English village life. The lyrics are not meant to be relevant unless you know what you`re looking for and even then they`re open to debate. FTW I think the lyrics are good on that album.

i'm the only one who prefers the unsung heroes of the British Invasion - The Hollies, Herman's Hermits, The Searchers, The Tremeloes, Dave Clark 5

Lennon and McCartney and Ray Davies lyrics..."garbage".
You write off 3 songwriters with 2 examples and dismiss them as garbage.
And this after you complain about British Invasion bands ruining music and somehow negatively effecting American culture.
Perhaps you can tell me just exactly where British Invasion bands were influenced, before hitting the shores of the U.S.A. like a destructive musical and cultural tsunami?

As most everyone already knows, a lot of the British bands and artist were influenced by American Blues.

Artist like Robert Johnson, Chuck Berry, etc.

I don't get the bad lyrics/"garbage" bit myself? :laughing:

All that matters with lyrics, for me, is that they fit somehow with the music. I don't want to hear 'She Loves You' with Peter Sinfield lyrics on top of it.

The "garbage" claim is ridiculous. It's like the Good v Bad music thread... in the end it's all subjective.

Influence and lyrics
 

British bands were influenced by Blues musicians as already said. John Lennon is not a good writer and neither is Paul McCartney. They have written good songs but not on a consistent basis. I'm sure music as a whole would have been of a higher quality nowadays if the British Invasion never happened.

I don't really pay that much attention to the lyrics myself, especially music from the Hard Rock & Heavy Metal genres. Anything besides the occasional "Hook Line" anyway.

Look at Aerosmith for example, some of the hardest lyrics you can find to interpret, especially 70s material.

Who cares about the lyrics when its rock.

It's a passing thing with lyrics for me. I only notice if it doesn't feel right. But yeah, it's all about the music still.

To put some perspective on the British Invasion the last #1 song before The Beatles hit was Bobby Vinton's "There I've Said It Again". America was in the middle of the great Bobby Scare!









The Beatles sound was light years beyond what was charting in America.

Lets not forget to mention that The Beatles were also influenced by the American bands The Beach Boys and The Byrds as well.

Where to start with this thread?

Dylan and Zappa being unknown? Dylan has been on tour non-stop since 1988, and has played well over 2000 shows since that time, and I doubt there is anyone with any music knowledge at all who hasn't heard of him.

The Village Green Preservation Society-- the lyrics are oversimplified to purposely portray a metaphoric time in life when things were simpler...

The comment about the Rolling Stones' fake rebellion (or whatever the exact wording was)... I don't think there was anything fake about the Stones in the late '60' and early 70's. That might be as real as rock every got.

I consider the original big 4 of the British Invasion to be the Beatles, Stones, Who, and Kinks, but the British didn't stop invading. Zeppelin, the entire progressive movement, Brit Pop, the list goes on and on... and our culture seems completely intact... don't really understand that comment??

Culture intact
 

Really?

I doubt anybody will take you seriously anymore.

:rofl:

That happened for me when he said the British Invasion of 1964 kept people from hearing about Frank Zappa, Frank's first album came out in 1966.

There's a few things wrong with this statement:

1) not every British band is part of an 'invasion'. During the 70s there were a lot of popular American bands(Alice Cooper, Kiss, The Eagles, Aerosmith). In fact, America probably took more than 50% of the rock share at the time. Even if they didn't, I don't think the fact that British bands were still popular, and noteworthy bands like Black Sabbath were British, constitutes as an 'invasion'.

2) The entire progressive movement? That's not true at all. If anything listen to middle European psychadellic rock in the 60s, they were melding classical, jazz, and avant garde in an arguably 'progressive' way for awhile(ask Jack Pat, he's discovered a few of them). Not to mention, middle European progressive rock. Canterbury may have been the catalyst. King Crimson, Yes, and Genesis might have been British bands as well. But does that mean to discredit Gong, Magma, Amon Duul, Faust, Can, etc. from being important prog bands?

3) Brit pop is entirely unfair. It's like saying "The Japanese are the absolute kings of J-pop, no country compares".

The 'British Invasion' is a significant event in music history, but the problem is, it's hyped as the birth of music. I mean, guitar rock has always had an undeserved bias in it's popularity. Rock N' Roll was in it's infancy at the time, to be honest, and exploded as the 'replacement' for genres like jazz which were hitting new heights of maturity.

Good writers
 

Saying that John Lennon or Paul McCartney are good writers is nonsense. Anyone with an unbiased view can see this.

Overshadowed
 

The British Invasion had artists getting getting recognition they didn't deserve. Frank Zappa should have been as famous as the Beatles.

Frank Zappa is only famous because he sang songs about eating Husky pee tainted snow. Buy a best of from Best Buy, and realize it's a compilation of some of his worst work. I mean songs like "Fine Girl" which are definitive sarcastic B-sides that you could only imagine your 85 year old sexist uncle listening to.

Zappa's whole appeal was his abrasiveness. He hated love songs, he hated politeness, he hated easy lyrics, he was 100% sarcastic prick, arrogant, overachieving. Daringly self centered in his approach to music. THAT is why he's a genius. He wrote his thing, his way, and still somehow made a fantastic living off of it. If he had to cater to be as famous as the Beatles, he'd never achieve like he did as a technical songwriter.

If he has too stand, and smile, and spew out mindless hippy love garbage he wouldn't be Zappa. However, that doesn't mean he got the shaft, he IS a household name.

But his early shtick was dependent on the success of British Invasion artists. If the Brits didn't dominate the airwaves, who would he have parodied and deconstructed? We may have never had artists like Zappa, Beefheart, VU, flirt with mainstream popularity if they didn't have British Invasion artists to play-off of.

Point
 

My point is that bands from the British Invasion had popularity over other artists that deserved it more. Bob Dylan and Zappa are not known enough for the quality of their work.

I agree with most of your response, and my comment on Brit Pop was really tongue in cheek; however, I do think the primary (or the most important) players in the original progressive rock movement were British. Sure, there were bands from outside the UK that played a pivotal role (PFM from Italy being another example), but with King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, ELP, Jethro Tull, Van Der Graaf Generator, and Gentle Giant all being British... that certainly constitutes some sort of invasion, or at least some sort of something.

This topic is bizarre

I started thinking you were a certifiable troll here.

.........now I`m convinced that you need to be certified.

For what its worth, both Dylan and Zappa were two of the biggest and most influential artists of the 1960s which means the quality of their work is highly acclaimed, hell even the Beatles owe huge creative debts to artists like Dylan and the Byrds. Don`t take my word for it though, check out some reputable music literature.

Well Put, anything you read will tell you that Dylan and The Beatles were equally influential to each other. Dylan has stated that The Beatles were one of his primary motivations to go electric, and The Beatles (Lennon especially) were emulating Dylan to try to break away from their pop roots. As an example, Dyan had "4th Time Around" on Blonde on Blonde, and then Lennon countered (in friendly competition) with "Norwegian Wood" on Rubber Soul, and I believe there are two other songs in the series. One from Dylan, and then from Lennon as a solo artist, both in the same vein as the aforementioned songs. Someone else might be able to chime in and name them.

Influence
 

You aren't listening to what I'm saying. Bob Dylan and Frank Zappa should have been as famous as the Beatles. The British Invasion kept a lot of other artists from getting the recognition they deserved from the general public. That is the point. I'm not talking about influence. It shouldn't be difficult to understand that I'm saying that Dylan and Zappa (as much acclaim they have) should have been more recognized then and now.

I don't see how anyone can think the Beatles had great lyrics. They're not truly listening to their music. The Beatles were superb in sound but their lyrics were simply average and many times garbage.

All the great artists of that era like most other eras copied and borrowed from each other, which is easy enough to do, but it takes real talent though to do it well.

Beatles>Byrds>Dylan made a creative triangle that did just the above and excelled in what they did.

Silly me for saying that.........I forgot both Lennon and McCartney couldn`t write for shit.

I think you`re missing the point actually, as you need to look at the type of music being put out by some of the artists concerned. Using some of the artists you`ve mentioned, just who do you think the general public is more likely to listen to the Beatles, Zappa or Dylan? I can tell you the lyrics may influence some people, but the general mass will go for accessibility and melody, something they`ll relate to. 1) Frank Zappa was largely inaccessible as an artist, to like him was an acquired taste. 2) Bob Dylan appealed to a certain audience, whilst some would`ve been put off by his voice and style of music. 3)The Beatles full of melodic songs and with enough diversity to appeal to different music listeners. Its actually a no brainer who would win here! And not too much to do with a British invasion!

I mean the two biggest and most influential US acts of that era were the Byrds and especially the Beach Boys (again Beatles influenced) Are you trying to tell us that these two bands are detrimental to US culture?

Good lyrics are debatable and subjective. Calling the lyrics of the Beatles garbage is subjective on your part, luckily though its not a view held by most people.

Finally, do YOU really believe the Beatles took potential listeners away from people like Zappa as this is the crux of the debate here?

Will somebody please stick up for The Hollies?

Talking about the Beatless is infinitely tiresome....

Zappa
 

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.

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.