Talk:British Invasion/Archive 1

Article split
This article has been a problem for several years now. I suggest that it be split into seperate articles;
 * Original British Invasion i.e Beatles and the Brit beat boom between 1964 and 1966.
 * History of British music acts success or otherwise in America. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, as the "second invasion", seems to fairly well established in the literature, and navigation to this page is probably easier that to "Second British Invasion"? and to "British music acts in American after 1966/1986"?. But perhaps better titles can be suggested and it is possible I have missed how the split would solve problems. That said, to me, an article about the British Invasion should mainly be about 1964-66. Perhaps if the first section is expanded to reflect its importance the article will look more balanced.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * New topics usually go on the bottom. Be that as it may I did comment on this 6 months ago but I will update it here. I would keep the article together until the "Original Invasion" section is properly expanded. Then I would split the article as the two and possibly three invasions were separate phenomena. I would not put a separate article on British Musical success in America until such time as there is enough material for the 1970's and the 1990-2004 drought years.


 * I am still as conflicted as to how to handle the 2005-2008 period as I was 6 months ago. As you see in the section, there were numerous articles that claimed a female British invasion of some sorts was occurring during those years. The associated press article appeared in many publications. So there is some justification for renaming the section "British Female Invasion" and deleting the general British material. But who exactly invaded? Some commentators and music journalists limited descriptions of the invasion to the neo soul acts like Amy Winehouse and Duffy while others included the likes of Lily Allen and Kate Nash (my POV). Adding to the confusion was the general rise in the popularity of British Music in general and pre 2005 male acts in particular during that period. It is safe to say that if the female British invasion occurred it is now over. While the papers have been hyping the female dominated resurgence of electropop that supposedly is making male guitar rock dated nobody is using the term British invasion to describe this phenomenon as it is international in nature. Edkollin (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Split (or simply delete it)! The invention of the music video was referred to as the second british invasion but not the music.R. Serge Denisoff, William L. Schurk: Tarnished gold - the record industry revisited p. 347. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.165.223 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposal
To me, the term "British Invasion" seems parochial and unnecessarily biased towards America. I would suggest renaming the article "British beat boom".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.36.50 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Parochial or not it was dubbed "British Invasion" by the media in 1964. With all due respect, it's a bit late to start renaming it. Cheers, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While it undoubtedly WAS parochial - or perhaps more accurately "America-centric" - it became an expression that has stuck. So it is valid as an article. But in that sense the article should make clear that it was a colloquial phrase used (almost exclusively) in the USA. And that was in part because of its history with the British. eg - I'm not sure that Australians referred to that music as "British Invasion" We should also check whether it was described that way by the Canadians - a nation that had a different colonial experience with the British! Davidpatrick 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an article about British bands written primarily from an American perspective. Seems pretty parochial to me. Perhaps we could have two articles: one about the British beat boom, with the early paragraphs about the history and roots of those bands, and a second called British Invasion, specifically about their impact on the American charts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.116.13 (talk • contribs)
 * The British Invasion refers to the British impact on American charts. The British beat boom's an entirely different topic, and if you want to make another article, go right ahead.

I can't speak for the time period in question, but it is called "The British Invasion' in Canada as well, if only to describe the group of artists during that period. It's an historical term now and is pretty much fixed in popular culture. Freshacconci 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't be so touchy, British folk - we're giving you total credit for this incredible musical revolution!  It was a revolution - hence the name, from our perspective.  You know, "The British are coming.. the British are coming!"  - recalling those good ole' days.  It has been known only as the British Invasion over here since 1964, and in fact I've never heard the phrase "British beat boom" before.  I think the tag on top of the article is overly sensitive, by the way - what's the grievance?  Tvoz | talk 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So shall we rename rock and roll with Bill Haley and Elvis as "American Invasion"? After all, that's what it was known as in Britain. Jatrius (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, if that is how they were widely described. Edkollin (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "British Invasion" was widely used for British-sourced theater productions which dominated Broadway before the Beatles music reached America,  and for cultural imports throughout the 20th century. There was nothing really new, original, or unique about applying it to rock music 1964-1967, Just more of the same. Edison (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up
Quoted from near the start of the page:

"The British Invasion began in 1964, and peaked in 1965. Two decades following the first invasion, the UK based punk movement....... As in 1963, the mainstream music market of 1975 had ....... the punk movement was a ...."

I'd hardly call from 1964/5 to 1975 two decades now. I've fixed this. I know the author meant to say that the "2nd Invasion" didn't occur till 2 decades on, however they don't mention it, instead they go on about punk and the 70's, whereas the 2nd invasion by name isn't mentioned for another 2 paragraphs! It just didn't make much sense.

But then again the author of the list left out the Kinks, tut tut. 81.158.160.129 19:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I recently posted on my blog about this subject and think I came up with a decent way of breaking up the various groupings. I think there were also a couple later acts like Queen and Def Leppard that made my list but did not show up here when later acts are discussed: http://ironcity.blogspot.com/2006/07/thank-you-great-britain-had-occasion.html

ya wat about thin lizzy

Article needs fixing
This talks about the main British invasion, rightly credited as being the mid-60's but the first artists we are told about are the Sex Pistols and The Clash? Will fix when I have the time, this thing needs a whole revamp. --Zoso Jade 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cilla Black, a British Invader??? Did she even release a single in the US?--Zoso Jade 13:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Cilla Black had American record releases. "You're My World" was her biggest US hit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See also: McFly??

How can the Sex Pistols and Amy Winehouse both be "Late British Invaders" They are a good 30 years apart? By that definition every british band to play a show in america after 1970 should be the second list. 199.72.142.58 14:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yardbirds with Eric Clapton?
Clapton left the group before they achieved success in the United States; Jeff Beck was the lead guitarist. Eric Clapton would become famous in the U.S. as a member of Cream.

Dubious vagina comment?
"Some girls have stinky vaginas and should be avoided at all costs." I don't feel this is entirely accurate; some men seek out odious vaginas. Furthermore, "stinky" is somewhat of a weasel word. I think this entire comment is irrelevant and should be moved inside the entry on vaginas. 134.225.163.107 21:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * welcome to vandal patrol - which basically means that someone, or more than one, checks out every edit [at least] from someone who shows up in red. In fact, if you signed up then  . . .........  Carptrash 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Urgent work needed
The British Invasion as a phrase really applies just to the era 1964-1966. There were certainly further periods of British music incursion into the US - but only one other period generated significant media coverage as a "second" musical British Invasion - and that was the early 1980s.

There were significant successes by British acts in the US between 1966 and 1983 - but they were not conflated together and described as a further "British Invasion" by any credible media.

The punk and New Wave period (1977-1980) generated underground media coverage but not major mainstream coverage describing it as another British Invasion.

'''Chronology of British music success in USA (1964-1986) ''' 1964-1966 - Beat groups - first British Invasion 1967-1971 - influx of progressive rock, blues and blues-rock artists. 1971-1976 - various pop and rock acts (Bowie/T. Rex/Sweet/Bay City Rollers etc) 1977-1980 - punk and new wave 1983-1986 - synth-pop/new romantics/MTV pop acts - US media called this a second British Invasion

We really need to change this article to reflect this.

If we wish to keep the British Invasion article accurate - there should then be a separate article about the impact of British music in the US 1966 onwards... Davidpatrick 06:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. What's more, the phrase British Invasion seems a little too America-centric. By all means discuss the "British Invasion" of the American charts on this page, but it should not be the only resource on mid-Sixties British music. All of the following, for example, should be moved to another page - called, for example - British beat boom:
 * "Like their transatlantic counterparts in the 1950s, British youth heard their future in the frantic beats and suggestive lyrics of American rock and roll. But initial attempts to replicate it failed. Lacking the indigenous basic ingredients of rock and roll rhythm and blues, and country music, enthusiasts could bring only crippling British decorum and diffidence. The only sign of life was in the early '50s skiffle craze, spearheaded by Scottish-born Lonnie Donegan. Skiffle groups (like The Beatles-launching Quarrymen) were mainly drummerless, acoustic guitar and banjo ensembles, similar to jug bands, who most often sang traditional American folk songs, frequently with more spirit than instrumental polish, although early British skiffle was played by highly skilled Trad jazz musicians.
 * "By 1962, encouraged by the anyone-can-play populism of skiffle and self-schooled in the music of Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Eddie Cochran, Buddy Holly, James Brown, and Muddy Waters, some British teens had a real feel for the rock-and-roll and American blues idioms. Blending that with such local traditions as dance hall, pop, and Celtic folk, they formulated original music they could claim, play, and sing with conviction. Young groups with electric guitars began performing and writing up-tempo melodic pop, fiery rock and roll, and Chicago-style electric blues. The rebellious tone and image of American rock and roll and blues musicians also deeply resonated with UK youth in the late 1950s, influencing all the British Invasion artists.
 * "Liverpool became the first hotbed of the so-called "beat boom." With The Beatles, other exuberant male quartets such as The Searchers, The Fourmost, and Gerry and the Pacemakers, plus the quintet Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas launched Merseybeat, so named for the estuary of the River Mersey that runs alongside Liverpool. The Beatles first reached the British record charts in late 1962 (shortly after The Tornados' "Telstar," an instrumental smash that sent word of what was in store by becoming the first British record by a group to top the American singles chart); the rest joined the hit parade in 1963. Not all acts prominent in Britain by the early 1960s necessarily managed to develop a profile in the US. Cliff Richard, who remains popular in Britain and active today, has only rarely had chart successes in America.
 * "Rock swept Britain. By 1964 Greater London could claim The Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, The Who, The Kinks, The Pretty Things, Dusty Springfield, The Dave Clark Five, Peter and Gordon, Chad and Jeremy, and Manfred Mann. Manchester had The Hollies, Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders, Freddie and the Dreamers, Davy Jones of The Monkees, and Herman's Hermits; Newcastle had The Animals; and Birmingham had The Spencer Davis Group (featuring Steve Winwood) and The Moody Blues. Bands sprang up from Belfast, Them, with Van Morrison to St Albans, The Zombies, with more inventive artists arriving to keep the syles moving forward, including The Small Faces, The Move, The Creation, The Troggs, Donovan, and John's Children."


 * Very little of the above has anything to do with those bands' impact on the US charts; it should be moved to a less America-centric page. Malcolm Starkey 14:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the original article back in September ([|September rewrite]), without blowing my own trumpet I think it's more wiki-neutral than the current version, which although nice is a little florid for Wikipedia. I think the problem is that there are two different articles fighting for supremacy a. Overview of British acts success in the USA and b.The 1960's beat boom covered by the first British Invasion artists Yorkshiresky 19:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Article reads like a tabloid.
In general, this article is really poorly written. I don't know how to summarise my feelings toward it, but it's just a mess. -Matt 23:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix repelled the British Invasion
He was US-born and went to the UK to have his first success. Afterwards rock would enter a different era. Whatever you want to call it, it was different than 1964-67. There was more emphasis on instrumental skill, electronics and "innovation" and less on songcraft and simple "having a good time"
 * You could say much the same thing about several artists who became prominent 67/68. I'm not doubting his influence but his success was down as much to a confluence of ideas already bubbling in the culture as much as his genius. Yorkshiresky (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * what other american artist did a 'reverse british invasion' and had their first hit(s) in the UK around that time? i can't think of one. i'm just trying to come up with a convenient historical marker for the end of the 1st british invasion so bands like black sabbath and cream don't get put here.


 * Bob Dylan, plus all the Tamla Motown bands, and solo singers. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent
was the gene vincent/eddie cochran british tour (where eddie perished) an initiator of british bands' interest in american rock & roll or was it capitalizing on a previous interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's open to debate, but most English rock n roll singers and bands of the mid 50s like Tommy Steele, Cliff Richard, etc, cite Buddy Holly and Elvis as their main influences, so to a certain extent I would say that Gene Vincent in particular (great as he was), was finished in the US and to a certain extent was cashing in on the British hunger for "American" rockers. But that for what it's worth, is only my opinion:) Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mini section
Just thought I'd add some evidence that could be backed up with a CREDIBLE source. Also thought that Beatles' overall legacy should be mentioned as a result of the British Invasion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feliciajar (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

David Bowie ...
... deserves a mention somewhere in the article. He was a one-man invasion in the mid 70s with the Young Americans album and it's successors.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving the page
I think we should move the page to something like British Invasion (culture) and have this redirect to the disambiguation. Yay/Ney? --mboverload @ 09:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that such a move would disambiguate this from the numerous actual military invasions by the British over the centuries. Edison (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article
While I have done some editing to improve the article but frankly we still have a disaster and I do not hyperlink to this article. This article needs to be split as the three "invasions" are separate phenomenons. The others invasions should be dealt with and one or two sentences prequel or sequel type things. The whole drought years section is unsourced and Original Research. This should be one or two sentences or a paragraph at most. I see no need for a whole section about something that did not happen.

I do think we enough sourcing to claim has been a British Invasion of sorts in the last two years. I did not call it that in the title of that section just for cautionary purposes. This section will be difficult to write as there is disagreement as to what this phenomenon is. Is it just the neo soul singers? Do you include other female singer songwriters like Lily Allen and Kate Nash? With the Grammy Nominations can you even call it a female invasion?(Personally I think you can because the other acts predated the invasion but might be riding on the cotails of it Edkollin (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The situation has only become more muddled now that the Grammy’s are over with. The idea of labeling the section/new article British Female Invasion is kaput as so many British males won Grammy’s. Since Paul McCartney won and has had has renewed U.S. chart success is he now part of two invasions? . How about Radiohead and Coldplay they started to have U.S. success during the “drought years” (there was a drought period they were exceptions). But still Wikipedia can not ignore this phenomenon as there has been a lot of media commentary on both sides of the Atlantic as well as “British Invasion” labeling in the U.S. Edkollin (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Rock bands in and from Britain"
The section with this title mentions several American bands and no British ones whatsoever! No doubt the listed American bands were influenced by the British sound, but either the title or the content of this section needs to be changed. In fact, the only British band from the '60s British invasion discussed or even mentioned in the body of the article is The Beatles. Not even The Stones rate a mention! Shouldn't some of the other relevant British acts be mentioned in this section, rather than their American imitators? Treharne (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Groups not Bands
Incidentally, in Britain in the '60s (I do not know about America) the word "band" was quite out of fashion (it was associated with earlier eras of popular music, such as Swing). The Beatles, Stones, Who, Kinks, Hollies, Pink Floyd, Hermann's Hermits etc. (and, in Britain at least, American bands of the time too) were always referred to as "groups" (from which comes the word "groupie"). So far as I can remember, "band" did not come back into fashion until some time in the '70s. Treharne (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this article about?
This article has a lack of focus and seems to be more about British singers that have achieved success in the United States rather than the British Invasion of the 60s? The article devotes almost as much time talking about current stars as does discussing the 60s. That part also needs expanding, it doesn't even mention essential British Invasion acts like The Who, The Kinks, The Yardbirds, Cream, The Animals or The Rolling Stones. -- Scorpion 0422  01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article gets worse and worse. The section about post-2006 artists is a grab-bag of non-notable crap – pretty much any British artist who has achieved any kind of chart placing, however insignificant, gets added in. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not be in favour of deleting the 2006 and onward section as there are number of reliable sources that reported a British Invasion of some sort while disagreeing on exactly what it is. I would recommend summarizing this section. Using acts like Coldplay and Radiohead in this section is questionable despite their chart success during this period as they became popular in the U.S. before 2006. One sentence noting the 2009 Grammy's is probably all that is needed if it is needed. Edkollin (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than Google-mining for sources to add to the already bloated 21st-century section, why not clean up the First British Invasion section? It currently does not mention the Rolling Stones, the Kinks, the Animals, the Yardbirds, Billy J Kramer & The Dakotas, Gerry & The Pacemakers etc etc etc, all of whom are far more relevant to the article than flash-in-the-pan news articles mentioning Lady Sovereign or Natasha Bedingfield.
 * Also, passages such as the following are little more than gibberish:
 * The beats and catchy rhythms were hard not to like among Americans when Beatlemania first hit the nation - so much that it is often said that The Beatles as icons were so popular because they personified the generation's youth, and that their music and records "had begun to mark the passage of time in their listeners' lives." With President Kennedy's assassination, the Vietnam War and other political crises, it was only right for the Beatles to serve as "pivotal figures in the creation myth of the counterculture." Cultural critics have pointed out that the February 7, 1964 arrival of the Beatles and the ensuing mass hysteria occurred because of an existing vacuum that existed among America’s youth still in mourning over Kennedy’s death the previous November 22.
 * This article needs more than a cleanup, it needs to be comprehensively rewritten - by someone who has knowledge of the subject and is able to string together a coherent sentence. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning. Non cited material to be deleted soon
Enough is enough at this point. In a few weeks all non cited material will be deleted. I have every right to delete it immediately but I understand people have jobs, family etc and lot of the material seems accurate so I will try and be fair. But this can not go on forever. Edkollin (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done at least in the main article. For now I left the lists alone. I put cited material in the First Invasion section. but this is really just a rough draft. The section still needs a whole lot of work preferably by an expert as noted by Malcolm XIV. Edkollin (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Spice Girls
The paragraph was correctly removed by another editor for improper sourcing. Take a look at the type of sources used in the reference section and how they are written up and displayed. Another tip is to look how the article is written. In this article there are several groups named in each paragraph not one paragraph written for one group. That is because the article is about a phenomenon not a group.

I do not think despite their massive success and their influence they belong here. They are not tied in anyway to any sort of British Invasion. There influence is considerable on the bubblegum/tween pop explosion that has been going on the last few years. But that has nothing to do with the British acts like Amy Winehouse that have emerged. If the 1990's are to be discussed at all it is as a background. as the current success/invasion has occurred after a fifteen year period of decline. Edkollin (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Specific Problems
The Dave Clark had a number one hit in late 65, but are excluded from the list of artists who had #1 hits. The Zombies cannot be called a second wave act because their first hit (in the U.S.) was in 64, and their second in 65. The whole article is poorly written, but these are two specific problems worth pointing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.60.105 (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Zombies were used as a second wave act because that is what the cite Allmusic claimed. I used Allmusic as a reliable cite because that is the source Billboard and many Wikipedia articles use. But I would agree that the more detail needs to be added about the second wave. As for the Dave Clark Five find a reliable cite that shows they were number 1 and add them. Even further If you have major problems why don't you propose a rewrite? Edkollin (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Influence of first invasion
I deleted a quote from Willy DeVille after a comment in this section, as it added nothing but colourful language to the point already made. However, I think we could expand this a little as there has been scholarly criticism of the invasion.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed Edkollin (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The criticism was pointed; I wouldn't say it was vitriolic, and there is nothing wrong with colorful language in my book. I'd like you to consider restoring it. In any case, Willy DeVille wasn't alone in bemoaning the effect of the British Invasion on American popular music, and the "Influence" section definitely needs the voice of people, especially musicians, who were critical of the mop-toppers and others from England. How about if we keep the quote but drop the "Shit, it's so cheap" part? Please consider restoring this quote or else finding another voice of criticism. For the record, I'm putting the quote in question below so others can judge it. SpanishStroll (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"The British Invasion was not without its critics in the United States, who thought the pop-oriented British music was too simplistic or presented a watered-down version of American sound. In a 1982 Creem interview, Willy DeVille said, 'The British Fuckin' Invasion was a goddamn big money complicated political con game, and we all got suckered! They're taking our music and spitting it back at us when we have people like Ben E. King, Smokey Robinson&mdash;incredible artists, and you know we pushed them aside for anything that fucking glittered. Shit, it's so cheap.'"


 * On further thought "The British Invasion was not without its critics in the United States. Willy DeVille said the invaders stole American music and pushed aside talented American artists such as Ben E. King and Smokey Robinson. He said that Americans by favoring "anything that fucking glittered" fell for a "big money complicated political con game". At this time we have no sources saying anything about watering down or pop. Edkollin (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't quite understand that - are you suggesting it as an alternative?-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I am suggesting we drop the who thought the pop-oriented British music was too simplistic or presented a watered-down version of American sound. in favor of The British Invasion was not without its critics in the United States. Willy DeVille said the invaders stole American music and pushed aside talented American artists such as Ben E. King and Smokey Robinson. He said that Americans by favoring "anything that fucking glittered" fell for a "big money complicated political con game".  Edkollin (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am fine with that.-- SabreBD  (talk)  21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In a there is no disagreement, in a few days or by the weekend I will make the change Edkollin (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the abridged quote, except I would replace "stole" with "watered down," in keeping with DeVille's words. SpanishStroll (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. At least for now. Edkollin (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Split - Again
I am now in favor of splitting the article into separate British Invasion and Second British Invasion articles. Also I favor dropping the female invasion material FOR NOW. Both the British Invasion and Second British invasion sections have more information and is properly cited, this is different then it was six months ago. Although they have several notable factors in common the two "invasions" are distinct phenomena.

As for the 2006-2008 "female invasion", put it in a larger British Music in America article or drop it. Although widely reported by reliable sourcing at the time, it was a WP:NEOLOGISM. When Duffy, Adele, and Amy Winehouse??? etc release second albums, and if they  are widely referred to as part of a British Invasion of some sort then the phenomena would deserve it's own article. Same would be true if like "New Music", history's of the period speak of the phenomena. Edkollin (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Duffy's second Album is out and Adele's is on the way while I have seen the use of wave of female British Soul singers a few years back type of language I have not seen the term "British Invasion" used. I did see it used in a Telegraph article explaining why the 2011 Grammy Award nominations does not mean another British Invasion is occurring. So the decision to take it out of Wikipedia looks good. Edkollin (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree they could be split now. As for the "3rd Invasion" data, it could just go as it is looking increasingly thin.-- SabreBD  (talk)  01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will give this a few more weeks as people are on holiday etc but if there is no disagreement I will do this.Edkollin (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Made official proposals in articles Edkollin (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Keep.andycjp (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you give some reasons for the keep please.-- SabreBD  (talk)  12:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you want to keep Second Invasion, Subsequent years or both? Edkollin (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's time to do the long advocated split but I can't for now because of a false redirect page to that section Edkollin (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The subsequent years section needs to be removed. It never happened and I don't see anyone referring to anything that happend during the 2000's as any sort of British invasion. The press tried to create buzz and failed. 15:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My POV It did happen. I became more interested in music then I had in 15 years due Allen, Winehouse, Nash Duffy etc. Sudden wave of success after a split Older African American influences redone. After American music became bland and repetitive, Brits were a refreshing change. Like the second invasion's new technology called video. In the late 2000s British musicians were really the first to use social networking. In 1983 I would have never guessed "New Music" would last. While the press and some radio stations used the term nobody I knew called it that. It was New Wave or technopop (not synthpop). Shows you I know nothing. Edkollin (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done: I do not have to wait for the redirect issue to be solved to deal with that section Edkollin (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect issues cleared Split being finally completed Edkollin (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The first airing of a Beatles song in the United States. Not true
Re: 'The Invasion' section - this statement is  untrue: "...the first airing of a Beatles song in the United States." Actually, prior to December, 1963, a number of Beatles singles were  released in the USA, and some were briefly on the radio playlist charts. I'll check back to to see if someone has removed this seemingly  'sourced' disinformation from the article. Thanks. User:Jusdafax 22:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a reliable source for this claim. So far we just have your word that this claim is incorrect. Unless you come up with reliable source(s) to dispute this claim I am not deleting the claim. I do think you are right that songs were released in earlier in 1963. Edkollin (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox for possible future "Second British Female Invasion of late 2000's" or "British music success in America" articles
British musical success in the United States was at its nadir in the early 2000s. Less than 2% of the top 100 United States albums in both 2000 and 2001 were from the United Kingdom. In April 2002, for the first time since October 1963, there were no British acts on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart. This would be reversed in the latter half of the decade when the percentage of albums sold in the U.S. by British acts increased every year from 2005 through 2008. It would increase from 8.5% to 10% of the market between 2007 and 2008.

In July 2005 Natasha Bedingfield made her first of what would be many chart appearances. The following year Joss Stone's third album Introducing Joss Stone debuted at number two on the Billboard 200 becoming the first British solo female artist to have an album début that high on the chart. In 2006 and early 2007 British and Irish acts James Blunt, Amy Winehouse, Lily Allen, Lady Sovereign, KT Tunstall, Snow Patrol and Corinne Bailey Rae also had U.S. chart success. By March 2007 these successes had led to speculation that either another British Invasion was underway or a return to normalcy was occurring.

In 2008 Leona Lewis's single "Bleeding Love" would become the first number one single on U.S charts by a British female artist since 1986. Her album also reached number 1. Natasha Bedingfield and KT Tunstall's success continued in 2008. The year would also be successful for Duffy, Adele, Estelle, and M.I.A.. The success of these British women led to the reporting of a British female invasion. It was noted that as during the original invasion earthier and African-American styles from previous eras were being mined. Led by Coldplay, British acts received a total of 16 Grammy Awards. and 5 awards from the US Broadcast Music Incorporated.

Mick Jagger in early 2009 thought the success of British acts were having was caused by the diversity of their styles. A spokesmen for HMV Group, an entertainment retail chain, said that the catalyst for the success the British Acts were having was caused by Amy Winehouse and possibly American Idol host Simon Cowell.

Changes to years in lead
I honestly cannot understand what is being attempted here and the last edit summary doesn't make it any clearer. Perhaps a fuller explanation here would help. I have reverted the edit because as it stands it introduces (now 3) typographical errors. Asking for an (initially) unexplained change on the talkpage is not a means of edit warring - it is an attempt to avoid it.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is being attempted I think is clarification of what is meant by mid 1960's. Some definitions of mid 1960's do include 1963-1967. The edit is not technicality in violation of anything as the reliable source mentions both the mid 1960's and 64-66. The source is clear that their meaning of mid 1960's in 64-66. Since 64-66 are the years they are talking about why bring in the more vauge mid 1960's at all? Edkollin (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Edkollin. In that case why don't we drop the mid 60s and just give the years? Unless there are any major objections I will do the edit soon.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 07:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

New article for current female invasion?
This was put in during 2008 with following  a wave of mainstream press claims. This idea was shelved when we split the article it was felt the idea was a neologism after press interest and popular interest dropped The last year has seen considerable U.S. success by British Women and here is an analytical article by long term New York Daily News music scribe Jim Farber arguing for an “invasion” with quotes from industry heavyweights. Still not enough for new article but if this grows something to think about. Edkollin (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC) ~
 * Its a good point. I will do a scout for some more sources if I get some time. Since Adele's recent success there has been a lot more interest in the phenomenon. Not sure we have enough for an article yet, but its worth investigating.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 08:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reminder: When we dropped the section I left the section in a sandbox section anticipating this very possibility. It is located in the archive. By the way Jesse J debuted at number 11 on the Billboard 200 this week Edkollin (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are a few sources I turned up to add to the existing ones:, , and . The term seems to be in some common currency so it looks like there may be enough here to move on from a mere neologism.--'''  SabreBD  (talk ) 09:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These sources muddy the waters a bit, One source says the invasion doesn't exist, one says it's only soul while another uses a broader brush. And one notes album domination that included a male group. No consensus at this point of what it is. Let's see if newspapers like New York Times, and magazines like Spin and Rolling Stone (Adele on cover currently) chime in. Edkollin (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A BBC vote for non gender non particular sound invasion, We have established there has been a phenomenon. But not close on what to call it (resurgence?). Would work as a section of a general British music success in America article Edkollin (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC). ]. Will put something in the British Music of the 2000s which mentions the late 2000s "invasion" or 2010s if there is such an article Edkollin (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan in the circumstances.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 20:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to delete articles claim that " On December 17 James had Albert introduce "I Want to Hold Your Hand" live on the air, the first airing of a Beatles song in the United States
This dialogue is copied and paraphrased from Piriczki talk page

Source for articles claim http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/tweet-the-beatles-how-wal_b_239202.html

This claim is being disputed by user Piriczki because "the notion that the broadcast of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" on December 17, 1963 was "the first airing of a Beatles song in the United States" is clearly dubious to anyone with any knowledge of the subject. First of all, for that statement to be true, no other Beatle record could have been played even once by any radio station in the entire United States prior to December 17, 1963. Not only is that impossible to prove, just the idea of it is highly unlikely considering the Beatles already had three singles and an LP released in the U.S. by then. Just the fact that "From Me to You" bubbled under the Billboard Hot 100 for three weeks in August 1963 is an obvious indication that it received some airplay". Piriczki notes that a careful reading of the blog acknowledges "this overview of the Beatles' American breakthrough draws on information in an excellent book titled The Beatles Are Coming! The Birth Of Beatlemania In America by Bruce Spizer". If you had bothered to check that source, you would know that "Please Please Me" was #35 on WLS (AM) Chicago in March 1963 and "From Me to You" was #32 on KRLA 1110 Los Angeles in August 1963. If you had bothered to click on the links to those articles which I provided in my edit summary, you would be aware of the very well researched details of the U.S. airplay of those songs as documented by Spitzer."


 * The links that were given in the edit summery were other Wikipedia articles which are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Relevant page numbers in the Spitzer book would be helpful as well as Billboard chart links (I think unfortunately you have to pay for those). Please note if we do decide that the claim is wrong we should delete every bit of material in the article based from the Martin Lewis piece. We can't say he is wrong here and right on this point. Lewis is reliable or he is not. Of course material can be added back later on if reliable sourcing is found. Edkollin (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the incorrect material. The source material doesn't even say what the article was claiming it said. And clearly, The Beatles had several records on the air in the United States long before late 1963, as other editors have noted above. Famspear (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is what the source material actually states:


 * She introduces the record with the words "Ladies and gentlemen for the first time on the air in the United States - here are the Beatles singing 'I Want To Hold Your Hand.'"

The reference to "She" is to Marsha (or Marcia?) Albert, the young lady who was allowed to introduce the record on the air. This was not Mr. Martin Lewis himself claiming that this was the first time on the air. Nowhere in the sourced article (that I have found) does Mr. Lewis expressly make this claim himself. This was the young lady, Ms. Albert, making that claim. Not only was she not an authority on the subject, she wasn't even a radio disc jockey. She was simply someone that the announcer allowed on the air.

By the way, The single "I Want to Hold Your Hand", backed with "I Saw Her Standing There", was the fifth release of a Beatles single in the USA (if we count "My Bonnie" by Tony Sheridan and the Beat Brothers in April 1962 as the first). See the real authority on this point: Mark Lewisohn, The Complete Beatles Chronicle, p. 350 (Crown Publishers, New York, 1992). Famspear (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

According to The Complete Beatles Chronicle by Lewisohn, on page 350, the first four Beatles singles in the USA were:


 * My Bonnie/The Saints, April 23, 1962, Decca Records # 31382 (credited as "Tony Sheridan and the Beat Brothers").


 * Please Please Me/Ask Me Why, Feb. 25, 1963, Vee Jay Records #VJ498.


 * From Me To You/Thank You Girl, May 27, 1963, Vee Jay Records #VJ522.


 * She Loves You/I'll Get You, Sept. 16, 1963, Swan Records #4152.

Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, the first four releases (listed above) did not even chart on the Billboard Top 40 itself in 1963. They did not hit that chart until 1964. The first Capitol Records release, I Want To Hold Your Hand/I Saw Her Standing There was the first Beatles single to break the Billboard Top 40 in the United States (on January 25, 1964). I Want To Hold Your Hand was on the chart for 14 weeks, and was number 1 for seven of those weeks. I Saw Her Standing There was on the charts for 8 weeks, rising to #14. See Joel Whitburn, The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits, p. 43 (Billboard Publications 1992). The existence of the mere fact that a record is played on the radio does not mean that the record will "chart." However, She Loves You did ultimately hit the Billboard Top 40 chart, on February 1, 1964 (at #1 for two weeks); Please Please Me did so on February 22, 1964 (rising to #3); My Bonnie did so on March 7, 1964 (peaking at #26); and Thank You Girl on April 25, 1964 (at #35 on the chart).


 * One of the many, many remarkable things about The Beatles was the way they dominated popular music in much of the world, beginning in 1964. In the USA alone, The Beatles had nineteen top forty hits in just one year -- 1964. As far as I know, no other artist in music recording history has ever had anywhere close to that many hits in one year. Famspear (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the abrupt tone in the edit summary, had not seen this talk page discussion here. I thought with the spectacular amount of Beatles knowledge the claim would have been proven or dis-proven quickly.


 * POV: Hard to think of another Beatles record that would have aired prior to "I Want to Hold Your Hand" being played on US radio. Maybe college radio, not sure how indie/progressive they were in 1962 and 1963. Yes they the domination was incredible and there continued popularity is (2nd Most popular group among 18-24 year olds in US according to PEW a year or 2 ago). Edkollin (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Edkollin: Unless I missed something, the article doesn't really go into the details of the earlier Beatles' records. Those records most certainly were played on top 40 radio, but there's no urgent need to get into that in the article itself, anyway. By the way, in 1963, there was virtually no "indie" or "progressive" radio (in the sense in which I think you might be thinking), and college radio stations were also few and far between.
 * Early Beatles records are not in the article nor should they be because they are not notable to the British Invasion phenomenon. As for college radio what I meant was playing non-mainstream/"niche" music. For the period we are talking about an example would be having an in depth folk music program instead of just playing "If I Had a Hammer". You did have Top 40 stations that played local and regional hits that did not chart nationally but UK hits? Edkollin (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit ironic that the first three releases by The Beatles (the first four, if you count My Bonnie) did not break into the Billboard Top 40 until the year after their release. Famspear (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and by the way -- I have to disagree on your interpretation of what the source said. Please go back and review the source material, and then listen to the linked recording. The "source" is Mr. Lewis -- and he didn't "say" what the article claims he said. He was simply quoting what the young lady said. Famspear (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)