Why 1964?

[firepoint525]

Many Top 40 stations were mass appeal and "full service" back in the 60's. Even if parents hated the music they'd listen to a Top 40 station because they had the best and fastest news department. Some Top 40's played more MOR or (especially in the south) Country crossovers in the morning-early afternoon to appeal to adults when the teenagers were in school. So little wonder why something like "Hello Dolly" made #1.

That trend continued right on into the '70s as well. I grew up in a small town that had only one AM station. (There was also an FM in town by then, but it was automated at the time.) They played country from sign-on until about 7:00 a.m., then AC music throughout the day, not going full-fledged top 40 until 3:00 p.m. They were like that for years!

 

[radiobum]

In one sense I think that we were ready for the Beatles, and pop culture was ripe for the taking at the time:

The Beatles in particular and The British Invasion in general helped mostly younger people get over the pall in the air that was left over from the Kennedy Assassination.

The time between the JFK tragedy and the Beatles' first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show (2-9-64) was only 79 days, but the time was right for the mourning amongst the young to end.

As someone else used to say, and now you know the rest of the story.

I'VE HEARD THIS THEORY TOO ABOUT THE JFK ASSASSINATION. I READ THAT ATLANTIC CONSIDERED THE BEATLES BUT JERRY WEXLER DIDN'T LIKE THEM !

I REMEMBER RETURNING FROM A MEXICAN SUMMER WITH MY PARENTS AND GOING TO THE RECORD STORE AND ASKING WHAT THE BIGGEST SONGS WERE. THEY PLAYED ME 'WHERE DID OUR LOVE GO' BY THE SUPREMES AND 'HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN' BY THE ANIMALS...never get tired of that one.

 

[trusty]

But I disagree that radio provided better coverage than television.

Let's not compare apples and oranges here.

Even if parents hated the music they'd listen to a Top 40 station because they had the best and fastest news department.

The quote is not a comparison between radio and TV. It's a comparison between the news departments of Top 40 stations and other stations.

When I got home later, she told me that the radio news was quicker and more concise than the TV networks.

Two different mediums. "Quicker and more concise" doesn't mean "better".

---

In 1964 this country was overly ripe for a music invasion. The raw life that had been in the early rock and roll music had almost been sanitized out of existence. Take a quick look at the List of Cash Box Number-One Singles from 1959-1963. You have your white teen idols, orchestras, novelty songs, etc. The popularity of black artists was suppressed. The energy was on life support. Even Elvis, who had just come back from a stint in the Army, was singing watered-down melodies like "It's Now or Never" and "Are You Lonesome Tonight?" We were starving for something new, different and daring. When they began, the Beatles brought back a LOT of black American songs that had not been given a chance in the mainstream.

 

[Thomps2525]

Some of the British groups---most notably the Beatles and Rolling Stones---were recording in 1962 or 1963. I wonder why US radio didn't play them then? Anyway, I've heard many people say that American rock'n'roll might have died out if the "British invasion" hadn't happened. A year that saw top-ten hits by the Angels, Miracles, Kingsmen, Impressions, Chiffons, Drifters, Surfaris, Beach Boys, Four Seasons, Dion, Jackie Wilson, Jimmy Gilmer, Jan & Dean, Randy & the Rainbows, Martha & the Vandellas, Peter Paul & Mary, Lesley Gore and Stevie Wonder certainly didn't make me think rock'n'roll was dying. (You'll notice I omitted Elvis Presley's name. That's because I don't want anyone bringing up Bossa Nova Baby. )

 

[radioman148]

Some of the British groups---most notably the Beatles and Rolling Stones---were recording in 1962 or 1963. I wonder why US radio didn't play them then? Anyway, I've heard many people say that American rock'n'roll might have died out if the "British invasion" hadn't happened. A year that saw top-ten hits by the Angels, Miracles, Kingsmen, Impressions, Chiffons, Drifters, Surfaris, Beach Boys, Four Seasons, Dion, Jackie Wilson, Jimmy Gilmer, Jan & Dean, Randy & the Rainbows, Martha & the Vandellas, Peter Paul & Mary, Lesley Gore and Stevie Wonder certainly didn't make me think rock'n'roll was dying. (You'll notice I omitted Elvis Presley's name. That's because I don't want anyone bringing up Bossa Nova Baby. )

I thought 1963 was a very good year for music & I'm quite certain Rock & Roll would have survived fine without the British Invasion--and I'm not knocking the BI.
BTW: I liked "Bossa Nova Baby." ;D

 

[firepoint525]

I thought 1963 was a very good year for music & I'm quite certain Rock & Roll would have survived fine without the British Invasion--and I'm not knocking the BI.
BTW: I liked "Bossa Nova Baby." ;D

One of his better songs from that time frame! And wasn't "Viva Las Vegas" also from the early '60s?

 

[firepoint525]

In 1964 this country was overly ripe for a music invasion. The raw life that had been in the early rock and roll music had almost been sanitized out of existence. Take a quick look at the List of Cash Box Number-One Singles from 1959-1963. You have your white teen idols, orchestras, novelty songs, etc. The popularity of black artists was suppressed. The energy was on life support. Even Elvis, who had just come back from a stint in the Army, was singing watered-down melodies like "It's Now or Never" and "Are You Lonesome Tonight?" We were starving for something new, different and daring. When they began, the Beatles brought back a LOT of black American songs that had not been given a chance in the mainstream.

Not entirely true. Many of the early "girl groups" were black. (Except for the Angels, I believe.) Motown was just getting started about that time. And "Tossin' and Turnin'" by Bobby Lewis was one of the biggest hits from this time frame. And let's not forget Chubby Checker.

 

[radioman148]

I thought 1963 was a very good year for music & I'm quite certain Rock & Roll would have survived fine without the British Invasion--and I'm not knocking the BI.
BTW: I liked "Bossa Nova Baby." ;D

One of his better songs from that time frame! And wasn't "Viva Las Vegas" also from the early '60s?

Yes it was!

 

[Thomps2525]

I defend 1963 by noting many of the artists who had top-ten hits that year...but 1963 also gave us Let's Turkey Trot by Little Eva, Harry The Hairy Ape by Ray Stevens, Hi-Lili Hi-Lo by Richard Chamberlain, Little Eefin Annie by Joe Perkins, Pepino's Friend Pasqual by Lou Monte, Puddin N' Tain by the Alley Cats, Who Stole The Keeshka by the Matys Brothers, and Oo-La-La Limbo by Danny & the Juniors. Yikes!

 

[radioman148]

I defend 1963 by noting many of the artists who had top-ten hits that year...but 1963 also gave us Let's Turkey Trot by Little Eva, Harry The Hairy Ape by Ray Stevens, Hi-Lili Hi-Lo by Richard Chamberlain, Little Eefin Annie by Joe Perkins, Pepino's Friend Pasqual by Lou Monte, Puddin N' Tain by the Alley Cats, Who Stole The Keeshka by the Matys Brothers, and Oo-La-La Limbo by Danny & the Juniors. Yikes!

You can find lousy songs in any year.

 

[Thomps2525]

I could start a poll and ask everyone which year had the most lousy songs...but I'm afraid of starting a never-ending discussion that would escalate into a flame war.

 

[oldies76]

From the 80's, probably 1988 or 1989...too many undeserving #1 hits those years.

From the 70's....hard to say...maybe 1973 or '74....lots of slower a/c songs, but if you hated disco, then 1978 or '79

1960's, the British Invasion of 1964-65 & the Psychedelic movement of the late 60's was too good...it would have to be pre '64....but heck I like those songs too!

1950's, it would have to be pre 1955, but that was another music era and had it's own gems as well.

 

[Thomps2525]

Since I do not like rap or hip-hop, at least not since the late 1980s and early '90s when there were some fun songs such as Jump and Cars With The Boom and U Can't Touch This, I'd probably say that the worst music came out between 1995 and 2012...and 2013 is just a few weeks away. I'll add that year later.

I agree with you about the undeserving number-one hits of 1988-89: Monkey? Foolish Beat? Don't Worry Be Happy? Toy Soldiers? And Batdance? Yikes!

 

[oldies76]

I agree with you about the undeserving number-one hits of 1988-89: Monkey? Foolish Beat? Don't Worry Be Happy? Toy Soldiers? And Batdance? Yikes!

64 #1 songs in just those two years, crazy huh? Batdance is terrible! Phil Collins "Another Day in Paradise" is good though, one of my favorites from Phil.

As for 2012 music, actually there has been some good songs this year, Gotye's "Somebody That I Used To Know" is one of a kind. Or try, Of Monsters and Men "Little Talks"

 

[firepoint525]

I agree with you about the undeserving number-one hits of 1988-89: Monkey? Foolish Beat? Don't Worry Be Happy? Toy Soldiers? And Batdance? Yikes!

64 #1 songs in just those two years, crazy huh? Batdance is terrible! Phil Collins "Another Day in Paradise" is good though, one of my favorites from Phil.

Got to remember that 1988 and 1989 were years of very fast turnover on the charts. Most of those #1s were only able to spend a week or two at #1. Those were also the years in which many artists (Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, Def Leppard, George Michael, INXS, Taylor Dayne, and probably some others) were all still charting in late 1988 with singles from their 1987 albums! Many of these artists released five, six, and even seven singles from the same album, which resulted in songs that were by then over a year old just starting to receive radio airplay! I believe that the "staleness" from all of these, by then over a year old, songs was a factor in the late '80s rerelease craze, in which songs from earlier in the '80s, like "Red Red Wine" by UB40, and "When I'm With You" by Sheriff, reached #1. Indeed, in early 1989, we had a situation in which a song from 1982 ("When I'm With You") held a single from a 1987 album ("Don't Rush Me" by Taylor Dayne) out of the #1 position.

 

[oldies76]

Many of these artists released five, six, and even seven singles from the same album, which resulted in songs that were by then over a year old just starting to receive radio airplay!

1987's "Bad" album by Michael Jackson yielded five #1's:

I Just Can't Stop Loving You - 1987
Bad - 1987
Way You Make Me Feel - 1988
Man in the Mirror - 1988
Dirty Diana - 1988

and then you had George Michael's five #1 songs off the "Faith" album.

70 #1 songs also from 1974-75!

 

[KFodor]

All of this discussion is irrelevant, since it is not how high a song got on the charts that determines its staying power...there are dozens of #1 hits from the 50's thru the 80's that will not draw flies on the air today. It's finding the songs that have that staying power with the listeners today that matters.

As to why 1964? America was coming off of a national bummer following the assassination of JFK and the perception of a "fresh, new" sound from the Beatles and the British Invasion groups lifted the spirits of the country then. Add to that the fact that the Beatles were serious musicians got the music away from the manufactured "teen idols", some of whom, history notes, couldn't legitimately sing a note...

Still, it's interesting that so many different sounds began in years that end in "4"...

 

[Thomps2525]

An interesting theory. 1944 saw the chart debut of singer/songwriter Johnny Mercer and Hollywood musical star Betty Hutton...and Andy Williams made his debut that year too, singing with his three brothers on Bing Crosby's Swingin' On A Star. 1954 marked the debut of Elvis Presley, Faye Adams, Crows, Chords, Crew-Cuts, Moonglows and Penguins. 1964 marked the debut of.....of.....oh, I can't think of anyone.

(Now let's see who takes me seriously there.)

 

[oldies76]

2014?? :

 

[firepoint525]

All of this discussion is irrelevant, since it is not how high a song got on the charts that determines its staying power...there are dozens of #1 hits from the 50's thru the 80's that will not draw flies on the air today. It's finding the songs that have that staying power with the listeners today that matters.
As to why 1964? America was coming off of a national bummer following the assassination of JFK and the perception of a "fresh, new" sound from the Beatles and the British Invasion groups lifted the spirits of the country then. Add to that the fact that the Beatles were serious musicians got the music away from the manufactured "teen idols", some of whom, history notes, couldn't legitimately sing a note...
Still, it's interesting that so many different sounds began in years that end in "4"...

You can always tell who didn't read through the thread first before posting a reply.... :