- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Would There Have Been A British Invasion Without The Beatles?
Posted on 11/3/17 at 7:02 pm
Posted on 11/3/17 at 7:02 pm
If so, when? And who would have led it, if anyone?
And make a legitimate case, not some vague sooner-or-later arguement.
(Yes this is a response thread to those saying the Beatles were overrated.)
Posted on 11/3/17 at 7:21 pm to Mizz-SEC
If not The Beatles it would have been The Rolling Stones a few years later.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 7:57 pm to Mizz-SEC
Question can't be answered without a touch of they ghey. What other band was "cute". The 13 year old girl factor is what put them on the map. Period. Took 5 years and psychedelics for people to realize their greatness.
Stones were mentioned. I guess The Who would be the other.
Stones were mentioned. I guess The Who would be the other.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 8:25 pm to Mizz-SEC
No
There had already been a UK group w/a #1 hit here: The Tornados and "Telstar". But they had zero impact otherwise.
The scruffy Stones, even the cleaned-up early Stones, would never have gotten anywhere without The Beatles establishing a beachhead for them. Unlike The Fabs, who were superstars from the moment they set foot on US soil, The Stones stumbled at first -- at one point they played in support of The Rivieras ("California Sun") at a show in Minnesota.
The Stones had their first UK hit w/a Len-Mac song. They probably wouldn't have gotten very far at home w/o the Beatles, much less gone to America.
Remember, manager Andrew Loog Oldham specifically marketed the Stones as the anti-Beatles.
There had already been a UK group w/a #1 hit here: The Tornados and "Telstar". But they had zero impact otherwise.
The scruffy Stones, even the cleaned-up early Stones, would never have gotten anywhere without The Beatles establishing a beachhead for them. Unlike The Fabs, who were superstars from the moment they set foot on US soil, The Stones stumbled at first -- at one point they played in support of The Rivieras ("California Sun") at a show in Minnesota.
The Stones had their first UK hit w/a Len-Mac song. They probably wouldn't have gotten very far at home w/o the Beatles, much less gone to America.
Remember, manager Andrew Loog Oldham specifically marketed the Stones as the anti-Beatles.
This post was edited on 11/3/17 at 8:28 pm
Posted on 11/3/17 at 8:50 pm to Kafka
quote:
Remember, manager Andrew Loog Oldham specifically marketed the Stones as the anti-Beatles.
They were often referred to on pop radio as " the Dirty Uglies".
Posted on 11/4/17 at 5:36 am to Mizz-SEC
quote:
And make a legitimate case, not some vague sooner-or-later arguement.
it was inevitable - good enough ?
While there was some original popular music here, think Beach Boys, a lot of it was formula music (by music exec's) much like today, and the Beatles were a breath(e) of fresh air(e). Even Elvis (give me a white kid that sounds black) was part of a formula. Yeah, these guys were reinventing their stuff from what had already worked, but it was without the rock-n-roll management. Helped that they were not just selling the drugs-sex angle... so yeah it was inevitable... because everyone was insatiable for something different but real. I imagine it certainly helped that they were mired in the dirt of the German club scene, so they knew what sold the hard way, instead of being told play it like this. And while they had the chops to go along with the looks, there was still this vacuum waiting be filled, a next step in musical evolution. Much like urban kids did with hip-hop, it was time for something new, they just didn't literally scratch the surface of what was there. The British took 50's rock to the next logical step the one American's could of and would have, but weren't allowed due to market share (from the industry).
Posted on 11/4/17 at 1:47 pm to LSU alum wannabe
quote:
Question can't be answered without a touch of they ghey. What other band was "cute". The 13 year old girl factor is what put them on the map. Period.
Disagee. It was their harmonies, melodies, guitars and beat that put them on the map. They were fresh and exciting, like 1956 Elvis was compared to the Perry Como's and Tony Bennett's of the early 50's.
Here are the No. 1 hits leading up to the arrival of the Beatles...
August 31-September14: "My Boyfriend's Back" - The Angels
September 21-October05: "Blue Velvet" - Bobby Vinton
October 12-November 09: "Sugar Shack" - Jimmy Gilmer And The Fireballs
November 16: "Deep Purple" - Nino Tempo & April Stevens
November 23-30: "I'm Leaving It Up To You" - Dale & Grace
December 07-28: "Dominique" - The Singing Nun (Soeur Sourire)
January 04-25: "There! I've Said It Again" - Bobby Vinton
So while they didn't immediately kill off the teen idols and the girl groups of Phil Spector, they totally redefined the boundaries of popular music and American culture. The 50's were offically dead (whether the body immediately knew it) and all you have to do is listen to these tunes and then listen to the early Beatles American releases.
It was a seismic sonic shift. They were their own Wall Of Sound compared to what was before.
Posted on 11/4/17 at 8:30 pm to Mizz-SEC
Yes, the skiffle movement... Which was similar to rockabilly in the US, was huge in Britain before the Beatles broke. So there were countless young guys playing guitar and writing songs in the skiffle vernacular.... And that included the future Beatles. And that's why the British Invasion happened.... It wasn't just the Beatles, they just broke through and all those young Englishmen playing Skiffle were ready to form pop rock bands.
Posted on 11/5/17 at 8:24 pm to Zappas Stache
The Beatles in a lot of ways were in the right place at the right time. Both politically and music wise...the country was at crossroads and the war was getting started...it was the youth of America vs the establishment. Also too the drug culture was beginning to become a factor.
Like I said right place at the right time.
.they were something different and a breath of fresh air for the youth of america
Like I said right place at the right time.
.they were something different and a breath of fresh air for the youth of america
Posted on 11/6/17 at 1:01 pm to tigers1956
No
...and Keith Richards has acknowledged this several times.
"The Beatles kicked that door in and we kind of held it open."
...No Beatles... no modern rock-n-roll.
...and Keith Richards has acknowledged this several times.
"The Beatles kicked that door in and we kind of held it open."
...No Beatles... no modern rock-n-roll.
Posted on 11/7/17 at 9:17 am to tigers1956
Could not have said it better.....
Posted on 11/8/17 at 8:27 am to Mizz-SEC
would have been more like the British Visit.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 8:46 am to Mizz-SEC
Way before my time but probably my favorite music era of all-time. What about The Kinks? I rarely hear them mentioned as one of the all-time greats but they have a lot of big hits and are somewhat similar to The Beatles.
Posted on 11/12/17 at 8:07 pm to Mizz-SEC
Better question, would there have been the Beatles without American rock 'n roll?
Posted on 11/12/17 at 8:52 pm to Mizz-SEC
I don't know,The Beatles had The right sound,look,and public persona for the time. Perfect storm. I'm not sure any other team would have pulled it off.
When I say "team" I'm not just talking about the band.Without The Beatles happening,there would have been British Rock'n'Roll coming across the pond,but not to the same extent.
When I say "team" I'm not just talking about the band.Without The Beatles happening,there would have been British Rock'n'Roll coming across the pond,but not to the same extent.
Posted on 11/12/17 at 8:59 pm to Mizz-SEC
Then again, who's to say that "Blue Velvet", "Sugar Shack", "Deep Purple" and "Dominique" aren't as musically worthy as the early Beatles recordings?
I seem to remember "Louie Louie" being out around that time as well.
I seem to remember "Louie Louie" being out around that time as well.
Posted on 11/12/17 at 9:51 pm to tarzana
quote:It hit #2 a few weeks before the Beatles came to America. It was kept out of #1 by The Singing Nun's "Dominique"
Then again, who's to say that "Blue Velvet", "Sugar Shack", "Deep Purple" and "Dominique" aren't as musically worthy as the early Beatles recordings?
I seem to remember "Louie Louie" being out around that time as well.
I hate the myth that rock "died" in the early '60s -- there was Motown, Spector, The Brill Building in NY, Toussaint in NO, Beach Boys -- but it's not really germane to the OP so I didn't address it
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News