Originally Posted by eraser.time206 (Post 1115325)

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

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra (Post 1115294)

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.

Originally Posted by eraser.time206 (Post 1115324)

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

Originally Posted by eraser.time206 (Post 1115342)

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.

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier (Post 1115349)

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.

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier (Post 1115349)

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.

Originally Posted by RMR (Post 1115363)

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.

Originally Posted by eraser.time206 (Post 1115364)

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.

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier (Post 1115371)

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