Talk:British Invasion

Article split

This article has been a problem for several years now. I suggest that it be split into seperate articles;

• Original British Invasion i.e Beatles and the Brit beat boom between 1964 and 1966.
• History of British music acts success or otherwise in America. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep, as the "second invasion", seems to fairly well established in the literature, and navigation to this page is probably easier that to "Second British Invasion"? and to "British music acts in American after 1966/1986"?. But perhaps better titles can be suggested and it is possible I have missed how the split would solve problems. That said, to me, an article about the British Invasion should mainly be about 1964-66. Perhaps if the first section is expanded to reflect its importance the article will look more balanced.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

New topics usually go on the bottom. Be that as it may I did comment on this 6 months ago but I will update it here. I would keep the article together until the "Original Invasion" section is properly expanded. Then I would split the article as the two and possibly three invasions were separate phenomena. I would not put a separate article on British Musical success in America until such time as there is enough material for the 1970's and the 1990-2004 drought years.

I am still as conflicted as to how to handle the 2005-2008 period as I was 6 months ago. As you see in the section, there were numerous articles that claimed a female British invasion of some sorts was occurring during those years. The associated press article appeared in many publications. So there is some justification for renaming the section "British Female Invasion" and deleting the general British material. But who exactly invaded? Some commentators and music journalists limited descriptions of the invasion to the neo soul acts like Amy Winehouse and Duffy while others included the likes of Lily Allen and Kate Nash (my POV). Adding to the confusion was the general rise in the popularity of British Music in general and pre 2005 male acts in particular during that period. It is safe to say that if the female British invasion occurred it is now over. While the papers have been hyping the female dominated resurgence of electropop that supposedly is making male guitar rock dated nobody is using the term British invasion to describe this phenomenon as it is international in nature. Edkollin (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Split (or simply delete it)! The invention of the music video was referred to as the second british invasion but not the music.R. Serge Denisoff, William L. Schurk: Tarnished gold - the record industry revisited p. 347.

Rename proposal

To me, the term "British Invasion" seems parochial and unnecessarily biased towards America. I would suggest renaming the article "British beat boom".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.36.50 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Parochial or not it was dubbed "British Invasion" by the media in 1964. With all due respect, it's a bit late to start renaming it. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While it undoubtedly WAS parochial - or perhaps more accurately "America-centric" - it became an expression that has stuck. So it is valid as an article. But in that sense the article should make clear that it was a colloquial phrase used (almost exclusively) in the USA. And that was in part because of its history with the British. eg - I'm not sure that Australians referred to that music as "British Invasion" We should also check whether it was described that way by the Canadians - a nation that had a different colonial experience with the British! Davidpatrick 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an article about British bands written primarily from an American perspective. Seems pretty parochial to me. Perhaps we could have two articles: one about the British beat boom, with the early paragraphs about the history and roots of those bands, and a second called British Invasion, specifically about their impact on the American charts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.116.13 (talk • contribs)

The British Invasion refers to the British impact on American charts. The British beat boom's an entirely different topic, and if you want to make another article, go right ahead.

I can't speak for the time period in question, but it is called "The British Invasion' in Canada as well, if only to describe the group of artists during that period. It's an historical term now and is pretty much fixed in popular culture. Freshacconci 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so touchy, British folk - we're giving you total credit for this incredible musical revolution! It was a revolution - hence the name, from our perspective. You know, "The British are coming.. the British are coming!" - recalling those good ole' days. It has been known only as the British Invasion over here since 1964, and in fact I've never heard the phrase "British beat boom" before. I think the tag on top of the article is overly sensitive, by the way - what's the grievance? Tvoz |talk 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So shall we rename rock and roll with Bill Haley and Elvis as "American Invasion"? After all, that's what it was known as in Britain. Jatrius (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "British Invasion" was widely used for British-sourced theater productions which dominated Broadway before the Beatles music reached America [1] , [2] and for cultural imports throughout the 20th century. There was nothing really new, original, or unique about applying it to rock music 1964-1967, Just more of the same. Edison (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing bands

I find one thing to be absolutely pathetic. There is no Queen. Queen was NOT considered completely a 1980s band. In fact, they began their career in the 70s. They were a huge band and definitely must be considered in the 2nd US invasion.

there are alot of bands missing on that list.................Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.167.80 (talk • contribs) .

you're missing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.31.125.206 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah thats because led zepplin and deep purple wern't around in the early 1960's when the real british invasion happened led zepplin originated from the yarbirds which even then was 3 years later get it right man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.195.244.67 (talk • contribs) .

Pink Floyd?? BeavisSanchez 08:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Bowie is also missing... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.178.114.91 (talk • contribs) .

Can't forget Jethro Tull- they were around back then, and contributed at least three albums to the invasion scene, most notably Aqualung and Thick as a Brick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TullFan2000 (talk • contribs) .

tull and bowie british invasion? wtf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

for real they missed stuff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.225.63.3 (talk • contribs) .

Can someone list examples of the Skiffle type bands and the other guitar driven chuck berry bands? thanks -- Patman2648

Somehow, The Kinks were omitted from the list. How is that possible? What Philistine created said list? Never fear, it has been corrected and all is well in the world.

God Save The Kinks!

Why is there a Beetles window on the damn article?? I am deleting that.

If you read the article it's pretty obvious why there is a 'Beetles' window. Yorkshiresky 10:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

erm, Bush, anybody? weren't they like the biggest rock act in the US for a while? not even mentioned here...

Numbers don't add up

Quoted from near the start of the page:

"The British Invasion began in 1964, and peaked in 1965. Two decades following the first invasion, the UK based punk movement....... As in 1963, the mainstream music market of 1975 had ....... the punk movement was a ...."

I'd hardly call from 1964/5 to 1975 two decades now. I've fixed this. I know the author meant to say that the "2nd Invasion" didn't occur till 2 decades on, however they don't mention it, instead they go on about punk and the 70's, whereas the 2nd invasion by name isn't mentioned for another 2 paragraphs! It just didn't make much sense.

But then again the author of the list left out the Kinks, tut tut. 81.158.160.129 19:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I recently posted on my blog about this subject and think I came up with a decent way of breaking up the various groupings. I think there were also a couple later acts like Queen and Def Leppard that made my list but did not show up here when later acts are discussed: http://ironcity.blogspot.com/2006/07/thank-you-great-britain-had-occasion.html

ya wat about thin lizzy

Article needs fixing

This talks about the main British invasion, rightly credited as being the mid-60's but the first artists we are told about are the Sex Pistols and The Clash? Will fix when I have the time, this thing needs a whole revamp. --Zoso Jade 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cilla Black, a British Invader??? Did she even release a single in the US?--Zoso Jade 13:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cilla Black had American record releases. "You're My World" was her biggest US hit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See also: McFly??

How can the Sex Pistols and Amy Winehouse both be "Late British Invaders" They are a good 30 years apart? By that definition every british band to play a show in america after 1970 should be the second list. 199.72.142.58 14:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yardbirds with Eric Clapton?

Clapton left the group before they achieved success in the United States; Jeff Beck was the lead guitarist. Eric Clapton would become famous in the U.S. as a member of Cream.

Dubious vagina comment?

"Some girls have stinky vaginas and should be avoided at all costs." I don't feel this is entirely accurate; some men seek out odious vaginas. Furthermore, "stinky" is somewhat of a weasel word. I think this entire comment is irrelevant and should be moved inside the entry on vaginas. 134.225.163.107 21:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

welcome to vandal patrol - which basically means that someone, or more than one, checks out every edit [at least] from someone who shows up in red. In fact, if you signed up then . . ......... Carptrash 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

This page has no citations at all. Does anyone have a book or an internet connection? andreasegde 06:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This article has absolutely no sources, and contains large sections of what is quite possibly speculative nonsence. VFD or cleanup? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.252.254 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Urgent work needed

The British Invasion as a phrase really applies just to the era 1964-1966. There were certainly further periods of British music incursion into the US - but only one other period generated significant media coverage as a "second" musical British Invasion - and that was the early 1980s.

There were significant successes by British acts in the US between 1966 and 1983 - but they were not conflated together and described as a further "British Invasion" by any credible media.

The punk and New Wave period (1977-1980) generated underground media coverage but not major mainstream coverage describing it as another British Invasion.

Chronology of British music success in USA (1964-1986)
1964-1966 - Beat groups - first British Invasion
1967-1971 - influx of progressive rock, blues and blues-rock artists.
1971-1976 - various pop and rock acts (Bowie/T. Rex/Sweet/Bay City Rollers etc)
1977-1980 - punk and new wave
1983-1986 - synth-pop/new romantics/MTV pop acts - US media called this a second British Invasion

We really need to change this article to reflect this.

If we wish to keep the British Invasion article accurate - there should then be a separate article about the impact of British music in the US 1966 onwards... Davidpatrick 06:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What's more, the phrase British Invasion seems a little too America-centric. By all means discuss the "British Invasion" of the American charts on this page, but it should not be the only resource on mid-Sixties British music. All of the following, for example, should be moved to another page - called, for example - British beat boom:

"Like their transatlantic counterparts in the 1950s, British youth heard their future in the frantic beats and suggestive lyrics of American rock and roll. But initial attempts to replicate it failed. Lacking the indigenous basic ingredients of rock and roll rhythm and blues, and country music, enthusiasts could bring only crippling British decorum and diffidence. The only sign of life was in the early '50s skiffle craze, spearheaded by Scottish-born Lonnie Donegan. Skiffle groups (like The Beatles-launching Quarrymen) were mainly drummerless, acoustic guitar and banjo ensembles, similar to jug bands, who most often sang traditional American folk songs, frequently with more spirit than instrumental polish, although early British skiffle was played by highly skilled Trad jazz musicians.

"By 1962, encouraged by the anyone-can-play populism of skiffle and self-schooled in the music of Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Eddie Cochran, Buddy Holly, James Brown, and Muddy Waters, some British teens had a real feel for the rock-and-roll and American blues idioms. Blending that with such local traditions as dance hall, pop, and Celtic folk, they formulated original music they could claim, play, and sing with conviction. Young groups with electric guitars began performing and writing up-tempo melodic pop, fiery rock and roll, and Chicago-style electric blues. The rebellious tone and image of American rock and roll and blues musicians also deeply resonated with UK youth in the late 1950s, influencing all the British Invasion artists.

"Liverpool became the first hotbed of the so-called "beat boom." With The Beatles, other exuberant male quartets such as The Searchers, The Fourmost, and Gerry and the Pacemakers, plus the quintet Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas launched Merseybeat, so named for the estuary of the River Mersey that runs alongside Liverpool. The Beatles first reached the British record charts in late 1962 (shortly after The Tornados' "Telstar," an instrumental smash that sent word of what was in store by becoming the first British record by a group to top the American singles chart); the rest joined the hit parade in 1963. Not all acts prominent in Britain by the early 1960s necessarily managed to develop a profile in the US. Cliff Richard, who remains popular in Britain and active today, has only rarely had chart successes in America.

"Rock swept Britain. By 1964 Greater London could claim The Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, The Who, The Kinks, The Pretty Things, Dusty Springfield, The Dave Clark Five, Peter and Gordon, Chad and Jeremy, and Manfred Mann. Manchester had The Hollies, Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders, Freddie and the Dreamers, Davy Jones of The Monkees, and Herman's Hermits; Newcastle had The Animals; and Birmingham had The Spencer Davis Group (featuring Steve Winwood) and The Moody Blues. Bands sprang up from Belfast, Them, with Van Morrison to St Albans, The Zombies, with more inventive artists arriving to keep the syles moving forward, including The Small Faces, The Move, The Creation, The Troggs, Donovan, and John's Children."

Very little of the above has anything to do with those bands' impact on the US charts; it should be moved to a less America-centric page. Malcolm Starkey 14:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the original article back in September ([rewrite]), without blowing my own trumpet I think it's more wiki-neutral than the current version, which although nice is a little florid for Wikipedia. I think the problem is that there are two different articles fighting for supremacy a. Overview of British acts success in the USA and b.The 1960's beat boom covered by the first British Invasion artists Yorkshiresky 19:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Article reads like a tabloid.

In general, this article is really poorly written. I don't know how to summarise my feelings toward it, but it's just a mess. -Matt 23:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Endless Lists

The lists at the end of the article have turned into a list of every British artist. I recommend trimming and getting rid of the last category which has no reason being in this article. Ridernyc 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Trimmed heavily mostly the Second British Invasion list. Got rid of all acts that had success pre MTV. The Second British Invasion are acts that gained identity through MTV usually New Wave/Syhthpop but not necessarily. It is a 1982-1988 era phenomenon. 1970’s era Rock,Metal and Punk acts are not Second British Invasion acts. New Wave acts such as Squeeze,The Police that had success prior to MTV as well as during the MTV era are probably not either. Edkollin (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix repelled the British Invasion

He was US-born and went to the UK to have his first success. Afterwards rock would enter a different era. Whatever you want to call it, it was different than 1964-67. There was more emphasis on instrumental skill, electronics and "innovation" and less on songcraft and simple "having a good time"

You could say much the same thing about several artists who became prominent 67/68. I'm not doubting his influence but his success was down as much to a confluence of ideas already bubbling in the culture as much as his genius. Yorkshiresky (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

what other american artist did a 'reverse british invasion' and had their first hit(s) in the UK around that time? i can't think of one. i'm just trying to come up with a convenient historical marker for the end of the 1st british invasion so bands like black sabbath and cream don't get put here.

Bob Dylan, plus all the Tamla Motown bands, and solo singers. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent

was the gene vincent/eddie cochran british tour (where eddie perished) an initiator of british bands' interest in american rock & roll or was it capitalizing on a previous interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's open to debate, but most English rock n roll singers and bands of the mid 50s like Tommy Steele, Cliff Richard, etc, cite Buddy Holly and Elvis as their main influences, so to a certain extent I would say that Gene Vincent in particular (great as he was), was finished in the US and to a certain extent was cashing in on the British hunger for "American" rockers. But that for what it's worth, is only my opinion:) Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mini section

Just thought I'd add some evidence that could be backed up with a CREDIBLE source. Also thought that Beatles' overall legacy should be mentioned as a result of the British Invasion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feliciajar (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

David Bowie ...

... deserves a mention somewhere in the article. He was a one-man invasion in the mid 70s with the Young Americans album and it's successors.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving the page

I think we should move the page to something like British Invasion (culture) and have this redirect to the disambiguation. Yay/Ney? --mboverload@ 09:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that such a move would disambiguate this from the numerous actual military invasions by the British over the centuries. Edison (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article

While I have done some editing to improve the article but frankly we still have a disaster and I do not hyperlink to this article. This article needs to be split as the three "invasions" are separate phenomenons. The others invasions should be dealt with and one or two sentences prequel or sequel type things. The whole drought years section is unsourced and Original Research. This should be one or two sentences or a paragraph at most. I see no need for a whole section about something that did not happen.

I do think we enough sourcing to claim has been a British Invasion of sorts in the last two years. I did not call it that in the title of that section just for cautionary purposes. This section will be difficult to write as there is disagreement as to what this phenomenon is. Is it just the neo soul singers? Do you include other female singer songwriters like Lily Allen and Kate Nash? With the Grammy Nominations can you even call it a female invasion?(Personally I think you can because the other acts predated the invasion but might be riding on the cotails of it Edkollin (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The situation has only become more muddled now that the Grammy’s are over with. The idea of labeling the section/new article British Female Invasion is kaput as so many British males won Grammy’s. Since Paul McCartney won and has had has renewed U.S. chart success is he now part of two invasions? . How about Radiohead and Coldplay they started to have U.S. success during the “drought years” (there was a drought period they were exceptions). But still Wikipedia can not ignore this phenomenon as there has been a lot of media commentary on both sides of the Atlantic as well as “British Invasion” labeling in the U.S. Edkollin (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Rock bands in and from Britain"

The section with this title mentions several American bands and no British ones whatsoever! No doubt the listed American bands were influenced by the British sound, but either the title or the content of this section needs to be changed. In fact, the only British band from the '60s British invasion discussed or even mentioned in the body of the article is The Beatles. Not even The Stones rate a mention! Shouldn't some of the other relevant British acts be mentioned in this section, rather than their American imitators? Treharne (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Groups not Bands

Incidentally, in Britain in the '60s (I do not know about America) the word "band" was quite out of fashion (it was associated with earlier eras of popular music, such as Swing). The Beatles, Stones, Who, Kinks, Hollies, Pink Floyd, Hermann's Hermits etc. (and, in Britain at least, American bands of the time too) were always referred to as "groups" (from which comes the word "groupie"). So far as I can remember, "band" did not come back into fashion until some time in the '70s. Treharne (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this article about?

This article has a lack of focus and seems to be more about British singers that have achieved success in the United States rather than the British Invasion of the 60s? The article devotes almost as much time talking about current stars as does discussing the 60s. That part also needs expanding, it doesn't even mention essential British Invasion acts like The Who, The Kinks, The Yardbirds, Cream, The Animals or The Rolling Stones. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article gets worse and worse. The section about post-2006 artists is a grab-bag of non-notable crap – pretty much any British artist who has achieved any kind of chart placing, however insignificant, gets added in. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not be in favour of deleting the 2006 and onward section as there are number of reliable sources that reported a British Invasion of some sort while disagreeing on exactly what it is. I would recommend summarizing this section. Using acts like Coldplay and Radiohead in this section is questionable despite their chart success during this period as they became popular in the U.S. before 2006. One sentence noting the 2009 Grammy's is probably all that is needed if it is needed. Edkollin (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather than Google-mining for sources to add to the already bloated 21st-century section, why not clean up the First British Invasion section? It currently does not mention the Rolling Stones, the Kinks, the Animals, the Yardbirds, Billy J Kramer & The Dakotas, Gerry & The Pacemakers etc etc etc, all of whom are far more relevant to the article than flash-in-the-pan news articles mentioning Lady Sovereign or Natasha Bedingfield.

Also, passages such as the following are little more than gibberish:

The beats and catchy rhythms were hard not to like among Americans when Beatlemania first hit the nation - so much that it is often said that The Beatles as icons were so popular because they personified the generation's youth, and that their music and records "had begun to mark the passage of time in their listeners' lives." With President Kennedy's assassination, the Vietnam War and other political crises, it was only right for the Beatles to serve as "pivotal figures in the creation myth of the counterculture." Cultural critics have pointed out that the February 7, 1964 arrival of the Beatles and the ensuing mass hysteria occurred because of an existing vacuum that existed among America’s youth still in mourning over Kennedy’s death the previous November 22.

This article needs more than a cleanup, it needs to be comprehensively rewritten - by someone who has knowledge of the subject and is able to string together a coherent sentence. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning. Non cited material to be deleted soon

Enough is enough at this point. In a few weeks all non cited material will be deleted. I have every right to delete it immediately but I understand people have jobs, family etc and lot of the material seems accurate so I will try and be fair. But this can not go on forever. Edkollin (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Done at least in the main article. For now I left the lists alone. I put cited material in the First Invasion section. but this is really just a rough draft. The section still needs a whole lot of work preferably by an expert as noted by Malcolm XIV. Edkollin (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Lists

Now that the article is somewhat straightened out what do we do with those lists.? Should we delete them altogether or make them separate articles or keep them in the main article? To me since the article is in summary form the lists seem to take up to much space.. Another consideration is that Wikipedia Lists for reasons I do not understand have evolved into a citation free zone. Yet most ones I have looked at are fairly accurate. Edkollin (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start treating this like the concept album article. Revert pretty much anything added without a source. Ridernyc (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Start Edkollin (talk)

Spice Girls

The paragraph was correctly removed by another editor for improper sourcing. Take a look at the type of sources used in the reference section and how they are written up and displayed. Another tip is to look how the article is written. In this article there are several groups named in each paragraph not one paragraph written for one group. That is because the article is about a phenomenon not a group.

I do not think despite their massive success and their influence they belong here. They are not tied in anyway to any sort of British Invasion. There influence is considerable on the bubblegum/tween pop explosion that has been going on the last few years. But that has nothing to do with the British acts like Amy Winehouse that have emerged. If the 1990's are to be discussed at all it is as a background. as the current success/invasion has occurred after a fifteen year period of decline. Edkollin (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Big Country

Should the group Big Country really be on this list? First off, they're Scottish, and secondly they only had one song that did anything in the U.S. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Crossing went gold in the US and, last time I checked, Scotland was still in the United Kingdom.--Sabrebd (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, but it's called the "British Invasion", not the "Scottish Invasion". Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And as Sabred has suggested Scotland is still part of Britain. Should we remove Lulu from the original British invasion as she is Scottish too? They're Scottish acts but also British acts too. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue if either were removed. Darwin's Bulldog (talk)

Like I said above in the Lists section I'm ambivalent at best about the concept of lists but if we are to have one Big Country belongs. Scotland is part of Britain period. The Second Invasion is about MTV and that one hit was played endlessly on that channel. One hit wonders were common. Edkollin (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Specific Problems

The Dave Clark had a number one hit in late 65, but are excluded from the list of artists who had #1 hits. The Zombies cannot be called a second wave act because their first hit (in the U.S.) was in 64, and their second in 65. The whole article is poorly written, but these are two specific problems worth pointing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.60.105 (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Zombies were used as a second wave act because that is what the cite Allmusic claimed. I used Allmusic as a reliable cite because that is the source Billboard and many Wikipedia articles use. But I would agree that the more detail needs to be added about the second wave. As for the Dave Clark Five find a reliable cite that shows they were number 1 and add them. Even further If you have major problems why don't you propose a rewrite? Edkollin (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)