Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Listening to more of the Rhino boxed set; I'm up to Vol V.

Beatles are represented, contrary to my original statement, with a couple of Kaiserkeller tunes.

Whatever makes Tom Jones "Brit Invasion" is beyond me, but "It's Not Unusual" did bring back some memories. I was beginning to mourn the absence of The Animals and Them, but they're both on this volume, too.

Then there's one by Dusty Springfield and a couple by Petula Clark. These are closer to pre-Invasion Brill Building pop, but, what the heck--women are underrepresented, all in all.

An earlier volume had the Honeycomb's "Have I the Right". Joe in all his glory! Volume V has "Telstar" (pre-Brit Invasion, if the Beatles are to be taken as the first wave men walking point!), and you can see Meek's imprint on both, in very similar rhythm tracks and atmospheric mix. In particular, the pounding paradiddly underscore.

I'm enjoying this pastiche more and more, each time I slot a new volume into the CD player.

Kris, If by Tull releasing 'records', you mean vinyl discs: oh yes they were...I agree, they were more of an 'album' band, as were the other acts I mentioned.

Roy, I do find your data interesting, and your point about misperceptions surrounding the British Invasion is very well taken. I realize you're not making a correlation between Chart success and talent (Tiny Tim, anyone?)...I'm just saying you can't really make a correlation between Chart success and that elusive concept we refer to as 'influence'...

By the latter half of the sixties and on through most of the seventies, I was listening almost exclusively to British bands...none of whom had any Top 20 hits, but many of whom had much more influence on the course of popular music than most of the earlier corporate suit-and-haircut bands...

If the Beatles had never moved past their 'lovable mop-top' "I Wanna Hold Yer Hand" stage, I doubt many of us would still be talking about them today...okay, some of us would, but not that many...

Dane -

Granted, I can't speak for Germany, but Jethro Tull's first album in the U.S. was "This Was". It was released in October, 1968, thus making them a late-sixties and seventies group.

Yes got your point now Dane, well put.

Dane commented

I realize you're not making a correlation between Chart success and talent (Tiny Tim, anyone?)...I'm just saying you can't really make a correlation between Chart success and that elusive concept we refer to as 'influence'...

Very interesting Dane. You have raised a number of points here that I find have stimulated my thoughts, however, fleeting and shallow my cognitions may be. Too much fun in the 60s perhaps, but that is another thread.

The first is our definition of talent. To my way of thinking talent is an innate ability in some field or activity. Part and parcel of the individual and brought out perhaps because of some environmental stimulation. In the case of Tiny Tim, he seems to have had some innate qualities that were seen by others to have merit. Perhaps the recognition of these qualities, whatever they may be on a performance level, led to his chart success. Perhaps influence can be measured, at least to some extent, by chart success.

It would seem that Tiny Tim had appeal, or if you like the power to arouse interest in others. This appeal might also lead to chart success.

While I am would not argue a one-to-one relationship between talent and chart ratings or appeal and chart ratings, it does seem that Tiny Tim's success may be due to an innate performing ability and appeal to the public within a certain context.

Do I enjoy Tiny Tim. No. But it would seem that some did and this in and of itself may be due to a talent that appeals to a rather large segment of the population at times.

I am wondering, if the British Invasion was successful what is your explanation for the success of Herman and the DC5, understanding that their talents may have been less highly developed than other groups who despite their talents did not make the radar screen?

Right. Very little correlation, IMHO. And here, we can kind of get back to another thread - who's the general record buying public? To some extent, when we're talking about that "general record buying public", for them, good look ("sex appeal", so to speak) sometimes means more than talent, and that might be the reason why some of those who had number ones (by sales) in the past are forgotten now.

I think the era of the "good looking" type of pop Star was pre-Beatles and not all these lacked talent, they were exceptions I suppose Fabian,Tab Hunter spring to mind but the success of The Beatles and to some degree, especially in UK, The Shadows gave your normal working class lad (sometimes referred to as Blue Collar I believe in US)the belief that with a modicum of ability and a massive bit of luck you could make it irrespective of whether you had "popstar" looks.
One fact overlooked from the table Peter kindly corrected for me, is that with the obvious exceptions of 2 or 3 who have passed away and 3 others who don't perform anymore, to best of my knowledge, all the others mentioned are still performing to this day or ex members in some cases are.

May not be recording in some cases but still playing I doubt you could sustain a career of 40 years plus without some degree of talent.

Well, there are always anomalies like the aforementioned Mr. Tim...I'm thinking now of Asian dude who recently ruled the internet with his American Idol cover of the tune "She Bangs"...some acts are like bad car wrecks...no one seems to be able to tear their eyes away, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement of their 'talent'.

"...if the British Invasion was successful what is your explanation for the success of Herman and the DC5, understanding that their talents may have been less highly developed than other groups who despite their talents did not make the radar screen?..."

...same reason McDonalds, who certainly does not make the best hamburgers on Earth, sells more of them than anyone else: 'packaging'.

Great points Dane.

Without a doubt, "packaging" has a substantial impact on the success of rock stars and the 1960s were no exception to the rule, whether it is Herman or The Beatles for that matter.

I would still argue that talent can be more broadly defined Dane and includes the "large size" full meal, not just the burger, fries or drink on its own. You can even throw in the hamburgler in the playground.

Lemme clear my point: a) good look doesn't mean lack of talent; b) the other factor ("packaging?") is good management & PR, if we can use these terms in said context. As well as with the food (imho): good taste, natural ingredients ("healthiness"), attractive look & good promotion make a perfect dish (maybe McDonalds would not be the best "association" here, however, but that's another story).

'Round my little Catholic School and neighborhood, the bands had to look British, sound British, or pretend to be British or else the little girls would have nothing to do with them.

I was sent home from my 4th grade Catholic School class for having hair over (just) my ears.

Herman (Noone) was adored by them for his looks as well as his tunes, as were many others.

Lightweight songs didn't matter, the girls in my school sang "Henry the Eighth" as often as "from Me To You".

The combo of the "look" (hair length seemed to matter most) and the "new pop sound" did.

As soon as it was discovered that Americans, such as the Byrds or Beau Brummels could be cool and no longer look like Elvis, I think the girls around my little world loosened up on the British thing.

But suddenly we did have a lot of door to door salesmen affecting British accents, and we never received the magazines they had sold my mom and wide-eyed sister.

AFAIR.

Sheena...hey, sistah, long time no discusee...my point is, if the "packaging's" good enough, the 'consumer' can be made not to notice that the product's missing any or all of the rest of the list of important ingredients...happens all the time, from what I can see, and Stock Markets swing on where the consumer takes his little pile of Dead President Trading Stamps every week...

Jerry, I can still remember in Arizona in '74, our 18 year-old lead singer saying into the mic, in perfect British cockney, "This is a song by "Atomic Rooster"...

Many years later, I found out from my male Kiwi friends that they had all learned as teenagers to affect the perfect 'Yank' dialect in order to obtain sex...

Perhaps, Dane, perhaps. But i'd suggest, after having "health problems" from unhealthy "food" or just "getting to the nitty-gritty", i.e. finding out that food is neither "tasty" nor "healthy", many a "customer" stop buying the said "well-packaged" product. Those who make a good product live on for many years ("have a long history", so to speak), while those who make bad one often go bankrupt or simply disappear. I might be mistaken, though.

Dane: What if the packaging is an important ingredient? I consider it is possible for us to create quite a long list of groups in which this might have been the case. I'll start with The Monkees. Are there any more?

But to take it a step further, would dress, dance moves, theatrical expressions, accents, gestures, humour and the like be considered packaging or important ingredients? By important ingredients I am thinking that you are referring to talent. But, at the end of the day, what is talent? Are these factors reflected in the ratings? Is this, as Roy has entertained, just hype?

No, I quite agree, and here's where the food/culture analogy breaks down...you can feel the effects of bad food right away in most instances, whereas bad culture can take years to produce symptoms...by which time it's a little late to try to stop buying the product...

But you can always try to get rid of it at your next yard sale...