|
|
Post by nahuel89p on Jul 5, 2015 1:13:53 GMT -5
Don't forget Neil Young!! Anyway, UK beats US by far in my opinion. I think US may have had a lot more bands than UK in the 60s and 70s, with lots of buried/forgotten gems, by bands that never reached the legend status. Can anyone confirm this? I mean, california, NY, around that time... seems to me there's more to the picture than meets the eye. In terms of quality, though, UK is above. Let's not forget that after all UK has a quarter or a fifth of US population. One last thing: culturally speaking, americans love the show, the "circus" side. The british don't, so it's no surprise they focus more thoroughly in songwriting and developing deeper concepts. In the US you can grab everyone's attention by looking badass enough. Fireworks. Leather. Makeup. Cars. The brits will only sign if your songs are good enough. Neil Young is Canadian.  Haha ok. Northern man singing southerman then. I always pictured him in the southern US grasslands. |
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Jul 5, 2015 14:27:42 GMT -5
America is responsible for Guns n Roses and Aerosmith, and so on. Britain gave the world The Beatles. 'Nuff said...  ...time to remove those blinders now recommended reading for starters  |
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Jul 5, 2015 15:07:50 GMT -5
America is responsible for Guns n Roses and Aerosmith, and so on. Britain gave the world The Beatles. 'Nuff said... ...time to remove those blinders now recommended reading for starters Ah, Rolling Stone, they're sure to be impartial... |
|
|
|
Post by Ross on Jul 5, 2015 17:46:25 GMT -5
Tiny Tim wins it for America.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Jul 8, 2015 12:29:10 GMT -5
grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/the-libertines-are-back-and-why-you-should-care/A great and conscious article on the Libertines, that sort of touches on topics discussed here and on the catfish and bottlemen thread. "In the United States, guitar rock is in a comatose state and nobody minds. Arcade Fire ended up wearing its stadium status like chain mail; the Black Keys are 100 percent, pure, un-stepped-on boredom. Guitar rock is comatose. In the U.K., things are dire, too, but with one major exception: While we Americans may one day truly let it wither from our sights forever, the British — instigators of, you know, the British Invasion, and so forever tortured in their role as guitar rock’s modern custodians — will never stop caring. That’s best distilled in the editorial policies of the NME. Long ago, the long-running, workmanlike music tabloid earned itself a kind of cheeky reputation: It loved itself a good hype storm. Dangle a decently scruffed-up lad-rock band near its teeth, and it would almost certainly chomp. It was as comical as it was inevitable as it was wonderful. Did the NME need to lose its shit every time another pack of pale, bedheaded men in tight trousers appeared? No, it certainly did not. But if we were going to be rational about this whole thing, we would have all become teachers of maths. Please: Let the NME freak out in peace"
|
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Jul 8, 2015 12:59:13 GMT -5
It's completely my own simple, selfish theory, so you can laugh me cos I'm not from the UK and US, but to me modern American music will be fine as long as they've got Patti Smith and The National.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 8, 2015 16:13:52 GMT -5
Another angle: Put it into perspective the size of both countries. Britain has punched well above their weight, and the US has constantly been a let down.
Very much like "soccer" - no way should a tiny country like the UK outperforming the gigantic US, and that applies to music too. Different cultures is the obvious answer, but when taking proportionality into consideration Britain wins without any further explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jul 8, 2015 16:21:35 GMT -5
Another angle: Put it into perspective the size of both countries. Britain has punched well above their weight, and the US has constantly been a let down. Very much like "soccer" - no way should a tiny country like the UK outperforming the gigantic US, and that applies to music too. Different cultures is the obvious answer, but when taking proportionality into consideration Britain wins without any further explanation. About time China and India pulled their fingers out! I wouldn't say the US has underperformed at all, but I agree we've definitely punched well above our weight. |
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 12, 2015 9:18:33 GMT -5
Another angle: Put it into perspective the size of both countries. Britain has punched well above their weight, and the US has constantly been a let down. Tell that to Bruce Springsteen, Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Ramones, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, The Doors, Lou Reed, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam, Talking Heads, Foo Fighters, Iggy Pop/The Stooges, Metallica, Rage Against the Machine, Queens of the Stone Age, Jack White, Patti Smith, The Eagles, The Velvet Underground, Nirvana, ZZ Top, Roy Orbison, Jimi Hendrix, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Chuck Berry, Billy Joel, Guns N' Roses, The Strokes, Lynyrd Skynyrd, R.E.M., Frank Zappa, and Beck. |
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Jul 12, 2015 10:57:57 GMT -5
Another angle: Put it into perspective the size of both countries. Britain has punched well above their weight, and the US has constantly been a let down. Tell that to Bruce Springsteen, Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Ramones, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, The Doors, Lou Reed, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam, Talking Heads, Foo Fighters, Iggy Pop/The Stooges, Metallica, Rage Against the Machine, Queens of the Stone Age, Jack White, Patti Smith, The Eagles, The Velvet Underground, Nirvana, ZZ Top, Roy Orbison, Jimi Hendrix, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Chuck Berry, Billy Joel, Guns N' Roses, The Strokes, Lynyrd Skynyrd, R.E.M., Frank Zappa, and Beck. How long did it take you to come up with all those names? Even then, there's a bit of clutching straws going on I think. Are the Foo Fighters really that good? Guns N' Roses?? Don't get me wrong, there are some great artists listed above, but for a country with a population of over 300 million, and a land mass over forty times the size of Britain, it is, as NL4E was saying, a bit of a measly effort when you compare the two. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2015 11:11:51 GMT -5
Late to the party , but the UK by taking what the usa .....offered blues , soul, blue grass , pop , rockabilly , and made into the genre we call rock and roll .....DONT get me wrong there plenty of great american bands ( and as we know i am a yank ) . But the UK took what the states offered and changed the game ...... From the beatles to ,ZEP , and everything in between the UK always seems a step ahead of the curve ...imo .....except for the brief grunge era No contest
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 12, 2015 14:55:00 GMT -5
grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/the-libertines-are-back-and-why-you-should-care/A great and conscious article on the Libertines, that sort of touches on topics discussed here and on the catfish and bottlemen thread. "In the United States, guitar rock is in a comatose state and nobody minds. Arcade Fire ended up wearing its stadium status like chain mail; the Black Keys are 100 percent, pure, un-stepped-on boredom. Guitar rock is comatose. In the U.K., things are dire, too, but with one major exception: While we Americans may one day truly let it wither from our sights forever, the British — instigators of, you know, the British Invasion, and so forever tortured in their role as guitar rock’s modern custodians — will never stop caring. That’s best distilled in the editorial policies of the NME. Long ago, the long-running, workmanlike music tabloid earned itself a kind of cheeky reputation: It loved itself a good hype storm. Dangle a decently scruffed-up lad-rock band near its teeth, and it would almost certainly chomp. It was as comical as it was inevitable as it was wonderful. Did the NME need to lose its shit every time another pack of pale, bedheaded men in tight trousers appeared? No, it certainly did not. But if we were going to be rational about this whole thing, we would have all become teachers of maths. Please: Let the NME freak out in peace" The fact is that, today, the US is beating British bands to a pulp - well certainly in terms of bands who seem to gain attention in the media anyway (there will always be great but unfairly unchampioned bands lying there to waste). With such a great heritage in music, Britain is now being constrained by it, with many young bands constantly looking back decades for inspiration. And they come off as luddites now. There's no boldness and no adventure from today's young bands - they simply think that by wearing shades, they are as deep and thoughtful as John Lennon. And now we have fools like that Dan The Van bloke from Catfish and the Milk Floatmen or whatever they are called telling us how rebellious they are. Or if its not them, its Kasabian promising us yet another 'earth shattering revolutionary' album (which we've still YET to hear) and then they release it and it just merely sounds like Chaz & Dave on Es. A general message to the NME bands - no you're not rebellious, we've seen it all before, your antics are a tired cliche, your sound is a tired cliche and your lyrics are a tired cliche. I can only think their appeal is the comfy nostalgia they wrap themselves up in. My advice is - for heavens sake, only come back when you have written a decent song. Which I suspect means we won't see them ever again if they did take that advice. |
|
|
|
Post by lamboasis on Jul 13, 2015 8:05:15 GMT -5
Easy win for UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Jul 13, 2015 12:40:01 GMT -5
Watched Seven Ages of Rock Episode 1 on TV last night since years again and there was some interesting truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ross on Jul 13, 2015 13:01:41 GMT -5
Tell that to Bruce Springsteen, Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Ramones, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, The Doors, Lou Reed, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam, Talking Heads, Foo Fighters, Iggy Pop/The Stooges, Metallica, Rage Against the Machine, Queens of the Stone Age, Jack White, Patti Smith, The Eagles, The Velvet Underground, Nirvana, ZZ Top, Roy Orbison, Jimi Hendrix, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Chuck Berry, Billy Joel, Guns N' Roses, The Strokes, Lynyrd Skynyrd, R.E.M., Frank Zappa, and Beck. How long did it take you to come up with all those names? Even then, there's a bit of clutching straws going on I think. Are the Foo Fighters really that good? Guns N' Roses?? Don't get me wrong, there are some great artists listed above, but for a country with a population of over 300 million, and a land mass over forty times the size of Britain, it is, as NL4E was saying, a bit of a measly effort when you compare the two. what has the land mass got to do with it? |
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jul 13, 2015 14:11:35 GMT -5
I think the Guns 'N' Roses jabs are ignorantly unjustified. A lot of people seem to push them in with the hair/glam metal crowd when really they're a blues based hard rock band. They've produced far better material than most bands will ever put out. A great band who are an easy target, much like Oasis.
From the 80's onwards I thinks it's hard to argue that Britain produced by far the better rock music. From this point on it's been been a close fought duel with America winning out in a lot of situations.
Which musicians established themselves as (the ever loosening term of) 'rock stars' during and post the 00's? America has a few cool names like Jack White and Josh Homme, but who are our biggest? Chris Martin and Alex Turner? Don't get me wrong, I like the Arctic Monkey's, but I'd take the other two in a instant.
|
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 15, 2015 11:39:51 GMT -5
Tell that to Bruce Springsteen, Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Ramones, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, The Doors, Lou Reed, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam, Talking Heads, Foo Fighters, Iggy Pop/The Stooges, Metallica, Rage Against the Machine, Queens of the Stone Age, Jack White, Patti Smith, The Eagles, The Velvet Underground, Nirvana, ZZ Top, Roy Orbison, Jimi Hendrix, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Chuck Berry, Billy Joel, Guns N' Roses, The Strokes, Lynyrd Skynyrd, R.E.M., Frank Zappa, and Beck. How long did it take you to come up with all those names? Even then, there's a bit of clutching straws going on I think. Are the Foo Fighters really that good? Guns N' Roses?? Don't get me wrong, there are some great artists listed above, but for a country with a population of over 300 million, and a land mass over forty times the size of Britain, it is, as NL4E was saying, a bit of a measly effort when you compare the two. Not long at all. Foo Fighters are one of the best and most popular rock bands of the last twenty years. (Also, I don't understand the hate for GNR. Appetite for Destruction is one of the best albums of the 1980s—not to mention one of the greatest debut albums ever.) |
|
|
|
Post by Manualex on Jul 15, 2015 12:05:41 GMT -5
How long did it take you to come up with all those names? Even then, there's a bit of clutching straws going on I think. Are the Foo Fighters really that good? Guns N' Roses?? Don't get me wrong, there are some great artists listed above, but for a country with a population of over 300 million, and a land mass over forty times the size of Britain, it is, as NL4E was saying, a bit of a measly effort when you compare the two. Not long at all. Foo Fighters are one of the best and most popular rock bands of the last twenty years. (Also, I don't understand the hate for GNR. Appetite for Destruction is one of the best albums of the 1980s—not to mention one of the greatest debut albums ever.) I dont hate them and Appetite and Use Your Illusions are great but nothing much since has been that great. |
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jul 15, 2015 12:12:10 GMT -5
Not long at all. Foo Fighters are one of the best and most popular rock bands of the last twenty years. (Also, I don't understand the hate for GNR. Appetite for Destruction is one of the best albums of the 1980s—not to mention one of the greatest debut albums ever.) I dont hate them and Appetite and Use Your Illusions are great but nothing much since has been that great. To be fair, they've only released a covers album and Chinese Democracy since the Illusions. A very underrated record indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 19, 2015 22:06:16 GMT -5
Not long at all. Foo Fighters are one of the best and most popular rock bands of the last twenty years. (Also, I don't understand the hate for GNR. Appetite for Destruction is one of the best albums of the 1980s—not to mention one of the greatest debut albums ever.) I dont hate them and Appetite and Use Your Illusions are great but nothing much since has been that great. They only released two albums since Use Your Illusion I and II; one of which was a covers album. That's like me saying I don't hate The Verve and Urban Hymns is great but nothing much since has been that great. |
|
|
|
Post by Manualex on Jul 20, 2015 0:02:30 GMT -5
I dont hate them and Appetite and Use Your Illusions are great but nothing much since has been that great. They only released two albums since Use Your Illusion I and II; one of which was a covers album. That's like me saying I don't hate The Verve and Urban Hymns is great but nothing much since has been that great. But Richard has released solo albums(of mediocre quality compared to his band bar the first single). Axl just kept hyping up Chinese Democracy and its good but not 18 years old in the works good. |
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Jul 20, 2015 7:22:18 GMT -5
Elvis wasn't fit to lace David Bowie's bright red Japanese platform boots.
|
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Jul 20, 2015 7:29:06 GMT -5
How long did it take you to come up with all those names? Even then, there's a bit of clutching straws going on I think. Are the Foo Fighters really that good? Guns N' Roses?? Don't get me wrong, there are some great artists listed above, but for a country with a population of over 300 million, and a land mass over forty times the size of Britain, it is, as NL4E was saying, a bit of a measly effort when you compare the two. what has the land mass got to do with it? It emphasis the vastness of America in comparison to Britain. Obviously. You would think that such an unwieldy country would breed sharper variations of cultures and attitudes to things, if people live thousands of miles apart, compared to people living only 10 miles apart. Surely this variation should find it's way into the music, no? And yet, to my ears, American rock music seems, by and large, to lack the colour that British rock music has. Or had. But that's just me... |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jul 20, 2015 7:32:19 GMT -5
I think the Guns 'N' Roses jabs are ignorantly unjustified. A lot of people seem to push them in with the hair/glam metal crowd when really they're a blues based hard rock band. They've produced far better material than most bands will ever put out. A great band who are an easy target, much like Oasis. From the 80's onwards I thinks it's hard to argue that Britain produced by far the better rock music. From this point on it's been been a close fought duel with America winning out in a lot of situations. Which musicians established themselves as (the ever loosening term of) 'rock stars' during and post the 00's? America has a few cool names like Jack White and Josh Homme, but who are our biggest? Chris Martin and Alex Turner? Don't get me wrong, I like the Arctic Monkey's, but I'd take the other two in a instant. When Nirvana broke out in 1991 they instantly made Guns N Roses (and similar hair bands of the late 80s) look tame and a cultivated image of rock n roll excesses. I'm not sure if that is fair but that is what happened. Something about Nirvana type bands screamed "authentic" while those hair bands looked silly. It also didn't help that Guns N Roses stopped releasing music for almost 20 years. Hair bands haven't really come back to popularity since then.  |
|
|
|
Post by Let It🩸 on Jul 20, 2015 7:35:20 GMT -5
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5