I know the thread is about the 80s/90s but a few points on this 60s thing.
Was the music biz affected by racism in the 60s.? That's a little bit more complicated than just saying US and UK society were bit he more overtly racist than they are now.
It's not a subject I wanted to get into too heavily though, suffice to say that some would not buy a record because of the race of the artist and would tell their kids not to be buying such records either (and not expect to be challenged about this, as they would be today).
There were very strong counter cultural forces in the pop music of the 60s that challenged racism. That was mainly with artists rather than with the biz side but it was there.
I watched Merry Clayton and Gloria Jones (20 Feet from Stardom) talk about how they felt more welcome in the UK music environment than they did in the contemporary 60s US environment. Ironically, racism isn't simply black and white.
Yes, that's quite a common observation by African American musicians of that era regarding their surprise at their experience when first coming over to the UK.
Now you could argue that The Stones exploited US R n'B or you could say they added their own twist to it? I honestly think that bands like The Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds did adapt and enhance a white version of R n'B that was excellent.
Both really. Certainly, I prefer the Stones recording their own material than their US R&B covers.
The Beatles and Dylan had a huge influence on the idea that artists could craft and perform their own music. That was a major step forward. Again you could argue that many US black artists were already doing this. However, the range of influences and the artistic dimension of The Beatles works plus the invention of metal music by British artists and the acknowledged British Invasion of the US amongst other things cements the importance of 60s UK in the development of pop music. That they did fundamentally change pop music which already existed.
I would say that there has always been a degree of cross-fertilisation similar to what was mentioned above about punk and house music. I would also accept the US music and US black music culture were major contributors to the development of popular music throughout the 20th Century but the UK had a significant input to that development in the 60s.
"Again you could argue that many US black artists were already doing this"... Yes I definitely would. I think there is a common perception of early African American artists as being vocalists and vocal combos who recorded other songwriters' works rather than as instrumentalists and composers (i.e. similar to the way Elvis Presley is viewed) and than The Beatles suddenly came along, both writing and playing and that this was somehow out of the ordinary. I wouldn't disagree at all with what you've written above. [/QUOTE]
The evolution of music and fusing of genres is generally presented as a positive thing, especially by sections of the music press who like to bring us the news, the insight - to document the ground-breaking - but it's not always so well received by the listener who may be frustrated by the styles they love falling out of favour because of some new sound. I put more faith in the listeners who listen for the sheer pleasure than in the writers whose musical agenda are often shaped by their employers. I've known people who can't write about what they want because their editors simply aren't interested in the music they care about.
Untrue? No. US and UK society was far more overtly racist in the fifties than sixties than it is today. We all know this. So despite this, somehow, miraculously, the music biz was unaffected by this? Not even possible.
I didn't suggest that black artists didn't get popular, I'm suggesting that many people refused to buy the records or stopped their offspring buying the records because the artists were black. I believe most of us know this also.
... but IF there was a widespread racist ban on buying recordings by black people artists like chuck berry, little richard, sam cooke, ray charles etc etc etc wouldnt have been popular. i dont believe it was a big problem, im not saying it didnt happen though.
The record industry certainly knew this hence the immediate white covers of the black artist's records. (Elvis Presley vs Big Mama Thornton etc.) But getting back to the sixties (your birth of pop music but not mine): there's no reason why Cilla Black's note-for-note cover of Dionne Warwick's Bacharach-penned single would 'connect' with us better than the original apart from one factor: the singer being the same ethnicity as the majority of its target audience.
marketing. brian epstein pushed it and twas on the back of his success with the beatles.
and dione warwick went on that year to score her most famous #1 hit.
The arrogance comes from claiming to have originated something that already existed, rather than to simply acknowledge the significant changes and influence exerted on it by the British Beat groups.
popular music already existed, what the beatles and subsequent beat/r n b groups did was popularise the group format, the format used throughout rock/guitar based music ever since. i have no problem at all with saying the beatles / merseybeat created pop music as we know it.
It's not a subject I wanted to get into too heavily though, suffice to say that some would not buy a record because of the race of the artist and would tell their kids not to be buying such records either (and not expect to be challenged about this, as they would be today).
I get the impression that there's far more to this than historians have discussed (and you clearly know more). Prejudice in British music isn't something I recall seeing any mention of until the more vociferous and politically aware musicians of the late 70s and early 80s* (Bragg, Somerville, Specials etc), but makes sense because of public opinion back then.
*pathetic attempt at getting on-topic :-D
Of course a sort of 'reverse prejudice' was prevalent in the clubs for many years - Mods and Stax/Motown/Atlantic and R&B in general, reggae (with the oddly unthoughtout racism of skinheads), hardcore disco clubbers. Motown didn't make it too clear R Dean Taylor was white, and KC and the Sunshine Band and Wild Cherry caused a bit of a 'blimey' when people found out they weren't black.
Anyone mentioned that quite a few black artists covered Beatles songs as well as them recording black artists songs ('Twist and Shout' for example, written by a white songwriting team, but recorded by the Top Notes and The isley brothers first)? Wilson Pickett - 'Hey Jude' (the only version I can still listen to)? Ray Charles ...
... but IF there was a widespread racist ban on buying recordings by black people artists like chuck berry, little richard, sam cooke, ray charles etc etc etc wouldnt have been popular.
I think it's a case of emphasis, not a ban as such but social pressure. And there's always going to be some who take attitude about music that's got a racial edge, intentional or otherwise in both directions (jazz purists, blues purists - remember the Bonzo's 'Can Blue Men Sing The Whites' )
i have no problem at all with saying the Beatles / Merseybeat developed and influenced pop music as we know it.
... but IF there was a widespread racist ban on buying recordings by black people artists like chuck berry, little richard, sam cooke, ray charles etc etc etc wouldnt have been popular. i dont believe it was a big problem, im not saying it didnt happen though.
You seem to be dealing in absolutes though: popular vs. unpopular, I'm thinking in terms of things being far less popular than they might otherwise have been. Also a 'ban' is usually an official declaration.
marketing. brian epstein pushed it and twas on the back of his success with the beatles.
That is a separate issue from the idea that the original US records did not 'connect' with us (weren't 'speaking' to us / weren't reaching us on an emotional level etc.) No language barrier, no huge cultural chasm, just factors such as promotion, airplay (the lack of) and in some cases I believe, prejudice. I remember getting into Dancehall Reggae in the 80's - I'd see that as a better example of music that might not connect, due to some of the lyrics being patois and the use of (then) contemporary Jamaican slang (some Hip Hop may be similarly innaccessible) but if we take something like say "Go Now" by Bessie Banks vs the Moody Blues cover or Gloria Jone's "Tainted Love" vs. Soft Cell, for me there is far more emotional connection with the originals.
As an aside, I think it's really poor form to do straight covers of other artists' records WHILE the covered record is still current. It's nothing more than an attempt to cash in and possibly rob them of success. I'd make an exception to this for records that are covered in a different style to the original and aimed at a completely different market. Of course, once the original artist's record has had its turn, work away (although I'm similarly disdainful of performers who seem to build careers on covering former hits. There are a lot of songs out there - be imaginative).
what the beatles and subsequent beat/r n b groups did was popularise the group format, the format used throughout rock/guitar based music ever since.
Groups and composers were commonplace. Like I've said look at 1950s America for musical wonders, rather than the 50's UK pop charts with their Anthony Newley's, their Max Bygraves' (maybe that alone is enough to display US superiority - they surely didn't seem in need of any British Invasion!). I believe what those groups (Beatles et al) did was popularise the small combo as a unit - drummer, bass, lead and vocals) which became the standard rock format. It did not however become the popular music standard. How many of the pop hits of the last few years (or even couple of decades) are Rock-based or employ that basic instrumental set up? The Trance music you love is popular music. So is Hip Hop, Drum and Bass, Contemporary R&B, Electro Pop and so on.
What I'm saying is that we (but certainly not all people) live in a rock-centric environment, where Rock is held up as the superior art form, a large share of our music journalism revolves around white males writing about other white males who play guitars and drums. There's nothing wrong with being white, male, or enjoying Rock of course (!) but it is part of the tapestry, it is not the whole bleedin' tapestry. ;-) So I don't feel I play down the British Invasion / Beat thing, I just feel it has been made out to be ubiquitous.
I was on Rolling Stone's site a few days ago as I was looking back at various peoples' lists of top Chicago House records (that's one thing I like about discussing music on fora - it makes you search for things) and I glanced at the reader comments below. Some guy was ripping... he said that he wished Rolling Stone magazine would go bust (!) and that it was ironic that they were publishing their top twenty Chicago House tracks (in tribute allegedly to the recently deceased Frankie Knuckles) as they wouldn't have touched the music with a barge pole at the time.
This hit an accord with me. I believe that it's only after the decline of Rock and the growth of other styles that some of the music press has even acknowledged the existence of the many other genres that people listen to and felt obliged to cover them and appear super-knowledgeable on the subject. (The Rolling Stone list appeared to me to be culled together from other lists made by people who like the genre).
DavetheSensible, your posts have been interesting and informative reading and are appreciated. I felt I ought to state this as I haven't actually responded to anything you've written! ;-)
DavetheSensible, your posts have been interesting and informative reading and are appreciated. I felt I ought to state this as I haven't actually responded to anything you've written! ;-)
You seem to be dealing in absolutes though: popular vs. unpopular, I'm thinking in terms of things being far less popular than they might otherwise have been. Also a 'ban' is usually an official declaration.
That is a separate issue from the idea that the original US records did not 'connect' with us (weren't 'speaking' to us / weren't reaching us on an emotional level etc.) No language barrier, no huge cultural chasm, just factors such as promotion, airplay (the lack of) and in some cases I believe, prejudice.
obviously the 'ban' was unofficial, an unspoken thing as a racist reaction.
well those tracks/artists did connect with some of our musicians, it inspired them to go out and create it for themselves. maybe it was lack of promotion, or the package that they were, i expect they got more recognition later after fans of 'our' artists brought the music to the masses.
we arent a million miles apart now
I remember getting into Dancehall Reggae in the 80's - I'd see that as a better example of music that might not connect, due to some of the lyrics being patois and the use of (then) contemporary Jamaican slang (some Hip Hop may be similarly innaccessible) but if we take something like say "Go Now" by Bessie Banks vs the Moody Blues cover or Gloria Jone's "Tainted Love" vs. Soft Cell, for me there is far more emotional connection with the originals.
on this too we arent far apart...
As an aside, I think it's really poor form to do straight covers of other artists' records WHILE the covered record is still current. It's nothing more than an attempt to cash in and possibly rob them of success. I'd make an exception to this for records that are covered in a different style to the original and aimed at a completely different market. Of course, once the original artist's record has had its turn, work away (although I'm similarly disdainful of performers who seem to build careers on covering former hits. There are a lot of songs out there - be imaginative).
pretty commonplace in the 50's and early 60's.
Groups and composers were commonplace. Like I've said look at 1950s America for musical wonders, rather than the 50's UK pop charts with their Anthony Newley's, their Max Bygraves' (maybe that alone is enough to display US superiority - they surely didn't seem in need of any British Invasion!). I believe what those groups (Beatles et al) did was popularise the small combo as a unit - drummer, bass, lead and vocals) which became the standard rock format. It did not however become the popular music standard. How many of the pop hits of the last few years (or even couple of decades) are Rock-based or employ that basic instrumental set up? The Trance music you love is popular music. So is Hip Hop, Drum and Bass, Contemporary R&B, Electro Pop and so on.
well rock certainly was the popular music standard from the 60's - the later 80's, but id agree over the last 20 odd years or so other styles have predominated on the commercial charts. rock though is still a hugely popular style, and id suggest still the biggest. what influence rock had on the creation of these other styles is open to question. clearly not much...but...?
What I'm saying is that we (but certainly not all people) live in a rock-centric environment, where Rock is held up as the superior art form, a large share of our music journalism revolves around white males writing about other white males who play guitars and drums. There's nothing wrong with being white, male, or enjoying Rock of course (!) but it is part of the tapestry, it is not the whole bleedin' tapestry. ;-) So I don't feel I play down the British Invasion / Beat thing, I just feel it has been made out to be ubiquitous.
maybe not 50 years on, but 50 years ago and into the 70's/80's rock was huge. hence the reverance towards the beatles.
I was on Rolling Stone's site a few days ago as I was looking back at various peoples' lists of top Chicago House records (that's one thing I like about discussing music on fora - it makes you search for things) and I glanced at the reader comments below. Some guy was ripping... he said that he wished Rolling Stone magazine would go bust (!) and that it was ironic that they were publishing their top twenty Chicago House tracks (in tribute allegedly to the recently deceased Frankie Knuckles) as they wouldn't have touched the music with a barge pole at the time.
This hit an accord with me. I believe that it's only after the decline of Rock and the growth of other styles that some of the music press has even acknowledged the existence of the many other genres that people listen to and felt obliged to cover them and appear super-knowledgeable on the subject. (The Rolling Stone list appeared to me to be culled together from other lists made by people who like the genre).
Like I've said look at 1950s America for musical wonders, rather than the 50's UK pop charts with their Anthony Newley's, their Max Bygraves' (maybe that alone is enough to display US superiority - they surely didn't seem in need of any British Invasion!).
Now then. Careful. Do we have to give you a list of all the equally dreadful US artists
Good point about the music press. With the honourable exceptions of Melody maker's intelligent coverage of several much denigrated genres (folk and jazz most noticeably), Rolling Stone, and NMEs simply herioc stance outside of everyone else, the music press was pretty well so far down the middle you could paint white lines on it.
As to the other nonsense. - thank you Much appreciated.
I only came to this hellhole to have a laugh and cause chaos in the BB forum.
DavetheSensible, your posts have been interesting and informative reading and are appreciated. I felt I ought to state this as I haven't actually responded to anything you've written! ;-)
you may well be correct in suggesting the american rock possibly outweighed english/british rock. but then again do you include britpop in that ?
Britpop is a strange one isn't it? It is termed Britpop and in the 90's that's what it was - but now in 2014 it have been retcon'ed into being more of a 'rock' movement. But as someone who was a teenager in the 90's - grunge was far more exciting and more geared to a youth movement (Gen x). Rock magazine of the time didn't cover Britpop acts at all, and if you went into a rock club you heard kids playing Nirvana covers no-one played Oasis!
For me personally as a teen in the 90's and an adult as I type this - I think Britpop was mostly horrible, bland retro that brought pretty much nothing new to the table, certainly in the hands of the awful Oasis (Beatles + Slade = Oasis). Blur were more interesting and clearly were influenced by what was happening in the US underground at the time. Pulp always felt more like an 80's act than a Britpop band to me. Then there was the utter shite like Shed Seven, Ocean Colour Scene and Embrace dirge of the highest order. The Verve I can honestly said in my opinion are the most overrated band ever, tedious on record and the most boring band I've ever seen live (and I've seen a lot).
I don't think Radiohead were ever a Britpop act. Basing there name on a Talking Heads song and their early image on Nirvana, then they went of and did their own thing. Same for the Manic Street Preachers - early influence was clearly Guns 'n' Roses.
Britpop is a strange one isn't it? It is termed Britpop and in the 90's that's what it was - but now in 2014 it have been retcon'ed into being more of a 'rock' movement. But as someone who was a teenager in the 90's - grunge was far more exciting and more geared to a youth movement (Gen x). Rock magazine of the time didn't cover Britpop acts at all, and if you went into a rock club you heard kids playing Nirvana covers no-one played Oasis!
For me personally as a teen in the 90's and an adult as I type this - I think Britpop was mostly horrible, bland retro that brought pretty much nothing new to the table, certainly in the hands of the awful Oasis (Beatles + Slade = Oasis). Blur were more interesting and clearly were influenced by what was happening in the US underground at the time. Pulp always felt more like an 80's act than a Britpop band to me. Then there was the utter shite like Shed Seven, Ocean Colour Scene and Embrace dirge of the highest order. The Verve I can honestly said in my opinion are the most overrated band ever, tedious on record and the most boring band I've ever seen live (and I've seen a lot).
I don't think Radiohead were ever a Britpop act. Basing there name on a Talking Heads song and their early image on Nirvana, then they went of and did their own thing. Same for the Manic Street Preachers - early influence was clearly Guns 'n' Roses.
thing is about britpop.... the beatles are referred to as a rock act, not that i agree, so if the beatles are then britpop acts are too. i dont know, its unclear where the publics distinction is between guitar pop music, indie, and rock. for me there is a distinction, but i dont think its a widely help opinion. maybe im wrong, and of course its never back and white.
im totally the opposite to you regarding grunge and britpop.... its grunge i found dreary and miserable, i liked early oasis very much, and space, supergrass, and a few others. im no fan of embrace but i love 'all you good good people'. britpop itself was imho 3rd generation 60's mod music. i dont mind revivalism if they can bring new energy to the sound and for me (and apparently millions of others) oasis and the rest did just that.
nirvana have been referred to as a pixies tribute act, i dunno, i dont know enough about either with them not being my taste. as for guns n roses... no thanks! theres nowt original with them, who were clearly influenced by iron maiden.
Britpop is a strange one isn't it? It is termed Britpop and in the 90's that's what it was - but now in 2014 it have been retcon'ed into being more of a 'rock' movement.
Weird that, but then again they rewrite so much stuff you were there for and the only sensible reaction is WTF?
Personally I've never seen Britpop as a pop thing in the slightest, it was another alt alley that got mainstreamed (largely without compromise, which was grand).
However, for me the whole 90s guitar band thing was something of an interesting sideline, because the dance field was still producing stuff that was bending boundaries and exploring and being just so exciting.
Not a great parallel, but rather like liking Creedence Clearwater and Canned Heat because they were playing blues and rock, but liking Jimi Hendrix and Cream or Sly Stone because they were just the best thing you ever did hear and so different...
(think Oasis v Stone Roses - I know which one I thought was the more innovative, and it wasn't the Beatles imitators ;-))
oasis have never claimed to be innovative, imho they just produced some damn good guitar pop.
You're right on both counts. But NG was such a smug 'look how clever I am' git it was much the same as pretending to be innovative.
For me it was the borrowing without really giving credit that irritated the most. The new generation weren't really gettting it (at first), and he knew it. And then it turned into lengthy interviews full of bollox that didn't even have have 1/2 the intelligence Paul Weller pretended to have, and for me it was stepping off time. A
And the whole thing slowly ruined NME for me too after a very long love affair. Still got all those NMEs, and can't get through much of the Britpop stuff still, no matter how hard I try.
I see Shoegaze and Britpop as two great subgenres of rock and pop that were essentially British inventions. And within the context of this thread that's not something you can often say.
Britpop is distinctly British, a revivalist movement rooted in the golden era of modern Britain, the 1960s and directly led to the idea of Cool Britannia, which was clearly seen as a great thing at the time. Britpop also helped squeeze the mainly awful SAW music out of the charts which can also only be a good thing.
I'm not sure why you are all coming down so hard on what was if not great, an extremely good period, for distinctly British pop music. There aren't many current artists with the wit and wisdom of Pulp. And maybe Radiohead weren't an obvious Britpop band but their best music is from that period. And perhaps The Verve were a little indulgent at times but 'Bitter Sweet Symphony' is a timeless piece of transcendent pop music genius. ( OK Computer and Urban Hymns both great albums!)
Britpop may turn out to be the last great era/movement rooted in guitar-based music which is where I think this BritRock label comes from. And yes, Noel Gallagher may not appeal to everyone but is he the last traditional working class hero of British pop we are to hear from?
And yes, Noel Gallagher may not appeal to everyone but is he the last traditional working class hero of British pop we are to hear from?
Well, Mark E Smith doesn't look like falling off the perch any time soon, and there's still a few musicians haven't been in his band yet
As to Pulp - have you listened to Jarvis Cocker's marvellous Radio 4 'Wireless Nights' series? They're on BBC iplayer. Brilliant almost monologues for late at night, it's almost like drifting in and out of sleep slightly detached from reality.
He's fast becoming a national treasure, a sort of amalgamation of Peel and slightly less bizarre versions of Ivor Cutler and Vivian Stanshall
You're right on both counts. But NG was such a smug 'look how clever I am' git it was much the same as pretending to be innovative.
For me it was the borrowing without really giving credit that irritated the most. The new generation weren't really gettting it (at first), and he knew it.[/b] And then it turned into lengthy interviews full of bollox that didn't even have have 1/2 the intelligence Paul Weller pretended to have, and for me it was stepping off time. A
And the whole thing slowly ruined NME for me too after a very long love affair. Still got all those NMEs, and can't get through much of the Britpop stuff still, no matter how hard I try.
ahhh now dont get me going on the 'modfather' , he is a far bigger 'fake' then NG, he just tried to hide it better... from his highly inaccurate 'modfather' tag (surely that should go to the who) but his blatant plaigarism is id suggest worse the oasis.
i did like his material though with the jam.
I see Shoegaze and Britpop as two great subgenres of rock and pop that were essentially British inventions. And within the context of this thread that's not something you can often say.
Britpop is distinctly British, a revivalist movement rooted in the golden era of modern Britain, the 1960s and directly led to the idea of Cool Britannia, which was clearly seen as a great thing at the time. Britpop also helped squeeze the mainly awful SAW music out of the charts which can also only be a good thing.
I'm not sure why you are all coming down so hard on what was if not great, an extremely good period, for distinctly British pop music. There aren't many current artists with the wit and wisdom of Pulp. And maybe Radiohead weren't an obvious Britpop band but their best music is from that period. And perhaps The Verve were a little indulgent at times but 'Bitter Sweet Symphony' is a timeless piece of transcendent pop music genius. ( OK Computer and Urban Hymns both great albums!)
Britpop may turn out to be the last great era/movement rooted in guitar-based music which is where I think this BritRock label comes from. And yes, Noel Gallagher may not appeal to everyone but is he the last traditional working class hero of British pop we are to hear from?
Well, Mark E Smith doesn't look like falling off the perch any time soon, and there's still a few musicians haven't been in his band yet
As to Pulp - have you listened to Jarvis Cocker's marvellous Radio 4 'Wireless Nights' series? They're on BBC iplayer. Brilliant almost monologues for late at night, it's almost like drifting in and out of sleep slightly detached from reality.
He's fast becoming a national treasure, a sort of amalgamation of Peel and slightly less bizarre versions of Ivor Cutler and Vivian Stanshall
Well, I guess Mark E Smith is still about although he goes back to the 70s punk era.
As an aside I did listen to The Fall for years on John Peel and I liked the witticism in many of the early songs. But when I finally heard them live they were truly awful, amongst the worst artists I have ever heard, so I haven't listened much since.
As for Jarvis, I was expecting someone to suggest him. And yes, I have occasionally sampled the 'Wireless Nights' not enough, I'll admit. I also sample Terry Christian but he's not strictly a musician. I have actually been expecting my next working class hero to be female any way. Lily Allen has potential.
Comments
Yes, that's quite a common observation by African American musicians of that era regarding their surprise at their experience when first coming over to the UK.
Both really. Certainly, I prefer the Stones recording their own material than their US R&B covers.
"Again you could argue that many US black artists were already doing this"... Yes I definitely would. I think there is a common perception of early African American artists as being vocalists and vocal combos who recorded other songwriters' works rather than as instrumentalists and composers (i.e. similar to the way Elvis Presley is viewed) and than The Beatles suddenly came along, both writing and playing and that this was somehow out of the ordinary. I wouldn't disagree at all with what you've written above. [/QUOTE]
The evolution of music and fusing of genres is generally presented as a positive thing, especially by sections of the music press who like to bring us the news, the insight - to document the ground-breaking - but it's not always so well received by the listener who may be frustrated by the styles they love falling out of favour because of some new sound. I put more faith in the listeners who listen for the sheer pleasure than in the writers whose musical agenda are often shaped by their employers. I've known people who can't write about what they want because their editors simply aren't interested in the music they care about.
... but IF there was a widespread racist ban on buying recordings by black people artists like chuck berry, little richard, sam cooke, ray charles etc etc etc wouldnt have been popular. i dont believe it was a big problem, im not saying it didnt happen though.
marketing. brian epstein pushed it and twas on the back of his success with the beatles.
and dione warwick went on that year to score her most famous #1 hit.
popular music already existed, what the beatles and subsequent beat/r n b groups did was popularise the group format, the format used throughout rock/guitar based music ever since. i have no problem at all with saying the beatles / merseybeat created pop music as we know it.
*pathetic attempt at getting on-topic :-D
Of course a sort of 'reverse prejudice' was prevalent in the clubs for many years - Mods and Stax/Motown/Atlantic and R&B in general, reggae (with the oddly unthoughtout racism of skinheads), hardcore disco clubbers. Motown didn't make it too clear R Dean Taylor was white, and KC and the Sunshine Band and Wild Cherry caused a bit of a 'blimey' when people found out they weren't black.
Anyone mentioned that quite a few black artists covered Beatles songs as well as them recording black artists songs ('Twist and Shout' for example, written by a white songwriting team, but recorded by the Top Notes and The isley brothers first)? Wilson Pickett - 'Hey Jude' (the only version I can still listen to)? Ray Charles ...
Good post
I think it's a case of emphasis, not a ban as such but social pressure. And there's always going to be some who take attitude about music that's got a racial edge, intentional or otherwise in both directions (jazz purists, blues purists - remember the Bonzo's 'Can Blue Men Sing The Whites'
Me neither now I've fixed that ... ;-):D
That is a separate issue from the idea that the original US records did not 'connect' with us (weren't 'speaking' to us / weren't reaching us on an emotional level etc.) No language barrier, no huge cultural chasm, just factors such as promotion, airplay (the lack of) and in some cases I believe, prejudice. I remember getting into Dancehall Reggae in the 80's - I'd see that as a better example of music that might not connect, due to some of the lyrics being patois and the use of (then) contemporary Jamaican slang (some Hip Hop may be similarly innaccessible) but if we take something like say "Go Now" by Bessie Banks vs the Moody Blues cover or Gloria Jone's "Tainted Love" vs. Soft Cell, for me there is far more emotional connection with the originals.
As an aside, I think it's really poor form to do straight covers of other artists' records WHILE the covered record is still current. It's nothing more than an attempt to cash in and possibly rob them of success. I'd make an exception to this for records that are covered in a different style to the original and aimed at a completely different market. Of course, once the original artist's record has had its turn, work away (although I'm similarly disdainful of performers who seem to build careers on covering former hits. There are a lot of songs out there - be imaginative).
Yes. We're getting somewhere!
Groups and composers were commonplace. Like I've said look at 1950s America for musical wonders, rather than the 50's UK pop charts with their Anthony Newley's, their Max Bygraves' (maybe that alone is enough to display US superiority
What I'm saying is that we (but certainly not all people) live in a rock-centric environment, where Rock is held up as the superior art form, a large share of our music journalism revolves around white males writing about other white males who play guitars and drums. There's nothing wrong with being white, male, or enjoying Rock of course (!) but it is part of the tapestry, it is not the whole bleedin' tapestry. ;-) So I don't feel I play down the British Invasion / Beat thing, I just feel it has been made out to be ubiquitous.
I was on Rolling Stone's site a few days ago as I was looking back at various peoples' lists of top Chicago House records (that's one thing I like about discussing music on fora - it makes you search for things) and I glanced at the reader comments below. Some guy was ripping... he said that he wished Rolling Stone magazine would go bust (!) and that it was ironic that they were publishing their top twenty Chicago House tracks (in tribute allegedly to the recently deceased Frankie Knuckles) as they wouldn't have touched the music with a barge pole at the time.
This hit an accord with me. I believe that it's only after the decline of Rock and the growth of other styles that some of the music press has even acknowledged the existence of the many other genres that people listen to and felt obliged to cover them and appear super-knowledgeable on the subject. (The Rolling Stone list appeared to me to be culled together from other lists made by people who like the genre).
ill second that
obviously the 'ban' was unofficial, an unspoken thing as a racist reaction.
well those tracks/artists did connect with some of our musicians, it inspired them to go out and create it for themselves. maybe it was lack of promotion, or the package that they were, i expect they got more recognition later after fans of 'our' artists brought the music to the masses.
we arent a million miles apart now
on this too we arent far apart...
pretty commonplace in the 50's and early 60's.
well rock certainly was the popular music standard from the 60's - the later 80's, but id agree over the last 20 odd years or so other styles have predominated on the commercial charts. rock though is still a hugely popular style, and id suggest still the biggest. what influence rock had on the creation of these other styles is open to question. clearly not much...but...?
maybe not 50 years on, but 50 years ago and into the 70's/80's rock was huge. hence the reverance towards the beatles.
fair comment
Good point about the music press. With the honourable exceptions of Melody maker's intelligent coverage of several much denigrated genres (folk and jazz most noticeably), Rolling Stone, and NMEs simply herioc stance outside of everyone else, the music press was pretty well so far down the middle you could paint white lines on it.
As to the other nonsense. - thank you
I only came to this hellhole to have a laugh and cause chaos in the BB forum.
I would agree.
Grand stuff. we're all getting along swimmingly at the moment. :cool: ;-)
your knowlege is a great asset to the forum, :cool:
Britpop is a strange one isn't it? It is termed Britpop and in the 90's that's what it was - but now in 2014 it have been retcon'ed into being more of a 'rock' movement. But as someone who was a teenager in the 90's - grunge was far more exciting and more geared to a youth movement (Gen x). Rock magazine of the time didn't cover Britpop acts at all, and if you went into a rock club you heard kids playing Nirvana covers no-one played Oasis!
For me personally as a teen in the 90's and an adult as I type this - I think Britpop was mostly horrible, bland retro that brought pretty much nothing new to the table, certainly in the hands of the awful Oasis (Beatles + Slade = Oasis). Blur were more interesting and clearly were influenced by what was happening in the US underground at the time. Pulp always felt more like an 80's act than a Britpop band to me. Then there was the utter shite like Shed Seven, Ocean Colour Scene and Embrace dirge of the highest order. The Verve I can honestly said in my opinion are the most overrated band ever, tedious on record and the most boring band I've ever seen live (and I've seen a lot).
I don't think Radiohead were ever a Britpop act. Basing there name on a Talking Heads song and their early image on Nirvana, then they went of and did their own thing. Same for the Manic Street Preachers - early influence was clearly Guns 'n' Roses.
thing is about britpop.... the beatles are referred to as a rock act, not that i agree, so if the beatles are then britpop acts are too. i dont know, its unclear where the publics distinction is between guitar pop music, indie, and rock. for me there is a distinction, but i dont think its a widely help opinion. maybe im wrong, and of course its never back and white.
im totally the opposite to you regarding grunge and britpop.... its grunge i found dreary and miserable, i liked early oasis very much, and space, supergrass, and a few others. im no fan of embrace but i love 'all you good good people'. britpop itself was imho 3rd generation 60's mod music. i dont mind revivalism if they can bring new energy to the sound and for me (and apparently millions of others) oasis and the rest did just that.
nirvana have been referred to as a pixies tribute act, i dunno, i dont know enough about either with them not being my taste. as for guns n roses... no thanks! theres nowt original with them, who were clearly influenced by iron maiden.
Personally I've never seen Britpop as a pop thing in the slightest, it was another alt alley that got mainstreamed (largely without compromise, which was grand).
However, for me the whole 90s guitar band thing was something of an interesting sideline, because the dance field was still producing stuff that was bending boundaries and exploring and being just so exciting.
Not a great parallel, but rather like liking Creedence Clearwater and Canned Heat because they were playing blues and rock, but liking Jimi Hendrix and Cream or Sly Stone because they were just the best thing you ever did hear and so different...
(think Oasis v Stone Roses - I know which one I thought was the more innovative, and it wasn't the Beatles imitators ;-))
oasis have never claimed to be innovative, imho they just produced some damn good guitar pop.
For me it was the borrowing without really giving credit that irritated the most. The new generation weren't really gettting it (at first), and he knew it. And then it turned into lengthy interviews full of bollox that didn't even have have 1/2 the intelligence Paul Weller pretended to have, and for me it was stepping off time. A
And the whole thing slowly ruined NME for me too after a very long love affair. Still got all those NMEs, and can't get through much of the Britpop stuff still, no matter how hard I try.
Britpop is distinctly British, a revivalist movement rooted in the golden era of modern Britain, the 1960s and directly led to the idea of Cool Britannia, which was clearly seen as a great thing at the time. Britpop also helped squeeze the mainly awful SAW music out of the charts which can also only be a good thing.
I'm not sure why you are all coming down so hard on what was if not great, an extremely good period, for distinctly British pop music. There aren't many current artists with the wit and wisdom of Pulp. And maybe Radiohead weren't an obvious Britpop band but their best music is from that period. And perhaps The Verve were a little indulgent at times but 'Bitter Sweet Symphony' is a timeless piece of transcendent pop music genius. ( OK Computer and Urban Hymns both great albums!)
Britpop may turn out to be the last great era/movement rooted in guitar-based music which is where I think this BritRock label comes from. And yes, Noel Gallagher may not appeal to everyone but is he the last traditional working class hero of British pop we are to hear from?
As to Pulp - have you listened to Jarvis Cocker's marvellous Radio 4 'Wireless Nights' series? They're on BBC iplayer. Brilliant almost monologues for late at night, it's almost like drifting in and out of sleep slightly detached from reality.
He's fast becoming a national treasure, a sort of amalgamation of Peel and slightly less bizarre versions of Ivor Cutler and Vivian Stanshall
ahhh now dont get me going on the 'modfather' , he is a far bigger 'fake' then NG, he just tried to hide it better... from his highly inaccurate 'modfather' tag (surely that should go to the who) but his blatant plaigarism is id suggest worse the oasis.
i did like his material though with the jam.
completely agree
Well, I guess Mark E Smith is still about although he goes back to the 70s punk era.
As an aside I did listen to The Fall for years on John Peel and I liked the witticism in many of the early songs. But when I finally heard them live they were truly awful, amongst the worst artists I have ever heard, so I haven't listened much since.
As for Jarvis, I was expecting someone to suggest him. And yes, I have occasionally sampled the 'Wireless Nights' not enough, I'll admit. I also sample Terry Christian but he's not strictly a musician. I have actually been expecting my next working class hero to be female any way. Lily Allen has potential.