a music history question

Other than Pearl Jam, who else is there?
User avatar
stip
The worst
Posts: 42946
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm

a music history question

Post by stip »

Has anyone ever thought about why so many of the really important bands that launch the modern rock music tradition started in the UK, rather than the states?
User avatar
Soma.
AnalLog
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 1:17 pm
Location: On a live wire right up off the street.

Re: a music history question

Post by Soma. »

I don't even agree with that, so no.
Self wrote:Every time I get to be a bachelor, I order Chinese. Twice a year, I gorge on broccoli 'n beef and crab rangoons. The guilt reminds me of masturbation. So does the rice.
User avatar
stip
The worst
Posts: 42946
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: a music history question

Post by stip »

do you just disagree with me on principle, at this point?
User avatar
Chloe
AnalLog
Posts: 1121
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: Lynchburg, VA

Re: a music history question

Post by Chloe »

stip wrote:Has anyone ever thought about why so many of the really important bands that launch the modern rock music tradition started in the UK, rather than the states?
I've sort of thought about it, but never really gave it much time. Assuming this isn't current music, you're talking like the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Beatles?
I hate to say I love you,
But oh goddamn I love you,
You know I do.
User avatar
stip
The worst
Posts: 42946
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: a music history question

Post by stip »

but the who, the beatles, the stones, led zeppelin, pink floyd. Eric Clapton is british, right?
User avatar
stip
The worst
Posts: 42946
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: a music history question

Post by stip »

Chloe wrote:
stip wrote:Has anyone ever thought about why so many of the really important bands that launch the modern rock music tradition started in the UK, rather than the states?
I've sort of thought about it, but never really gave it much time. Assuming this isn't current music, you're talking like the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Beatles?
yeah, 60s/early 70s
User avatar
Chloe
AnalLog
Posts: 1121
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: Lynchburg, VA

Re: a music history question

Post by Chloe »

stip wrote:but the who, the beatles, the stones, led zeppelin, pink floyd. Eric Clapton is british, right?
Yes, sir.
I don't know... thinking of the time period, it was all folk and beatnik stuff going on in the States. Mostly acoustic, right?
I hate to say I love you,
But oh goddamn I love you,
You know I do.
User avatar
Jorge
NYUCK NYUCK NYUCK
Posts: 36487
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: a music history question

Post by Jorge »

stip wrote:but the who, the beatles, the stones, led zeppelin, pink floyd. Eric Clapton is british, right?
Most of these are building off their influences from early American rock, blues and country music.
Last edited by Jorge on Sun October 20, 2013 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
User avatar
Soma.
AnalLog
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 1:17 pm
Location: On a live wire right up off the street.

Re: a music history question

Post by Soma. »

stip wrote:do you just disagree with me on principle, at this point?
The opposite is almost true. But yeah this is way off.
Self wrote:Every time I get to be a bachelor, I order Chinese. Twice a year, I gorge on broccoli 'n beef and crab rangoons. The guilt reminds me of masturbation. So does the rice.
User avatar
malice
post-structuralist
Posts: 4377
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:22 pm
Location: faked by jorge

Re: a music history question

Post by malice »

stip wrote:Has anyone ever thought about why so many of the really important bands that launch the modern rock music tradition started in the UK, rather than the states?
the US in the 50s and 60s was hugely anti-black culture. any good music that was put out by jazz and blues musicians of the time were sanitized and de-souled by having someone like Pat Boone do a 'white people' version of an otherwise brilliant song.

So everyone is right is saying it wasn't the British who started it all here, it was the fact (to me) that the British musicians loved that music by the American Black culture, and emulated it and since they were white guys, could sell it and become popular in the US as a result.
my opinion
Dev wrote:you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
Spoiler: show
people change. people stay the same. people are so often disappointing - random PM, person unnamed
User avatar
stip
The worst
Posts: 42946
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: a music history question

Post by stip »

theplatypus wrote:
stip wrote:but the who, the beatles, the stones, led zeppelin, pink floyd. Eric Clapton is british, right?
Most of these are building off their influences from early American rock, blues and country music.

that's true, but that stuff was also obviously in America. It doesn't explain why the leap happened in the UK.
User avatar
stip
The worst
Posts: 42946
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: a music history question

Post by stip »

malice wrote:
stip wrote:Has anyone ever thought about why so many of the really important bands that launch the modern rock music tradition started in the UK, rather than the states?
the US in the 50s and 60s was hugely anti-black culture. any good music that was put out by jazz and blues musicians of the time were sanitized and de-souled by having someone like Pat Boone do a 'white people' version of an otherwise brilliant song.

So everyone is right is saying it wasn't the British who started it all here, it was the fact (to me) that the British musicians loved that music by the American Black culture, and emulated it and since they were white guys, could sell it and become popular in the US as a result.
my opinion

This seems like a step in the right direction, although presumably the pat boone market would have also been hostile to airing this black influenced music in the states. And while I don't doubt a huge number of potentially talented musicians didn't explore the possibilities in this music, you still had Elvis, and millions of Americans who would not have been hung up on the black influence. Even taking out the huge swaths of the popualtion who would find the music racially tainted you're left with a large pool of potential musicians that didn't have the same initial impact.
User avatar
malice
post-structuralist
Posts: 4377
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:22 pm
Location: faked by jorge

Re: a music history question

Post by malice »

stip wrote:
malice wrote:
stip wrote:Has anyone ever thought about why so many of the really important bands that launch the modern rock music tradition started in the UK, rather than the states?
the US in the 50s and 60s was hugely anti-black culture. any good music that was put out by jazz and blues musicians of the time were sanitized and de-souled by having someone like Pat Boone do a 'white people' version of an otherwise brilliant song.

So everyone is right is saying it wasn't the British who started it all here, it was the fact (to me) that the British musicians loved that music by the American Black culture, and emulated it and since they were white guys, could sell it and become popular in the US as a result.
my opinion

This seems like a step in the right direction, although presumably the pat boone market would have also been hostile to airing this black influenced music in the states. And while I don't doubt a huge number of potentially talented musicians didn't explore the possibilities in this music, you still had Elvis, and millions of Americans who would not have been hung up on the black influence. Even taking out the huge swaths of the popualtion who would find the music racially tainted you're left with a large pool of potential musicians that didn't have the same initial impact.
I think it was a case of right time right place for the British Invasion. the society was just starting to come out of that era of 1950s wholesome lifestyle, good ole USA, mom, hot dogs, and the american flag etc, and starting to wake up to a lot of cultural unrest that had been forming/fomenting under that whitebread surface.

The Beatles were not Led Zep or even the Stones, by a long shot, but they opened a door that was fueled by a huge population of baby boomers that ate that shit up - Elvis may have been the King, but the wholesome 'aww shucks, ma'am' attitude he had was still acceptable enough to white america to allow the swiveling hips and little girl lust to exist.
The Beatles didn't want to be a bunch of "mop-tops" they wanted to be rock stars (whatever that was in 1964, or whatever they could make it be in 1964). but they were too early to get away with the kind of sex, drugs, and rock and roll antics that made the Stones and Zep and the Who hugely famous. all that initial Beatlemania was marketing by their manager, and it worked, but I'm pretty sure none of the Beatles were too happy with that image, it's why the dropped the "please, please me" type songs and moved on to more complex, drug related in many cases, and musically interesting song writing.

once the Brits got hold of those little boys and girls though... forget it, all semblance of wholesome went out the window, the civil rights movement was getting into swing, the country was at war, and all hell broke loose. perfect environment for a change in what teens were attracted to especially since it pissed off their parents so much.
Dev wrote:you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
Spoiler: show
people change. people stay the same. people are so often disappointing - random PM, person unnamed
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45825
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: a music history question

Post by BurtReynolds »

I think the brits influence on rock has persisted throughout the decades, not just the 60s and 70s. To the point they could claim equal ownership of it. Or something.
RM's resident disinformation expert.
User avatar
McParadigm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Posts: 22393
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am

Re: a music history question

Post by McParadigm »

malice wrote:Elvis may have been the King, but the wholesome 'aww shucks, ma'am' attitude he had was still acceptable enough to white america to allow the swiveling hips and little girl lust to exist.
Yup. Elvis took some ribbing for putting black influence into hillbilly music, but the fact was that most of the oppositional response of the time focused on stuff like "the marketing of adolescence" as a music product, and the like. He was a church goer, he treated music the way everybody treated it back then (as a point of entry to the broader topic of "show business"), and his image wasn't that far removed from some of the "rebel" characters in movies at the time. He was really the safest point of entry for the concept of music as cultural force that could center around teenagers. In that regard, he was the perfect lob ball for something bigger to go right the fuck out of the park. And, as was noted, the different cultural attitudes in the two countries made England a better nesting ground for that (even if they did get sidetracked for a moment by skiffle....uh....).
(patriotic choking noises)
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45825
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: a music history question

Post by BurtReynolds »

Could say the same for the Beatles early on.
RM's resident disinformation expert.
warehouse
Rank This Poster
Posts: 4993
Joined: Sat January 05, 2013 3:34 pm

Re: a music history question

Post by warehouse »

where does little richard fit in this conversation? wasnt he big in europe?
User avatar
harmless
10Club Complaint Department
Posts: 17337
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:41 pm

Re: a music history question

Post by harmless »

By and large, I much prefer the American tradition of rock music than the British.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
User avatar
bada
Looks Like a Cat
Posts: 12504
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:53 pm

Re: a music history question

Post by bada »

African rhythm and blues mixed with the melodic folk tradition of the British Isles = modern music.
User avatar
stip
The worst
Posts: 42946
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: a music history question

Post by stip »

bada wrote:African rhythm and blues mixed with the melodic folk tradition of the British Isles = modern music.
okay, this is interesting. Was there an ingredient missing that the American tradition was not really in a position to supply.
Post Reply