What a unique point of view you have! Great stuff! Very enjoyable and a heavy use of the left brain! I didn't realize the Four Seasons had that streak but it makes sense. Those early songs were so good. TY for writing here. You have a really cool POV.
On the bright side, they did give us the Monkees, the Rutles, and Rundgren’s Utopia. Not to mention the Knickerbockers and the Dave Clark Five. Glad All Over rocks.
So interesting looking at artists' careers through the lens of their chart success as opposed to just musical criteria - I knew Frankie Vallie was important but wasn't aware of the longevity of his success.
As for the Beatles 'killing careers' - there may be some truth to this, but don't you think that they offset that by creating about a thousand *new* careers by inspiring every kid in the USA to pick up a guitar? Sure it was different than what preceded it but. . . that's what pop music is all about. Sure sounds different today than in 1964, or 1962 before the British Invasion hit, or for that matter the '80s & '80s.
I lived this story. As much as I recognize the pure pop genius of the Beatles in retrospect (till Revolver, and don't get me started on such travesties as Abbey Road), I hated them as a kid growing up. Suddenly it was all Beatles all the time in 1964. You could not escape the Beatles. I was a surf guitar band fan - Ventures, Surfaris, Tornadoes, Shadows - lots of guitar and no singing! Surf was obliterated by the Beatles and I've never forgiven them.
But don't forget that the Beatles also paved the way for a whole slew of bands that came in the "British Invasion": the Kinks, The Zombies, Dave Clark Five, the Animals, and many others. Some of those bands probably wouldn't have even formed had the Beatles and Stones not been so successful.
Also, what I like about the Newbeats "Bread and Butter": it's a rare song about how food ties into a relationship.
Bread and Butter is the bomb. And I would die happy if I never had to listen to the Beatles again. I’m now at the point that I leave the room, turn off the radio (at home) or switch to my CD if one of their songs comes on. Same for Van Morrison, but I’ve never liked his stuff and DJs can’t seem to find more than three songs over the course of his career. One more thing about the F*ing Four: Epstein and Martin deserve tons of credit. I don’t know how much casual fans/listeners get that. Just like Dylan with Tom Wilson and Grossman. And Brian Wilson, and Motown, well, those are whole other stories. That’s my rant for today.
Guns and Roses saw the writing on the wall and tried to get Nirvana to tour with them. But I think cocaine was also at play and what cocaine does is shorten careers. The best example is tennis and professional basketball players in the 1970s that had very short primes while now NBA players that take care of their bodies can have 10 years of prime career and 20 years of high performance. With comedy it’s not coincidence that the great comedic actors that came of age in the late 1970s seemed to hit a wall in around 1990 and then the next generation that didn’t use cocaine such as Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell have much longer careers.
You referenced GNR and Nirvana. I knew both personally so I knew their drug of choice which was heroin. Not mentioning which members by name, but their drug use was very well documented.
Cocaine is what makes you more productive…but it shortens your career. Heroin was big in the 70s and from what I understand when cocaine became available everyone thought it was great because it wasn’t dangerous like heroin. I watched an old SNL and they even make fun of cocaine like we would make fun of someone smoking marijuana.
If you want to see how the Beatles revolution positively affected career, I would suggest you listen to Petula Clark's pre- and post-Beatle records. An interesting example of a Valli-like musician riding the waves of the sixties is Lou Christie.
It's not like the eternally delightful, Fab Four were out to squash other artists! Whose increased success might any of those others have edged out? Life is unfair as hell.
Don't forget that Vallie had more motivation than most to keep making hits. He had promised the mob to pay off something like $600,000 in gambling debts for his fellow Season. The penalty for failing to do so would have been anything from minor torture to death. So...LOTS of singing jobs and as many chances as he could to make another hit.
I can think of two genres that the Beatles pretty much swept aside when they crossed the pond in '64: "surf" (both instrumental and vocal), and "neo-folk" (as typified by the Kingston Trio, the Limelighters, Peter, Paul,and Mary, etc.).
In truth, by '64 the folk thing was running on fumes; and surf was about as big as it was gonna get. The times were ripe for something novel; + the Moptops just fit that bill.
One historical anecdote that pops up regarding The Beatles: they didn't 'land' here until they had a Number One, a key point when other avenues had thrown up walls, including the failure of perceived UK hitmaker (and acknowledged Elvis wannabe) Cliff Richard. As a group, they forged a collective identity that to be sure, already had feet in the UK, but broke in the US due to visual (long hair), personality (funny), and location (Liverpool). Controversially, I'm not 1000% convinced of the Kennedy assassination/'youth coming to the rescue' angle, no matter how many times it's written. And to your point, none of this can diminish any artist who wasn't The Beatles who continued the course (Valli) and benefitted by acknowledging The Beatles' influence (Leonard Bernstein, Bob Dylan, Brian Wilson, Smokey Robinson).
Interesting piece. The idea that the arrival of the Beatles in America decimated a whole swath of musicians and groups is one I've advanced more than once and will undoubtedly again. Certainly, rock music began to change in 1964 in ways it hadn't for years and probably more quickly than it would have had the Beatles never crossed the ocean.
What a unique point of view you have! Great stuff! Very enjoyable and a heavy use of the left brain! I didn't realize the Four Seasons had that streak but it makes sense. Those early songs were so good. TY for writing here. You have a really cool POV.
On the bright side, they did give us the Monkees, the Rutles, and Rundgren’s Utopia. Not to mention the Knickerbockers and the Dave Clark Five. Glad All Over rocks.
So interesting looking at artists' careers through the lens of their chart success as opposed to just musical criteria - I knew Frankie Vallie was important but wasn't aware of the longevity of his success.
As for the Beatles 'killing careers' - there may be some truth to this, but don't you think that they offset that by creating about a thousand *new* careers by inspiring every kid in the USA to pick up a guitar? Sure it was different than what preceded it but. . . that's what pop music is all about. Sure sounds different today than in 1964, or 1962 before the British Invasion hit, or for that matter the '80s & '80s.
I lived this story. As much as I recognize the pure pop genius of the Beatles in retrospect (till Revolver, and don't get me started on such travesties as Abbey Road), I hated them as a kid growing up. Suddenly it was all Beatles all the time in 1964. You could not escape the Beatles. I was a surf guitar band fan - Ventures, Surfaris, Tornadoes, Shadows - lots of guitar and no singing! Surf was obliterated by the Beatles and I've never forgiven them.
ha ha ha ha ha, wipe out!
But don't forget that the Beatles also paved the way for a whole slew of bands that came in the "British Invasion": the Kinks, The Zombies, Dave Clark Five, the Animals, and many others. Some of those bands probably wouldn't have even formed had the Beatles and Stones not been so successful.
Also, what I like about the Newbeats "Bread and Butter": it's a rare song about how food ties into a relationship.
Bread and Butter is the bomb. And I would die happy if I never had to listen to the Beatles again. I’m now at the point that I leave the room, turn off the radio (at home) or switch to my CD if one of their songs comes on. Same for Van Morrison, but I’ve never liked his stuff and DJs can’t seem to find more than three songs over the course of his career. One more thing about the F*ing Four: Epstein and Martin deserve tons of credit. I don’t know how much casual fans/listeners get that. Just like Dylan with Tom Wilson and Grossman. And Brian Wilson, and Motown, well, those are whole other stories. That’s my rant for today.
Guns and Roses saw the writing on the wall and tried to get Nirvana to tour with them. But I think cocaine was also at play and what cocaine does is shorten careers. The best example is tennis and professional basketball players in the 1970s that had very short primes while now NBA players that take care of their bodies can have 10 years of prime career and 20 years of high performance. With comedy it’s not coincidence that the great comedic actors that came of age in the late 1970s seemed to hit a wall in around 1990 and then the next generation that didn’t use cocaine such as Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell have much longer careers.
You referenced GNR and Nirvana. I knew both personally so I knew their drug of choice which was heroin. Not mentioning which members by name, but their drug use was very well documented.
I think you're confusing cocaine with heroin in both cases. GNR even wrote a song about it: Mr. Brownstone
Cocaine is what makes you more productive…but it shortens your career. Heroin was big in the 70s and from what I understand when cocaine became available everyone thought it was great because it wasn’t dangerous like heroin. I watched an old SNL and they even make fun of cocaine like we would make fun of someone smoking marijuana.
If you want to see how the Beatles revolution positively affected career, I would suggest you listen to Petula Clark's pre- and post-Beatle records. An interesting example of a Valli-like musician riding the waves of the sixties is Lou Christie.
It's not like the eternally delightful, Fab Four were out to squash other artists! Whose increased success might any of those others have edged out? Life is unfair as hell.
Don't forget that Vallie had more motivation than most to keep making hits. He had promised the mob to pay off something like $600,000 in gambling debts for his fellow Season. The penalty for failing to do so would have been anything from minor torture to death. So...LOTS of singing jobs and as many chances as he could to make another hit.
Frankie Valli ended up in the Top 20 YET AGAIN in 1994, albeit with a reissue of the 1976 chart topper "December 1963".
I can think of two genres that the Beatles pretty much swept aside when they crossed the pond in '64: "surf" (both instrumental and vocal), and "neo-folk" (as typified by the Kingston Trio, the Limelighters, Peter, Paul,and Mary, etc.).
In truth, by '64 the folk thing was running on fumes; and surf was about as big as it was gonna get. The times were ripe for something novel; + the Moptops just fit that bill.
One historical anecdote that pops up regarding The Beatles: they didn't 'land' here until they had a Number One, a key point when other avenues had thrown up walls, including the failure of perceived UK hitmaker (and acknowledged Elvis wannabe) Cliff Richard. As a group, they forged a collective identity that to be sure, already had feet in the UK, but broke in the US due to visual (long hair), personality (funny), and location (Liverpool). Controversially, I'm not 1000% convinced of the Kennedy assassination/'youth coming to the rescue' angle, no matter how many times it's written. And to your point, none of this can diminish any artist who wasn't The Beatles who continued the course (Valli) and benefitted by acknowledging The Beatles' influence (Leonard Bernstein, Bob Dylan, Brian Wilson, Smokey Robinson).
Thanks for this insight.
As someone born the week they 'invaded' in Feb '64, I have always contended this is the line between Boomers and Gen X.
And absolutely tangential, have you ever seen the Animals in "The Dangerous Christmas of Red Riding Hood?" 1965
https://youtu.be/DixzC8Fur5g?si=P_S-2vbOak0LSfAW
Interesting piece. The idea that the arrival of the Beatles in America decimated a whole swath of musicians and groups is one I've advanced more than once and will undoubtedly again. Certainly, rock music began to change in 1964 in ways it hadn't for years and probably more quickly than it would have had the Beatles never crossed the ocean.