British Invasion - Was it Hype? Part 1

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:38 am

I recently carried out an exercise, just for sake of it, to really analyse if the so called British invasion of the sixties was really that significant. Of course only a fool would argue that The Beatles did not make an impression on America but really how successful were the other groups or even solo acts that had hits in the States, fostered by the phenomenal success of The Beatles.

It depends to some degree on one’s perception of a hit record Top 20 or Top 40 or greater. In the UK in sixties Top 20 was really the benchmark, if a record made top 30 but not top 20 it was quaintly referred to as “bubbling under” on the radio stations, the music papers of the day tended to print the top 30, in time this became top 40 then top 50.

Nowadays to get in place in reference books such as British Hit Singles you only need to make top 75.

For purpose of my analysis I am calling top 20 a hit and a top 40 entry, but failing to make top 20, a minor hit.. I appreciate that in States even a top 100 entry may have been classed as a hit but one has to have a benchmark.

Here are my findings: For period 1960 to 1969

A figure in brackets indicates how many of the figure quoted in top 20 made number one.

ArtistTop 20Top 40Years Beatles36 (18)864 to 69 Stones14 (7)764 to 69 Herman’s Hermits14 (2)464 to 68 Dave Clark Five14 (1)364 to 67 Petula Clark9 (2)665 to 68 Donovan6 (1)666 to 69 Peter & Gordon8 (1)264 to 67 Tom Jones6465 to 69 Dusty Springfield5564 to 69 Bee Gees7167 to 69 Kinks5364 to 66 Animals5 (1)364 to 66 Eric Burdon5166 to 68 Gerry& Pacemakers5264 to 65 Yardbirds5165 to 66 Hollies4366 to 67 Engelbert4367 to 69 Manfred Mann3 (1)164 to 68 Searchers3464 to 65 Chad & Jeremy3464 to 66 Zombies3064 to 69 Freddie & Dreamers2 (1)265 Who2467 to 69 Billy J Kramer2264 Troggs2 (1)166 to 68 Tremeloes2167 Cream2167 Spencer-Davis Grp2067 Foundations2068 to 69 Mary Hopkin2068 to 69 Lulu1 (1)167 Fortunes1165 Deep Purple1168 Crispian St. Peters1166 to 67 Georgie Fame1165 to 68 Moody Blues1165 to 68 Matt Monro1161 to 64 Wayne Fontana1 (1)065 Tornados1 (1)062 New Vaudeville Band 1 (1)066 Acker Bilk1 (1)061

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:39 am

Part 1 Continued

Following had one top 20 hit each. Swinging Blue Jeans, Led Zeppelin, Status Quo, Honeycombs, Nashville Teens, Mindbenders, Caravelles, Cilla Black, Kenny Ball, Shirley Bassey, Springfields, Arthur Brown David & Johnathon, Lonnie Donegan, Don Fardon, Richard Harris, Sounds Orchestral, Whistling Jack Smith, Frank Ilfield, Van Morrison, Leapy Lee, Julie Rogers, Silkie, Vanity Faire

There were some who made top 40 but not Top 20,in interests of brevity I have not included these but interesting to some degree, Marianne Faithful had 4 top 40 entries and even Cliff Richard had 2 top 40 though one was in 59.

Bee Gees of course were extremely successful in 70’s, as were Who, Led Zeppelin.

I have compiled a table of top 40 hits from 1959 to 2000 but save that for later if any response to this and anyone interested.

My conclusion would be that 4 or 5 acts only made a significant impression, I recently bought a DVD, The British Invasion Returns, with a bill of Mike Pender’s Searchers, Billy J Kramer, Troggs, Freddie and The Dreamers, Wayne Fontana, Eric Burdon ( worst on DVD IMO) and Peter Noone. In fairness only Noone and Burdon could really lay claim to having been very successful based on these findings.

In fact I suspect a lot of acts listed are not remembered at all yet some were major acts in UK.

The Searchers did a mini tour of the states recently and some venues had a poor turnout but based on facts they were not that successful in states.

einar · Post by **einar** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:35 am

Interesting, Roy!

Is it fair to say that Herman's Hermits and Dave Clark Five enjoyed an out of propotion success in the US, compared to their European/British merits?
I remember HH/DC5 as quite manor, compared to e.g. Kinks, Small Faces, Hollies.

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:26 am

The Top 20 / Top 40 is an interesting concept, but in America, the Top 40 was always used. Since the British Invasion refers to America, I would say it should be measured by the US standard.

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:56 am

Well no one from UK came close Kris to The Beatles 44 Top 40 Hits, for the same period of analysis however Elvis had 52 hits compared to Beatles 44. However he only managed 4 number ones.

winston · Post by **winston** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:39 am

What a great analysis Roy.

I am still considering what it all means. My first reaction is that this supports the notion that perception is 9/10ths of the law. I always perceived some of the acts mentioned as being huge stars. It seems that the facts do not necessarily support my view.

Case in point: The Moody Blues.

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:46 am

Thanks Brian regretfully not as well presented as I would like it was in Table format but when copied would not take it so after a number of attempts gave up and left it it was.

The period is only based on 1960 to 1969 but even based on 1960 to 2000 The Moody Blues total 6 top 20 entries and 7 top 40 entries so based on Kris's observation not bad but how many remember top 40 entries.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:07 am

Nice work, Roy!

You must have a lot of time on your hands, LOL.

The timing of this thread is good. On Thursday last, I was presented by my bandmate, George, with 9 volumes of Rhino's "Best of the British Invasion" CD set. I'm taking them one volume at a time.

I've just finished Volume 1 (I listen mostly in the car on my way to my office). EVERY SINGLE SONG--some of which I hadn't heard since they charted--brought back vivid memories of the times and places of 1964. (BTW, there are no Beatles tunes on any of these...) And, since CDs are blank with respect to song titles, I'm surprised at each new track.

Draw your conclusions from the numbers, but all I can say is that, compared to what went on prior to the Invasion's arrival on these shores--and I listened religiously to Top 40 Radio beginning in 1958--the Invasion had immense cultural influence on us Baby Boomers. Even songs which failed to chart very high, were part of the sonic landscape and pushed us further away each time from "June, moon, spoon" stuff, and into new and uncharted melodic and lyrical territory.

I and most of my friends during that time were poor blue-collar kids from the heart of Chicago. We were in many cases too young for gainful employment, and too poor to buy records, so radio was it. Our own interests, therefore would only have been recorded second-hand, as radio listener surveys, not as purchasers who voted with their pocketbooks.

The only unique phenom before the Beatles et al., hit, were the surf and car genre from 1963 and '64, and that sure didn't last very long, thanks to the Four and their cohorts. And even the surf groups borrowed too much from Tin Pan Alley and the Brills, to be thought of as largely original.

So I'd caution against too much weight being placed on stats. Look at the evidence of the immense influence that the Brits had upon Western culture between '64 and '70. That's your true measure.

winston · Post by **winston** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:16 am

Phew! I feel better now. Thanks Paul. Your post on this subject brought it all into proper perspective again...at least for me it did.

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:35 am

Very well put Paul and that was my intention to create debate as Jack Friday said "just the facts" are what I present, it is good to get an American/Canadian perspective on things, I still think though that the analysis highlights some misconceptions about how successful chartwise some acts were and perhaps surprisingly again highlights that some acts were more successful but did not receive the credit.

Actually bit of trivia Jack Friday actually said "All I want are the facts" not "just the facts" but that is the phrase that caught on.

As to your statement "time on my hands" I have more than I used to for reasons some know of.

Thanks for your valued input

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:48 am

I'd suggest the reference to the number of chart entries really means a lot when the act has 10+ chart entries. If it's less than 10, then perhaps the number of chart entries doesn't reflect the - let's say "percentage of stardom" of the act. For instance - the Searchers had virtually the same number of chart entries as the Kinks and the Who, but i'd rather doubt even a diehard Searchers fan will claim they had more impact on the music of "those who came after" than the latter two bands.
The thing that makes me wonder, however, is the fact that Herman's Hermits had almost the same number of chart entries as the Stones. Looks strange to me.

winston · Post by **winston** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:59 am

Roy I am surprised to not find Cliff Richard and the Shadows or just the Shadows in this analysis.

Can you impart "just the facts" on their placement in all of this? LOL

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:09 am

The period is based on 1960 to 1969 but did not change too much Bee Gees being an exception, they came into their own in 70's.

Herman's Hermits basically spilt in 1970 they amassed 20 top 40 hits in UK almost same as in US. The Stones went on to notch up a further 23 top 40 hits up to 2000 if they had any more after that I have not got the reference book to support it, they probably did.

They are second only to The Beatles who up to start of 2000 had 51 top 40 hits in US, Stones had 41 and Bee Gees come in with 32.

I'll publish the complete list of top 40 hits in US from 59 to 2000 later for a true comparison, but not much significant change bar Stones and Bee Gees.

Interestingly Paul mentions the set of BI CD's he has, a number of acts on them never had a hit in states but that does not mean he won't enjoy listening to them.

I agree that statistics don't tell the full story but it is the hit legacy that in vast majority of cases sustained artist's careers so in that respect the statistics are significant.

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:33 am

Yes I can Brian, regretfully The Shadows meant nothing to the US public. I am also glad to see Brian you correctly refer to Cliff Richard and not Cliff Richards as a lot do, this was a deliberate ploy at the time of his or whoever gave him the name,Harry Webb doesn't quite cut it, does it.

Rationale being that as most refer to him as Richards it gave him, or his management, the opportunity to correct them and say "no it is Richard not Richards" thereby getting a double plug.

Anyway enough rambling, Cliff Richard had 5 top 20 entries from 59 to 2000 and 4 top 40 entries.

Technically Shadows did feature, in a roundabout way, as his first hit in States, in 59, Living Doll, was credited to Cliff Richard and The Drifters but of course they later had to change their name to The Shadows, some American guys felt they had the right to the name!!!.

However in the sixties Cliff had just one top 40 entry which peaked at number 25 his version of Tommy Edward's "It's All In the Game". His highest chart entry was in 1976 with Devil Woman.

By the way my better half just looked over my shoulder and said "Have you nothing better to do, you must bore people stiff" hope that is not the case but it takes one's mind off a terrible time in the world.

Between 57 and 2000 Cliff Richard had 114 TOP 40 entries in UK. I don't think any artist will beat that.

winston · Post by **winston** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:49 am

You probably remember the debate in greater detail than I Roy, but for a period of time, there was a huge amount of coverage in the press about who was better. Cliff or Elvis.

Well I voted for Cliff back then. The missiles will start raining on me any minute now I'm sure.

I hope you can put your wife's mind at ease. This is a fascinating thread.