Why do all the best, most influential bands come from britain?

[te-problematique]

Well, thanks in part to my communications and media studies degree, I think it all stems back to the way broadcasting was developed in both countries. Public service vs. commercial. Not that america hasn't given the world great music (all the black movements for example) it's just that there's a culture of popular acceptance in america that seems to produce, foster and encourage crap. I would like to put this down to the fact that all your broadcast media exists for profit and is afraid of pushing the envelope. The profit motive is secondary in the UK, and the people are generally exposed to more varied media products, I think this has had a trickled down effect on both sides, but has lead to a greater awareness and education of the middle class in the UK (most major influential bands have been middle class), whereas the US is behind in this, becuase finding a differing viewpoint is difficult when all media outlets are covering what will gain ratings.

This is ill-conceived, but I think it could make a starting point for a good discussion. I'd be really interested to see what you americans think.

[tenchijin2]

I think your whole premise is flawed. The "best" and "most influential" bands are not easily definable. Certainly the entire rock'n'roll genesis of the 1950s was ENTIRELY American. And groups like the beach boys, three dog night, the four seasons, countless motown acts, and on, and on, have supplied britain with most of the sounds which then come back in a slightly varied form.

I think the truth is that americans like exotic novelty. Bands from Britain appeal to that, and thus become huge in the US provided they have real talent and skill. British artists generally aren't considered to have 'made it' until they make it in the US. Rightly or wrongly, it's true.

[charlesaustin]

Hi, i know i may be the only one that thinks this but i believe especially in the 60's that it had to do with the music those bands as children heard from their parents. Basically they were exposed to classical music. Take Dazed and Confused for instance, it is the passacaglia of the Dido and Aneas opera (excuse my spelling), take this into account with the fascination with black music at the time, and you get some really unique music. Maybe i am alone on this but, i hear it in the Beatles all the time.

[dan p]

The reason is England has 1000 years of culture and america has 200.Thats one, and the other reason is England is a lot smaller than the U.S and you could travel to the next pub or town to hear what the next band was doing so as to be more creative than the other guys around.America is spread out more though their was the plantation influence in American music that comes from Afican American culture that the Brits had been influenced from.
Just a lot originality coming from the Brits.I will say that if it wasn't for African American culture American music isn't as evovled.Just my imo but i have thought about that a lot.
Why do all the best classical composers come from Europe from the 1700's on.More culture i think.


Dan P

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by tenchijin2

The "best" and "most influential" bands are not easily definable.

I agree with that.
However, for my tastes a lot of interesting (at least) bands come from the UK.

I think there are two immediate reasons.
Neither music or society is segregated.
Not many radio stations play just guitar rock, or just urban RnB.
When you are growing up you are exposed to people with African, Caribbean and Indian sub continent roots, their culture and music.

Many out and out rock musicians I've worked with have a good awareness of soul music, or Irish folk, or electronica like Kraftwerk.
In the end it makes for an interesting mix of influences.
It seems to me many (but not all!) American bands are still trying to break out of the two guitars, bass and drums mould.
The Clash had that line-up but played a lot of Reggae and Funk.

[TobyToby]

>>>> The reason is England has 1000 years of culture and america has 200 . . . . . . . .

BS ! They ARE & they WERE great, 'influential' bands in BOTH countries. Call it simply cross fertilization.

The whole -because European 'culture' is older . .- is just bollocks and has nothing to do with the a bit fishy statement within the posters question. Non citizen from the present Vienna is a better composer just because Mozart once lived there. Rock/Jazz/Pop music is mainly all about, or rather skims from, daily culture, contempary history, ethnic background, family background, education & social invironment.

[Bravo]

I think this only applies to rock music. Jazz was the world's most popular music up until 'The British Invasion' am I wrong?

And don't get me started on the Canadian arts. The biggest selling rap record in Canada's history TO THIS DAY is frickin' 1989's "Let You're Backbone Slide" by Maestro Fresh Wes. The album as well......jeesh!

Found this on Wikipedia:

"Let Your Backbone Slide". As of 2007, "Let Your Backbone Slide" remains the best-selling Canadian hip hop single of all time, and the only ceritfied gold single in Canadian hip hop history.Symphony in Effect remains the top selling Canadian hip hop album of all time; at 190,000 units sold, it is 10,000 shy of double platinum.

I also think that the U.S. has very defined music genres that have grown into their own respective entities. If you can't be classified as either Rock, Rap/Soul, Country or Pop/Youth then nobody will 'get' you and your records won't sell very well. The pressure to be relevant in America has to do with sales and radio spins first as someone has just stated and I couldn't agree more.

[dan p]

[quote=te-problematique;2011722]Well, thanks in part to my communications and media studies degree, I think it all stems back to the way broadcasting was developed in both countries. Public service vs. commercial. Not that america hasn't given the world great music (all the black movements for example) it's just that there's a culture of popular acceptance in america that seems to produce, foster and encourage crap. I would like to put this down to the fact that all your broadcast media exists for profit and is afraid of pushing the envelope. The profit motive is secondary in the UK, and the people are generally exposed to more varied media products, I think this has had a trickled down effect on both sides, but has lead to a greater awareness and education of the middle class in the UK (most major influential bands have been middle class), whereas the US is behind in this, becuase finding a differing viewpoint is difficult when all media outlets are covering what will gain ratings.


I am in agreement with you here.As i posted before it is hard to make a blanket asessment of the music biz.Personally i like what the british bands have done for the last 40-50 years.Not to say that some american bands are not good,there have been great bands and artists as well.
I do think today the corporate mentality has taken over cause of $.
I think it's sad for instance that American idol is where some of the current pop stars are coming from and not that they are all bad either.Some are very good in fact and original to some degree.I even like some of Simon Scowells assesments of the artists.He's ususally right.

DP

[mobaudio]

Elvis Presley.

Buddy Holly.

Hank Williams.

Frank Sinatra.

Frank Zappa.

Pee-Wee Herman.

Miles Davis.


'Nuff said.

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by te-problematique

This is ill-conceived,

Yes, it is.

Originally Posted by te-problematique

but I think it could make a starting point for a good discussion.

Do you really?

Originally Posted by te-problematique

I'd be really interested to see what you americans think.

Are you sure?

[Bryan Talbot]

Originally Posted by chrisso

However, for my tastes a lot of interesting (at least) bands come from the UK.

I think there are two immediate reasons.
Neither music or society is segregated.
Not many radio stations play just guitar rock, or just urban RnB.
When you are growing up you are exposed to people with African, Caribbean and Indian sub continent roots, their culture and music.

Same here, and that's a very good point. There's something about some of the British stuff that's always resonated with me, and I grew up in Nashville.

Is it chord changes, voicings? I haven't bothered to analyze it. I sure as hell never heard music like Cocteau Twins, Talk Talk, or Tears for Fears originate from the States.

However, we DO have Davis, Zappa, Williams, and others.

[dan p]

Frank Zappa is originally from Canada .Def original though and one of my all time favs.Some of the country artists are original but not my cup of tea.

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by dan p

Frank Zappa is originally from Canada .

WTF?

I can assure you he was not.
He was born in Baltimore in 1940.

[NowWhat]

This is a priceless beginning:

Originally Posted by te-problematique

Well, thanks in part to my communications and media studies degree

OK so I think a better question is why is English gear better than American gear!!

this isn't "originality slutz" is it??



OK so this thread is not completely worthless...

I think the only thought provoking point I can think come to is:

(traditionally) Americans invent, English refine.


All these great English artists are refining styles of (African) American music.

[dan p]

Maybe frank zappa was born in baltimore but i'm pretty sure he lived in toronto before coming back to the states.I am not 100% positive about that though.

DP

[NowWhat]

Originally Posted by dan p

Maybe frank zappa was born in baltimore but i'm pretty sure he lived in toronto before coming back to the states.I am not 100% positive about that though.

DP

if only there was some way to find out.... BLAST!!! maybe one day.

[dan p]

I just googled Zappa and octatonic you are right,he was born in Baltimore,
Sorry for the mis info.I actually got to meet him and his band back in the seventies after they had played the Berkeley community theatre.
He had two keyboard players playin yamaha cs 80's and they sounded so friggin good i was jumpin out of my seat.Steve Vai was playin guitar.Awesome show i will never forget.A band i played in opened for a reincarnation of the mothers of invention,one of zappas earlier bands.
He always had incredible musicians and very original music.
Thanks for the correction O.


Dan P

[Goliath|Audio]

Originally Posted by mobaudio

Elvis Presley.
Buddy Holly.
Hank Williams.
Frank Sinatra.
Frank Zappa.
Pee-Wee Herman.
Miles Davis.

Duke Ellington
Woodie Guthrie
Jimi Hendrix
Ray Charles
Billy Ray Cyrus
Bob Dylan

[btrian]

I think culture and history are valid points, but I also think that on a musical level, many British bands/artists simply write better songs. Take melodies for example. Songs by The Beatles, Zepplin, Queen, U2, Peter Gabriel, Coldplay, Bowie etc, have some great melody lines along with counter-melody parts that work really well together. Along with lyrics and melody, they aren't afraid to add in non-conventional instrumentation- which I think gives their music more appeal/interest. Fewer American artists do this. I think the ones that do, can REALLY play their instruments and sing - something that is becoming more rare. People want it to be easy. 15 minutes of fame. Find a formula and milk it, instead of challenging themselves to break the mold.

[dan p]

Originally Posted by btrian

I think culture and history are valid points, but I also think that on a musical level, many British bands/artists simply write better songs. Take melodies for example. Songs by The Beatles, Zepplin, Queen, U2, Peter Gabriel, Coldplay, Bowie etc, have some great melody lines along with counter-melody parts that work really well together. Along with lyrics and melody, they aren't afraid to add in non-conventional instrumentation- which I think gives their music more appeal/interest. Fewer American artists do this. I think the ones that do, can REALLY play their instruments and sing - something that is becoming more rare. People want it to be easy. 15 minutes of fame. Find a formula and milk it, instead of challenging themselves to break the mold.

Very well said and i agree with every one of your examples.Maybe the culture makes you dig deeper to find more meaning in the message,Musically and lyrically.Three of my biggest influences for playing piano/keyboards,were Oscar Peterson,Keith Emerson/ELP,Jan Hammer.
The seventies was an exciting time to grow up in and the be exposed to all the great music that was done then,kinda hand in hand with technology and the new instruments that were created and all of the great records that were done both in England and America.


DP

[themaidsroom]

what i find interesting is that the uk
nurtures the best in american talent
the most sophisticated and intelligent
american pop or singer-songwriter music
is supported by the english - that being
said, african-american music is the greatest
music the world has ever known - it is here
in the usa that these two cultures converged
there is no english stevie wonder,
james brown, marvin gaye, ray charles,
miles davis.....mavis staples, aretha franklin,
bettye levette,
let alone duke ellington or count basie
or ella fitzgerald or billie holiday



two of the best records to be released in the uk this spring are by two of the finest
american female songwriters: martha wainwright and joan wasser (joan as policewoman)
- these women have completely different careers in the u.k.
and the u.s.a. - they are not well known in the u.s.a.

the u.s.a. does not have time for good music,
well-written songs or thought
thank god for the u.k.


be well


- jack

[dan p]

African american musicians!What can you say.It is the best America and for that matter the world has to offer.
Lets not discredit talent no matter what creed you are when we hear it,for those of us that know the difference!

DP

[narcoman]

oh boys - come and live here and you'll see it's no different.

We have a LOT of crap here. More crap than good. There are good and great acts from all over the place. Its FAR more about the bands/acts than it is where they're from. When you step outside of the english language you then get to see even more awesome acts - Les Rita Mitsouko anyone?

[Joe Porto]

In an interview with Pete Townsend, he was talking about growing up in England after the war. He said he would ask his father why the Germans would bomb them as they did, and said his father would not want to talk about it. Basically, saying the adults just shut it in and tried to get on with their lives, which created a certain atmosphere that caused a a rebellious mentality in the kids. He said that that was a huge influence in his music.

[te-problematique]

btrain pretty much nailed the point of my very drunk rant...I was just trying to draw a parallel with the way both (very different) media systems were developed and the influence this has had on cultural products. I know america has given the world alot, but frank zappa and miles davis are not what i was talking about. I was referring to pop, the brits are generally just more intelligent in the way they present things, there's more depth when you compare bowie, beatles, stones to their contemporaries stateside. Too much pressure to sell perhaps resulting in compromise of artistic integrity/vision?

[te-problematique]

actually, to add an example: In standing in the shadow of motown (to generalise), the brits knew the band behind the stars and made them famous, the american audience never did....an example of more sophistication across the Atlantic?

[musikwerks]

I wonder how many Irish bands would appreciate being referred to as "British".

As for this comment: "the brits are generally just more intelligent in the way they present things, there's more depth when you compare bowie, beatles, stones to their contemporaries stateside. Too much pressure to sell perhaps resulting in compromise of artistic integrity/vision?"

So how do you explain the Spice Girls, Atomic Kitten, East 17, Westlife.... the list just goes on, on, on, and on. Oh yeah, and what about that chick that rips off Aretha Franklin, what's her name??? Amy Wino???

What a dumb statement to begin with.

[Dirty Halo]

As to the year's of culture argument...

Uh, in 1756-1791 Mozart was creating perhaps the most influential music of all time.

In America, we were fighting a pretty brutal war for independence... not too much time for music.

But THEN you cite reference like The Beatles and Led Zeppelin (whom I love), BUT...

The Beatles cite Elvis as their influence (not bad since we were fighting for independence not that long before.)

Led Zeppelin cite The Doors as their influence, as so on.

THEN you add the "percieved" success factor. What does it take to have a #1 hit in the UK?

What does it take to have a #1 hit in the U.S.?

BIG difference!

There's many ways you can go a this argument and in many ways I myself favor a lot of the sounds coming from the UK, but you can't deny how influential the U.S. has been on music considering the fraction of time it has been on the scene!

-andrews

[nightscope]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

...Uh, in 1756-1791 Mozart was creating perhaps the most influential music of all time.

Thankyou. Of all time..

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

you can't deny how influential the U.S. has been on music considering the fraction of time it has been on the scene!

The US did start with the entire musical history of Europe and more behind it when it set up shop. So there was something on the shelves to be going on with. Nationalism has no place in music. It's all one big global brewing pot constantly evolving and having herbs added along the way. However, the contribution to the pot from US musicians has been huge in modern music. How important is the blues, rock and roll and jazz? Rather a lot. British contribution has essentially been in the realm of refinement and attitude. I'm Brit but my favourites bands and musicians are generally from US. Apart from El Beatlez and John Martyn.

ns

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Goliath|Audio

Duke Ellington
Woodie Guthrie
Jimi Hendrix
Ray Charles
Billy Ray Cyrus
Bob Dylan

Excuse me if I'm wrong but none of these artists are 'bands' and that's what the thread is about.....

The '60ies phenomenon' in Britan surely had a lot to do with the system where bright young men were enrolled in 'Art Schools' where a lot of them formed bands or just practiced the heck out of their guitars. The US never had such a system (or artists being able to collect unemployment money)
So anybody in the US who wanted to be a rock musician would mainly need to play in cover bands or starve. That and the general tolerance of the British towards eccentric behaviour and artists in general surely was a big factor why so many influental artitsts and bands were and are British.

I think it mainly relates to pop/rock music though. Jazz, Blues, Soul, Funk, Country, Americana, Hip-Hop, etc surely is a COMPLETELY different story.

I think the same applies (or did apply) to engineering. No doubt that some of the best ever records were US made, be it Sinatra or Steely Dan or lots of points in between. But there's also no doubt that England was all about innovation, whether it was Joe Meek, the sundry Beatles engineers or Eno, just to name a few examples. Just think of rock guitar: The origins were American (Chicago blues mainly) but the art of capturing great rock guitar (and drum) sounds was really first mastered in Britan: Clapton/Bluesbreakers, Who, Kinks, Jeff Beck, Zeppelin, Sabbath, etc

As great as a lot of the 60ies bands in the US were (Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, Doors, Moby Grape, CCR, Jefferson Airplane, etc) and as great as the studios in LA and other places were, it seemes to me that guitar-wise it was still very much about folk-influenced cleaner sounds and more conservative recording techniques in general. Like Tony Visconti said in 'Behind the Glass': Brits are just wild men!

It's surely no coincidence that Jimi Hendrix needed to go to England to both develop his music and have it properly recorded. The whole thing just bloomed there and it's the same with Stones/Beatles building on Blues/early Rock and Roll and Motown and punk building on the Stooges/MC5 and the 'Nuggets'-era bands.