U.S. vs U.K. Rock and Roll -- No Contest

Great Debates
21

There have been great bands out of the UK, but they’ll never surpass the greats out of the States. A few that have gone unmentioned:

US- Paul Simon (/&Garfunkel), Metallica, Guns n’ Roses (G’n’R was the essence of rock for a few years there), Beck (tremendous over the last few years), the Beastie Boys (okay, more rap than rock, but without them, no Kid Rock, Eminem, Limp Bizkit, or Vanilla Ice- I guess that doesn’t help the argument), Tom Petty, Steve Miller, Van Halen, Joni Mitchell, Phish, Buffalo Springfield, Leonard Cohen, Lou Reed, Santana, B.B. King, James Brown, the Band.

UK- (are we including Ireland? add U2, Van Morrison, the Chieftans) I think someone mentioned Pink Floyd in passing, and Bowie has certainly done a lot, and that’s about all I can come up with right now.

It seems to me that Brit bands are more reactive to what’s being pioneered over here, rather than creating new styles independently. I suppose one can make the same argument against US bands rehashing black music.

22

BigDaddyD - umm Joni Mitchell: Born November 7, 1943, as Roberta Joan Anderson in Fort MacLeod, Alberta. And Leonard Cohen was also born a citizen of the Commonwealth - ditto Neil Young before you claim him as well. Santana ? not even in the same hemisphere !! (Brazil). If you want Lou Reed twice (The Velvets) then we could go on forever.

I’ll concede on Paul Simon and Beck.

Got to say it’s pretty hard living in (maybe with NYC) the most cosmopolitan place on the planet and not have musical influences drawn from just about everywhere. Walk out the door and it’s there.

Suspect it’s stretching the reality to think very much at all is original. Trace it back and most popular music developed from African slave’s. Take all the credit you want.

23

What we lack in quality, we make up for in quantity. And audience.

And BTW, the U.S. invented, perfected and rule the punk genre.

24

Rubbish. The US might well have invented punk, but the UK developed it and added the anti-authoritarian edge. And the crap around now ain’t punk (on either side of the Atlantic); it’s hard-edged alternative rock. Personally, for me punk was defined as much by it’s social stance as it was by the style of music. The only remotely punky band I have any time for in recent years is Fugazi. The US might have a thriving underground punk scene, but so does the UK, Australia etc etc.

25

So all of those punk rock fans are mistaken? They aren’t listening to punk because it doesn’t fit into your definition of the genre?
I really don’t think the Brits had cornered the anti-authoritarian edge market. Iggy and the Stooges, the Ramones
and all the bands playing at CBGB’s had just a little edge of their own. As for your argument that todays punk isn’t really punk, well it reminds me of my mom telling me how that 80’s crap wasn’t rock; rock died with the Beatles! (or Elvis or Buddy Holly etc…)

If you’ve been to punk show in that last 10 years (at least here in L.A) you have seen that punk is alive and well and still anti-authoritarian. It’s just that those playing it are a little younger and a little greener than us wisened old fogeys.

26

Ahem… Pssssst! Radiohead, anyone? They’re brits, aren’t they?
I like most britpop (blur, pulp, that sorta thing), and when counting my UK CDs compared to my US CDs, I think it’s in sort of a tie. Not that I’m one to judge on influence or whatnot. I just listen to the music… (one should note, though, that the largest percentage, I think, goes to Hebrew music, which is really different from anything going on in the US or the UK, even though we don’t seem to think so. So I’m really not one to say anything. I should shut up now.)
4 days to the radiohead concert in Israel! WOOHOO!

27

Sorry spooje, I was indulging in a bit of talking out of my arse.

My problem is that as I was brought up in the UK I know more about UK punk than US. I have a very strong dislike for the self-labelled “punk” that hits the charts, which to me is more like corporate alternative rock. You’re right, it is down to definitions; the bands you point out are equally important to any that I can point out.

28

Yes, punk lives on.

But for the last week, I’ve been listening to Deep Purple and Supertramp and (god, help me) enjoying it.

IMHO, there’s no way to say this is better than that in something as subjective as popular music. It’s all a matter of taste and tastes can change very quickly. Just every now and then we’ve gotta stand and shout for our homies.

29

A local radio station here (Canada) is running a long weekend contest that is like Desert Island Disks, the question being… if you could only have one classic rock album which one would it be? Listeners vote on which stays and which goes… like on the show Survivor.
Some of the choices have been difficult as the station has been putting great albums up against equally great albums.
Zeppelin 4 looks like it is going to be there at the end with Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” although nothing is carved in stone. I think I would pick Zeppelin but it would be a tough choice.
The winners I recall from yesterday were Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Boston (debut), AC/DC, and The Who. Zep knocked off the Beatles while AC/DC nudged Van Halen out. I would have picked Van Halen myself.
<P>Seems to be a trend there doesn’t it?
<P>They will continue the contest through today and we will have a winner tomorrow… I’ll let you know what Canucks here think is the essential classic rock album of all time…

30

Journey’s “Frontiers” or possibly Steppenwolf

Earlier this year someone (I want to say MTV) assembled an “official” list of the best 100 songs of rock.

Now there is something to criticize!

“Sitting on the Dock of the Bay” ???
The Carpenters ???
And they called ME mad!

31

You know, I haven’t even mentioned Aerosmith yet…

32

JOURNEY? They invented “butt rock” I certainly hope you weren’t serious!

And Steppenwolf is Canadian. They formed in Toronto, all the members are Canadian, though they made it big in L.A. And John Kay was German by birth, but raised in Toronto.

The problem with comparing British influences to American influences is that British bands tend not to “make it” unless they “make it” in America, while the converse is rarely true (Only three major American acts I can think of were bigger in Britain before America: James Taylor, Jimi Hendrix, and The Pretenders, though the last two had primarily British bands).

Bob Dylan is easily one of the top (if not #1) musical influence of all time, first as a songwriter, then with the release of Highway 61 Revisited as a performer in his own right.

Buddy Holly is often underrated by listeners who are used to overproduced, digitally enhanced music. He was the Beatle’s #1 influence (John Lennon picked the name “the Silver Beetles” as an homage to Buddy’s first band “The Crickets”) Buddy Holly was the first major performer of “garage rock.” His early singles were known for their simple arangements and easy chord progressions. The Crickets were the first real three-piece (guitar, drum, bass) at a time (the 1950’s) when most of rock and roll was heavily influenced by big-band style instrumentation. 90% of rock bands since The Crickets have used the same basic instrumental formula, though few did before him.

The Allman Brothers Band is important for fusing the “Southern Rock” sound with Jazz. Duane Allman (who Clapton admitted to being a better guitarist than himself, and to whom Clapton played second banana to in Derek and the Dominos) had far reaching influences as a studio musician appearing on many of the early R&B recordings at Muscle Shoals studio in Alabama.

Booker T. and the M.G.'s likewise were a HUGE influence due to their insturmental prowess. They were THE house band at Sun records in Nashville, and also were a huge influence on R&B music. Its unfortunate that they are most remembered as “The Blues Brothers Band” since their influence is far greater than that.

Nirvana, whether you personally like grunge or not, WAS a huge influence in all of the music in the english speaking world. Bush (UK) and Silverchair (Australia) only show how the basic Nirvana formula had a HUGE influence in all rock music.

There you go, five from the U.S. side. If you ask me tomorrow, I might come up with a different 5. If your looking for the 5 biggest selling artists, well, that has little correlation to musical influence, but that is a different question altogether.

33

As to who invented punk is largely up to debate. The Sex Pistols(UK) are often cited as the first majorly successful punk band. Before them is The Ramones(US), who were part of the CBGBs scene that are often credited with being the first true punk band. Should we stop there? The Kinks(UK) “You Really Got Me” as a single has a hell of a punk feel, though many count The MC5’s(US) “Kick Out The Jams” as the first true punk song. Plus throw The Velvet Underground (US) or The Stooges (UK) into the mix.

Political anti-establishment punk songs? The UK has the Sex Pistols, but the U.S. has The Dead Kennedys. The Clash had a sort of intelligent anti-establishment message that the Sex Pistols seem to lack, but then again, X had the American equivalent around the same time. X’s album “Los Angeles” is called in some circles as influential as the Clash’s album “London Calling.” The Buzzcocks (UK) you say? Black Flag (US) say I. It seems tough to call whether in this or any other rock genre the U.S. or U.K. has more influential artists.

34

Hey. I know it’s not techniclly rock, but most other musical genres started here in the states too. Techno, started in Detroit. Hiphop? here in the states.
Overall, the United states I much richer musically than the U.K. Of course we’re bigger too. Maybe we should be arguing about musical talent per capita.

35

Hey jayron 32,

I wouldn’t normally bother picking you up on this, but seeing as you were setting up a US/UK dichotomy, it has to be said: the Stooges were from the US (in fact, from Detroit, the same place as the MC5).

American bands had been called punk since the late 1960’s, and Suicide were (I believe) the first group to ever call themselves punk (in an ad for a December 1970 show).

Regarding the OP, there’s been too much interchange between the two countries to clearly delineate which has had more impact, but IMHO, there are more American bands I listen to.

Henry’you might remember me as Iguana’Spencer.

36

here are a few for the US side:

Guns N’ Roses
Alice in Chains
Aerosmith
Nirvana
The Black Crowes
Soundgarden

37

London_Calling: Isn’t Canada practically the same thing? I know how proud Canadians are, but with such a huge common border, there is much freeflow of culture back and forth. I used to get CBC in Michigan, and I’m sure that you can pick up Seattle radio stations in Vancouver. Whereas there is a much greater seperation between the US and UK.

And while Santana may have been born in Brazil, (which doesn’t really jibe with his speaking Spanish, not Portugese, but it could be) he grew up in San Francisco.

Regardless, we both seem to say that it’s all really derived from the music brought by African slaves. Perhaps this is because the best way, throughout the years, to scare the ‘establishment’ is for good white kids to listen and dance to black music. I’m not sure if that’s a good or bad thing, I just know that I like the results.

A few more to add to the list: George Clinton/Parliament/etc, Springsteen and the E Street Band, the Dead, the Doors. I think these might have been mentioned, but they’re good enough to bring up again.

38

Goodness, what are all those songs on “The Who’s Greatest Hits”, then? Or any of their other hits-and-singles compilations, most notably “Meaty, Beaty, Big and Bouncy”? And they DID have hits, lots of them. Admittedly many more in the UK than the US, but they weren’t exactly absent from the charts on this side of the pond. The Who is also pretty much the only band of their era that punk bands will admit to being influenced by, and they left their mark on a few other rock genres as well.

39

It was VH1, and it was retarded. No. 1 wasnt even stairway. What kind of rubbish is that?

40

Minlokwat, I think you need to define your parameters better. As this thread has proven, there is innovation/influence, and there is execution.

For example, the who is a great band, they pulled off the british invasion thing brilliantly, and moved on to be one of the kings of 70s arena rock. They were excellent at both, and rivaled the stones and the beatles in this regard. but they were hardly innovative, and their influence was negligable. The same could be said of the stones, really.

OTOH, you have your velvet underground/dylan/buddy holly… they were innovative, ifluential, but not really the best ultimately, at their craft. VU begat early REM, who did it better, dylan begat tons of people who did it better… and buddy holly (in my mind a genius) paved the way for hundreds of bands in RR history.

Anyway, define your objectives more… who is the greater rock and roll influence, or who is the greater rock and roll performer?