The British Invasion! NEED HELP!!!

Unknown Soldier · 11-04-2011, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eraser.time206

Look at the music people listen to nowadays and compare it to the music they listened to in the 60s. They sound nothing alike (in sound or lyrics). People listen to what is marketed. I'll use a better example. If the Velvet Underground was as marketed as the Beatles their debut album would have been considered the greatest album of all time. Marketing influences the way people think about music and what music they listen to.

Zappa wrote lyrics that were considered weird. So does Eminem. In fact Eminem writes lyrics harder on the ears than Zappa. Eminem is marketed much better than Zappa though.

Marketing=success. This generation proves it.

You`ve pretty much defeated your own argument here, as you can`t compare modern day marketing techniques with those of the 1960s, marketing at that time was largely in its infancy compared with today. The biggest selling US artists of the 1950s were all American acts (Elvis Presley etc) and as Satchmo stated, the USA demanded popular acts to take over from these in the 1960s and British bands such as the Beatles etc fitted the bill, they and US acts as I`ve already stated such as the Beach Boys pretty much ruled in the charts, as they played popular music that was guaranteed to sell (you didn`t have to be British to do that!) So making a comparison between Zappa and Eminem is really just irrelevant if we`re talking about the 1960s.

You need to accept the fact that British bands in the 1960s, put out more accessible music than US bands in general and thats the music that the general public wanted to hear and I`m amazed you can`t see that

What the US had though at that time, were imo far more interesting bands that were more experimental, darker or just had a greater cutting edge (Doors, Velvet Underground, Red Krayola, H.P. Lovecraft, United States of America and the Stooges to name just a few) and these were all bands with the exception of the Doors (who put out enough popular material) that really didn`t shift any albums, as they didn`t play accessible music. If any of these bands had been British they still wouldn`t have sold either.

Just accept that your argument is weak and using Zappa as an example was a baaaaaaaad idea, you should`ve at least picked out somebody who tried to make popular music and not sing about schoolgirls being screwed whilst wrapped in chocolate.

Your point of view on here is in the minority, your argument is weak and you really don`t help yourself much, by saying Lennon and McCartney are garbage lyric writers and then in the very next sentence saying the Beatles were more or less the best band of their era

eraser.time206 · 11-04-2011, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

You`ve pretty much defeated your own argument here, as you can`t compare modern day marketing techniques with those of the 1960s, marketing at that time was largely in its infancy compared with today. The biggest selling US artists of the 1950s were all American acts (Elvis Presley etc) and as Satchmo stated, the USA demanded popular acts to take over from these in the 1960s and British bands such as the Beatles etc fitted the bill, they and US acts as I`ve already stated such as the Beach Boys pretty much ruled in the charts, as they played popular music that was guaranteed to sell (you didn`t have to be British to do that!) So making a comparison between Zappa and Eminem is really just irrelevant if we`re talking about the 1960s.

You need to accept the fact that British bands in the 1960s, put out more accessible music than US bands in general and thats the music that the general public wanted to hear and I`m amazed you can`t see that

What the US had though at that time, were imo far more interesting bands that were more experimental, darker or just had a greater cutting edge (Doors, Velvet Underground, Red Krayola, H.P. Lovecraft, United States of America and the Stooges to name just a few) and these were all bands with the exception of the Doors (who put out enough popular material) that really didn`t shift any albums, as they didn`t play accessible music. If any of these bands had been British they still wouldn`t have sold either.

Just accept that your argument is weak and using Zappa as an example was a baaaaaaaad idea, you should`ve at least picked out somebody who tried to make popular music and not sing about schoolgirls being screwed whilst wrapped in chocolate.

Your point of view on here is in the minority, your argument is weak and you really don`t help yourself much, by saying Lennon and McCartney are garbage lyric writers and then in the very next sentence saying the Beatles were more or less the best band of their era

Eminem talks about raping his mom=best selling artist of the decade=marketing.

John Lennong and Paul McCartney would occasionally write a good song but if you looked at their albums (Beatles era) most of their songs were average.

The Beatles were not a good band pre-Rubber Soul yet that is when they gained their fame=marketing. If the Beatles started their career with Rubber Soul instead of Please Please Me! we would have forums where people would be talking about how underrated the Beatles were and how the greatest band of all time the Rolling Stones couldn't hold their jockstrap.

eraser.time206 · 11-04-2011, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

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.

If Arcade Fire was as marketed as Justin Beiber they would be just as famous.

**Janszoon** · 11-04-2011, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

quote of the day, even if Elvis is misspelled

What, you mean you've never heard of Elivs Persley?

Howard the Duck · 11-04-2011, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eraser.time206

If Arcade Fire was as marketed as Justin Beiber they would be just as famous.

how would you "market" Arcade Fire in the same way as JB? makes no sense to me - different demographic, ugly people, p4k hipness

if there wasn't JB, there'd still be some good-looking teenbopper idol with an okay voice to take his place or something

Unknown Soldier · 11-04-2011, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eraser.time206

The Beatles were not a good band pre-Rubber Soul yet that is when they gained their fame=marketing. If the Beatles started their career with Rubber Soul instead of Please Please Me! we would have forums where people would be talking about how underrated the Beatles were and how the greatest band of all time the Rolling Stones couldn't hold their jockstrap.

Music history doesn`t seem to be your strong point does it? The above is the same with most bands, as once a band has established itself, it then often has more artistic freedom to be experimental. If band starts off by being experimental and less accessible, then they`re going to find it a lot harder to break into the mainstream (if that is their aim of course).

Nobody here is denying that the Beatles and marketing didn`t go hand in hand, the debate is that people like Zappa and marketing (for the 1960s) just didn`t go hand in hand, why can`t you see this??? And its no use using people like Eminem and modern day marketing etc as examples, as we`re talking about the 1960s here... more than some 40 years ago!!!

eraser.time206 · 11-04-2011, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Music history doesn`t seem to be your strong point does it? The above is the same with most bands, as once a band has established itself, it then often has more artistic freedom to be experimental. If band starts off by being experimental and less accessible, then they`re going to find it a lot harder to break into the mainstream (if that is their aim of course).

Nobody here is denying that the Beatles and marketing didn`t go hand in hand, the debate is that people like Zappa and marketing (for the 1960s) just didn`t go hand in hand, why can`t you see this??? And its no use using people like Eminem and modern day marketing etc as examples, as we`re talking about the 1960s here... more than some 40 years ago!!!

You have a point.

eraser.time206 · 11-04-2011, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

how would you "market" Arcade Fire in the same way as JB? makes no sense to me - different demographic, ugly people, p4k hipness

if there wasn't JB, there'd still be some good-looking teenbopper idol with an okay voice to take his place or something

Lil Wayne=ugly=popular=marketing

Howard the Duck · 11-04-2011, 06:18 AM

after all the tasks of convincing you to see otherwise, i'd figure you'd either a troll or totally ignorant about the music business

Arcade Fire is just going to appeal to a certain demographic and is popular amongst that group

they didn't want to appeal to 14 year old girls like JB or wiggers like Lil Wayne

how much do you actually know about music marketing anyway?

do you even know what is marketing?

Arcade Fire is marketed through hipster websites like p4k and championed by people like Christgau - of course they don't appeal to the widest market out there, which are 14 y.o. girls just listening to music for fun

there is marketing involved for AF, it just doesn't reach that wide a demographic and i don't think they wanna be the new Backstreet Boys

Howard the Duck · 11-04-2011, 06:19 AM

i think i'm gonna unsubscribe to this thread - most of mr. eraser head's allegations are so over the top and unreasoned out that it's simplyy just a tedious waste of time being here

one more thing before I go:- how do you propose to "market" Zappa? his music just isn't very appealing to Joe Bloggs/the man in the street

lessay, we use bits of Return of the Son Of Monster Magnet in a car commercial? the car company would go bankrupt

lessay we pipe "Hot Rats" in a mall? the mall will close down

lessay we have a Zappa marathon on Top 40 radio, the station will have no advertisement revenue after that