The same damn place the band is

Just recently, I spotted one that led you to believe that Elvis joined the crowd at the L.A. Forum to boogie on down with Tom Jones!

Such a rude, jealous person. And evidently blind, too:
http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73357&p=1100598#p1100598

Here on this topic, I've received no thanks for going out of my way to research and post -- at your request -- a definitive piece of evidence regarding this debate (Nash scan), on top of my latest extremely detailed, well-researched previous post. You're off the list. Bye!

---

So I'll just let the two of you slug it out!

There's nothing to "slug." He's been proven wrong, but chooses to make graceless put-down jokes rather than deal with the egg on his face. I don't go around making baseless declarations. Next.

P.S. -- Doc, please say something about my Beatles diatribe!

Your impassioned reply -- not diatribe -- is appreciated. It's just not quite right.

I can live with that.

And your research is appreciated!

Peace.

rjm

Just recently, I spotted one that led you to believe that Elvis joined the crowd at the L.A. Forum to boogie on down with Tom Jones!

Such a rude, jealous person.

Don't flatter yourself.

Here on this topic, I've received no thanks for going out of my way to research and post -- at your request -- a definitive piece of evidence regarding this debate (Nash scan), on top of my latest extremely detailed, well-researched previous post. You're off the list. Bye!

Read more carefully.

I asked for a scan of the alleged Hopkins quote that you cited here > viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73365#p1100614.

You couldn't/didn't.

However, the Nash scan you so kindly provided, underscores the point on how easily quotes can be misattributed.

For example, Nash writes, when supposedly quoting Jarvis:


"I remember him talking about the soundtrack Roustabout. They were cutting the title song, and he told the Jordanaires, 'Fellas, sing along with me on the chorus.' And the director [John Rich] ran out [in the studio] and said, 'Elvis, I don't think you understand where this song's going to be in the picture. You're riding down the highway on a motorcycle, singing. If the Jordanaires are singing, too, where are they supposed to be? And Elvis said, 'The same damn place the band is.' "


Straight away, to the eye of any keen observer, the full legitimacy of that supposed quote is brought into serious doubt when she writes:
"They were cutting the title song... I don't think you understand where this song's going to be in the picture. You're riding down the highway on a motorcycle, singing..."

Evidently, part of the quote appears to have been derived from the noted "Elvis Memories" documentary [portions of it are word for word] but much of it has been misleadingly embellished.

And I repeat, at no point does Jarvis refer to the "Roustabout" soundtrack, nor director John Rich, when relating the first-hand anecdote on George Klein's "Elvis Memories" documentary.

And again, as Jarvis remembered the occurrence in detail, the only song that fits would be "Who Needs Money" from the 1967 Felton Jarvis produced soundtrack, Clambake.

You believe your pre-Jarvis Roustabout (title track) and/or Wheels On My Heels scenario all you want.

So I'll just let the two of you slug it out!

There's nothing to "slug." He's been proven wrong, but chooses to make graceless put-down jokes rather than deal with the egg on his face. I don't go around making baseless declarations. Next.

Your problem is you don't like a taste of your own medicine. You can give it but you can't take it, right?


One final point:

I actually thought this was your post > viewtopic.php?f=1&t=73365#p1100555

The writing style is so similar, it's uncanny!

Very strange.

And your research is appreciated!

Thanks.

The reason I do the work and offer the results here is because of good members of FECC like you.

And your research is appreciated!

Thanks.

The reason I do the work and offer the results here is because of good members of FECC like you.

I for one really appreciate all the hard work and effort you put into your topics and replies.

You have answered many of my questions about our hero and I know I've learned alot from you.

So Thank You Doc! This message board is a better place because of you.

Mitch

This forum is a better place because of people like you, too, Mitch.

Hope you and family are doing OK, and thank you for your kind words.

It is almost midnight and I am off to bed so will look it up tomorrow. But I am 99.9% certain, that I have read that the above quote refers to 'Wheels On My Heels' from the film Roustabout.

Regarding the separate Elvis vs Beatles discussion which always turns up (and why not? as it makes for interesting discussion and they were the two most important acts in rock history) The Beatles 1964 US chart statistics as Doc has shown, are truly incredible. But in my opinion at this stage all they did was re-invent the wheel! with unprecedented success. They didn't really change things, like the way Elvis did in 1956 until they stopped touring and devoted all there time to studio work. After all records like 'Can't Buy Me Love' (which is one of my personal favourites) and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' are not any more progresive than 'Hound Dog' and other 1956 records that the other rock'n'rollers were putting out. As I have stated they just returned to the roots of rock music.

One of the main reasons for what does appear to be greater instantanious success is that all age groups took to them, (not just teens) as in their neat suits and ties they were not seen as a danger to the istablishment ( this came later) as the early Elvis had been. Also after all the pap sounds of the early '60's by the likes of Fabian, Frankie Avalon etc. (and auguably Elvis) Songs like 'She Loves You' were like a breath of fresh air just as 'Heartbreak Hotel' had been after such pap as 'How Much Is That Doggie In The Window'.

It is almost midnight and I am off to bed so will look it up tomorrow. But I am 99.9% certain, that I have read that the above quote refers to 'Wheels On My Heels' from the film Roustabout.

Yes, look it up tomorrow and let us know what you come up with.

Be sure not to disregard Felton Jarvis' first-hand account in favour of any misattributed / error-ridden quotes from third-parties. Thanks!

It is almost midnight and I am off to bed so will look it up tomorrow. But I am 99.9% certain, that I have read that the above quote refers to 'Wheels On My Heels' from the film Roustabout.

Yes, look it up tomorrow and let us know what you come up with.

Be sure not to disregard Felton Jarvis' first-hand account in favour of any misattributed / error-ridden quotes from third-parties. Thanks!

I really do NOT want prolong this, but I would like to see that video, in any event. If you have it, just point your phone camera, or other camera, up to the TV set, and then upload to YouTube! I would like to see it. (If you can transfer VHS tapes, please do, and upload, so we all can see it.)

rjm

I think we might be reading too much into Elvis' comments.

I took it as a little jab at the quality of the movie and of the whole movie formula.

If John Rich was being more professional good for him but who's to say what went on between him and Elvis.

I always thought they got along okay.

If Elvis wanted to make a joke or comment like that it should have been okay since he was the star and the whole reason the film was being made.

Also after all the pap sounds of the early '60's by the likes of Fabian, Frankie Avalon etc. (and auguably Elvis) Songs like 'She Loves You' were like a breath of fresh air just as 'Heartbreak Hotel' had been after such pap as 'How Much Is That Doggie In The Window'.

Here we go another unfair comment bashing early 60s music.

It is a myth that early 1960s music was terrible or that it was dominated by the likes of Fabian and Frankie Avalon.

The truth is there was a lot of great music in the early 60s it's just that every era runs it's course and then something new comes along.

The music business changes about every 3 or 4 years.

It so happens that the next generation of teenagers and the music business were ready for something different and so The Beatles and the british invasion reaped the rewards.

The British Invasion bands covered a lot of songs from the early 60s.

It is almost midnight and I am off to bed so will look it up tomorrow. But I am 99.9% certain, that I have read that the above quote refers to 'Wheels On My Heels' from the film Roustabout.

Regarding the separate Elvis vs Beatles discussion which always turns up (and why not? as it makes for interesting discussion and they were the two most important acts in rock history) The Beatles 1964 US chart statistics as Doc has shown, are truly incredible. But in my opinion at this stage all they did was re-invent the wheel! with unprecedented success. They didn't really change things, like the way Elvis did in 1956 until they stopped touring and devoted all there time to studio work. After all records like 'Can't Buy Me Love' (which is one of my personal favourites) and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' are not any more progresive than 'Hound Dog' and other 1956 records that the other rock'n'rollers were putting out. As I have stated they just returned to the roots of rock music.

Could not disagree more. But it's OK, history is on my side.

It is almost midnight and I am off to bed so will look it up tomorrow. But I am 99.9% certain, that I have read that the above quote refers to 'Wheels On My Heels' from the film Roustabout.

Regarding the separate Elvis vs Beatles discussion which always turns up (and why not? as it makes for interesting discussion and they were the two most important acts in rock history) The Beatles 1964 US chart statistics as Doc has shown, are truly incredible. But in my opinion at this stage all they did was re-invent the wheel! with unprecedented success. They didn't really change things, like the way Elvis did in 1956 until they stopped touring and devoted all there time to studio work. After all records like 'Can't Buy Me Love' (which is one of my personal favourites) and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' are not any more progresive than 'Hound Dog' and other 1956 records that the other rock'n'rollers were putting out. As I have stated they just returned to the roots of rock music.

One of the main reasons for what does appear to be greater instantanious success is that all age groups took to them, (not just teens) as in their neat suits and ties they were not seen as a danger to the istablishment ( this came later) as the early Elvis had been. Also after all the pap sounds of the early '60's by the likes of Fabian, Frankie Avalon etc. (and auguably Elvis) Songs like 'She Loves You' were like a breath of fresh air just as 'Heartbreak Hotel' had been after such pap as 'How Much Is That Doggie In The Window'.

My argument wasn't that they didn't "change things," because they did. It was WHAT they changed, that was significantly different, and the manner in which they did so. Elvis disturbed and actually subverted the norms and values of 1950s middle-class, middle-brow America, bringing us, in Bob Shelton's words "from illusion to reality." The Beatles did not do that in their explosive moment. I argue that they saved rock and roll from a potential early demise with a significant, and lasting paradigm shift. Now, the most important type of "artist" was a band. And the band was self-contained: while virtually all such bands did covers, their original material tended to be drummed up by the members of the band! And what's more, together! They altered, almost permanently (with some notable exceptions), the idea of the solo singing star, who primarily relied on songs written by professional, non-performing songwriters. Even the greatest earlier bands tended to rely on a single frontman, such as Buddy Holly. The Crickets turned out to be something of an afterthought (that's no kick against them, but Holly was the ballgame). Jerry Lee, Carl, Chuck, Richard, they were all individual stars with bands. And with Motown, you had artists who had almost NO creative control; the same applies to Spector's Wall of Sound. If the studio musicians didn't care for his Draconian approach, they simply walked out of the session. (And it was worse than that, of course.) If someone walks out on a band, it's the beginning of "a break-up." Before, it wasn't seen as all that significant for musicians to be simply replaced. Elvis, after all, really was never a "Blue Moon Boy." They were his band, but he wasn't in a position of equality. So, you can't even argue that they "broke up." They were never a self-contained unit to begin with.

This change mattered to THE MUSIC. And, yes, the music mattered to society. But I would argue that the only reason the music mattered to society is because Elvis set that pattern - a rather new pattern, before they came along. We're not talking about "message songs" as affecting society because the lyrics made a critique; that goes way back before any of 'em. It was THE MUSIC itself, that could change society. And the Beatles were a part of something - "the music" - that already existed, but was in some jeopardy. And that might well have perished without them.

They changed the way it was done - no small thing, and also saved it from a kind of let-down caused by a series of disasters in the late-'50s, early '60s, and they not only re-energized the music, but pointed out musical directions no one really tried before. Dylan was fascinated by the chords in their songs.

The songs had a lot of chords! But what he saw, as a musician, as a lot chords, were really a lot of HOOKS! The songs were the catchiest things ever heard. They somehow were able to overload the songs with hooks, and make it all gel. And it was intensely "happy music," at a time when the United States was "unhappy": we'd just lost our President to a violent assault in late 1963, and I know it's an old "theory," but I feel it's true. (I wish I was old enough to know how it felt, but I'm not. All I knew about the Beatles was that a lyric in "There Was A Farmer Who Had A Dog" was changed to "and Ringo was his name-o." The first Beatles' song I ever remember hearing was around Halloween of '64, and they weren't even singing. Dick Clark, on Bandstand, played a faux-Beatles band singing "I Wanna Bite Your Neck" for Halloween.) They made us "happy" again. That's why they could get away with words like "I wanna hold your hand," or "she loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah" and not be laughed out off the edge of the earth. (Elvis never wanted to "hold your hand." He had a woman almost as mean as him . . . with some exceptions in the early days, Elvis generally only sang "take-no-prisoners" lyrics. A lot of sex and death themes. And a lot of anger and rage. "They said you was high-classed, but that was just a lie!" He sang that right in the face of the America who hated his very existence in their world. And it was a lie. He basically told a whole society that they were a fraud. "Frustrated old types," he called them. They didn't like that.)

Elvis might have liked the early Beatles' rock and roll better than their "experiment"ation later on, but I'm sure he noted that "Run For Your Life" was an homage to "Baby, Let's Play House." And he clearly felt that "Get Back" owed a little something to "Little Sister."

I can't think of two popular explosions (Marcus's expression) that were so close together, chronologically. They weren't as young as Elvis when they exploded, and were actually performing in Germany in 1960 (Elvis was in Germany in 1960). So I imagine he never expected anything like that to happen at that time: in 1964, in February, he had just turned 29. He thought he could just coast along on his legend, I guess, and deal with the indignities of "the movies" as a temporary condition. It would pass, and then move on to "serious pictures" when he was a little older, and go back to doing concerts when the Col. thought it appropriate. And BAM! Something happened. While he was napping. And right at that time, he found himself stuck in this horrendous grind, humiliated further by the publicity stunt "visit" from the Beatles in '65, when John Lennon asked him why he didn't do good music anymore. Man, that had to bite. Lennon wanted to know why he didn't even seem to care! (And he did care . . .) Lennon was basically saying: "hey man, why don't you fight back? What's wrong with you?"

(There's even a song where they mock his movie songs, but I can't remember it.)

I know, the topic has veered off, and frankly, I'm glad of it! (I know: why not start a new topic? Because there are plenty of "Elvis vs. Beatles" topics, but this one put it into a particular context, which I think is interesting.)

rjm
P.S. -- Whoa! A lot of comments in my absence. I hope maybe my clarification will be appreciated? They changed things. I just think it needed to be broken down piece by piece, so we know exactly what was changed, how, and by whom.

Last edited by rjm on Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

My argument wasn't that they didn't "change things," because they did. It was WHAT they changed, that was significantly different, and the manner in which they did so. Elvis disturbed and actually subverted the norms and values of 1950s middle-class, middle-brow America, bringing us, in Bob Shelton's words "from illusion to reality." The Beatles did not do that in their explosive moment.

They certainly did do exactly that. The '60s before the Beatles and the '60s after the Beatles are very different. EVERYTHING changed, from music to popular culture to politics and mores. One suspects people on this forum don't want to accept this reality because it will somehow diminish the subject of this forum. It doesn't.

My argument wasn't that they didn't "change things," because they did. It was WHAT they changed, that was significantly different, and the manner in which they did so. Elvis disturbed and actually subverted the norms and values of 1950s middle-class, middle-brow America, bringing us, in Bob Shelton's words "from illusion to reality." The Beatles did not do that in their explosive moment.

They certainly did do exactly that. The '60s before the Beatles and the '60s after the Beatles are very different. EVERYTHING changed, from music to popular culture to politics and mores. One suspects people on this forum don't want to accept this reality because it will somehow diminish the subject of this forum. It doesn't.

I would argue that it certainly wasn't just the Beatles alone who "created" the 1960s, certainly not with their first wave of explosive success. Was 1965 all that different than 1963, in terms of social customs?

So many things happened at once, one after another. First, Kennedy was killed, and that really broke things in half. We were no longer naive about anything anymore: that was our loss of innocence that created the '60s, and none of this would have happened without that event. The civil rights movement was in full swing before the Beatles' advent here. And Vietnam began as a ground war after August '64 (through '65, when it shifted more from the air to the ground). Without Vietnam, and the lie of that war, which killed the kids who were fans of the Beatles, the changes we all know about would not have happened.

Bands existed because of the Beatles, but what the bands did had as least as much to do with social conditions directly affecting baby boomers, as "the music" to which they gave new meaning. If the Beatles had happened outside of this historical context, I seriously doubt we'd see any of this the same way in retrospect.

And no, it's not blind fandom. Not at this point. I've had time to think about it. Look, maybe I'm wrong. But I just don't think so.

rjm (And what exactly did Elvis do, then? Was he a "trend"? A sexier version of "The Twist"? This is not trivial. And it's certainly not an argument confined to this forum; it's an old argument, that I think has been treated seriously in the past. And maybe it's not settled. Maybe it won't be settled. That's okay. Anyway, I'm sure we both agree that Frank Sinatra didn't change the world. {Although Greystoke will have both our heads, if that's true! } )

P.S. -- NO ONE can discount how GREAT this is!!! (And in the 21st century, that's what matters most of all.)

Also after all the pap sounds of the early '60's by the likes of Fabian, Frankie Avalon etc. (and auguably Elvis) Songs like 'She Loves You' were like a breath of fresh air just as 'Heartbreak Hotel' had been after such pap as 'How Much Is That Doggie In The Window'.

Here we go another unfair comment bashing early 60s music.

It is a myth that early 1960s music was terrible or that it was dominated by the likes of Fabian and Frankie Avalon.

The truth is there was a lot of great music in the early 60s it's just that every era runs it's course and then something new comes along.

The music business changes about every 3 or 4 years.

It so happens that the next generation of teenagers and the music business were ready for something different and so The Beatles and the british invasion reaped the rewards.

The British Invasion bands covered a lot of songs from the early 60s.

I was not intending to bash all early '60's music, for examble now that I am more mature Elvis's music from 1960 to '63 is now some of my favourite from his whole career, but certainly wasn't at the time. What I was trying to point out was my take on the success of the Beatles. After the raw musical explosion in 1956, over the next few years it came of age and became more sophisticated with added strings and generally more 'young' adult in general as against raw teen. However great 'She's Not You' is (and I agree that it is) it lacks the excitment of 'Hound Dog'. After several years of this 'taming' the British groups led by the Beatles took it straight back to the feel of 1956 with more raw aggression, and a whole new generation who hadn't experienced the 1956 explosion took to it as brand new. This cycle has been repeated over the years. Punk in the '70's took music back to basics after all the clam rock that came before.

I was still only 17 in 1963 and wasn't ready for the more 'adult' music of the previous few years, so at the time was very pleased with the return to basics of the Beatles, Stones etc.

Hope that I have managed to explain myself.

It is almost midnight and I am off to bed so will look it up tomorrow. But I am 99.9% certain, that I have read that the above quote refers to 'Wheels On My Heels' from the film Roustabout.

Regarding the separate Elvis vs Beatles discussion which always turns up (and why not? as it makes for interesting discussion and they were the two most important acts in rock history) The Beatles 1964 US chart statistics as Doc has shown, are truly incredible. But in my opinion at this stage all they did was re-invent the wheel! with unprecedented success. They didn't really change things, like the way Elvis did in 1956 until they stopped touring and devoted all there time to studio work. After all records like 'Can't Buy Me Love' (which is one of my personal favourites) and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' are not any more progresive than 'Hound Dog' and other 1956 records that the other rock'n'rollers were putting out. As I have stated they just returned to the roots of rock music.

Could not disagree more. But it's OK, history is on my side.

Interesting, as far as the US is concerned you may be right. It is apparent that The Beatles had the same influence on American culture in 1964 as Elvis had in Britain in 1956. The UK in the late '50's was a very different place from the early '50's due, in no small part, to the influence to us kids to all things American, led by the rock'n'roll explosion first briefly by Bill Haley but thundered home by Elvis Presley. Britain, as the '60's proved, would never be the same again, and one man more than any other bought this on. Elvis Presley changed all our lives from John Lenon, Mick Jagger, Elton John, David Bowe and myself

1. And I am not not one of those Elvis-nuts with two dozen Elvis-plates hanging from the walls! I have no "Elvis Room."

rjm, after reading what you wrote above Rob is no longer speaking to you. He has asked me to inform you that you will never be invited to his Elvis room!

It is almost midnight and I am off to bed so will look it up tomorrow. But I am 99.9% certain, that I have read that the above quote refers to 'Wheels On My Heels' from the film Roustabout.

Yes, look it up tomorrow and let us know what you come up with.

Be sure not to disregard Felton Jarvis' first-hand account in favour of any misattributed / error-ridden quotes from third-parties. Thanks!

The only quote that I have found is from the 2008 book 'The Elvis Encyclopedia'. This isn't where I first heard it, as that is now lost in time over the previous 48 years, but it does, to myself anyway, substanciate what I did already 99.9% know!

"Elvis later had a row with the director when he refused to allow Elvis to use the Jordinaires to back him for one of the songs. Rich's reasoning was that it would beggar believability to have back-up singing in a movie scene where Elvis sings while riding a motorbike. Rich asked Elvis where he intended to place the backing singers in the shot; Elvis replied "Same damn place as the band!" "

I would have to agree that above statement doesn't make it 100% definate that this happenned on this movie, and I also admit that I have never read Felton Jarvis' account of this. But it does make sense as John Rich was trying to make a more serious film than Elvis' previous few.

It is almost midnight and I am off to bed so will look it up tomorrow. But I am 99.9% certain, that I have read that the above quote refers to 'Wheels On My Heels' from the film Roustabout.

Yes, look it up tomorrow and let us know what you come up with.
Be sure not to disregard Felton Jarvis' first-hand account in favour of any misattributed / error-ridden quotes from third-parties. Thanks!

I really do NOT want prolong this, but I would like to see that video, in any event. If you have it, just point your phone camera, or other camera, up to the TV set, and then upload to YouTube! I would like to see it. (If you can transfer VHS tapes, please do, and upload, so we all can see it.)
rjm

Don't have a YouTube account, but I have gone to the trouble of transcribing for you what Felton Jarvis actually says:


"I never will forget, he was cutting a session one time for one of the soundtracks for a movie. And Elvis says 'I want the Jordanaires to sing along on the chorus with me on this.' A Hollywood director came running in, and says, 'Oh no Elvis, you don't understand where this song is going to be used in the movie.' He says, 'You're riding down the highway on a motorcycle when you're singing this song.' He said, 'Where would the voices be?' Elvis said, 'The same damn place the band is!' "


As you can see, it is told in the first-person narrative, plus there is no mention of "Roustabout" and/or "Wheels On My Heels" nor John Rich.

And I'm not getting at you personally, rjm, but I think it's a damn shame other forum members aren't questioned so readily on other threads, instead of the usual hysterical over-the-top hero worship that we so often.
Perhaps then, that would encourage others to be more methodical in their research and use a little common sense once in a while.

Thank you.

It is almost midnight and I am off to bed so will look it up tomorrow. But I am 99.9% certain, that I have read that the above quote refers to 'Wheels On My Heels' from the film Roustabout.

Yes, look it up tomorrow and let us know what you come up with.
Be sure not to disregard Felton Jarvis' first-hand account in favour of any misattributed / error-ridden quotes from third-parties. Thanks!

The only quote that I have found...

No problem, Chris.

You will note the precise and unpolluted Jarvis quote above.

Also after all the pap sounds of the early '60's by the likes of Fabian, Frankie Avalon etc. (and auguably Elvis) Songs like 'She Loves You' were like a breath of fresh air just as 'Heartbreak Hotel' had been after such pap as 'How Much Is That Doggie In The Window'.

Here we go another unfair comment bashing early 60s music.

It is a myth that early 1960s music was terrible or that it was dominated by the likes of Fabian and Frankie Avalon.

The truth is there was a lot of great music in the early 60s it's just that every era runs it's course and then something new comes along.

The music business changes about every 3 or 4 years.

It so happens that the next generation of teenagers and the music business were ready for something different and so The Beatles and the british invasion reaped the rewards.

The British Invasion bands covered a lot of songs from the early 60s.

I was not intending to bash all early '60's music, for examble now that I am more mature Elvis's music from 1960 to '63 is now some of my favourite from his whole career, but certainly wasn't at the time. What I was trying to point out was my take on the success of the Beatles. After the raw musical explosion in 1956, over the next few years it came of age and became more sophisticated with added strings and generally more 'young' adult in general as against raw teen. However great 'She's Not You' is (and I agree that it is) it lacks the excitment of 'Hound Dog'. After several years of this 'taming' the British groups led by the Beatles took it straight back to the feel of 1956 with more raw aggression, and a whole new generation who hadn't experienced the 1956 explosion took to it as brand new. This cycle has been repeated over the years. Punk in the '70's took music back to basics after all the clam rock that came before.

I was still only 17 in 1963 and wasn't ready for the more 'adult' music of the previous few years, so at the time was very pleased with the return to basics of the Beatles, Stones etc.

Hope that I have managed to explain myself.

You are just taking certain rock n' roll records and also using Elvis' change in style to demonstrate that music at that time was tame and The Beatles brought back the raw aggression.

I don't agree with that because that's not what everyone was doing in the early 60s and that's not a totally accurate representation of the era.

I could also name off a bunch of British invasion era bands that weren't raw rock n' roll either.

It is true that the teenagers of the time who were too young and not into music before got into it when the Beatles came on the scene.

As i said i don't think it had anything to do with people not liking the early 60s music it's just that that era had passed.

The next generation of teenagers wanted something different and their own musical idols apart from their older brothers and sisters.

If Elvis was singing raw rock n' roll all the time in the early 60s the British invasion still would have happened.

Punk music sucked and only lasted for a couple of years.

I would argue that it certainly wasn't just the Beatles alone who "created" the 1960s, certainly not with their first wave of explosive success. Was 1965 all that different than 1963, in terms of social customs?

Absolutely, yes.

Here is rocker Steve Van Zandt's take on the moment when everything changed, from UNCUT (Take 145, June 2009) -->

The British Invasion really hit big on February 9, 1964, when the Beatles played The Ed Sullivan Show, which the entire family used to watch -- a mass shared experience, which we really don't have anymore.

[ snip ]

The impact of seeing the Beatles was equivalent to a flying saucer landing in Hyde Park. We'd never seen anything like it. They were young, their hair was different, their clothes were different, their attitude was different, the sound was different, and they just exuded hope and the exhilaration of unlimited possibility. It was that much joy being communicated.

Anyway, on February 8, 1964 there were no bands in America. On February 10, everybody had one.

This great topic has more:

Marcus --> How Rock Changed Between 1956 and 1964
http://www.elvis-collectors.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45429

Punk music sucked and only lasted for a couple of years.

Such vacant commentary adds absolutely nothing to the conversation, but speaks volumes about your critical acumen.

Punk music sucked and only lasted for a couple of years.

Such vacant commentary adds absolutely nothing to the conversation, but speaks volumes about your critical acumen.

I don't agree with that.

Why are we discussing punk rock or the Beatles anyway.