British groups storm the American charts. Not.

The Manics don't do well in America because they hate America.

for Robbie Williams to succeed in the States would be completely illogical. what appeal does he have for Americans? he may bring a cack-handed ideal of Britishness to MOR-loving Anglophiles out there but i'm sure the majority 'just don't get it, just don't want it' just as you won't see The Streets selling anywhere near as many albums as Gorillaz did over there.

Robbie, Coldplay etc. make enough money so i still dont get why they're perceived as failures for not having proper hits in the U.S. - they're just as horrendous as everything else in the charts out there though so on that basis its a shame they dont fit in. i suppose it comes down to how well the tours go out there and how much cock you're prepared to suck. i was quite impressed with Craig David for speaking out about the stupid situations he found himself in out there (being told to replace white guitarist, lose the dark skinned girls in the video and go for more mixed-race types instead etc.).

blur, on the other hand, never saw the light of day over here, except among the indie crowd.

i know you can connect the dots that i'm drawing here, but i'll go ahead and finish the picture for you anyhow...the american mass public's tastes and the american mass public tastemakers' tastes are simply wretched, non-existent.

people, this is the same country where george bush is president!! how can you expect possibly expect moronic americans to appreciate quality exported music?

most of the british artists who did well here in the '80s were pretty sucky. i submit for you: wham, paul young, uh, phil collins, etc.

the soft cell thing was restricted to one single and had to do with the fact of: the novelty of mtv, the song ('tainted love') included the 'where did our love go' part which all americans recognized and so could latch onto, and probably there was funny stuff in the water here at the time, or a weird astrological situation.

at any rate, u.s. radio has become markedly narrowed and consolidated over the years, so what would have made it onto the airwaves in the early '80s would never have made it on air after 1988 or so.

The Smiths are a pretty decent-selling "cult" band in the U.S. Their singles compilation is platinum I think?

The Manics refuse to properly tour America. When Sony finally convinced them to do so, Richie offed himself and they cancelled the tour. They haven't bothered since, because they are too busy breaking the important Cunban market. And eating pie.

The Pet Shop Boys had several U.S. hits, not just "West End Girls".

And the first three Oasis albums went platinum in the U.S., the second two albums going into the top ten! Wasn't Be Here Now #1 or #2 its first week out?

And I find any conversation blasting the "public" as wretched pretty disagreeable.

You know I hate to refute you, Ally, but the Manics toured here for the This Is My Truth.. album. I even went to see them play at the Bowery Ballroom. That they didn't show up (James had laryngitis, apparently) is another matter.

Actually, they supported Oasis on their Oasis-level touring, and bagged out halfway thru (yet another time I was going to see the Manics and they bagged it).

"And I find any conversation blasting the "public" as wretched pretty disagreeable."

why? how are most people not wretched? at least in their political thinking, music tastes, and the like.

50% of americans voted for george bush. the majority of people support him now. the man is demonic. hence, the public is wretched in their political thought process and decision-making.
the american music public goes crazy over stuff like limp biscuit. hence, the public has wretched taste in music.
fox news.
clear channel.
suv's.
wretched. wretched. wretched.
the evidence is everywhere. most people suck. i wish them all the best, but the human species ain't gonna last much longer, because most people are making really wretched decisions. it's fucking 2003 c.e., and people are still fighting 'wars' to solve conflicts. and the majority of the american public says 'yay', 'we're #1', 'let's wave our flags'...while people are being traumatized and slaughtered. that's fucking wretched. that's fucking obscene.

That's "Song #2" to you, cretin

.... was only a hit because it was in a bunch of tv commercials and promos and such.

Wrong.

plus it sucked, so of course it became a huge hit.

You have dung in your ears and a rancid, rotting eggplant for a brain.

Whatever, anyway. You wanna say the American public is crap, so be it. They're no more or less crap than any other nation's public, however. I fail to see how Limp Bizkit is more or less annoying than, for example, Atomic Kitten.

"Song 2" was all over MTV before it got put into ads. And Gorillaz did very very well (I was recently on a plane and the 13-year-old girl next to me had a Gorillaz desktop on her laptop... I wanted to talk to her about music but figured it might be kind of, you know, sketchy).

Anyway, some time last year was the first time since before the British Invasion that there wasn't a single British album on the Billboard top 100.

But it doesn't have as much to do with "the public" as it does the basic nature of the music industry in the US versus UK.

The thing about the U.S. that most British bands don't get -- and Ally is OTM on this one -- is that it takes SHITLOADS of touring and persistence to make it. Unlike in the UK, where a few Radio 1 spins and you're the next big thing, here you have to press the flesh of every radio programmer and promoter and whoever.... It seems to me that Coldplay made a conscious effort to do this, plus they have that sort of broad, fratboy/sororitygirl appeal (same with Travis, although they're pretty much done now, right?).

I do think it's funny how the "cooler" indie bands are breaking in the UK before the US. That should tell you how much easier it is over there. But, again, I blame the institutions rather than any sort of dumb public... who, remarkably, DO tend to get it right most of the time.

so was 'song #1' the 'woo song', with just woo-(silence) woo-(silence), and then damon or alex or whoever was like, 'hey, wouldn't this song be even better if we made a 'hoo' noise right after the 'woo' noise? then it'd be sure to get selected to be used in annoying car commercials and the like...and then maybe a sizeable segment of the dumb-ass american public would buy our records, since they have no way of hearing our music through any other means, since all the airwaves are controlled by clear channel and just one other company, and their playlists have just 5 songs in rotation at any given space in time, and those 5 songs are by alanis morrisette, papa roach, blink-sum-#, avril lavigne, and lee greenwood....and the only record stores in the u.s. are big-box outfits like wal-mart and best buy, and they don't stock cds unless they include songs that people know from suv commercials....we can call it 'song #2', though anyone with any sensibilities will probably just refer to it as that really annoying new blur song in that car commercial, where they try to sound really 'rock' and keep going 'woo-hoo'"

if the dung and rancid eggplant prevent me from evaluating the 'woo-hoo' song as a quality one, then their presence is surely a blessing.

actually the american public is more crap than other countries'. no other country (with the possible exception of n. korea, and there they have no choice in the matter) has a public that is so bizarrely patriotic and jingoistic...& the public in other countries is not as arrogant, ignorant, unquestioning, consumed with nonsense...would never voice approval of the gang of criminals that the bush administration consists of...

...would never voice approval of the gang of criminals that the bush administration consists of...

You're VERY out-of-touch with American musicians dude.

broad, frat/sorority appeal=the public! the dumb-ass masses!

"And we forgot to mention MTV, the real tastemaker for teenagers' taste."

yeah. as i said in my earlier post, it's not just the the american mass public's tastes that's to blame, but also the american mass public tastemakers' tastes. basically it's mtv and the insanely conservative radio stations dicating to the american public by playing the same 5 songs over and over again. i'm not even going to address the nme vs the big american press like rolling stone or spin, 'cos even the very ink they all are printed with is the non-recyclable shit-based variety.

"But, again, I blame the institutions rather than any sort of dumb public... who, remarkably, DO tend to get it right most of the time"

they do get it right most of the time? what does you mean? now you are sounding like geir hongro. in fact, i think he said almost the exact same thing re the public in one of his posts yesterday.

I scratched my head. Cuz I don't remember when Dan the Automator and Del became citizens of the UK.

The Brit charts are pretty damn shoddy - but compared to the US charts, we are a pinnacle of creativity.

Cracking America is purely money based - and whenever there's the merest sniff of a success, the act themn needs to be dumbed down, any apparent creases ironed out, teeth fixed and music made as bland, uninteresting and generic as possible.

There's loads wrong in Britain - but thank God we still have the finest music acts in the world today.

yes, the 'song' is a fucking horror. i've heard people describe monster truck rallies as being rowdy fun, but that doesn't mean i have any interest in paying to witness one

'You're VERY out-of-touch with American musicians dude.'

like which ones? lee greenwood? or the iraq, i roll guy? god, i hope so. i think the 'american musicians' you're probably thinking of may as well be in the athletic shoe business or something. they're just interested in marketing a product, moving units. artistic creation (and i'm being very generous in referring to it as such) for them is just a means to making $.

Also: LEE GREENWOOD AND ALANIS MORRISSETTE???

seriously, i'm living in california. in a city. near the pacific ocean.

lee and alanis: i was trying to be humorous, hyperbolic...i figured anyone living in the u.s., in this sad cultural climate would get it as the joke that it was...and recognize the truth behind it.

supposed to be, yeah, but it's NOT FUNNY! it just sucks, i tell ya'! i don't like it when people take comedy in vain. thankfully that song had all but disappeared in the past couple years, and now it's been resurrected by this evil thread. i better go away. i hope the 'woo-hoos' don't follow me.

"Yes, DY, obviously all the Americans on this thread are recognizing the truth behind your jokes and posts, that's why we're all agreeing with you! You found us out!"

say what? you lost me. please dumb it down for poor dallas.

james, i thought 'yoda by the bay' was steve perry. i dunno if i could play something that would 'blow your mind'...not sure of your tastes. do you consider 'woo-hoo" to be mind-blowing?

and 'pop crap'?-- most of the music i like i would consider to be pop. just no pap, please.

alex in nyc, jeez...just 'cos i don't like 'woo-hoo', alanis, lee greenwood, blinks, sums, limp biscuits, and the one or two other things i poked fun at...that means i hate all music? tons of music appeals to me...like most people on these boards, too much. i actually like blur. just not anything after parklife.

ok, i grabbed some cd's that were piled on top of a speaker, that i haven't bothered to file back away yet...let's see: love, the tyde, hopkirk and lee, felt, mark hollis, big star, beach boys, the la's

and here's a stack of records i ain't got around to putting back where they belong: laura nyro, markley: a group, david ackles, paul williams, vu, steven halpern, chick corea, the buoys
yup, i hate all music. and trees, of course.

so your taste in soft drinks is as indiscriminate as your taste in blur songs...

Clearly.

Like, I dunno, Sleater-Kinney, Eddie Vedder, The Coup, System of a Down, The Dixie Chicks, Tom Morello, The Beastie Boys...all of which have vehemently spoken out AGAINST the recent US Global Imperialist movement.

lee greenwood? or the iraq, i roll guy? god, i hope so. i think the 'american musicians' you're probably thinking of may as well be in the athletic shoe business or something. they're just interested in marketing a product, moving units. artistic creation (and i'm being very generous in referring to it as such) for them is just a means to making $.

Hey, I'm just as bothered by those fuckers as you are, prob'ly moreso cuz people outside of American equate these dumbasses w/ the American population, when the actual American population is CHOCK FULL of dissent.

(I on the other hand thought you were, y'know, a foreigner who thought the Toby Keiths etc. of America spoke for the whole of America, and thus the unnecessary flamability in my post. Carry on!)

right on.

ohhhh. i got to go. this has all made me so dizzy.

Oh, and don't forget The Prodigy.

One thing I tend to like about ILX is that people see this sort of attitude for what it is, which is a lame and reductive ploy, and one with two objectives: (a) to casually set yourself up as "above" everyone around you, and (b) to do everything possible to prevent yourself from actually having to engage with the ideas of people who disagree with you. It's like someone asking a teenager why his mother wouldn't let him go out that night: "Because she's being a bitch," he says, since this prevents him from having to give her the basic respect of thinking for two seconds about her perspective on the issue.

And that's the real problem with most of your posts here: all of the casual dismissive handwaving looks to me like your way of avoiding having to give any real thought whatsoever to why American culture is the way it is, how it actually works, and why people might hold opinions that differ from yours. It also keeps you locked up in the bedroom without having to actually deal with any of these people, which is exactly the sad irony: you have to casually write them off as idiots because when it comes down to it you're scared of them, you can't fathom or engage with their culture, and you're too lazy and frightened to bother trying -- it's easier to fall back on the self-affirming conventional wisdom that you're the sole wise man in a nation of morons than to actually deal with the idea that there are people in the world who are different from you.

Maybe that's a presumptuous bit of psychoanalysis, I dunno. But your posts have all the hallmarks of exactly that, most notably all of these vague generalizations and factual errors that point to your having put very little reading, research, or thought into the things you're talking about. (For instance: Bush didn't receive the votes of 50% of the public; somewhere around that proportion didn't vote at all, and a plurality of the ones who did voted for Gore. And if you think the U.S. is the most nationalist culture on the planet apart from North Korea, I don't think you've bothered learning very much about the political histories of Africa, Latin America, and Asia.)

Anyway. The biggest problem with this sort of talk is that it's just useless. "People in the U.S. are dumb, they drive SUVs and have a stupid president." Okay. Whatever. What does this tell us, apart from the fact that you feel better about yourself when you can close yourself up and put down everyone around you? It's one of the most useless, reductive, pointless opinions a person could possibly express. Isn't there anything you can tell us about why the U.S. doesn't relate to the kinds of British music you think are good? Surely it's not that American citizens are genetically less intelligent than people in the rest of the world? Surely if you're so smart and everyone else is such a mouthbreathing moron, you could find something substantive to say about this apart from a casual "everyone who isn't me is obviously a dumbass?"

The only British (I know they are not English) band that could possibly be "rock'n'roll" enough to break the US is Manics, but with lyrics like "Ifwhiteamericatoldthetruthforonedayitsworldwouldfallapart", and a general hostile attitude towards USA and capitalism and a friendly one towards Fidel Castro, it is no wonder why they haven't managed to crack the US market anyway.

I think the difficulty of British acts hitting the U.S. lies in the fact that two things need to be in place for it to happen: (a) the British stuff needs to be quite good, and (b) it has to be good in a way that some portion of America's quite-different musical tradition is ready to respond to. For instance, I think we're seeing that happening right now with yr more soulful post-garage pop stuff (Craig David, Ms. Dynamite, Bedingfield): basically, U.S. r&b had this underfilled niche of polite sophistication (and more content middle-class aspiration, which I think is great) that a lot of listeners seemed to be pushing into (whether with Aaliyah, Brandy, nu-soul, some Destiny's Child stuff) -- so suddenly the smoother, more polite and pop-friendly sound of the UK stuff, not to mention the American tendency to associate Brits with "class," became assets for the UK acts instead of drawbacks.

(Though I do think the massive U.S. push behind Ms. Dynamite was predicated more on a "She can be like Nelly Furtado!" line of thought.)

As a result of using Nigel Godrich, Travis sound more like Radiohead on record though. The fact that American audiences are more interested in live concert than British ones may play a part too.

Another important difference between Coldplay and Travis, which probably matters in the US, is that Coldplay could still pass as "rock" while Travis have become more or less one hundred per cent pop. Travis are still too "alternative" to appeal to the same audiences who buy Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera, though, and as such, they fall short of all radio formats while Coldplay still fits into the "rock" oriented "modern rock"/"alternative" format.

As a Norwegian, I see kind of the same thing with Norwegian acts.

Whereas Norwegian record labels have tried to copy trends from abroad, only to realise that nobody (not even Norwegians) want to buy it, those Norwegian acts who have made some kind of impact - more or less commercially - abroad in recent years (Lene Marlin, Röyksopp, King Of Convencience to some extent) all have sort of their own distinct style rather than trying to change their music to fit into other markets.

And anyway 'Englishness' didn't stop the Beatles.

Examples of those bands are Blur, (apart from "Song 2" which was tailor-made for the American market), Madness, The Jam and the mid-to-late 60s edition of The Kinks. What is typical of those bands is they sing in very strong English accents, their music has a lot of elements of Music Hall in it, and their lyrics deal with English geography and a lot of typically English characters.

Also, whether you would or would not agree with the idea that Americans are slightly less open to foreign-culture influences than the British and Europeans? (I think that's a slightly tougher question than it sounds.)

I don't think they are, really. You see the same thing the other way round too.

When it comes to European (that is, from continental Europe) hits, The UK is actually a lot more reluctant towards them than the US. And it was also quite typical that, while Germans Nena had a hit in 1984 with "99 Luftballons", they had to translate it into English to be able to hit UK #1 with it. British audiences have an extremely snobbish attitude towards virtually anything that isn't from English speaking countries.

Also, when Americans first get turned into UK music, they tend to be really into it. In the mid 60s and mid 80s, the percentage of American music in the Billboard list was possibly smaller than in the Music Week list. One thing that was a bit too bad about the original British Invasion though (the one during the 60s) was that Americans tended to fall for the most throwaway and novelty-oriented acts, such as Herman's Hermits, Dave Clark Five and Freddie & The Dreamers, while more "serious" British beat bands like Hollies and Kinks didn't become huge in the US until later on.

Some comparative action -- U.S. acts that didn't translate -- might also be useful.

There are examples of those too. Typical AOR bands like Boston and Journey never did much impact in the UK or Europe in general. Same about a lot of the late 80s hair metal bands (sure, Bon Jovi did have their share of UK hits, but Cinderella did hardly make much impact over in Europe).

Even Bruce Springsteen didn't even crack the Music Week Top 75 until 1980, and it wasn't until "Born In The USA" that he really became popular in the UK.
There were other European markets that he had a better go at, though, for instance, he has always had a large audience here in Norway, a country that is culturally part similar to the US in that a large percentage of the population live on the countryside rather than in cities)

Also, Nu Metal bands such as Korn and Tool have always been considerably bigger in the US than over here in Europe.

That is an important point. Touring is very important to crack the US market.

And anyway 'Englishness' didn't stop the Beatles.

But The Beatles wrote lyrics about holding hands and how she loves you yeah, yeah, yeah, while The Kinks wrote lyrics about Waterloo Sunset and Carnaby Street, and about strange and archetypically English upper middle class characters. Plus The Beatles' music (at least until "Yellow Submarine" and "With a Little Help From My Friends") was considerably less obviously influenced by Music Hall than The Kinks' mid 60s hits.

Money and fame. There are more Americans than UK acts, plus American audiences tend to be more lojal towards their favourite band once they have one.

Also, the US market will probably be considered (particularly by the Americans themselves) as the one most important market in the world, while for UK acts, breaking US markets is sort of "the next step".

Right now, however, the UK record industry should be more preoccupied with the fact that a lot of large UK pop acts don't even break in markets where they have almost automatically broken in the past. Acts such as Steps, S Club 7, Hearsay and Gareth Gates have all been really huge in the UK market during the past 4-5 years, while they have done more or less nothing in the rest of Europe.

For instance, even the fact that they are actually produced by a Norwegian production/songwriting team hasn't helped break S Club 7 and Hearsay break here in Norway. (Another almost exclusively British phenomenon - A1 - are huge here in Norway though, probably mainly because they have a Norwegian member)

Anyway, my point is that, while breaking American markets isn't necessarily virtual to the British recording industry, not being able to crack European markets is a disaster for that same industry, having always relied on Europeans to buy millions of albums by UK acts.

Also, "You Really Got Me" may have sold more in the UK than "Waterloo Sunset" did (I don't have any sales statistics), but these days, "Waterloo Sunset" generally end up higher when British fans vote for their favourite singles ever (even though "You Really Got Me" is usually in those top 100 lists too)

However, a cult artist may actually make a living from faithful American audiences, despite never reaching charts at all. This is impossible in the UK.

Maybe, but this was the time when the Beatles were sounding more 'English'.

However, Herman's Hermits had huge US hits with Music Hall influenced songs such as "I'm Henry VIII I Am" and "Mrs. Brown You've Got a Lovely Daughter", both of which sounded very English (although in a more cheesy and trowaway way than anything The Kinks have ever done)

i've just got deja-vu from writing that so i must've said similar on one of the Britpop threads...

Maybe in 1995, but definitely not in 1983 nor 1963.

Their sales did slip somewhat in 68-69. Then, in 1970, they had two big hits (their "comeback" hits in the US). After that, they would mainly be able to sell records in the US only, after having changed into a more "rock" oriented style.

But it is true that their sound wasn't particularly "psychedelic" (extensive use of cembalos was the only thing remiscent of the "Sgt. Pepper" sound in their late 60s output)

"Eesh, Dallas, you've been mostly polite about it, but I've got to admit that your opinion of American culture sounds like what a 13-year-old might come up with if he locked himself in his bedroom all day with some alt-rock records and never actually went out and experienced the culture he was supposedly too cool for."

there's a good chance the 13-year old is right! what's that lao-tzu line about 'without going out of my room, i can know all the ways of the world', y'know, the one george nicked for that beatles song 'the inner light'. you can learn tons from records. the 13 year old is listening to the wisdom accumulated by people a decade older or so, who have been there, done that, and come to realize that things are mostly shit. 'is there life on maaaarrrsss-aarrr-arrrrs????!!!!!' ...'cos clearly this rock is an insane asylum.

personally, i've been experiencing said culture for the three decades i've been alive on the planet, (how can i not; it's aggressively shoved in my face; it's the dominant culture) and i've reached the conclusion many, many times that its for the most part shit. at any rate, it's contrary to the values that i think are worthwhile and that ultimately make life worth living. i never claimed to be 'too cool' for it, or any such nonsense. i'm as much of a dork as every other mortal on the planet. i'm just venting and expressing my heartfelt feelings. the stuff i don't like tragically has all the weight of the world behind it, while the stuff i do like seems like an endangered species to me at times, hence i get sickened and upset.

"people see this sort of attitude for what it is, which is a lame and reductive ploy, and one with two objectives: (a) to casually set yourself up as "above" everyone around you,"

i admit i'm coming off as elitist, but certain things are simply more worthy of regard than others. like certain foods are healthier and more nutritious for your body than others. certain cultural artifacts have more to offer your mind, your spirit than others do. i'm complaining that most stuff is produced for a quick buck, and at most is capable of providing momentary distraction or amusement, but not any deeper or more meaningful experiences. i don't know exactly why most people seem to settle for the cultural junk food, but i think it's kind of sad...like they're missing out on something that people who are more thoughtful and who have a deeper sense of curiosity are able to experience. i will go out on a limb and say that i do think i am 'above' people who are, say, violent, disrespectful of life, greedy, unthinking...

"and (b) to do everything possible to prevent yourself from actually having to engage with the ideas of people who disagree with you. It's like someone asking a teenager why his mother wouldn't let him go out that night: "Because she's being a bitch," he says, since this prevents him from having to give her the basic respect of thinking for two seconds about her perspective on the issue."

i've been engaging with people who are different from me and who disagree with me my entire life. on the whole, i'd say i've given them the benefit of the doubt on far too many occasions, and ended up regretting it. i never summarily dismiss them, i do try to see things from other people's perspectives...and my usual reaction after doing so is 'god, i'm glad i'm not like them. please don't let me turn out like them.' to play with your analogy of the snotty teenager, suppose that the mother in question in fact really WAS "being a bitch", because she happened to be a physically/psychologically abusive person, and the teenager had been living with her for 15 years, and thus he doesn't have to take the time out to say, 'well, wait, maybe there is a good reason that she is doing something i disagree with...hmmm...let's think about this'---he simply recognizes the pattern, and knows that she is, as usual, just being unkind and unreasonably controlling.

"And that's the real problem with most of your posts here: all of the casual dismissive handwaving looks to me like your way of avoiding having to give any real thought whatsoever to why American culture is the way it is, how it actually works, and why people might hold opinions that differ from yours."

why american culture is the way it is, and 'how it actually works' are huge questions, and pretty much beyond the scope of this thread and board...i have my theories, but i'm not going to bore you with them right now. i think i've given some hints of why i think it's fucked-up the way it is, and some of the dynamics that are at work.

why people might hold opinions different from mine, i cannot satisfactorily explain. some of it is merely matters of individual 'taste', in other cases it's that folks are wiser than i am, and in others i believe it's 'cos some folks are just not very thoughtful people; they take everything at face value, exactly as it's handed to them, and rarely bother to question anything. ('how did this meat get onto my plate?')

"It also keeps you locked up in the bedroom without having to actually deal with any of these people, which is exactly the sad irony: you have to casually write them off as idiots because when it comes down to it you're scared of them, you can't fathom or engage with their culture, and you're too lazy and frightened to bother trying -- it's easier to fall back on the self-affirming conventional wisdom that you're the sole wise man in a nation of morons than to actually deal with the idea that there are people in the world who are different from you."

as i said above, i've been dealing with people who are vastly different-minded from me in all sorts of ways since the day i was born--with family, in school, at the workplace, in stores, in pubs/clubs, at parties, on the street, etc. on occasions when i do casually write them off as 'idiots', it's based on observation-- if someone starts a fight in a club for no reason, they're basically behaving like an idiot. i feel i have pretty good intuition and a good bullshit detector when it comes to observing and interacting with people, and these faculties have served me well. you don't always need to explore every nook and cranny of someone's head to have a general idea as to what they're about. you often CAN judge a book by its cover.

'different' does not mean 'better', or 'okay'. hitler thought different from the way that i do about many many things, but i don't have to respect his way of thinking. if someone's behavior and way of thinking is violent, destructive, and so forth, then i don't think it's unreasonable to label it as pathological or condemn it. i don't think i'm the "sole wise man in a nation of morons", but i think i do qualify as ONE of the wiser ones in a nation of morons...in the sense that i think that this is a beautiful planet that we live on, and it's inhabited by complex, lovely human beings, who have amazing potential, but in america i mostly see people doing things that are contributing to the destruction of the planet and themselves, like working for and supporting businesses that degrade and exploit human beings, eating meat, making unneccessary car trips in gas-guzzling vehicles...most americans do these things! i don't, or at least try my darndest not to...so i think i am on the 'wise' team, not the 'moron' team, since i don't do these things which are harmful to life. i don't think the suicidal path is a wise one. it's not an ego trip; i feel sad that i'm in such a minority....and i'd be thrilled to live in a world where most/all people were very wise; hell, i'd be willing to be the stupidest one there, 'cos such a world would be a much better place than this one.

"Maybe that's a presumptuous bit of psychoanalysis, I dunno. But your posts have all the hallmarks of exactly that, most notably all of these vague generalizations and factual errors that point to your having put very little reading, research, or thought into the things you're talking about. (For instance: Bush didn't receive the votes of 50% of the public;"

okay, sure, the public who actually bothered to vote. sloppy, i know, & i was mindful of my sloppiness as i wrote that, but i was just trying to express the general idea of how the mentality of most americans horrifies me.

"somewhere around that proportion didn't vote at all, and a plurality of the ones who did voted for Gore. And if you think the U.S. is the most nationalist culture on the planet apart from North Korea, I don't think you've bothered learning very much about the political histories of Africa, Latin America, and Asia.)"

admittedly, i am not a super-duper expert in geopolitics, but again, i just was coming from my gut/heart/emotions...venting my disgust. what upsets me is that u.s. is always so arrogant, but has so little reason to be. we have such wealth, but are obscenely stingy in giving humanitarian aid to other nations. even within our borders, aid is given only begrudgingly. (hey, let's abolish social security! you don't need our help, just invest in the stock market...like say in enron, or worldcom..)

"Anyway. The biggest problem with this sort of talk is that it's just useless. 'People in the U.S. are dumb, they drive SUVs and have a stupid president.' Okay. Whatever. What does this tell us, apart from the fact that you feel better about yourself when you can close yourself up and put down everyone around you? It's one of the most useless, reductive, pointless opinions a person could possibly express."

it's not useless to vent like i did, when the rest of the world fucking hates americans and thinks we're all major bush-boosters. if i complain, then at least people realize that not all americans are totally beyond the pale. and maybe someone will even do what you accuse me of not doing, and say "gee, this guy sounds like a 13 year old who's afraid to leave the house because he doesn't want his worldview threatened, but y'know, maybe i shouldn't summarily dismiss him; maybe he is expressing himself this way for reasons other than just the fact that he is close-minded/naive/dumb/scared...i wonder just WHY he is bitching so much about suv's and george bush?" venting=protest, which is generally not viewed as being an entirely useless activity. as i see it, NOT making a complaint while your world is being destroyed is the useless path.

i'm not closing myself up, i'm opening myself up, expressing myself. i'm not putting down everyone around me, i'm just making statements based on my observations of people's behavior. sadly, it just so happens that the behavior that i see is that which i think is dangerous and so i feel compelled to express my dismay.

"Isn't there anything you can tell us about why the U.S. doesn't relate to the kinds of British music you think are good? Surely it's not that American citizens are genetically less intelligent than people in the rest of the world?

not genetically less intelligent (though, i wonder sometimes...and there is all that inbreeding in the ozarks/appalachia) but definitely less culturally sophisticated. that's one of the points i was trying to make in my early posts on the thread...in general, americans are not culturally open-minded, they're xenophobic, they are lazy about seeking things out and lack intellectual curiosity, and they don't even have much opportunity to be exposed to diverse things due to rampant media consolidation...

"Surely if you're so smart and everyone else is such a mouthbreathing moron, you could find something substantive to say about this apart from a casual "everyone who isn't me is obviously a dumbass?"

yeah, i think i'm a smart cookie, but i acknowledge the existence of many others. the problem is, there are way, way, too many dumb cookies.

i'm sorry that my attacks on american culture were sort of glib, and didn't include all the whys and wherefores, but i think you're most definitely exaggerating/misinterpreting my attitude. as i said, i always try to give people the benefit of the doubt and try to learn from them whatever i can.

to be honest, reading the posts on ilm, i usually think of myself as a big dumbass, and am overwhelmed by how much more knowledgeable, literate, witty, etc. many of the posters here seem to be in comparison to me. so in short, i admit to all my dumb-assness, and hell, whatever other negative qualities anyone wants to ascribe to me based on my posts here. maybe i never should have opened my mouth to begin with. i dunno; i'm tired....

oh wait, one last anti-american dig. can i blame my dumb-assness on the american public school system and the iq-lowering culture i'm surrounded by? no? oh well, thought it'd be worth a try.......oh, and may i submit that the other posters here are so bright 'cos they likely got decent educations in britain, australia, wherever?.......

okay, okay, i'll shut up now.

print it out, study it at home, pass it around to friends and strangers alike to make fun of...

my ego got punctured in some places, so i was desperately trying to patch it up...i did a shoddy repair job, though, so i'm ripe for the smashing

I read it, actually.

Well said.

All of it!

we could make a new law today, actually, "yertle's law", in which any person using a metaphor comparing certain kinds of music to "junk food" and other kinds of music to "healthy food" is required to read the entirety of Taking Sides: Charts vs. Indie

yertle's entire argument boils down to: if it's bad it does well in america, because i guess america is "bad" to begin with oh no indie guilt OH NO!! i liked the internecine industry info and marketing pragmatics better, they actually go some way towards answering the question

What's worse, sheep who follow mindless mainstream trends, or sheep or mindlessly hate mainstream trends?

also I think "hey guys stop joking around, the guy who put a wigga html tag in his dumb-ass question wants serious answers!!" is probably one of the funniest things ever said on ILM.

Just looking at your examples here.

First of all, The Smiths. They were never that huge in the UK either commercially. Sure, they had their share of Top 10 albums and Top 20 singles, but it was nothing like the commercial dominance of Britpop 10 years later. The Smiths were sort of a cult act for their entire career, and cult acts usually fare better in UK hitlists than US hitlists, simply because UK hitlists are based on sales along, with no airplay factor.

Pet Shop Boys did actually have a US #1 with "West End Girls". Their 90s material is better in a lot of people's (include me) opinion, but has also not done as well commercially in the UK as their 80s stuff.

Oasis did actually have success in the US too, until they got the idea of telling their honest opinions on what they thought about the US.

Robbie Williams and Stone Roses have IMO both done the same mistake, by trying to change their style to fit into the US audiences' taste. That just doesn't work, because the US has enough US music itself, and is a lot more likely to buy something from the UK (or Europe in general) if it sounds different.

This leaves us with Manics, a band whose sound would fit right into the US market, but whose lyrics make sure that they will never ever be able to do well in the USA. Also, I doubt they would bother about doing what would be needed to crack the US market themselves, considering the band members absolutely hate the USA, and they are more likely to play in Cuba instead.

More or less everybody in the UK agreed that "Be Here Now" didn't hold up too, yet it spawned two UK #1 singles and one UK #2.

Geir, basing your entire argument around "ifwhiteamerica..." is faulty.

from this thread:
"can we start talking about that killfile idea again? my head's gonna explode if i have to read another word by this fucking moron."

from 'let's build an ilm poster!':
"don't make him anything like that fucking fool dallas yertle..."

from 'how do you use ILM?'
"ilm is cool, but that idiot dallas yertle is a pain in the ass..."

...i don't mind being called 'a pain in the ass' if you happen not to agree with my ideas and are put off by my posts, but the 'this fucking moron', 'that fucking fool', and 'that idiot' business is getting a little mean-spirited, and counterproductive to any meaningful conversation, dontcha' think? jeez, i'm sorry i posted a ridiculously wrong screed, but why the abusive insults? at least leaven them with some humor, so that i know you're not going to dig up my address and send me a bomb through the post or something...

& kilian, i'm sorry for calling you out like that, but when i'm casually reading through a thread that i didn't even post on, and come across these attacks on me, i'm like, 'whoa'. what on earth could i have done to you personally to warrant those comments? maybe you were having a bad day or whatever...if you really want to keep making comments like that it's alright, i guess, but i just don't get it.

so... as long as i'm in the mood to be taking bait, and gunning for the last word...here's some more nonsense from me:

tracer hand, i tried to slog through the posts on the threads that you cited. god, my fucking head hurts... as a newbie to ilm, i find it great that there are so many well-informed, intelligent, thoughtful people on here with diverse and deep tastes. this is a stellar resource for information, thanks to the all of the collective wisdom pooled here. i love reading the s/d threads, for instance.

but, man, some of the theoretical arguments, while fun at times, often just make me want to stick to listening to records and never try to analyze them or any aspect of them again...of course, then i'll read some shit in the latest mojo/uncut/whatever or some intriguing thread on here, and i get sucked into it again, my mind feverishly trying to sort it all out, make some sense, figure out where my favorites/dislikes/undecideds/couldn't-care-less-abouts fit into the scheme of things, which school of thinking i subscribe to, what it's all about, etc.

sorry, i'm rambling now.

anyway, tracer, although you're warping my junk food analogy, or sort of ignoring the fact that it is an analogy, i will say that, in fact, i do feel physically more 'balanced' after listening to the beatles, and hearing p!nk does make me feel cranky and a little ill. i don't think that "everyone should like the same thing i do", but i do reserve the right to complain about music that gives me a headache.

i know i don't possess the level of articulateness to properly put forth my theories, and that overall i'm a poor spokesman who's likely doing my case more harm than good, but i still maintain that the main thrust of what i was trying to say in my mega-mega-post is not too far off the mark, and not nearly as unreasonable or as reductive as it's accused of being.

On the topic of David Allen:
"What's worse, sheep who follow mindless mainstream trends, or sheep or mindlessly hate mainstream trends?"

read straight through, i find your question confusing (though not 'cos of the second 'or', which you obviously meant to read "who")...if you feel like reposting it in a different form, i'll give you my two cents re the question of the evil of sheep...though i realize you were asking it rhetorically.

okay, bring on the insults, attacks, correctives, etc.
...or not...

and for fuck's sake, everyone have a good evening/day/whatever. be kind to your neighbor and all that shit.

or don't. that's okay, too.

How about "The Masses Against The Classes" then?

(I must clarify something. Dallas said 50% of Americans voted for George Bush. It's more truthful to say that 50% of American voters voted for George Bush, I hate to nitpick but there is a difference. I don't think half of America voted [which still doesn't say much for America].)

It's been a long while but I'm back-for those who remember me.

i've also been called on the 50% thing. you're not nit-picking; it's important. i was being sloppy while trying to make a quick general point.

that's a better cross section of the diversity and contradictions we live among today in Britain than the Hot 100 has seen in a while, I reckon. the Bedingfield and Panjabi MC songs are both near-masterpieces, as well, good enough to make me forget about bloody C*ldpl*y.

Apart from possibly Dead Kennedys (and they never went down with the mainstream) no US act has ever been as obviously leftist as Manic Street Preachers. Sure, several black acts (in particular) have spoken up for the poor people and unprivileged, but they have done so without the same obvious Marxist rhetoric that you will often find in Manics' lyrics.

Manic's are "commies" in most Americans' eyes, and particularly the religious right have never been particularly known for respecting different opinions.

??????! You know, there's really not much Marxist rhetoric in the Manic's back catalog at all, Geir. Name me which songs you are talking about, because quite honestly I'm wondering if you've even heard half of their music, or if you just read Nicky Wire interviews.

Manic's are "commies" in most Americans' eyes

Yes, all four of us who know who they are!

If the Manics would stop eating pie and start being proactive, they'd get famous in the U.S. The question is, do they actually even give a shit at this point.

Anyway, sure there are lyrics and song titles that aren't particularly marxist. But, I mean, seriously, look at such titles as "Freedom Of Speech Won't Feed My Children". And also, there is the fact that they chose to play a concert in Cuba.

I am pretty sure you are right that hardly any Americans have ever heard of Manics. But why is that? Well, partly because Nicky Wire wouldn't even dream of touring a country he absolutely hates. But I also doubt a lot of American radio stations would have had the balls to put them in their playlists anyway.

Geir you have truly outdone yourself, bravo

Geir, you are aware the Manics existed prior to 2002 correct?

You cut away my reasoning. I always agree with whatever is critical towards US or Americans. Even speeches by Ayatollah Khomeiny, Idi Amin or Stalin would get a point in my book for the fact that they were at least anti-US. :-)

I suggest you give a listen to the other FIVE MANICS ALBUMS before you post about their socialist lyrics again, Geir.

More on Manics and marxism may be found following this link:
http://www.geocities.com/teal_c_2000/MANICS.html

Please explain how three examples plus one anti-American-race-relations song is "enough" to prove that a band with five albums plus non-album singles plus b-sides is too lyrically Marxist to make it outside of England (obv. a Marxist state in and of itself, correct?).

Also, please tell me that you are kidding with that link.

The Manics have been around for over a decade, Geir. You can't point to a handful of songs from the past two years, well into their failure with America, and blame them as the reason why the Manics didn't crack America. "Motorcycle Emptiness" is not exactly a hotbed of Leninistic rantings.

How very, very militant!

http://www.sonymusic.pl/grafika/specjaly/wywiady/d/msp.jpg

i wish i could agree with you, blount, about girls aloud's chances for us success, but i find them doubtful at best. the matrix/linda perry/ccm axis of non r&b-skewing girl-fronted pop dominating radio stations right now^* is a much more laid-back and, and i think this is crucial, a lot less busy than what girls aloud (and, to use another example, the sugababes) are putting out right now. when 'one touch' was released over here i wrote a review that said that america is not ready for the sugababes; i daresay that this is still the case.

^* i would say that britney can get away with more upbeat, less dentist's-office-friendly music because she is an already existent pop brand

http://radio.disney.go.com/music/top3.html

(also augh hampster dance!!)

Yeah right. I think your average rock fan in America could give two shits about what those brothers have to say, not that you could understand them anyway.

Talking big and acting like asses in a band that sounds like The Las might work to the punters in the UK, but it wasn't going to work over here, their music just doesn't have the testosterone.

Really? When did this happen? Did they really say they totally hate us Yanks? Is that why that album with "Go Let It Out" on it was such a monumental flop over here?

oasis faded cause their music is a bit wimpy which didn't go with their image which was allegedly all about being hooligans. they need to get barry bonds to deal them some roids.

it's pretty hard of me to think of any british acts nowadays that could be sufficiently bad-ass for certain american tastes -- in the back of our minds, we'll always be thinking "yeah they're tough by british standards. but let 'em be dropped off in the worst part of (random american city) and see how long it is before they get their limey asses kicked. fuckin' soccer riots ain't shit compared to what happens THERE!"

Maybe they could push the "Cheryl's a bit tasty with a right hook" angle for some hoolie kudos?

Girls Aloud have a song on Freaky Friday - maybe that'll do the trick.