Talk:British Invasion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Luridshadow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

Look, I get that we need citations for many things, but this one seems pretty obvious. The Britannica article (used as the very first cite) says "What followed would be called—with historical condescension by the willingly reconquered colony—the second British Invasion." What else could this refer to but previous military invasions? Later, there is a quote of Walter Cronkite saying "The British Invasion this time goes by the code name Beatlemania." (emphasis added) Again, what else could this refer to? Do we have to find a quote of someone explicitly saying "We called it the British Invasion because it's a fun historical allusion?" Simishag (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. I am afraid there is no specific evidence in here to support the statement as it stands. There is no reference to the American Revolution or the War of 1812. It may seem like "this is obvious", but it may not be obvious to everyone and I have never heard of the war of 1812 as part of this picture before. The guidelines are pretty clear that "sources must support the material clearly and directly". Putting all this together from the quotes could be taken to be WP:synthesis. It might be possible to change it to something like, "it alluded to previous military invasions of the United States" with this citation, but if you want to keep the specific claims it would be best to find some more direct source, I have been looking but have no turned on up yet.--SabreBD (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "British invasion" was a colloquilism used to describe any manner of things coming from England to America and was in use long before 1964. It was used in reference to sports, theatre, business and other subjects and yes, it alludes to past military invasions of the U.S. by the British. The problem with the sentence in question is that it gives the impression the phrase was invented to describe the Beatles and other British groups and was taken directly from its historical context, when it was just another use of a colloquialism that had been around for many decades. Piriczki (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If this is true, then that seems to support the case for mentioning the allusion by pointing out that it's been used in similar contexts in the past. I am fine with rewording the sentence to note that. I'm also fine with not mentioning specific conflicts, although I'm not sure that's really an issue since there were only 2 such conflicts. Simishag (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be reliably sourced that it was a colloquialism and/or it was used before otherwise the sentence can not go in no matter how obvious it seems. Edkollin (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have not been able to find anything reliable to back up even the American Revolution reference so far, despite several hours looking.--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mary Poppins and My Fair Lady

Someone asked whether "Mary Poppins, released on 27 August 1964, became the most Oscar-winning and Oscar-nominated Disney film in history, and My Fair Lady, released on 25 December 1964, won eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director." is original research. If that sentence is original research, then so are the two phrases from which it is composed, the first appearing in the Mary Poppins (film) article in Wikipedia, the second appearing in the My Fair Lady (film) article in Wikipedia.

I'm sure the original research tag refers to the entire paragraph, in particular the claim that "other aspects of British arts became popular due to the invasion" which goes beyond what the source actually says. The Bond films and the British Invasion of Broadway actually pre-dated the Beatles' arrival. In addition, the source seems to tie Americans' fascination with all things British to the advent of transcontinental flight. The reference to other aspects of British arts may have a place in the article but to attribute their popularity, particularly Academy Awards won, entirely to British musical groups might be a stretch as the films and actors mentioned had entrely different audiences. Piriczki (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't attribute Academy Awards nominated and won entirely to British musical groups. Rather I mentioned such things to support the paragraph's first sentence, "Outside of music other aspects of British arts became popular due to the invasion" (which sentence someone else had already entered). P.L. Travers authored the Mary Poppins books starting in 1934, and My Fair Lady (based on Shaw's Pygmalion) had already been filmed before, in 1938, and had been on Broadway before, starting in 1956. Yet the popularity of each member of the ensemble of British works in the arts, film, and music in the early to mid 1960s, especially those two films, all occurring fairly close in time to each other, tended to reinforce the popularity of each of the other members of that same ensemble, if by no other means than conversational association.71.103.143.39 (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The original research tag was for the whole paragraph because the source never directly tied the other arts popularity to the invasion. What it did was indirectly say these other arts were part of the invasion. Edkollin (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Tax exiles and the Kinks

The second to last paragraph of British Invasion#The Invasion contains two inaccurate or misleading statements. The first, that British bands came to the United States because they "could make a lot of money without the burden of British taxes" is inaccurate. Earnings outside the United Kingdom were still taxed at home. A taxpayer had to reside outside the UK to avoid taxes, hence the number of British musicians who became tax exiles, although this didn't occur until the 1970s. The second statement, that the Kinks were banned from touring in the US because the American Federation of Musicians were "convinced that British bands were getting a disproportionate share of musician's income" is misleading at best. While the union may have had some resentment toward British acts, the Kinks were denied permits by the American Federation of Musicians because of complaints of bad behavior on stage and failing to appear for a performance during their 1965 US tour. It also didn't help that they refused to sign a release to perform on the TV show Hullabaloo and Davies punched a representative of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. This touring problem was unique to the Kinks and doesn't seem to be applicable to the British Invasion as a whole. Piriczki (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Given that they are misleading, we should remove them.--SabreBD (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

For now get rid of the synthesis but not delete. Nowhere does the source say The Beatles and the Kinks were writing about going to the U.S. because of lower tax burdens. It implied but did not directly say the Kinks were banned because of resentment. The source considered reliable did say British musicians came to U.S. save on taxes. That claim is disputed but without sourcing to back it up. The source does say the American Federation of Musicians were "convinced that British bands were getting a disproportionate share of musician's income". Without proof the source is wrong these 2 claims should stay. If proof is presented one of the claims is wrong all material based on the article should be deleted. Edkollin (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Background

I find it strange that the British invasion should effectively be described as being based on American music and James Bond. Is this a mainstream view? If not it should be removed203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

American music yes James Bond not as much. Claim in aritcle about Bond isnot backed up by source so put warning Edkollin (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. All the books I've read over the years are clear that the Beatles and other groups were very much influenced by Motown and other American music (groups like the Rolling Stones by Chicago blues). Primarily African American music. In my mind that was always sort of the ironic thing about the "british invasion" they brought American black music back to white America. But the James Bond stuff, no, never heard that. MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The notion of a rock (or r'n'b) group consistently writing their own songs as a self-contained creative unit was pretty much new though. Most fifties and early sixties acts had relied heavily on paid, professional songwriters who wrote to order. The Beatles (and later The Stones and The Who) pioneered the "write and play your own stuff" rock band, the idea soon spreading all around the western world. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and the British invasion

Being a voracious reader, I once read something that I found interesting, namely that Adolf Hitler was indirectly responsible for the British Invasion. The reason is this: several million Americans went to Britain during WWII and they brought the Blues with them. It was the post war kids (George, Paul, John, Mick, and Jimmy, etc.) who grew up listening to it and helped create the British sound. If there's no WWII, there's no later Beatles, Stones, or Yardbirds. Assuming the original source is ever found, does this sound like a legitimate entry into this article? 209.179.21.14 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really. US culture in general was permeating Britain - through movies and radio in particular - well before WWII. And, in particular, places like Liverpool (and Hamburg) were international seaports, with cultural exchanges - including records - regularly and routinely taking place between seafarers. There was certainly a cultural effect from the American GIs coming to Britain and Europe, but it's too far-fetched to say that it directly helped to create the British sound. Many factors were indirectly responsible. Most sources suggest that the beat groups that emerged in the UK did so because of a combination of the skiffle boom, relatively cheap musical instruments, the influence of records imported through the seaports, the high tempo demanded of performers in the German nightclubs, and European tours such as the American Folk Blues Festival which were promoted by local music fans. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I wasn't trying to imply it was the sole reason for it. The US and Britain have always been culturally close, and American music has planted roots all over the world. In the 1930s Dixieland jazz was so popular in the USSR that Stalin eventually felt obligated to ban it, in order to save his people from this decadent American cultural influence. And while WWII is not solely responsible, it is an interesting question to ponder on just different it would have been had there been no massive influx of American servicemen during the war. But that's the problem of counter factual history: you just can never know the answer.209.179.21.14 (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Interesting questions to ponder" are not relevant to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually "interesting questions" should be relevant to any article if they're on topic. Your response Ghmyrtle is just snotty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Beyond the Beatles" section a mess!!! Needs re-working

The "Beyond the Beatles" section is going to need a lot of work. The problem isn't in the content, per se, but how things are worded and sequenced. The ordering is jumbled and confusing and does not convey a clear, smooth narrative that is helpful to the reader. It looks as if all of the parts have just been stitched together haphazardly over the course of time. So, we need to give it an "architecture." I could do a re-write of the section that keeps the content (and sources) exactly the same, but puts everything in a clear, coherent order, with improved wording. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've worked on it a bit--switching things around and changing the wording slightly, as to keep the same meaning, but to be far more clear. The reader can now more clearly delineate the later (beyond the Beatles) wave of the British Invasion, particularly the harder, more blues-based groups that would arrive as 1965 approached. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in British Invasion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of British Invasion's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ALLMUSIC":

• From The Zombies: allmusic Biography.
• From The Pretty Things: Allmusic.com biography

Reference named "The Great Rock Discography":

• From Glad All Over: Strong, Martin C. (2000). The Great Rock Discography (5th ed.). Edinburgh: Mojo Books. pp. 785–6. ISBN 1-84195-017-3.
• From The Walker Brothers: Strong, Martin C. (2000). The Great Rock Discography (5th ed.). Edinburgh: Mojo Books. pp. 1042/3. ISBN 1-84195-017-3.
• From Bay City Rollers: Strong, Martin C. (2000). The Great Rock Discography (5th ed.). Edinburgh: Mojo Books. pp. 2–3. ISBN 1-84195-017-3.
• From The Pretty Things: Strong, Martin C. (2000). The Great Rock Discography (5th ed.). Edinburgh: Mojo Books. pp. 769–770. ISBN 1-84195-017-3.
• From Manfred Mann: Strong, Martin C. (2000). The Great Rock Discography (5th ed.). Edinburgh: Mojo Books. pp. 603–606. ISBN 1-84195-017-3.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

How many listings did The Beatles have on the Hot 100 in 1964 ?

"In the next year alone, the Beatles would have 30 different listings on the Hot 100." The correct number of different listings is 31, not 30. The Billboard Hot 100 charts and Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles 1955-2002 both prove that fact conclusively. Yet someone keeps changing the number 31 to 30. I would ask that the number 30 be corrected to 31 and left that way permanently.107.185.145.26 (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

1. I Want to Hold Your Hand
2. I Saw Her Standing There
3. She Loves You
4. Please Please Me
5. From Me to You
6. My Bonnie
7. Twist and Shout
8. There's a Place
9. Roll Over Beethoven
10. All My Loving
11. Can't Buy Me Love
12. You Can't Do That
13. Do You Want to Know a Secret
14. Thank You Girl
15. Love Me Do
16. P.S. I Love You
17. Why
18. Four by the Beatles
19. Sie Liecht Dich
20. Ain't She Sweet
21. A Hard Day's Night
22. I Should Have Known Better
23. And I Love Her
24. If I Fell
25. I'll Cry Instead
26. I'm Happy Just to Dance with You
27. Matchbox
28. Slow Down
29. I Feel Fine
30. She's a Woman

Piriczki (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I see. Joel Whitburn had lumped "Ringo's Theme (This Boy)" by George Martin And His Orch. together with The Beatles' hits to give the appearance of 31 total for 1964.107.185.145.26 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Invasion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126162611/http://newseum.org/news/2009/02/the-beatles-in-america--we-loved-them--yeah--yeah--yeah.html to http://www.newseum.org/news/2009/02/the-beatles-in-america--we-loved-them--yeah--yeah--yeah.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617082735/http://thekirkhamreport.pnrnetworks.popcornnroses.com/2009/08/16/august-16-2009-winchester-cathedral-by-new-vaudeville-band/ to http://thekirkhamreport.pnrnetworks.popcornnroses.com/2009/08/16/august-16-2009-winchester-cathedral-by-new-vaudeville-band
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://celebritywonder.ugo.com/movie/2003_Shanghai_Knights_jeff_farance.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426235633/http://www.atlanticcityweekly.com/casinos/features/Show-Review-Kickin-It-With-Paul-Revere-and-the-Raiders-234885881.html to http://www.atlanticcityweekly.com/casinos/features/Show-Review-Kickin-It-With-Paul-Revere-and-the-Raiders-234885881.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Howdy, Wikipedians! I will be working on this article as part of a class assignment for the next few weeks. My goal is to make this article better and get it into a place where it can reach a greater rating and to interact with all of you to get better exposure to the editing process. Therefore, any input you have and any changes you can make that will make the article better will be greatly appreciated.

In conjunction with this article, I will be working on the Folk Rock article, which has excessive information on the British Invasion. I hope to add any new information to this article and use this article to better the summary of British Invasion in Folk Rock. I plan on helping organize this article. For example, the “Outside music” section, I believe, may need a better title and better organization. So far, I am considering organizing it by subject matter. I also think the “Influence” section contains a lot of good information, but I feel that information also can be separated into subsections. In addition to that, is there a particular reason why the information of the end of the British Invasion is under the Influence section?

Thanks in advance! Luridshadow (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Clean sweep

"On May 8, 1965, the British Commonwealth came closer than it ever had or would to a clean sweep of a weekly Hot 100's Top 10, lacking only a hit at number two instead of 'Count Me In' by the US group Gary Lewis & the Playboys."

Casey Kasem, who repeatedly cited this statistic, always mistakenly said on "American Top 40" that all of the records, except "Count Me In", in the top 10 that week were by British acts, whereas The Seekers, whose "I'll Never Find Another You" was at #5 that week, were not British but rather Australian. Thus it was that the British Commonwealth, instead of just the British per se, missed a clean sweep that week by only one position.98.149.97.245 (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed any reference to Casey Kasem. I don't think of him as a reliable source. He made too many exaggerated or poorly researched statements on his radio show. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"British invasion" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect British invasion and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#British invasion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Beatles' 4 April 1964 top 5 matched by Drake then doubled by Taylor Swift

Tkbrett regarded my contribution to the British Invasion as "strange inclusion of trivia in a reference". How so? Both Drake and Taylor Swift's accomplishments versus The Beatles in this regard are in quite a few published articles, many of which are very recent. As just one example, see https://slate.com/culture/2022/11/taylor-swift-midnights-drake-beatles-billboard-hot-100.html .98.149.97.245 (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the 1960s British invasion. Trivia about chart accomplishments are better served at the article for the Billboard Hot 100. I don't even think it's worth a note mention in this article. Tkbrett (✉) 21:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

However, the same sentence does contain Gary Trust's article on Ariana Grande's early 2019 matching The Beatles' top 3 of that same 4 April 1964 Hot 100 . Trust's article has not been regarded as better served at the article for the Billboard Hot 100 . On those grounds, references to articles referring to Drake matching and Taylor Swift doubling the feat should all the more be included at the same sentence as well.98.149.97.245 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

But the Grande feat isn't mentioned in this article either though, as that's something to mention at the Billboard Hot 100 article, not here. Tkbrett (✉) 21:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The Grande feat is mentioned in reference 31, attached to the end of the same sentence.98.149.97.245 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not mentioned in either the body or a note. What you are seeing is the title of an article. That's a source for the Beatles' April 4, 1964, achievement. Tkbrett (✉) 22:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Then would you object to me similarly adding the title of the article, about the Drake and Taylor Swift feats, that I mentioned to you, to the end of the same sentence? Somehow, someone needs to mention, in the British Invasion article, that The Beatles' feat has now been both met and surpassed, but it can't be mentioned as long as someone objects to the addition of reference(s), right at that same place. Without such reference(s), the public would be led to believe, mistakenly, that The Beatles' feat is still unrivaled. Also please note that I cannot edit the Billboard Hot 100 article (because it is closed to general edits), which also, for whatever reason, seems to prefer highlighting the Grande feat, though it is lesser, to the Drake and Swift feats, relegating the latter two to the numerical tables.98.149.97.245 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The statement already has three citations, it doesn't need another. You seem to be misunderstanding why those citations are there.

Also, you didn't even add a new source. Instead you put an unsourced statement about Drake and Swift into a ref template.

What it says on the Billboard Hot 100 page is irrelevant to this page. The things you want to add here are not relevant to the 1960s British invasion but are instead relevant to that page. Tkbrett (✉) 00:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, I cannot edit the Billboard Hot 100 article, at all, because it is closed to general edits, and given that fact, who would you say should signify that first Drake met, then Taylor Swift doubled, The Beatles' feat, so that the public is not misled? For example, should someone in Wikipedia edit the Billboard Hot 100 article appropriately because I cannot edit it all?98.149.97.245 (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Also I disagree with your assessment that I didn't add a new source, meaning, that I never did. I did, if you would just look again at the first sentence of this dialogue. And if you object to more than three references at a single point, even though other parts of the same article have more than three references at a single point, then would you have any objection to me displacing Reference 31, which I had personally put into the article a long time ago, by https://slate.com/culture/2022/11/taylor-swift-midnights-drake-beatles-billboard-hot-100.html, the new source that I provided, thereby not increasing the total number of references there beyond three? I have nothing to gain personally by such a request. All I wish is that the public not have any possibility of being misled, which is the case currently.98.149.97.245 (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk in circles if you are not going to try to understand. This is not a new source, you just put a statement into a ref template. And the source that is there is not misleading anyone because it's only a title, not something in the body or a note. And it's not covered in the body or a note because it is not relevant to this page. I am done responding to posts here.Tkbrett (✉) 12:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Forget my first attempt, which incurred your objection. Instead focus on https://slate.com/culture/2022/11/taylor-swift-midnights-drake-beatles-billboard-hot-100.html, which is a bona fide reference.98.149.97.245 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Cultural scope

This is an important historical article for the music and culture of both N America and Britain. As such, the longer term impact of the British Invasion in the long term is underplayed, or, too briefly illustrated. What is not mentioned at any proper length is the more intimately interwoven expressions and sharing of both artists and the wider counterculture that it gave birth to, kind of just saying that "because the Vietnam War made America a battleground, it all sort of went away except for British Prog Rock". The legacy of the British Invasion was far deeper and profound and sometimes went in reverse or interbred. No mention of Woodstock? No mention of David Bowie going to America to reincarnate. The greatest hybrid band ever: The Police or others like Fleetwood Mac. The opener of world music: Peter Gabriel. Comedy: Monty Python, Jethro Tull. Jimi in London, schooling the Brit virtuosos. Live Aid. And that's just off the top of my head.

Because of the British Invasion, the heartbeat of both cultures were forever reunited, and if you came of age 1960 to 1990, you couldn't avoid it and cherished it most likely. Thmaui (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Chart of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by British artists, by weeks

The chart would be a useful summary, if only it were accurate, but it is not. Only one week of "I Feel Fine" is in the 1964, resulting in a total of 24 weeks for that year, and the other two weeks are in 1965, resulting in a total of 28 weeks for that year. Since all three members of America were American, 1972 had zero weeks. And so forth.98.149.97.245 (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"British Music Invasion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect British Music Invasion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 6 § British Music Invasion until a consensus is reached. Eurohunter (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)