next »

[Supermercado]

This is a direct repost of a thread over at AnandTech that I thought was pretty interesting. Which country has the best claim to fame when it comes to producing rock 'n roll: the U.S. or the U.K.? Below is a direct copy of the artists representing each country:

The U.S.:
Chuck Berry
Bob Dylan
Jimi Hendrix
Velvet Underground
Ramones
Elvis Presley
Aerosmith
Lynyrd Skynyrd
ZZ Top
SRV
Creedance Clearwater Revival
Guns N Roses
The Doors
Van Halen
The Eagles

The U.K.:
Rolling Stones
Beatles
Black Sabbath
Jimi Hendrix Experience
Led Zeppelin
The Who
Eric Clapton
David Bowie
Sex Pistols
Pink Floyd
Radiohead
The Clash

Pretty tough question... I voted the U.S. on the poll at AT but now I'm considering changing my vote. Sure, Elvis is the king, but the U.K. has some serious contenders on their side: the Stones, the Beatles, Sabbath, Zep, The Who, Clapton. I think my vote does have to be changed to the U.K.

Option for "other" included because AC/DC's from Australia As good as they are, I don't think they're enough to sway the entire vote. For sake of the poll, let's say this is just rock and not metal (that's why bands like Metallica aren't on the list). If we feel the need to discuss that, we can do that in the topic, but let's limit the poll itself to rock 'n roll.

[Catfish]

I'll give it to the UK for influences in the past, but I don't believe they have the same pull now.  I think the US industry is where people aspire to make it now.  Though, you still can't beat shows with 100,000 people like you have in the UK (think U2 returning home, etc)

[Supermercado]

Oh, sure, modern rock is definitely the US. By pure definition, I think of rock 'n roll as being somewhat of a thing of the past. Stuff today is so... labeled. When was the last time you actually heard the term "rock 'n roll" used to classify a band or song? It's always something like alternative rock, modern rock, nu-metal, death metal, indie rock, something. All things that back in the 60s and 70s when a lot of the above artists were popular would probably have been classified under the generic "rock 'n roll" category.

Like you said, though, the UK owns the rock of 30 years ago without a doubt. When I think rock n' roll, that's what I think. For modern times, I definitely agree. Not to open a can of worms and totally discredit things from other parts of the world, but I think if you want to make it to the bigtime, I think you need to be in the US.

Maybe we need to be talking about our definitions of what rock 'n roll actually encompasses.

[Vengeance]

I said 'Other'. It seems that African tribes and Native Americans really made the drums popular.

 

[Catfish]

Perhaps so.  I'm thinking of rock as the current version of what has evolved over time.  Like, from the Beatles, etc to Clapton and hair bands, all the way up to present day.  Kind of an across-the-board deal.

I'd have to agree that if you're talking about rock of the past, it's all about the UK.

[LostArtofRolando]

aight, folks, sorry ive been gone so long.  I have no internet at home (im in the process of moving) and student teaching has eaten a LARGE portion of my time.  that said, here's my spiel.  ROCK! ties its roots to the blues and jazz of African Americans, meaning that it IS a U.S. thing.  HOWEVER, the artists who most blatantly incorporated those African American aspects of music were those crazy Brits.  The Europeans have always been more liberal and open to different forms of music, and the whole racism/prejudice/segregation thing ended in england waaaay before it did here in the states.  SO the answer is British artists using a more American form of music than most American rock n' rollers were willing to pursue at the time.

[Supermercado]

HE LIVES! I almost called you last weekend to make sure you hadn't died