Talk:Beat music

Why not "Merseybeat"?

I don't understand why this article is not called "Merseybeat". The scene in and around Liverpool, specifically, in the early 1960s, was sufficiently distinct and influential to warrant an article on its own, without being subsumed within a wider and more general "Beat music" article. The term itself is widely used as a style of music. "Beat music" in its wider sense - incorporating the simultaneous genres/cultures in other parts of the world - is certainly entitled to have an article, but it shouldn't be this one. Essentially I think most of this article should be split off into "Merseybeat". Views anyone? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is: the term "Merseybeat" is ambiguous. Just put "Merseybeat" into the search field and you will get: Mersey sound. The article would end up being named "Merseybeat (musical genre)" or similar ... I'd prefer "Beat music". (E-Kartoffel (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

But "Beat music" is an extraordinarily wide concept, and "Merseybeat (musical genre)" could be a much more focused and more interesting article. I don't think disambiguation should be a problem. The current article falls between several stools in my view - it doesn't really say much about "beat music" in the wider sense, and makes some very odd statements like "The Liverpool accent has a role to play in the overall sound" - of Merseybeat perhaps, but not of "beat music". I'll bear in mind your comments - and anyone else who wants to chip in - but I'll also add it to my "to do" list as I think that the article could be much improved if it were split, changed around, and additional material (not lists) put in. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

And to think I was toying with making Beatles music a genre and calling it Scouser-pop (in the same way that there's a J-pop or a K-pop)... — Rickyrab | Talk 04:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Kinks & The Rolling Stones

Were they beat bands? I know The Moody Blues were, It's very easy to notice with songs such as Peak Hour and the ones in The Magnificent Moodies album. Stratogustav (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I just started pulling some of the other nonBEAT bands out. Let's see what that churns up. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I was asking for inclusion not exlusion. Stratogustav (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

On the whole I would agree with the deletions. I have to say I am not a fan of lists of acts and bands in articles and prefer them to be in seperate articles. That said it is extremely difficult to define which were beat bands. The Rolling Stones are often held up in contrast to beat music as being more influenced by R&B and then blues, but their early work included pretty much the same mix of rock and roll covers and pop standards as the Beatles. It cannot be done by place, as DC5 were London based and quintessentially a beat band. Confusingly most of the "Brumbeat" bands were actually more blues influenced. When I cleaned-up this article a few months ago I don't think I drew the definition clearly enough between . I will go back to the books and see if I can find a clearer definition used by commentators.--SabreBD (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually understand what I did, cutting the Zombies, etc. The article in question begins with " (for bands from Liverpool beside the River Mersey)". I take this fairly seriously and if I should not then let's change that, at which case the article might as well be British Invasion. I'm having a bit of the same problem over at List of British blues musicians. Does the fact that the Zombies included Got My Mojo Working on their first album make them a blues band ? No more than it makes them a Beat Band, in my opinion. Carptrash (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference to Liverpool is in brackets because it refers to those bands being called Merseybeat, while bands from elsewhere in the same genre are known as beat bands.--SabreBD (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gottcha. In which case the next sentence "The beat movement provided most of the bands responsible for the British invasion " means that I will probably retire from this article. It's too complicated. I remember reading in Melody Maker bands insisting that they were not Beat bands, they were R&B, or they were not R&B they were Blues etc. I think that this is a Gordian Knot and I'm no Alexander. EInar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

More examples!

Article should cite more examples of Beat bands. For example, citing Gerry and the Pacemakers but not the Dave Clark Five, when the latter was the only Beat group other than The Beatles to have a hit single in the US, seems arbitrary.

The Moody Blues, The Who, The Hollies, The Yardbirds and The Zombies also had hits in U.S.. Stratogustav (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But some are considered more British rhythm and blues than beat music.--SabreBD (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, to avoid confusion, it might be mentioned that The Beatles later moved away from the specific conventions of Beat music, and recorded much that didn't resemble their earlier Mersey sound at all. Lil129.93.65.230 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

?????

"Beat music" is a sub-genre at best, part of the larger rock and even larger pop universes. It's probably more accurately a "sound", characteristics of rock music as played by individuals from a certain geographic location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.238.84 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Beat music is very well accepted as a distinctive sub-genre. It is not the same thing as the British Invasion, as not all beat bands were in the invasion, and not all bands in the invasion were beat bands. It is legitimate to deal with it separately in its own article.--Sabrebd (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

This page has been moved from Beat (music) to Merseybeat. There was no discussion of the move and the only discussion about the issue above resulted, at best, in no consensus for a move. It is also clear from the article that the genre is wider than just Merseybeat. It should be moved back.--SabreBD (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with SabreBD, and have commented on SilkTork's talk page. It should be moved back, and there then be a discussion here on what should happen. SilkTork appears to believe that the term "Merseybeat" was coined before "beat music", which is completely wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: ...and don't be too confused by my comment above ("I don't understand why this article is not called "Merseybeat"...."). The article has developed since 2008. There need to be two articles - "Beat music" and "Merseybeat". This, I assumed, was intended to be the first of those, although the content was heavily skewed towards the Merseybeat sub-genre. Much work needs to be done but I don't think SilkTork's approach is the way to do it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

PPS: I've reverted the text to the longstanding version, with a few minor tweaks for clarification - although I haven't tried to revert the page move, because I guess that will need an admin and we may as well wait to resolve the situation here first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm here to second the emotion that thre be two articles. They are not the same thing and having two articles will allow us to fine tune the differences. Somebody going looking for an admin? Carptrash (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've suggested to SilkTork that we should agree a way ahead here by consensus first, but if others want to go ahead and revert the move there'll be no objection from me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've now gone ahead and reverted the move, on the basis of what seems to be a clear view here. I think we should expand this article, and then in time create a separate linked article on Merseybeat. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I will get back to this when I am less busy, unless someone else beats me to it.--SabreBD (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Manchester on the Mersey?

I propose that `Manchester' be removed from the section on Merseybeat or the Mersey sound. Manchester-based bands are/were not `Merseybeat' bands because Mancunians (inhabitants of Manchester) do not view themselves as Merseysiders and the cities of Manchester and Liverpool have s strong sense of separate identity and rivalry, to put it mildly. The fact that some Mersey tributaries pass through some Manchester suburbs is not the point. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the text or the list of bands?--SabreBD (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've assumed that the problem concerned the opening sentence, with the change made in this edit. Manchester bands were never "Merseybeat", so I've corrected the wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Does it matter

that the article states, "The most common instrumentation of beat groups featured lead, rhythm and bass guitars plus drums, as popularised by The Beatles, The Searchers, Gerry & The Pacemakers and others." when we all know that, despite what the source quoted says, The Pacemakers did not have a rhythm guitar but a piano? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it matters. I'll correct it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: I'm glad you're taking an interest in this article. I've been meaning to improve it for some time. It would be interesting (to me!) to find out when the term "beat music" was first used. Did it pre-date the Mersey Beat magazine, or derive from it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Since I pretty much limit myself to sources that I have in book form, here, I probably won't have an answer to the "beat' question, but I will look it up in the one book I have. And you will know soon enough if I find anything. Carptrash (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes by IP

The IP's proposed changes are unsourced, extremely badly written, and misleading. Beat music did not "evolve from the late 50s rock and roll sound and harmonies of Buddy Holly...". Holly and the Crickets were a very important influence, but by no means the only one, and it is misleading to readers to give them that degree of prominence. Similarly, the suggested statement that "American rock and roll band the Crickets would be one of the only original groups of the 50s of whom would move onto the beat sound alongside Gene Vincent and Billy Fury also. The Crickets would even cover various Beatles hits." is again extremely badly written and misleading. Most obviously, neither Vincent nor Fury were "American rock and roll bands". No-one is against giving Holly and the Crickets the correct degree of recognition in this article, but the proposed additions are unnecessary, unsourced, and written in a way that is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Joe Meek

I think we should consider how best to mention the influence and significance of record producer Joe Meek in this article. It could be argued that Meek was the first British pop music producer to develop a style that was distinct from that of US producers, and he clearly both pre-dated and influenced some recordings of beat music (and "freakbeat"). I wouldn't go as far as recent (reverted) IP edits, but Meek should certainly be mentioned, I think, if sources can be found that relate his work to British beat music. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)