Talk:British Invasion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Rock music (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject The Beatles (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Changes to years in lead[edit]

I honestly cannot understand what is being attempted here and the last edit summary doesn't make it any clearer. Perhaps a fuller explanation here would help. I have reverted the edit because as it stands it introduces (now 3) typographical errors. Asking for an (initially) unexplained change on the talkpage is not a means of edit warring - it is an attempt to avoid it.--SabreBD (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What is being attempted I think is clarification of what is meant by mid 1960's. Some definitions of mid 1960's do include 1963-1967. The edit is not technicality in violation of anything as the reliable source mentions both the mid 1960's and 64-66. The source is clear that their meaning of mid 1960's in 64-66. Since 64-66 are the years they are talking about why bring in the more vauge mid 1960's at all? Edkollin (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this Edkollin. In that case why don't we drop the mid 60s and just give the years? Unless there are any major objections I will do the edit soon.--SabreBD (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Is there a reason that there is no "external links" section? If not, may I suggest we start one and include this rockumentary link:

DougHill (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. DougHill (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

New article for current female invasion?[edit]

This was put in during 2008 with following a wave of mainstream press claims. This idea was shelved when we split the article it was felt the idea was a neologism after press interest and popular interest dropped The last year has seen considerable U.S. success by British Women and here is an analytical article by long term New York Daily News music scribe Jim Farber arguing for an “invasion” with quotes from industry heavyweights.[1] Still not enough for new article but if this grows something to think about. Edkollin (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC) ~

Its a good point. I will do a scout for some more sources if I get some time. Since Adele's recent success there has been a lot more interest in the phenomenon. Not sure we have enough for an article yet, but its worth investigating.--SabreBD (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Reminder: When we dropped the section I left the section in a sandbox section anticipating this very possibility. It is located in the archive. By the way Jesse J debuted at number 11 on the Billboard 200 this week Edkollin (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Here are a few sources I turned up to add to the existing ones: [2], [3], [4] and [5]. The term seems to be in some common currency so it looks like there may be enough here to move on from a mere neologism.--SabreBD (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
These sources muddy the waters a bit, One source says the invasion doesn't exist, one says it's only soul while another uses a broader brush. And one notes album domination that included a male group. No consensus at this point of what it is. Let's see if newspapers like New York Times, and magazines like Spin and Rolling Stone (Adele on cover currently) chime in. Edkollin (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
OK--SabreBD (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A BBC vote for non gender non particular sound invasion [6], We have established there has been a phenomenon. But not close on what to call it (resurgence?). Would work as a section of a general British music success in America article Edkollin (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC). [7]]. Will put something in the British Music of the 2000s which mentions the late 2000s "invasion" or 2010s if there is such an article Edkollin (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan in the circumstances.--SabreBD (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to delete articles claim that " On December 17 James had Albert introduce "I Want to Hold Your Hand" live on the air, the first airing of a Beatles song in the United States[edit]

This dialogue is copied and paraphrased from Piriczki talk page

Source for articles claim http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/tweet-the-beatles-how-wal_b_239202.html

This claim is being disputed by user Piriczki because "the notion that the broadcast of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" on December 17, 1963 was "the first airing of a Beatles song in the United States" is clearly dubious to anyone with any knowledge of the subject. First of all, for that statement to be true, no other Beatle record could have been played even once by any radio station in the entire United States prior to December 17, 1963. Not only is that impossible to prove, just the idea of it is highly unlikely considering the Beatles already had three singles and an LP released in the U.S. by then. Just the fact that "From Me to You" bubbled under the Billboard Hot 100 for three weeks in August 1963 is an obvious indication that it received some airplay" . Piriczki notes that a careful reading of the blog acknowledges "this overview of the Beatles' American breakthrough draws on information in an excellent book titled The Beatles Are Coming! The Birth Of Beatlemania In America by Bruce Spizer". If you had bothered to check that source, you would know that "Please Please Me" was #35 on WLS (AM) Chicago in March 1963 and "From Me to You" was #32 on KRLA 1110 Los Angeles in August 1963. If you had bothered to click on the links to those articles which I provided in my edit summary, you would be aware of the very well researched details of the U.S. airplay of those songs as documented by Spitzer."

The links that were given in the edit summery were other Wikipedia articles which are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Relevant page numbers in the Spitzer book would be helpful as well as Billboard chart links (I think unfortunately you have to pay for those). Please note if we do decide that the claim is wrong we should delete every bit of material in the article based from the Martin Lewis piece. We can't say he is wrong here and right on this point. Lewis is reliable or he is not. Of course material can be added back later on if reliable sourcing is found. Edkollin (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the incorrect material. The source material doesn't even say what the article was claiming it said. And clearly, The Beatles had several records on the air in the United States long before late 1963, as other editors have noted above. Famspear (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is what the source material actually states:

She introduces the record with the words "Ladies and gentlemen for the first time on the air in the United States - here are the Beatles singing 'I Want To Hold Your Hand.'"

The reference to "She" is to Marsha (or Marcia?) Albert, the young lady who was allowed to introduce the record on the air. This was not Mr. Martin Lewis himself claiming that this was the first time on the air. Nowhere in the sourced article (that I have found) does Mr. Lewis expressly make this claim himself. This was the young lady, Ms. Albert, making that claim. Not only was she not an authority on the subject, she wasn't even a radio disc jockey. She was simply someone that the announcer allowed on the air.

By the way, The single "I Want to Hold Your Hand", backed with "I Saw Her Standing There", was the fifth release of a Beatles single in the USA (if we count "My Bonnie" by Tony Sheridan and the Beat Brothers in April 1962 as the first). See the real authority on this point: Mark Lewisohn, The Complete Beatles Chronicle, p. 350 (Crown Publishers, New York, 1992). Famspear (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

According to The Complete Beatles Chronicle by Lewisohn, on page 350, the first four Beatles singles in the USA were:

My Bonnie/The Saints, April 23, 1962, Decca Records # 31382 (credited as "Tony Sheridan and the Beat Brothers").
Please Please Me/Ask Me Why, Feb. 25, 1963, Vee Jay Records #VJ498.
From Me To You/Thank You Girl, May 27, 1963, Vee Jay Records #VJ522.
She Loves You/I'll Get You, Sept. 16, 1963, Swan Records #4152.

Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the first four releases (listed above) did not even chart on the Billboard Top 40 itself in 1963. They did not hit that chart until 1964. The first Capitol Records release, I Want To Hold Your Hand/I Saw Her Standing There was the first Beatles single to break the Billboard Top 40 in the United States (on January 25, 1964). I Want To Hold Your Hand was on the chart for 14 weeks, and was number 1 for seven of those weeks. I Saw Her Standing There was on the charts for 8 weeks, rising to #14. See Joel Whitburn, The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits, p. 43 (Billboard Publications 1992). The existence of the mere fact that a record is played on the radio does not mean that the record will "chart." However, She Loves You did ultimately hit the Billboard Top 40 chart, on February 1, 1964 (at #1 for two weeks); Please Please Me did so on February 22, 1964 (rising to #3); My Bonnie did so on March 7, 1964 (peaking at #26); and Thank You Girl on April 25, 1964 (at #35 on the chart).
One of the many, many remarkable things about The Beatles was the way they dominated popular music in much of the world, beginning in 1964. In the USA alone, The Beatles had nineteen top forty hits in just one year -- 1964. As far as I know, no other artist in music recording history has ever had anywhere close to that many hits in one year. Famspear (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the abrupt tone in the edit summary, had not seen this talk page discussion here. I thought with the spectacular amount of Beatles knowledge the claim would have been proven or dis-proven quickly.
POV: Hard to think of another Beatles record that would have aired prior to "I Want to Hold Your Hand" being played on US radio. Maybe college radio, not sure how indie/progressive they were in 1962 and 1963. Yes they the domination was incredible and there continued popularity is (2nd Most popular group among 18-24 year olds in US according to PEW a year or 2 ago). Edkollin (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Edkollin: Unless I missed something, the article doesn't really go into the details of the earlier Beatles' records. Those records most certainly were played on top 40 radio, but there's no urgent need to get into that in the article itself, anyway. By the way, in 1963, there was virtually no "indie" or "progressive" radio (in the sense in which I think you might be thinking), and college radio stations were also few and far between.

Early Beatles records are not in the article nor should they be because they are not notable to the British Invasion phenomenon. As for college radio what I meant was playing non-mainstream/"niche" music. For the period we are talking about an example would be having an in depth folk music program instead of just playing "If I Had a Hammer". You did have Top 40 stations that played local and regional hits that did not chart nationally but UK hits? Edkollin (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit ironic that the first three releases by The Beatles (the first four, if you count My Bonnie) did not break into the Billboard Top 40 until the year after their release. Famspear (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way -- I have to disagree on your interpretation of what the source said. Please go back and review the source material, and then listen to the linked recording. The "source" is Mr. Lewis -- and he didn't "say" what the article claims he said. He was simply quoting what the young lady said. Famspear (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

Look, I get that we need citations for many things, but this one seems pretty obvious. The Britannica article (used as the very first cite) says "What followed would be called—with historical condescension by the willingly reconquered colony—the second British Invasion." What else could this refer to but previous military invasions? Later, there is a quote of Walter Cronkite saying "The British Invasion this time goes by the code name Beatlemania." (emphasis added) Again, what else could this refer to? Do we have to find a quote of someone explicitly saying "We called it the British Invasion because it's a fun historical allusion?" Simishag (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. I am afraid there is no specific evidence in here to support the statement as it stands. There is no reference to the American Revolution or the War of 1812. It may seem like "this is obvious", but it may not be obvious to everyone and I have never heard of the war of 1812 as part of this picture before. The guidelines are pretty clear that "sources must support the material clearly and directly". Putting all this together from the quotes could be taken to be WP:synthesis. It might be possible to change it to something like, "it alluded to previous military invasions of the United States" with this citation, but if you want to keep the specific claims it would be best to find some more direct source, I have been looking but have no turned on up yet.--SabreBD (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "British invasion" was a colloquilism used to describe any manner of things coming from England to America and was in use long before 1964. It was used in reference to sports, theatre, business and other subjects and yes, it alludes to past military invasions of the U.S. by the British. The problem with the sentence in question is that it gives the impression the phrase was invented to describe the Beatles and other British groups and was taken directly from its historical context, when it was just another use of a colloquialism that had been around for many decades. Piriczki (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
If this is true, then that seems to support the case for mentioning the allusion by pointing out that it's been used in similar contexts in the past. I am fine with rewording the sentence to note that. I'm also fine with not mentioning specific conflicts, although I'm not sure that's really an issue since there were only 2 such conflicts. Simishag (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It needs to be reliably sourced that it was a colloquialism and/or it was used before otherwise the sentence can not go in no matter how obvious it seems. Edkollin (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have not been able to find anything reliable to back up even the American Revolution reference so far, despite several hours looking.--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mary Poppins and My Fair Lady[edit]

Someone asked whether "Mary Poppins, released on 27 August 1964, became the most Oscar-winning and Oscar-nominated Disney film in history, and My Fair Lady, released on 25 December 1964, won eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director." is original research. If that sentence is original research, then so are the two phrases from which it is composed, the first appearing in the Mary Poppins (film) article in Wikipedia, the second appearing in the My Fair Lady (film) article in Wikipedia.

I'm sure the original research tag refers to the entire paragraph, in particular the claim that "other aspects of British arts became popular due to the invasion" which goes beyond what the source actually says. The Bond films and the British Invasion of Broadway actually pre-dated the Beatles' arrival. In addition, the source seems to tie Americans' fascination with all things British to the advent of transcontinental flight. The reference to other aspects of British arts may have a place in the article but to attribute their popularity, particularly Academy Awards won, entirely to British musical groups might be a stretch as the films and actors mentioned had entrely different audiences. Piriczki (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't attribute Academy Awards nominated and won entirely to British musical groups. Rather I mentioned such things to support the paragraph's first sentence, "Outside of music other aspects of British arts became popular due to the invasion" (which sentence someone else had already entered). P.L. Travers authored the Mary Poppins books starting in 1934, and My Fair Lady (based on Shaw's Pygmalion) had already been filmed before, in 1938, and had been on Broadway before, starting in 1956. Yet the popularity of each member of the ensemble of British works in the arts, film, and music in the early to mid 1960s, especially those two films, all occurring fairly close in time to each other, tended to reinforce the popularity of each of the other members of that same ensemble, if by no other means than conversational association.71.103.143.39 (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The original research tag was for the whole paragraph because the source never directly tied the other arts popularity to the invasion. What it did was indirectly say these other arts were part of the invasion. Edkollin (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Tax exiles and the Kinks[edit]

The second to last paragraph of British Invasion#The Invasion contains two inaccurate or misleading statements. The first, that British bands came to the United States because they "could make a lot of money without the burden of British taxes" is inaccurate. Earnings outside the United Kingdom were still taxed at home. A taxpayer had to reside outside the UK to avoid taxes, hence the number of British musicians who became tax exiles, although this didn't occur until the 1970s. The second statement, that the Kinks were banned from touring in the US because the American Federation of Musicians were "convinced that British bands were getting a disproportionate share of musician's income" is misleading at best. While the union may have had some resentment toward British acts, the Kinks were denied permits by the American Federation of Musicians because of complaints of bad behavior on stage and failing to appear for a performance during their 1965 US tour. It also didn't help that they refused to sign a release to perform on the TV show Hullabaloo and Davies punched a representative of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. This touring problem was unique to the Kinks and doesn't seem to be applicable to the British Invasion as a whole. Piriczki (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Given that they are misleading, we should remove them.--SabreBD (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
For now get rid of the synthesis but not delete. Nowhere does the source say The Beatles and the Kinks were writing about going to the U.S. because of lower tax burdens. It implied but did not directly say the Kinks were banned because of resentment. The source considered reliable did say British musicians came to U.S. save on taxes. That claim is disputed but without sourcing to back it up. The source does say the American Federation of Musicians were "convinced that British bands were getting a disproportionate share of musician's income". Without proof the source is wrong these 2 claims should stay. If proof is presented one of the claims is wrong all material based on the article should be deleted. Edkollin (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Background[edit]

I find it strange that the British invasion should effectively be described as being based on American music and James Bond. Is this a mainstream view? If not it should be removed203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

American music yes James Bond not as much. Claim in aritcle about Bond isnot backed up by source so put warning Edkollin (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree on both counts. All the books I've read over the years are clear that the Beatles and other groups were very much influenced by Motown and other American music (groups like the Rolling Stones by Chicago blues). Primarily African American music. In my mind that was always sort of the ironic thing about the "british invasion" they brought American black music back to white America. But the James Bond stuff, no, never heard that. MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The notion of a rock (or r'n'b) group consistently writing their own songs as a self-contained creative unit was pretty much new though. Most fifties and early sixties acts had relied heavily on paid, professional songwriters who wrote to order. The Beatles (and later The Stones and The Who) pioneered the "write and play your own stuff" rock band, the idea soon spreading all around the western world. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and the British invasion[edit]

Being a voracious reader, I once read something that I found interesting, namely that Adolf Hitler was indirectly responsible for the British Invasion. The reason is this: several million Americans went to Britain during WWII and they brought the Blues with them. It was the post war kids (George, Paul, John, Mick, and Jimmy, etc.) who grew up listening to it and helped create the British sound. If there's no WWII, there's no later Beatles, Stones, or Yardbirds. Assuming the original source is ever found, does this sound like a legitimate entry into this article? 209.179.21.14 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really. US culture in general was permeating Britain - through movies and radio in particular - well before WWII. And, in particular, places like Liverpool (and Hamburg) were international seaports, with cultural exchanges - including records - regularly and routinely taking place between seafarers. There was certainly a cultural effect from the American GIs coming to Britain and Europe, but it's too far-fetched to say that it directly helped to create the British sound. Many factors were indirectly responsible. Most sources suggest that the beat groups that emerged in the UK did so because of a combination of the skiffle boom, relatively cheap musical instruments, the influence of records imported through the seaports, the high tempo demanded of performers in the German nightclubs, and European tours such as the American Folk Blues Festival which were promoted by local music fans. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I wasn't trying to imply it was the sole reason for it. The US and Britain have always been culturally close, and American music has planted roots all over the world. In the 1930s Dixieland jazz was so popular in the USSR that Stalin eventually felt obligated to ban it, in order to save his people from this decadent American cultural influence. And while WWII is not solely responsible, it is an interesting question to ponder on just different it would have been had there been no massive influx of American servicemen during the war. But that's the problem of counter factual history: you just can never know the answer.209.179.21.14 (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
"Interesting questions to ponder" are not relevant to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)