That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that because anyone can become huge in Britain, not just rap artists and Pop Punk bands, it means that bands experiment a lot more. They will try out new things because they know that as long as they are talented at the music they make then they stand a good chance of getting famous. American artists don't get this freedom, they either stick to the formula or else they (usually) get nowhere. I'm not saying Britain is better because it has better mainstream music, I'm saying that the British artists aren't afraid to try something different with music because they know that ANYONE can get somewhere over here. You look at the best, original bands we have had. I doubt that they would have been quite as fortunate if they had started off in America.

IMO, Flaming Lips' best album was released in 93, long before Radiohead's influence could be felt.

And going year by the year the way you did, for me it would go like this...

1950s = US
1960s = UK
1970s = US
1980s = Tie
1990s = UK
2000s = US

Urban, like I said, Liars' new album is FAR more experimental than anything they've done so far. I still like the first two, though.

Hobojesus, all you've really said this whole time is that mainstream British music is better (which it is), which is silly since popularity doesn't decide how good a band is.

Thats not what he`s saying though , he`s saying that it stands a better chance of being made because it`s accepted.

But that doesn't really make any sense, because the American charts right now are littered with crap Rap and R&B artists, and we don't exactly have a shortage of experimental bands.

No it doesn`t , but bands are influenced by whats out there.

You hear more variety it makes more sense that you`ll have more variety yourself

70's US?? examples please!!

Modern Lovers, Suicide, Talking Heads, Television, NY Dolls, Stooges & Iggy Pop, The Beach Boys, Ramones, VU & Lou Reed, Dylan, Tom Waits, Ramones, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, Blondie, James Brown, Parliament/Funkadelic, Theoretical Girls, Devo, Pere Ubu, Mission of Burma, all the bands on No New York, Gil Scott-Heron, Liquid Liquid, Johnny Thunders, Richard Hell, etc.

you forgot the british counterparts.... c'mon brits, i'm sure there was a shitload of awsome british bands in the 70's!! that was like your golden age wasn't it!? is noone going to challenge this?!

Oh alright then

Nick Drake , Black Sabbath , Bowie , Roxy Music , Sex Pistols , Joy Division , T-Rex , Sensational Alex Harvey Band , Pink Floyd , Fairport Convention , Queen (Although I hate them myself) Led Zep , Deep Purple , XTC , Elvis Costello , Hawkwind , Throbbing Gristle , The Clash , The Specials , Loads of prog bands that Boo Boo has probably mentioned before , Public Image LTD , The Cure , Siouxie & The Banshees , ELO , Badfinger etc etc etc

i say the brits win expletive....

I shortened his whole quote so it was less of a bitch to read, I think you kind of shortsided the U.S. I don't know a hella load about british music (still trying to learn =/) so if I come across as unfair its out of ignorance.

In the 80s we had the dead kennedys who are one of the greatest punk bands ever, duh and in the 90s we had more then a bunch of 90s mainstream rock acts that you listed. There was Fugazi, Sunny Day Real Estate, Converge, At The Drive-In, Capn Jazz, and alot of other good bands.

Theres more to the U.S now also the emo scene is thriving (She Died Real Pretty, Circle Takes The Square, Funeral Diner). Between The Buried and Me's Alaska is one of the best albums of 2000 and the Fall Of Troy are an extremely talented group, as are Blood Brothers/Neon Blonde. Rocky Votolato is also a very good acoustic artist out of seattle i've grown to like alot recently. Thrice is a very talented and varied group as shown by their last three albums.

This whole arguement seems like its based around indie bands, theres more to music then that one genre...

Indie isn't a genre though.

Still its similar to one, and most of the bands that have been discussed all fall into that catergory.

Sorry for reading between the lines.
How is it close to one?
Is this to say that Aesop Rock, and Stars fall under the same genre?

You have indie rock, indie pop. You have punk rock, pop punk. We have a forum for it, and everything. It has alot of stuff thats similar to a genre.

Indie Pop, is just pop music released on an independant record label.
It has nothing to do with the genre of the music.

I am just curious why you think it's close to one.
I don't see it at all. Indie Pop, is pop music.

Record Label Status = Indie
Genre Of Music = Pop

There is where Indie Pop comes from.
Nothing more, the term 'indie' doesnt affect the sound of the music.

It can still be catergorized as indie-pop though, which is more what I was getting at. It has similarities in that sense to a genre.

I don't care what anyone says, indie most certainly is a type of music.

In what sense?
Indie Pop, is pop.
Indie cannot stand alone, which is why it isnt a genre.
All other genres can stand on their own.

In the you can have "indie pop" "indie rock" etc.. sense and you have that with other genres, thats a similarity. If it isn't a genre at all and not even similar to one, then why do you have indie folk and indie-pop as your two of your favorite genres?

Because you only asked for American bands.

British ones: The Clash, Bowie, Elvis Costello, Gang of Four, Joy Division, PiL, Roxy Music, Nick Drake, T. Rex, XTC, The Cure, Sioxsie & the Banshees, Eno, Buzz****s, Wire, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, and more

I still think the US wins.

We're being Bias? You won't give America a ****ing inch. I might be bias but at least I didn't jump on the brit ****.

Beck
Stripes
Drive-By Truckers
Devenda Banhart
Dandy Warhols
Kings of Leon
The Roots
Ryan Adams (who I think is a ****)
Sufjan Stevens
The Black Keys (thickfreakness burnt your face and you know it)

Those bands aren't all better than Radiohead but their a shining example of how america has legions of amazing talent.

If indie is pop then it is willfully ragged, and goes for more of an authentic feel (even when that fell inctrived).

Errors are allowed for, in fact celebrated. I love how you keep saying its pop yet pop radio will never ****ing play them because what people think of as pop is not what we know as indie.

We all get that "indie isn't a genre" is the academic truthful definition. but language is everchanging and Jessica Simpson will never be called indie.

And The Fall of Troy, just because all the scenesters have slapped the emo title on them they seemed to be getting ignored for what they are. They're one of the best acts out of the U.S. Thomas Erak is an amazing guitar player, and the music is written very prettiful, the ghostship demos is an amazing piece of work and all their albums are very solid and their original stuff with the extra band member, thirty years war is also very very good stuff....

*rant over*

Indie-Folk, is simply FOLK MUSIC released on an independant label.
Folk music, can stand on its own. Rock music can stand on its own. Rap music can stand on its own. Indie music, cannot stand on its own because the word indie doesnt personify a certain sound/style of music.

But if Jessica Simpson was signed to Kill Rock Stars, or Matador, then she would in fact be an indie pop artist. No way around it.

Are you ****ing kidding me? Come on man, you're just arguing absurdity now. Now I know you have no idea what your talking about.

How so?
Those are both indie record labels. If she was signed by Kill Rock Stars, she would be indie. She isnt, but if she was....

What the hell do you mean how so. You're telling me that is she was on an "indie label" you'd call her indie?

You wouldn't, you'd say she was corporate trying to pass herself off as indie, and you'd spam newbs who said otherwise, you're not fooling anyone.

I listed bands who either got much critical acclaim or were very big, popular and influencial.

What the hell?...I am american, and im not saying its a landslide for the brits, im just saying they have the edge.

So basically it didn't matter how skilled they we're, as long as they we're popular, critically acclaimed, and influencial they were? What a way to decide which music is better!

Getting this back on track

For what it`s worth I would rate it like this...

50s - US
60s - UK
Early 70s - US
Late 70s - UK
80s - UK
90s - UK
00 - US (But only just , my personal opinion is UK music is in the shitter at the moment , the US is slightly better but not much.)

Boo Boo, I know you're an american, you're just not giving the american bands credit for anything. Every time someone says they pick americans for whatever reason they give you're there saying no.

overall, america wins hands down, but as someone rightfully noticed, let's not forget the ratio between the population and good music, in that respect, the brits win......with croatia coming strong in second place....






















































what? you know it's fucking true bitch.....oh ,fuck you!! fuck you all!!

Well i rarely listed bands that i dont consider good (added MM just so no one would complain), if it was merely just about popularity i would have added Foghat and Styx for the 70s and Journey and Toto for the 80s.

When did i not give america any credit at all?

Hell, i gave them all the credit in the world for the 50s, no one else was even close.

Well for all my British bias I can`t think of any new British bands over the past 6 years that are as good as the white stripes , the mars volta or queens of the stone age.

I think American music overall is better but recently I think the British have been putting out higher quality music. They are on a good run as of late while American rock seems to be stale at the moment! Can't wait for the return of good American rock!!!