Red Mosquito

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 don't even agree with that, so no.

do you just disagree with me on principle, at this point?

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?

but the who, the beatles, the stones, led zeppelin, pink floyd. Eric Clapton is british, right?

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

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?

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.

stip wrote:do you just disagree with me on principle, at this point?

The opposite is almost true. But yeah this is way off.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....).

Could say the same for the Beatles early on.

where does little richard fit in this conversation? wasnt he big in europe?

By and large, I much prefer the American tradition of rock music than the British.

African rhythm and blues mixed with the melodic folk tradition of the British Isles = modern music.

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.