United Kingdom

Most were not wasters since they had belief.
I asked once on a forum here in America where the 'SCENE' was?
Chipfryer

Having had the day off from the wife, I went into town and asked a cabbie to take me "where the action was" He took me to my house...


(SOrry, nicked that one from Rodney Dangerfield...)

LOL DOG!!!!!
Same here

Having had the day off from the wife, I went into town and asked a cabbie to take me "where the action was" He took me to my house...


(SOrry, nicked that one from Rodney Dangerfield...)

I've read all the responses on this thread, and there are some interesting facts given, as well as conjecture. I'm from the UK, if anyone cares. I happen to like US culture, but no more or less than UK or other cultures.

First of all, I'm not sure what's really meant by a "creative band". Sure, in the UK, there are lots of bands that produce amazing songs. But surely the same can be said of the US? One of my favourite bands is Green Day, and I've analysed their music and it's matured over the years. In the beginning, their music sounded like any US punk band (if I'm honest). In that respect, one might conclude that the band started off copying every other band's "sound"... but they eventually found their own sound.

I found it bizarre how this thread led to talk about where rock n roll came from, like that even addresses the original point. RnR is only one genre out of several. I'm just curious - are there any bands in the US that sound anything like Radiohead AND have a relatively successful career? How about a band like Blur that can handle many different genres more than just competently?

I remember spending a month in NYC, and one thing I noticed while staying there was that there's so much so-called "R&B" music. Now, I think most people know that R&B stands for Rhythm & Blues. What I'd like to know is, can any of this current US-style R&B music be said to contain 'rhythm'? And almost none of them sound like blues. In the UK, I'm led to believe that Beyonce sings R&B music - but her songs sound like pop, not much different from Britney or Christina Aguilera.

My feeling is that the USA suffers from something similar to what the UK suffered from a long time ago. The UK (or more correctly England) rested on its laurels after conquering plenty of countries in the world, and expected that things came easy. Then WW2 decimated our country, killed plenty of men. And the USA saved the day. From then on, 1950s onward, the USA ruled supreme - it could do no wrong. I feel this sense of superiority meant that Americans didn't have to do anything new in order to gain praise globally. Hence RnR was popular pretty much anywhere, even in China (my parents new more Elvis than the Beatles - and before you ask, my parents are from China).

I think what Americans need in order to start producing original bands are people who are willing to step outside their comfort zone, looking for fresh sounds, and not trying to recruit members who necessarily have the same tastes in music as themselves.

When I was at uni studying music (at the School of Oriental and African Studies), our ensemble that was playing mbiras (thumb pianos from Zimbabwe) consisted of people from such diverse backgrounds. It meant we had a sound that just couldn't be replicated by native Zimbabweans. Our style of playing created something new, and we were proud of it. I was strong with melodies but very weak at rhythm, so I tended to provide melodic support. It was only later that I took up the drums (rock band drums) to improve my sense of rhythm.

Americans just need to take the leap of faith. It's one thing to take inspiration from others... but another thing to copy them. Maybe the mentality in the UK is such that we refuse to be like others. I always loved the Beatles' music, but I wouldn't want to write any music like theirs. I'd want to write MY own music.

In a way, it's quite sad... my observations (and this is merely an opinion) is that there are far more talented musicians in the USA than in the UK. But the UK, with its lower proportion of excellent musicians, somehow manages to defy the odds and produce bands that aren't scared to try something different.

Americans - dare to be different!

Americans just need to take the leap of faith. It's one thing to take inspiration from others... but another thing to copy them. Maybe the mentality in the UK is such that we refuse to be like others. I always loved the Beatles' music, but I wouldn't want to write any music like theirs. I'd want to write MY own music.

In a way, it's quite sad... my observations (and this is merely an opinion) is that there are far more talented musicians in the USA than in the UK. But the UK, with its lower proportion of excellent musicians, somehow manages to defy the odds and produce bands that aren't scared to try something different.

Americans - dare to be different!

I don't agree that the UK refuses to be like others. The very point about bringing up RnR in this thread, was to illustrate how desperately all the UK bands in the 50's wanted to be like Elvis. But on the flip side, all the US bands wanted then to be like the Beatles.

If any musician on any side of the pond ever wants to exceed "Beatles", then it makes sense to assimilate that method, then exceed it (hence own style picks up) .

Neither side gives itself permission to do that,. which I think is retarded. Before one can run, shouldn't they first learn how to walk?

All this ideology about new different sound is fine...but it seems to me that most self proclaimed musicians just use that "be different" concept as a smoke screen to hide their inability to express what their lives are really about, with any real precision.
Bands who dare to try something different, actually havent found it since the 50s- 60's
Radio Head is good, but they are in danger of becoming one long song... Can anybody imagine them as the absolute and sole thematic backdrop to life? I cant.

I Love NIN, but at the end of the day, its all gimmick, bells and whistles. Quite entertaining, but again, very narrow, limited representation of the greater universe. That's precisely the problem (as I see it) with modern music. Its becoming spiritless and banal.

Americans just need to take the leap of faith. It's one thing to take inspiration from others... but another thing to copy them. Maybe the mentality in the UK is such that we refuse to be like others. I always loved the Beatles' music, but I wouldn't want to write any music like theirs. I'd want to write MY own music.

In a way, it's quite sad... my observations (and this is merely an opinion) is that there are far more talented musicians in the USA than in the UK. But the UK, with its lower proportion of excellent musicians, somehow manages to defy the odds and produce bands that aren't scared to try something different.

Americans - dare to be different!

I don't agree that the UK refuses to be like others. The very point about bringing up RnR in this thread, was to illustrate how desperately all the UK bands in the 50's wanted to be like Elvis. But on the flip side, all the US bands wanted then to be like the Beatles.

If any musician on any side of the pond ever wants to exceed "Beatles", then it makes sense to assimilate that method, then exceed it (hence own style picks up) .

Neither side gives itself permission to do that,. which I think is retarded. Before one can run, shouldn't they first learn how to walk?

All this ideology about new different sound is fine...but it seems to me that most self proclaimed musicians just use that "be different" concept as a smoke screen to hide their inability to express what their lives are really about, with any real precision.
Bands who dare to try something different, actually havent found it since the 50s- 60's
Radio Head is good, but they are in danger of becoming one long song... Can anybody imagine them as the absolute and sole thematic backdrop to life? I cant.

I Love NIN, but at the end of the day, its all gimmick, bells and whistles. Quite entertaining, but again, very narrow, limited representation of the greater universe. That's precisely the problem (as I see it) with modern music. Its becoming spiritless and banal.

There is a difference between being "different" and being "revolutionary". Most of that is in the public perception more than in the actual music you produce. The Beatles weren't very different from any of the skiffle bands of England when they started, but over time their being "different" evolved into being revolutionary once George Martin and Ringo were added to the mix, and once Brian Epstein marketed their hair styles and sent them to America. The rest is history.

So I tend to agree with what our English friend just said. It starts by being "different" and over time that becomes more than it was when it started. And really, it doesn't take that much to be different. You and I are too close to understand how "different" a Texas slant is from other places. What seems not very different to you in El Paso could sound completely revolutionary to an englishman.

Americans just need to take the leap of faith. It's one thing to take inspiration from others... but another thing to copy them. Maybe the mentality in the UK is such that we refuse to be like others. I always loved the Beatles' music, but I wouldn't want to write any music like theirs. I'd want to write MY own music.

In a way, it's quite sad... my observations (and this is merely an opinion) is that there are far more talented musicians in the USA than in the UK. But the UK, with its lower proportion of excellent musicians, somehow manages to defy the odds and produce bands that aren't scared to try something different.

Americans - dare to be different!

I don't agree that the UK refuses to be like others. The very point about bringing up RnR in this thread, was to illustrate how desperately all the UK bands in the 50's wanted to be like Elvis. But on the flip side, all the US bands wanted then to be like the Beatles.

If any musician on any side of the pond ever wants to exceed "Beatles", then it makes sense to assimilate that method, then exceed it (hence own style picks up) .

Neither side gives itself permission to do that,. which I think is retarded. Before one can run, shouldn't they first learn how to walk?

All this ideology about new different sound is fine...but it seems to me that most self proclaimed musicians just use that "be different" concept as a smoke screen to hide their inability to express what their lives are really about, with any real precision.
Bands who dare to try something different, actually havent found it since the 50s- 60's
Radio Head is good, but they are in danger of becoming one long song... Can anybody imagine them as the absolute and sole thematic backdrop to life? I cant.

I Love NIN, but at the end of the day, its all gimmick, bells and whistles. Quite entertaining, but again, very narrow, limited representation of the greater universe. That's precisely the problem (as I see it) with modern music. Its becoming spiritless and banal.

There is a difference between being "different" and being "revolutionary". Most of that is in the public perception more than in the actual music you produce. The Beatles weren't very different from any of the skiffle bands of England when they started, but over time their being "different" evolved into being revolutionary once George Martin and Ringo were added to the mix, and once Brian Epstein marketed their hair styles and sent them to America. The rest is history.

So I tend to agree with what our English friend just said. It starts by being "different" and over time that becomes more than it was when it started. And really, it doesn't take that much to be different. You and I are too close to understand how "different" a Texas slant is from other places. What seems not very different in El Paso could sound completely revolutionary to an englishman.

It kind of like what has happened with me in Germany. I'm not all that "different" in my opinion, but a church in Germany heard my music and thought it so revolutionary that they brought me there in 2006 and began promoting me around their nation to where I'm now known better in Berlin, Dresden and several more cities of Saxony, Nurnberg, & Tubingen than in Dallas (where almost no one thinks I'm all that). I've played in 9 states of Germany and could spend a year touring there if I wanted.

A prophet really is without honor in his hometown. Even Yeshua (Jesus) had to leave Nazareth before anyone would listen to Him. He was "different" there but revolutionary in the Galilee.

There is a point where , like you said, revolutionary becomes the function and result of promotion. In fact , its the direct correlation of public mood and preference at a given period of time. Frank Zappa was revolutionary in his own right. But you'd be hard pressed to convince George Jones of it.
I staunchly believe, no matter how technically well versed an artist is, if they cant resonate with the listener, then being different, revolutionary bears no relevance.

What separated Beatles from others boils down to their musical honesty...coupled with their ability to uphold commercial standards. Nobody else was willing to go the 9th mile with it like they did... (Martin was a huge catalyst in that respect) . The same thing happened with Hendrix, Musical honesty, coupled with ability to uphold commercial standards. But he only went the 8th mile. ...CSNY...Same thing...8th mile, Stones 8th mile
Again...How does one expect to run, if they havent learned how to walk...

What separated Beatles from others boils down to their musical honesty...coupled with their ability to uphold commercial standards.

I think success is always a matter of hard work being prepared for opportunity. The Beatles were the result of so many factors coming together at the same time. Apart from their well-rounded musical ability from playing clubs of England and Germany, they appeared on the scene at the same time the baby-boomers generation was at it's peak with lots of disposable income.

John Lennon gave voice to those who were sick of a repressive religion passing itself off as "faith". They spoke of love in a way that mimicked the truth enough to be palatable, even it is was somewhat of a counterfeit version of free love.

Without George Martin, they would have been above average but his influence made them pop music kings at just the right time in history.

So the secret is not to make plans, but to make the best music you can and let it go where it will.

There aren't that many who are brave enough to stick it out.




.

Good to see my post generating more discussion

I agree with many of the points. To add, I'd say that the so-called "X-Factor" is what's needed. I'd say in the case of the Beatles that their X-Factor was George Martin. I reckon if Hendrix had had Martin, man that would've been one heck of an act. I'm not a fan of Hendrix, as I find his music dreary - but I do acknowledge him as a bloody brilliant guitarist (of course!)

Radiohead: They did things in reverse. They started out original, different, daring. And then I found them becoming too 'processed' or 'polished'. I believe the album "OK Computer" was written in a week or something silly like that, which is exactly what's needed. And the Beatles' first album was recorded in 12 hours (Lennon had a cold, and did "Twist and Shout" in ONE TAKE o.O )

Wasn't it Mark Twain's musical grandson that said, "Britain and America are two countries divided by a common musical genre"? :p

I agree.
Over production is a nightmare to music. Let the music sing. Some of the very best and I might say unnerving bands I've been in, have been just that. spontaneous, but not combustible. There are some fabulous songs and musos out there, but sadly everything is compressed to my ears.

Good thread. (Still).

Good to see my post generating more discussion

I agree with many of the points. To add, I'd say that the so-called "X-Factor" is what's needed. I'd say in the case of the Beatles that their X-Factor was George Martin. I reckon if Hendrix had had Martin, man that would've been one heck of an act. I'm not a fan of Hendrix, as I find his music dreary - but I do acknowledge him as a bloody brilliant guitarist (of course!)

Radiohead: They did things in reverse. They started out original, different, daring. And then I found them becoming too 'processed' or 'polished'. I believe the album "OK Computer" was written in a week or something silly like that, which is exactly what's needed. And the Beatles' first album was recorded in 12 hours (Lennon had a cold, and did "Twist and Shout" in ONE TAKE o.O )

Wasn't it Mark Twain's musical grandson that said, "Britain and America are two countries divided by a common musical genre"? :p

FANCY the chance to record your own music, in a professional recording studio with professional help for free?

----------------------------TWO HOURS FREE SESSION RECORDING-----------------------------------

That’s the opportunity being offered by Rail Music Recording who is looking for London acts interested in recording their demo.

Entrants can record original or music cover.

A professional Sound Engineer will follow your session through the final mastering.


If you are interested in grabbing a place for a free recording session simply email, name of the act or band, names and ages of members, a contact name, telephone number and email address, previous musical experience and musical style of the act.

We are looking forwards to hearing from you.


Rail Music Recording

...Interesting Thread PaperDog ... I lived in the UK for 6 years or so. Of course that was back in 1977 to ? I put together several Bands there in London, Manchester and Scotland. The band in Scotland was what was called "Trady" ... all acoustic playing traditional Songs mostly with a few originals.

The other Bands were Punk first then what was termed "Theatrical Rock". All Original Music in both types excepting a few covers . All the Bands played out for money. I even went to France, Germany, Belgium and Holland. All of these bands were made up of Brits ... even a couple were female.

I mention this in order to clarify that I was there ... Living for a significant period of time ... did play out for money ... toured in a few countries ...did Original music and was "self-financed" so it was all very real right down to organizing the venues and advertising them plus I had six dancers in the Theatrical Rock Band. I know what it is like to put a band together from scratch, rehearse it and et it playing and keep it playing. All of this is difficult to say the least.

How the scene is there now I do not know although I am still in touch with several musicians there and it seems it is essientially the same while accounting for all things. Finding a decent rehearsal space, getting gigs, advertising and such.

I tend to agree with your original statement regarding UK Bands/Musicians. I do know that across the board it is vastly more difficult to even get good gear in the UK. Expensive in relative terms and I do know of a couple guitarists and drummers who actually "starved" to get their gear. I would say that it is more difficult there to even get to the stage of playing so this translates into more serious individuals who are much more committed and realistic in solving any problems and although they do have egos ( which is a requirement) they are more keen on working together, accepting leadership and their expectations are not as high either.

I do prefer European Musicians. their attitudes are much better and they are more committed I find. These reasons alone certainly contribute to the superiority of the "scene" over there.


Ta Live Well Die Well

...Interesting Thread PaperDog ... I lived in the UK for 6 years or so. Of course that was back in 1977 to ? I put together several Bands there in London, Manchester and Scotland. The band in Scotland was what was called "Trady" ... all acoustic playing traditional Songs mostly with a few originals.

The other Bands were Punk first then what was termed "Theatrical Rock". All Original Music in both types excepting a few covers . All the Bands played out for money. I even went to France, Germany, Belgium and Holland. All of these bands were made up of Brits ... even a couple were female.

I mention this in order to clarify that I was there ... Living for a significant period of time ... did play out for money ... toured in a few countries ...did Original music and was "self-financed" so it was all very real right down to organizing the venues and advertising them plus I had six dancers in the Theatrical Rock Band. I know what it is like to put a band together from scratch, rehearse it and et it playing and keep it playing. All of this is difficult to say the least.

How the scene is there now I do not know although I am still in touch with several musicians there and it seems it is essientially the same while accounting for all things. Finding a decent rehearsal space, getting gigs, advertising and such.

I tend to agree with your original statement regarding UK Bands/Musicians. I do know that across the board it is vastly more difficult to even get good gear in the UK. Expensive in relative terms and I do know of a couple guitarists and drummers who actually "starved" to get their gear. I would say that it is more difficult there to even get to the stage of playing so this translates into more serious individuals who are much more committed and realistic in solving any problems and although they do have egos ( which is a requirement) they are more keen on working together, accepting leadership and their expectations are not as high either.

I do prefer European Musicians. their attitudes are much better and they are more committed I find. These reasons alone certainly contribute to the superiority of the "scene" over there.


Ta Live Well Die Well

Vampier,

My Only Claim to England was South Hampton when I was a wee one... Culturally, I find the most many UK (in most cases) to be extraordinarily graceful, even when they are extraordinarily rowdy. To wit...I have seen where A punker in London is gracious enough to spell out that his Busking is gonna cost dearly... He gives you every chance in the book to back out... bow out and fade away before a row starts. In Our Culture (U.S.) we might use a scone as a weapon... .before the busking-thought even registers.
It just seems to me there is such a civil grace in everything they say and do... Am I wrong?

Why is that question important to me? Well, because I would contend that (if I am correct in my previous assumptions) that such a decorum has a direct bearing on the quality of how a song be composed and written... It seems that many Brit artists have fascinating imaginations. I mean, who could come up with half the sh*t that we heard in the 60's 70's and on... Yet, I sense the UK is also going thorugh an artistic drought right now. But then, so is the US.

I have to remind myself... its only a topic about circus acts... nothing more... The world is falling apart and there are no longer any ears to hear, eyes to see and hearts to embrace...

It's an interesting idea that there are fundamentally different musical cultures in the UK and US, even as the UK rock scene started from a keen desire to imitate US rock'n'roll. I do think that, in some ways, and perhaps counterintuitively to the usual sense that the UK is a place more obviously steeped in history than the US, this lack in the UK of a real tradition of the blues and rock'n'roll helps the pop/rock scene here to stay fresh. There's often more of a sense of ersatz irreverance to our pop and rock music, a willingness to break down genres and throw whatever's to hand into the mix in order to see what'll work, whereas a lot of US rock music (and this is a huge generalisation) i think is often more bound by genre conventions. There often tends to be more of an 'art school' mentality to UK guitar pop and rock as well, as opposed to the more blue-collar aspirations of a lot of US rock. So we tend to do studio innovation and theatre very well (eg Beatles, Bowie, the febrile dance music scene from the 80s onwards) whereas the US is very good at producing more heartfelt, straightforward stuff (think Springsteen, Tom Petty). That's not to say there aren't bands and musicians of both types on either side of the atlantic - say, for instance, Dylan or Talking Heads in the US - but the overall focus tends to be on honesty in the US and performance in the UK.

The flip-side of this, i think, is that the UK music scene can skew towards the emotionally facile or superficial - we tend to produce fewer musicians in the vein of, say, Townes Van Zandt, really meaty, mature singer-songwriters, perhaps because those kinds of musicians are more likely to end up part of the UK trad folk scene.

WHAT CHIPPY SAID..

Meh if you can play, skip the covers and make the real music.

Sounds like the English have that idea well covered and that's one cover I don't mind at all. lol

The rest can do what they think is right...make the solution fit the problem.