‘Mods, Rockers, and the Music of the British Invasion’

Purportingto be an analysis that places the British Invasion within musical as well ascultural contexts, with a special emphasis on exactly why certain British bandsdominated the charts and how these artists influenced American music of theera, Mods, Rockers, andthe Music of the British Invasion(Praeger) is often a blatantly misguided effort. Author James E. Perone, aprofessor of music, obviously has no concept of counterculture or Americanmusic. He does craft quality moments of music analysis, but often withinincorrect contexts.

In amounting pile of recent books, musical roots are sought everywhere, sometimesin the wrong places. With Mods, Rockers,it might be a case of the wrong writer looking in the right place.

Perone makesimportant distinctions between the aesthetics of Britain’s major early ’60ssubcultures, the rockers and the mods, relative to their mutually exclusive musicalpreferences. However, once this has been established, it’s as though the authorforgets that the significant artists in both areas were usually as ignorant ascan be relative to musical structures. Especially with the Beatles, who movefrom rocker to mod and American imitators to British originals, the book getslost in musical terminology that the Beatles would never command. And there isscant mention of the actual studio itself as a method of composition. Youcannot approach the later, important music of the Beatles without taking intoconsideration the tape machines, board and other artifacts that they deployedwith radical imagination. The resultant chords in any given song are lessimportant than the process used to achieve them.

On thesubject of Lennon/McCartney’s lyrics, Perone writes: “The impact of thisparadigm [i.e. writing original lyrics] was felt in the United States…sothat newly emerging bands such as the Byrds…that wrote at least some of theirown material became the norm… Reliance on professional songwriters increasinglywas viewed with skepticism.” Perone is a poor student of music literature andhistory. Bob Dylan is noted in his book only once in passing and withstupefying ignorance. While there is no doubt that composers performing theirown music in England was a Beatles’ feat, it’s not enough to let it go at that,because without the literary influence of the Dylan canon shot across the oceaninto “yeah, yeah, yeah” land, there would not have been, well, the Byrds andother emerging bands writing original material on either side of the ocean.

There isanother serious lapse in Perone’s research. Referring to the ability to playblues music, he states: “The British rock bands tried to put the kind ofintangible soul into their performances of this material that one might expectfrom the real deal… In 1964, though, this was not necessarily commonplace inAmerican bands.” Yes, it was. In 1964, we had The Paul Butterfield Blues Band,John Paul Hammond’s groups, The Blues Project and, the year before, Koerner,Ray & Glover. Again, Perone has not adequately researched American music.This use of “1964” as the single, original moment for U.K. artists inthis regard reveals an unforgivable lapse in research skills.

The“Merseybeat” sound, echoed in the music of many significant British Invasionartists, receives much overdue attention from Perone in terms of its uniquetonal and rhythmic characteristics, but on a lyrical level, and regarding oneof music idiom history, this book stalls in midair over the Atlantic.