No.

The Beatles are just one example i made...Theres also The Rolling Stones, The Who, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Eric Clapton, The Kinks, The Clash, Radiohead, etc.

Boo boo, that was brilliant. It's almost asif I've seen that very argument before...In fact I think I made it.

You asked a question, we gave an answer and you didn't like it so you tried to undermine the strength of Elvis and Bob ****ing Dylan. Get this, NO ONE IS BIGGER THAT DYLAN.

You lose.

Theres also the Fall Of Troy, Nine Inch Nails, Faith No More, Ramones, Mr Bungle, Bob Dylan, The Doors, Television, Talking Heads, Husker Du, Fugazi, Dead Kennedys, Bright Eyes, Sunny Day Real Estate, Mars Volta, Tool etc... You're treating it like america is full of bands/artists that can't even hold a candle to any of those bands.

So with the exception of the debatable Radiohead, Britin hasn't produced anything of note since the 70's?

Of course they can't hold a candle to those bands! The bands you named just are just excellent bands, while the bands he mentioned have years and years worth of total overratedness and unwarranted critical acclaim!

Honestly boo boo. The Clash? They're not even the pinnacle of British punk, much less British music. And I can't believe you're complaining about Elvis not being original, when you just named Led Zep for the British side.

Oh wait, I just remembered that those bands are the Holy Grail of music and no one is ever allowed to speak badly about any of them EVER. Sorry guys, I forgot.

Hell no, i was just keeping the list short, The Smiths, The Police, Joy Division, The Cure, My Bloody Valentine, Oasis, etc.

Social Distortion>>>>Sex Pistols.
Which makes america better.
Just goin' by your logic.
Well on a serious note, north america does punk better.

The Sex Pistols were still more influencial and important.

The only american punk band who can take on The Clash or The Pistols in influence is The Ramones, they are pretty much the big 3, obviously.

Im NOT going by just one band here, im saying the UK had more bands with serious amounts of influence and impact, its not about who had the most good bands, because not only is that impossible to measure accurately, its also completely subjective.

Its about who had the most Great bands, or who had the most bands whose roles in rock music matter the most.

Please tell me you're joking about these two. I can see naming the rest, they have the reputation, but fucking Oasis? If you were going to name a Britpop band, couldn't you at least have named Blur? Pulp? And the Sex Pistols? C'mon.

How can you say that British Punk bands are more influential than American ones, when all the first Punk bands were from America?

Iggy and the Stooges. Britian can't even compare to america in the punk.

Tea and a biscuit anyone?

Iggy And The Stooges being a punk band has always been a matter of debate, i think they are punk, but regardless some of their biggest influences were british bands, like The Stones, The Kinks and The Who.

When you think about it, the template for punk rock as we know it can be traced back to those 3 bands.

The Ramones had many british rock influences, hell, Joey even tried to sound british on all of their records.

I thought influence didn't matter? You brushed aside the american influence on some of the bands you mentioned.

That first wave of punk was negligible in my opinoin, DK's, Black Flag, Bad Religeon, Soical D...thats what sells me.

We own the balls off of britian in blues, country, punk, jazz, and hip hop/rap.

Whats it feel like to be a one-trick pony britain?

Im taking both influence and quantity into consideration.

UK simply had a greater quantity of more influencial musicians.

And better musicians, in my opinion...Though thats not the point im trying to make.

Bands like The Beatles, The Stones, Zeppelin, Sabbath, etc have had consistant influence generations of bands, and their influence is still quite powerful today, the influence of early rock n roll pioneers like Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard and others have faded in the past couple of years, while that by NO means takes away from their greatness, its also a good way to measure direct influence, and most bands today dont credit them as influences.

Thing is, every decade thousands of bands tip their hats to The Stones and The Beatles, their influence on young musicians hasnt faded a bit.

That last one is bull, The Fall Of Troy are more talented musicians then the majority of bands you've mentioned. Oh snap only classic rock artists count though...who do we have..oh that jimi hendrix dude!

This is so true. Boo boo's logic only applies when it benefits Britain. I don't even understand how someone can say that The Who, the Kinks, and the Stones are the template of Punk music, and then turn around and say that even though those bands were all influenced by Blues and Rock & Roll, Britain is still more influential. That makes absolutely no sense. If you're going to use that kind of logic, then it has to work both ways.

A lot of the bands I listen to also cite The Beach Boys, VU, The Stooges and other Proto-Punk bands, early Hardcore bands, etc., etc.

Oh, but wait, none of those bands are famous and most are American, so I guess they don't mean shit.

And i told you im not talking about whos more talented or whos better, thats all subjective opinion and it dosent affect this debate (or it shouldnt anyway), we are talking about greatest, im not saying The Beatles and The Stones ARE greater than Elvis and Dylan, just that UK has more bands that can be considered great, and The Beatles has influenced more innovative and talented bands than Elvis has...And one thing UK dosent lack is technicaly gifted musicians, um hello?...Mahavishnu Orchestra anyone?

And Jimi Hendrix may have been a born american, but he got his big break in England, he lived there for years, plus Mitchell and Redding were british, making JHE essentialy a british act, the UK was where he made his records, thats the place that made him famous, and thats where he first got noticed, if he stayed in the states, its likely nobody would even know who he is, no record company in the US wanted to have a thing to do with him.

Now you are just being childish.

I wasn't talking about the band for one, or else I would have said the jimi hendrix expierence instead of just jimi hendrix. He IS an american guitarist (Seattle =D), but yes this is subjective and really aside from the point..

Because, UK had MORE great bands, and MORE people went to start their own band after hearing The Beatles and The Stones than when people heard Elvis and Chuck Berry.

Plus the british invasion was so huge, no american musical movement has come close since.

It's true, boo boo. You're completely ignoring some of the most influential American artists due to personal preference. At first I didn't really care, but Crowquill and Big3 are right, you're hardly giving America any credit.

However it was his band that became one of the hottest bands in the UK, and when people think Jimi Hendrix, they almost always associate him with his JHE hits, Fire, Purple Haze, Voodoo Child, etc.

And he broke through the scene in the UK, he made his music in the UK, and his musical influence has little to do with him being american.

I've read jimi hendrix's biography. If he had been born in britian, I really doubt he'd be the same hendrix we know of now.

Personal preference?

I prefer The Doors, Nirvana, Velvet Underground and The Ramones to The Rolling Stones, im not being biased or going by preference...Hell i dont even like The Stones all that much, but still no american band really touchs them in overall greatness.

So now you are saying his nationality has some kind of genetic effect on his musical talents?

He's saying that the environment he grew up in did, obviously.

If he grew up in britian, he would've grown up way different. Which could seriously alter his talents.

Ok, you are probably right, i'll give you that.

Personal preference meaning that you seem to think that Classic Rock bands are the only ones that matter. I've spent that past page of this thread telling you that those bands ARE just as influential, and you won't even listen because they don't influence the bands that YOU listen to. Which is why earlier I made the post that you called "childish." If it isn't Classic Rock, critically acclaimed, or widely accepted as "good," then it doesn't matter in the grand scale of things? You're leaving out so many amazing bands because they're not "important," when how important a band is isn't the only deciding factor of a band's talent.

Eventually, this argument does just come down to personal preference, and there's no getting around that.

Last I checked there weren't many part Cherokee guitar players born in britain.

And we've seemed to side step the fact that, I listed 3 to 5 art forms we uncontestedly destroy you in, and you keep going back to rock.

Where is the rest of your ammunition. I'd also like to add:

James Brown
Prince
Bruce Spingsteen
Paul Simon
The Pixies
Soundgarden
Mos Def
Al Green
Ray Charles.

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/

Dont jump to conclusions.

And you have to be pretty dumb if you think any american band has as much worldwide influence as The Beatles, seriously.

So would you judge a band by whos better?...By talent?...Ok then how in the hell do you judge talent?....skill?....Songwriting and Creativity?...And how do you judge that?....Its all subjective, you dont have to make it more complicated than it already is.

It's subjective already. You keep acting like everything you say is fact, and whenever someone challenges you it's suddenly, "You're wrong, I'm right. If you disagree you're stupid [sorry, "pretty dumb"] and don't know what you're talking about."

Bob Dylan alone is as influential. But why don't you try and explain that away with "Oh, but he's not influential now/he influenced British Invasion bands, therefore any influence he had elsewhere is thus negated/some other bull."

This is always what people say when they dont want to admit they lost a arguement. :pimp:

And you say it like opinions cant be factual, no my opinion isnt 100% factual, but i do consider it more valid and objective than what you are saying, and its not like i dont realise its all in my opinion, again you are jumping to too many conclusions...Thing is, there are subjective opinions and there are objective ones, subjective opinions are ones that are based strictly on personal taste and cant be measured in any accurate way, objective opinions are opinions that use facts to make points, and judge things based on facts (for example someones technical skill or someones popularity can be measure with the right knowledge and sources)...And it IS possible for opinions to be right or wrong if they contradict something that is a proven fact, for example i could say the moon is made of starfoam even though scentific evidence proves otherwise, and it wouldnt make me any less wrong just because i have the right to my opinion, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, then you will need some cold hard evidence to prove to me that its a giraffe.

And why they don't want to lose one, they ignore my statements. Unrefutable, you've ignored them and Im just hoping the people who actually read them will agknowledge that you havn't said anything about the fact you won't pull your head out of the Beatles sandbox.

Im ignoring you simply because you are just trying to start another personal flame war with me, and it isnt worth it, id rather not speak to you then say the wrong thing and piss you off.

I already explained my reasons regarding influence, its not JUST influence, its also consistancy and quantity, and impact.

I give up. And yeah, in your next post why don't you gloat about "winning" some more and use ANOTHER pimp emoticon!

It's useless arguing with you. It's like there's no way of getting through. There's no right or wrong answer, that's why we're debating it in the first place. Why can't you understand that? Or do you still feel that you're right and everyone arguing against you is wrong, and whatever you say is automatically correct because your argument is backed up by "fact," and somehow Crowquill, Big3, and my own weren't?

If you think there is no right or wrong answer, then why did you even bother to convince people that the US are better?

As a american, im simply thinking outside of the box, and i can admit that my country isnt superior to every other nation in every possible way.