British Invasion - Was it Hype? Part 1

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:56 am

Yes I agree Brian I preferred Cliff though it was not until 62 that I really started buying records so I did not buy many Cliff Singles I admit, but with The Shadows he made some great pop songs, Move It in my view still one of the best rock and roll records ever but when I posted it on here a while back most did not agree.

winston · Post by **winston** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:57 am

Re: Harry Webb, I agree it sounds a bit coarse.

Many artists helped their image with a name change. Ringo Starr being the most obvious in this context. Richard Starkey does not seem so bad though these days, thanks to the fact that Zack Starkey (his son) is doing so well with the Who and Oasis.

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 am

I see. I was just wondering because, truthfully speaking, Herman's Hermits are not well known here - but then again, as i said in one of my first posts here on the forum, everything is kinda "head over heels here" - hmmm... has anybody here heard of the Blacksuns? Jimmy Watson? Etc, etc.
Oh yeah. And you can tell your better half that some have nothing better to do than read & translate your posts to a 8 year old girl (who has virtually nothing better to do than stay up late strumming the guitar & tryin' to calm down the noisy neighbours

)

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

Thanks for that Sheena

Also I omitted to include Procul Harem for some reason but not significant one top 20 hit and one top 40 hit in period 60 to 69.

karl_teten · Post by **karl_teten** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:46 pm

Possibly the biggest one hit wonder of all time was Jimi Hendrix. Jimi never had a number one hit. He barely scraped the top 20 ONCE with his cover of Dylan's - All Along The Watchtower.

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:19 pm

Jimi wasn't a Brit though Karl which is what my table is based on.

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:50 pm

Well, that's a pleasure, so i'm not sure who should say "thanks".

Speaking of Procol Harum, btw - funny thing is, albeit their chart entries weren't that numerous (significant), they are known and remembered, at least here (i'd suggest there are not so many people interested in "classic rock" who have never heard "Whiter shade of pale") - on the other hand, personally, i've never heard of Georgie Fame, Tornados or Acker Bilk (or maybe have heard of them but cannot remember off the top of my head).

karl_teten · Post by **karl_teten** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:20 am

Jimi wasn't a Brit but it was Britain where he got his true start with British group members, British manager, British studios and British listeners..

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:32 am

So did The Walker Brothers they are not on list either

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:24 am

A most interesting topic Roy. Your quantitative analysis certainly seems to lend support for the qualitative view that the British Invasion was a force to be reckoned with in the 1960s. Some might argue that the British Invasion was the 1960s. I am reminded that if you torture your data long enough, they will confess to anything. I do consider that you are on to something, however, and regardless of the charts examined, I suspect that the same outcome will prevail.

The data presented here provides support for the success of the British Invasion in the United States. While an empirical question, I suspect that the same findings, some regions excepted, are to be found worldwide.

Even more interesting to me is the success of Herman's Hermits and The Dave Clark Five above other British acts, excepting The Beatles and Rolling Stones in the United States. I also recall this same success for these groups in Canada, however, I have not looked at the data.

But to the more interesting question. Why were these groups more successful in the United States than others?

Herman's Hermits

To begin, Peter Noone certainly had the cute boyish image in his favour and set the stage for the Farah Fawcett grin and hair, that sweep the US for the second time much later. His toothy grin, mop top hair and cute-look would win the fans over. In fact, the same has been said about him even during more recent times by the same women who were swept off their feet by him four decades ago. "Herman" had an image that loomed larger than his musical talents in my view. The American Idol has certainly shown us that there is more to being a successful singer than singing. Bob Dylan and Mick Jagger would be more famous examples of this phenomenon.

Moreover, Herman's Hermits captitalized on "silly love songs" at just the right time following on a number of upbeat American songs of the heart. They played well to this theme by including a number of America's favourites in their album releases such as "Silhouettes", "Sea Cruise", "Heartbeat", and "End Of The World" and "What A Wonderful World."

A cute guy sings love songs that America loves is the magic formula here, at least in my view.

The Dave Clark Five

The Dave Clark Five was a drum and dance band that had the party sound, the beat and the right mix of keyboards and saxophone to captivate America. The trademark "in your face drums" would harken back to Sandy Nelson and others but proved to be the attention getter. "Glad All Over" and "Bits And Pieces" created the requisite din to capture the imagination of the party hungry teen.

Further, the DC5 had a number of instrumentals that also were a throw-back to previous times and created a familiarity that stood them in good stead in America. "Chaquita" was also and interesting take on the previously most successful "Tequila." Their vocal recordings of "Stay", "Poison Ivy" and "Do You Love Me" were also familiar and readily accepted by Americans.

Commonalities in Their Success

Both Hermans Hermits and the DC5 borrowed from successful aspects of American artists before them. They were showy in their presentation and offered both image and material that was familiar to North Americans. Finally, they had original material that was central to their success. In some sense, they simply repackaged what had come before them and ramped up their images with regard to look and sound. They also set a blistering pace with regard to recordings that kept them fresh. To be fair, Peter Noone could sing a sweet song and Mike Smith had an infectious and unmistakable raw voice that was most appealing.

Roy: I am not sure what you mean about the quality of your table. I also consider that this is "time well spent", to borrow from A & E.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:05 am

An analysis of Top 20 or Number 1 Hits can tell you a lot about the sixties...for all the great music that came out of that era, though, it bears recalling that the major portion of what could be heard on the radio at the time was pure *******. Looking at nothing more than 'chartbusters' will give one tremendous insight into marketing, selling, pimping, payola and the enormous money-making potential embodied in teenage angst and sexual confusion...it doesn't necessarily tell you anything about real long-lasting cultural forces.

One reason for Jimi having only one Top 20 Hit (and I think it's the main reason) was his very well informed and intelligently expressed opposition to the war...that and being black made his move to Britain the right thing to have done.

There were also 'ugly' boys making serious inroads into mainstream rock by the end of the sixties...and since they didn't have to deal with a phalanx of hairstylists, wardrobe co-ordinators and PR flacks, they felt unconstrained when it came to producing music that they wanted to hear...and subsequently had a profound effect on the music we got to hear. Of course, you were not going to hear it on AM radio. I'm thinking of singers/players like Eric Burdon, Van Morrison, Frank Zappa, Don Van Vliet, Iggy Pop, etc...

I mean seriously...who's got a bigger house in the country today, Peter Noone or Ian Anderson?

winston · Post by **winston** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:42 am

Dane, that question may be somewhat hard to prove, but I strongly suspect Ian Anderson would be the winner there.

I loved the music of Jethro Tull. I even had the great pleasure of seeing them live right after they issued the album Aqualung. I attended a concert of theirs with 15,000+ other Tull fans. But that was in 1971 so it really does not fit this topic.

Their first album "This Was", released in 1968 drew me to the band. It had a bit of a rhythm and blues feel to it.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:49 am

Exactly right, Brian...I was a kid living in Germany in '68-'69, and Tull was huge there. They were considered 100% Blues by the German fans, and were revered equally with John Mayall...

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:44 am

Respect your point of view Dane though not really sure what it is, I am not trying to say chart success was an indication of talent.

What I was trying to do perhaps unsuccessfully was to create a debate on perceptions, virtually sixties acts doing the rounds today certainly in UK and I suspect US are performing because of their hits legacy be it one hit or 21, the British Invasion really referred to the influx IMO of British acts into the US charts in 64/65, up till then success for British hits very limited, what I was trying to show was that it may surprise some, did me, that acts who you thought were very successful were not really and vice versa.

Jethro Tull had 2 top 20 hits in US in 70's and nothing else, I suspect they were more an album band.

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:57 am

Tull was definitely more of an album band, and weren't releasing records in the mid-sixties, anyway.