The British Invasion! NEED HELP!!!

almauro · 11-01-2011, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eraser.time206

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

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.

eraser.time206 · 11-01-2011, 03:13 PM

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.

RMR · 11-01-2011, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

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.

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

Unknown Soldier · 11-01-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eraser.time206

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

I started thinking you were a certifiable troll here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eraser.time206

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.

.........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.

RMR · 11-01-2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

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.

eraser.time206 · 11-01-2011, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

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.

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.

Unknown Soldier · 11-01-2011, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMR

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.

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.

Unknown Soldier · 11-01-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eraser.time206

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.

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?

Howard the Duck · 11-01-2011, 09:28 PM

Will somebody please stick up for The Hollies?

Talking about the Beatless is infinitely tiresome....

eraser.time206 · 11-01-2011, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

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

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.

11-01-2011, 03:13 PM	#32 (permalink)
eraser.time206 Music Addict Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 263	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. __________________ Before I go on, let me warn you that I talk dirty, and that I will say things you will neither enjoy nor agree with. You shouldn't feel threatened, though, because I am a mere buffoon, and you are all philosophers.