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

But - but - but - why could a US 80s act record a bunch of Velvets covers and sound apt and cool, not silly and tired??

But the UK did this too = Spacemen 3.

Maybe the difference between the US and the UK for the purpose of this thread is that the US has a culture of forgetting and reification - the possibility of US music having a cultural impact is dependant on the collective, not-necessarily-correct assumption that a) it is new, and b) it is distinct. Most obvious example: grunge is seen as a phenomenon quite apart (to the point of being disconnected) from the the hardcore and indie it grew out of as well as the MOR-rock it became, and individual bands (eg. Nirvana) are considered important on their own terms - they are the Definite Article, not just the most popular of a host of bands at a certain vector of a certain subgroup's musical development. Obviously they are considered to be that too, but I think this is strictly secondary, which may not be the case in the UK. In the UK most bands are viewed within a context of remembering and connecting. A band like The Stone Roses is not a group-for-itself, but an intersection for 60's guitar pop en route to acid house, C86 en route to Britpop. They are, as such, the sum total of what they are connected to. It means that it's easier to get some attention - or you have to do is choose a particularly winning vector and play it for all its worth - but it can also be pretty limiting, especially when what you're connected to is primarily in the past. The UK doesn't have the US's talent for producing bands that seem, for better or wose, to exist outside of history (big exception: U2, who may as well be a US band except for '93-'97 when they became a UK band again), whose aura is such that, whether you like them or loathe them, discussing influences and antecedents veers towards pointlessness. But the US isn't very good, conversely, at scenes. Due to its strong self-consciousness and interchangability of parts, hip hop is probably the most vulnerable to the UK way of doing things, and that's probably why it invests so much in aura production, with some success (see The Blueprint - a good example of hip hop that is close to existing outside of history).

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

haha i think nabisco, dave q and tim finney have things exactly backwards... which just shows how not particularly useful it is to talk in nationalistic terms...

Gosh I thought Tim's post was incredibly insightful & focused, made-up-as-it-went-along or not.

the neptunes.

Slightly off topic, and I haven't yet read more than a few paragraphs, but this morning's NY Times magazine has a long article on how a record label is working on turning some girl into a new Britney: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/04/magazine/04LATONA. html.
It has a link to hear her song (look in the right column), which sounds like a really poppy but bland Alanis to me.