What Do US Pop Musicians Have That UK Ones Don't?

(the same thing happens in the UK of course but one gets the impression that in the case of say an Oasis, this delineation means more to the band and select fans than to the public at large)

(ha I am talking utter nonsense I think. When I last visited the UK I remember seeing Craig David on TV and thinking "this would never catch on in the US" and just look at him now)

They *are* kittens.

The US seems lacking in kittens, except for Elijah Wood. People who look like cats are freaky.

Born furry.

This is the single greatest thing about UK music, to me. The U.S. has no individual pop mavericks. ( I have nothing against our perfect' factoryline' pop -- motown, brill building, hip-hop -- of course!) The U.S. would never, ever have launched a Martin Fry or a Kevin Rowland or an Adam Ant, to name but three. The market is sadly too big to crack w/o consensus, and we have that nagging suspicion of pop (as explained above).

Also, U.S. rock is too damn hung on performance and 'earning your way to the top.' If you create a great song, you've earned it, say I. For all the blasting the UK hype machine gets, there is something refreshing about a marketplace that rewards individual moments of greatness and doesn't insist on careerism.

"I go to TRL, look how many hugs I get..."

Also the UK has been coasting on these glories for, what, TWENTY YEARS now - where are the Frys, Rowlands and Ants nowadays?

I don't think this sort of selling is regional as much as it is demographic, determined by both age and class. Country music is popular in pockets of Long Island, rap huge with well-off suburban white kids ... the demise of the "regional" hit happened long ago, and is only being accelerated by the centralization of radio station headquarters.

???

2. I am impressed by the range of answers to this thread - many things I'd never have thought of.

3. Why REM? Good question. Perhaps it got me wondering: how come 80s REM can play jangly B-sides, brief instrumentals, drunken country, Aerosmith and a surfeit of Velvets covers - and sound cool and interesting; whereas a UK band would sound embarrassing?

>>>>???

That's a lyric by that Eminem chap those across the pond are quite keen on, he's a sort of hip-hop version of Jilted John, or so I'm told.

I'm thinking about this one... where would you look for them, and wouldn't all of those lot be classed as indie if they came out nowadays (major labels or not)? Moreover, if yer Ants and ABCs and Dexys came out today, is there any conceivable way they'd have anything like the level of success they managed in the 80's? Dexy's would probably get shipped off on a never ending support slot with The Coral, Adam Ant would be encouraged/forced to give up the whole 'dandy highwayman' thing and instead sound a bit more like Gareth Gates (the gimmick would be exhumed for some video or other, though), and ABC... well, I'm almost certainly very wrong, but wouldn't ABC be the Midlands' Cinerama?

Or, short answer: Tim Wheeler. Because "Envy (En-vee, eh-heh-en-vee)" is fantastic.

?!?!?!

This is a category mistake. The UK is an outlying region of the US.

Answer to the question: Position at the center, as opposed to the periphery ;)

(wait are you saying the thread-answer is "worse scientists"?)

2. No, 'you're not going off the pop road': like I said, REM (a pop group) started this train of thought.

"In the US, bands can sell, say, the Dirty South sound or the Seattle sound or the East/West coast sound or the Oakland sound or the whatever sound. In England, we have.... NW1. And that's it. "

For a start, this is so fucking wrong that it's almost offensive, except for the fact that it so UTTERLY typifies everything that is wrong with the UK, ie *LONDON* music scene. The fact that only what happens in London and specifically NW1 (ever try to get someone to got to Brixton to see a gig if it's not at the Academy?) is the only thing that people pay ATTENTION to does not mean that it is the only thing that exists.

I'm in love with the Hull scene at the moment. It's remote, it's isolated, and in that splendid lack of limelight have grown up these wonderful unique, independant, and yet instantly recognisable bands like Fonda 500, Harvey, Edible 5ft Smiths et al.

In the US, it's much easier to achieve the sort of spirit of uniqueness that comes from geographic isolation.

The other thing that gets ignored is the age thing, and the length of apprenticeship that American bands/musicians go through before they achieve any kind of success. The years in a van are critically important in the development of a band as a unit. In the UK, it's not considered odd at all to go from never having played an instrument before to being on the cover of the NME and recording your first album in less than a year.

And the age thing... due to lisencing laws, the age of a musician's first gig is generally (no, I know not always) the same as the minimum drinking age. So the average American band, playing their first proper gigs around 21, already has at least 3 years more experience than the over-18s playing in British pubs.

I don't think American music is necessarily always stronger. Hell, I wouldn't be living and working as a musician in the UK if this were the case. But it is different and it does have different strengths that maybe the British should look at and maybe incorporate if useful.

Why do all those American songs/Sound so big and lonely/While we're just small and alone/They grow up dying on highways/While we just die by the phone.

(Jefferson: I think we're lost.)

Naturally whether such a stance is entirely honest is another matter entirely. But I do think that English/Scottish/Welsh acts spend a commendable amount of time tweaking the finer points of their sound. The fashion aspect...eh, what can you do, it's impossible to make any money over there unless you pay attention to the fashion end of things.

tho the whole posting is pretty unreadable, what can you do, I'm tired

Of course I'm making this up as I go along, so it might be absolute nonsense.