[Kerrigan]

I spend my summers in the US, and of course I love the country, but I have my gripes. Why is music in America always a year behind Britain? The Gorillaz are still being touted as "new", and just this week that awful Annoying Frog started hitting radio stations, and people seem to think that it is new and cool.

Last year it was the same with Franz Ferdinand... they became popular in US roughly one year after they were big in Scotland.

And even a lot of good American bands become popular in Britain before they get noticed in the US, like the Strokes or the Scissor Sisters... so what is going on? Why is America so quick to pick up the latest Backstreet Boys single, but so slow to pick up on good music?

[ender2002]

i think a lot of people in america know this music, but the problem is how fast it spreads to the majority and then your to ears. I dont consider the Gorillaz album new, as i had it well before it was released. The Strokes and Franz Ferdinand were popular, just less popular.

[Doofy]

In a nutshell, the UK is simply more slavishly fickle than the US.

[Webscreamer]

Shows like American Idol don't help much. Kid's hear that stuff then want to go buy pop music.

At least we get some Apple products before Europe does!

[Kerrigan]

Oh and speaking of new music, what do you guys think of McCartney's new single, Fine Line? I think he might actually be making some good new music for the first time in 30 years

[Captain Obvious]

You just hang out with the wrong people. There's no difference in awareness of what's hot and new among people who follow that sort of thing here in America compared to their European counterparts.

What you are confusing is top 40 playlists here. The popular radio stations here in the U.S. are owned by a small conglomeration of companies who have stake in promoting certain bands or singers. That stake means they push those bands to the top of charts by keeping those songs in heavy rotation. As a result they tend to ignore up and coming bands until they are big enough that fans demand them to be in rotation or until those companies gain a stake in playing their songs. But there are still plenty of very popular bands that sell out venue after venue because they have created their own following despite not getting heavy radio play.

My understanding was that Europe has more independant radio stations which allow freer formation of what becomes popular there because they have nothing to gain by pushing one group over another. BTW, don’t be so smug about the backstreet boys. I hear that back in the 90’s they purposely went to Europe and Asia to make it big there before trying to make it in the American market. So its not like you people out there have a more mature ear for music. If anything its your fault they were legitimized through the success you gave them.

[tooki]

Well, the US is a huge country, and industries in this country tend to be huge. As such, they tend to be less nimble than companies in smaller countries.

tooki

[Warung]

What about bands like Green Day, Blink 182, No FX, The Offspring, Nirvana, Nine Inch Nails etc. ? All were at least somewhat known in the US before anybody in Europe had even heard of them.

Nowadays the vile R&B cheeseball crap hits the stores at roughly the same time all over the world. But as far as "real" bands goes, they tend to become popular first in the country of their origin.

[suvsr4terrorists]

Did you mean the new gorillaz album? Or the band themselves?

[Randman]

I think a lot of it has to do with the multi-culturalism. Europe is more diverse than the US and much of the music tends to reflect that. Plus, I think so much of it in the States is controlled by the rat bastard record companies who tend to sell what they they think will sell.

[ASIMO]

Kerrigan's argument seems to generally be true concerning pop rock and electronica/lounge, but the converse seems to be true concerning hip-hop/rap, within the confines of what may be generally considered mainstream.

But frankly, does any of this really matter?

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by Webscreamer

Shows like American Idol don't help much. Kid's hear that stuff then want to go buy pop music.

Even that came out a year after the UK had "Pop Idol"

[meelk]

I'm not a fan of monkey music, new or old.

[Troll]

The problem is American radio. European radio is slowly going the corporate route though too.

[willed]

Originally Posted by Troll

The problem is American radio. European radio is slowly going the corporate route though too.

As long as the BBC isn't a corporate whore I don't mind. Radio1 has done a lot to bring unknown artists to prominence.

[Gamoe]

If this is the result of a small number of big corporations owning the majority of radio stations in the U.S., then the FCC is also to blame, as it was the FCC's decision to deregulate which allowed this in the first place.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

to hit it big it might take a year —


for us hardcore music fans, we'll grab the good stuff way before it hits Best Buy (local indies music shops, holla back!)

[pathogen]

Originally Posted by meelk

I'm not a fan of monkey music, new or old.

What does that mean, exactly?


Anyway, as was stated earlier, when it comes to radio and television airplay it's all about who your daddy is... the record companies pay for airplay with graft and cash (as documented recently in the news).

Still, to say Americans are behind the curve on the whole of Euro music may be true, but considering your examples I knew who Franz Ferdinand were and had heard their album demo well before it was released. And I bought the first Gorillaz album thinking it was the most commercial thing Damon's ever done... there are plenty more like me, who know exactly what's going on with British indie and single charts, it's just that we're a minority, and we lazily read NME or Dazed and Confused (Select, back in the day) and others all for laughs and kicks.

Still, it's not all good music. Robbie Williams will never have any cred no matter how many times he sings Angels or duets with Nicole Kidman... speaking of which, I seem to remember a little foible known as the Spice Girls and a whole lot of crap teen pop bands from Europe, too.

[budster101]

Even inside the USA music travels from one side of the country to the other..

First the West Coast Gets the latest hits, East Coast and then finally the Midwest. It's a cycle inside our own country but I'm not so certain we are behind, it's just taking time to get around the country in it's own way and path.

Were you on the East Coast? West Coast? Or Midwest? That would determine when the latest hits got to you, or rather the "newest" music offerings.

[Millennium]

I don't think it's a matter of the people so much as it is the radio stations. They're wary of anything that doesn't fit The Formula (tm), and while they'll adopt anything that's popular enough, non-formulaic stuff is going to have to prove itself to them first.

Because of this, truly original music doesn't get a lot of airplay unless it can manage to get popular without airplay first. That's not an easy thing to do. I think that's what accounts for the time delay.

[budster101]

That has always happened. (Airplay for new music) It's always been a trick to get new music aired. Correc me if I'm wrong here.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by budster101

That has always happened. (Airplay for new music) It's always been a trick to get new music aired. Correc me if I'm wrong here.

That seems to depend on whether or not the music labels want it to be played. Sony just admitted that it has been carrying on illegal payola schemes, and it's fairly likely that the other labels have been engaged in the same sorts of practices.

[budster101]

Since the beginning of broadcast music, payola has taken the front seat to talented musicians and cutting edge music. They want to milk each artist's creation for what they can, so the new stuff is stifled... I mean really, do you think Brittney Spears is really that popular? What about the other made4radio bands?

American Graffiti had a neat example of this, as did "That Thing You Do" by Tom Hanks. Remember how their record got on the radio? It wasn't because they were discovered by a DJ.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by meelk

I'm not a fan of monkey music, new or old.

Originally Posted by pathogen

What does that mean, exactly?

Don't know, but I wholeheartedly agree

-t

[nath]

Originally Posted by Warung

What about bands like Green Day, Blink 182, No FX, The Offspring, Nirvana, Nine Inch Nails etc. ? All were at least somewhat known in the US before anybody in Europe had even heard of them.

That's not true with regards Nirvana. They toured the UK several times to widespread [indie] acclaim, when they were still playing to the proverbial 'one man and his dog' in the US. I think the same is true of NIN. As for the others...to be honest you can keep them.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Warung

What about bands like Green Day, Blink 182, No FX, The Offspring, Nirvana, Nine Inch Nails etc. ? All were at least somewhat known in the US before anybody in Europe had even heard of them.

Nowadays the vile R&B cheeseball crap hits the stores at roughly the same time all over the world. But as far as "real" bands goes, they tend to become popular first in the country of their origin.

Exactly. If an unknown band is pretty good, I'll probably hear about it through a friend and go see them or borrow a burned cd with some tracks. All the mainstream crap, you'll get it eventually even if you try not to, i.e. top 40 radio and trendy friends. I'd rather be more than a year behind on some "groups" and never have to hear them during their 15 seconds.

[JHromadka]

They ship the music over on boats, so it takes a lot longer.

[budster101]

That's why I used to love Napster.... I got to discover great new music that I would never be able to before. Thanks Lars you jerkweed.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by budster101

That's why I used to love Napster.... I got to discover great new music that I would never be able to before. Thanks Lars you jerkweed.

*cough*UseNetBinaryGroups*cough*

[MacIntel]

Originally Posted by nath

That's not true with regards Nirvana. They toured the UK several times to widespread [indie] acclaim, when they were still playing to the proverbial 'one man and his dog' in the US.

Their first tours (1989-90) they were playing roughly the same venues -and more of them- in major US cities as those they played in Europe. Your 'one man and his dog' characterization of their early US success is false.

[nath]

Originally Posted by MacIntel

Their first tours (1989-90) they were playing roughly the same venues -and more of them- in major US cities as those they played in Europe. Your 'one man and his dog' characterization of their early US success is false.

Really? Do you have a list of their tours/venues etc?

My 'characterization' was certainly a little glib, but I have read numerous accounts including interviews with the band where it was said that the strong support they got from the UK indie fraternity (particularly the press such as the NME/Melody Maker) was seen as instrumental in getting them signed to Geffen.

[penguinkillzone]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I spend my summers in the US, and of course I love the country, but I have my gripes. Why is music in America always a year behind Britain? The Gorillaz are still being touted as "new", and just this week that awful Annoying Frog started hitting radio stations, and people seem to think that it is new and cool.

Last year it was the same with Franz Ferdinand... they became popular in US roughly one year after they were big in Scotland.

And even a lot of good American bands become popular in Britain before they get noticed in the US, like the Strokes or the Scissor Sisters... so what is going on? Why is America so quick to pick up the latest Backstreet Boys single, but so slow to pick up on good music?

It's not that America is behind of Britain a year in music, because I've seen the situation reversed many times. Perfect example, that Papa Roach (I hate them) song 'Scars' is now just getting big over here now in Britain the last month, when that song came out in America back in early 2005. There are countless other examples. How about that Ice Cube song from the Next Friday soundtrack, that song came out back in 2000!

It's business (which sucks, yes, but that's life for ya). Franz Ferdinand didn't get popular in the States at the same time as it got popular in the UK because the record company didn't promote them in the States then. I believe they are on an indie label, and promoting bands cost money, so I it makes sense financially for the record company to see the reaction in the UK before deciding to promote them in the States. And that's true with a lot of bands, especially less known bands on smaller labels. Plus the fact they we're touring Europe. It would be really hard to break a new band like Franz Ferdinand without the chance for people to see them live (That's when a lot of people, including me, decide if they really like a band or not).

But yes, it's also true that radio stations in the States suck. I don't think Britain is much better either. I can't stand Radio 1, only occasionally will I hear a song I like. And I can't get any other decent station where I live (20 miles outside of Cambridge). I usually just listen to my iPod. But as an American living in England, I don't think the British have any right to claim that their taste in music in much better. Every music video channel except for MTV2(UK) and The Amp play the same pop, British boy-band and British rap crap over and over again. It was Brits that had that band "Busted". It was Brits that had the boy-band remix of the Bone-Thugs song "Crossroads". And it was the British who had the Crazy Frog ringtone song at the top of their charts, beating out Coldplay.

I'm not trying to criticize the British taste in music and say Americans have superior taste in music, because I'm not. Truth is, both countries are pretty much equally pathetic. But then again, most people have poor taste is music anyways, British or American. It's usually the few who take a real interest in good music and start to listen to other sources of music rather than the local radio station or TRL. (I hate TRL and MTV in general with a passion)

[iNub]

I think that radio and TV are partially to blame for this. They only hock the most middle of the road, generic, manufactured stuff, and that's only because they know it will sell. The really irritating thing is that it's all a bunch of one or two-hit wonders. What ever happened to most of the stuff you hear on the radio? Anybody remember Chumbawumba, Shinobi vs. Dragon Ninja, The Knack, Deadeye Dick, or any other bands who've had a single moment of marketable inspiration? Radio seems to build a career for these people, giving them the illusion of success.

The real culprit in my eyes, though, is the American consumer. For the most part, we will buy whatever 'entertainment' these people will throw at us. Show of hands, who thinks that Britney Spears is more than an overpaid stripper with her own backup singers? These same people who think that the formulaic, manufactured lyrics and rhythms on 99% of the crap you see on an FYE shelf are worth the 18 bucks. The American market shuns originality and rewards mediocrity. Most of the music put out today takes no talent to make.

Or maybe I'm just a music snob.

[Don Pickett]

In addition to the other reasons mentioned, it's also because the music culture in England is different from the music culture in the U.S. English musical culture tends to be more ecumenical – pop music in England includes both the Beatles and Kylie Minogue. American music culture tends to be more divide and conquer: the Beatles are rock, Kylie is pop, etc. You can see this if you look at the American music charts, in which there are separate categories for rock, pop, soul, etc.; American radio stations tend to follow these categories; rock stations, pop stations, soul stations, etc. English radio is more inclusive, and you can find what would be considered multiple genres all played on one station.

So, a band like Franz Ferdinand, which can get radio play in England, may have a tougher time here because it may straddle several categories of music, which means that it will have a tougher time getting "programmed" (God, hate that word) into a station's line up.

It should be noted that America isn't always behind. All modern electronic dance music comes from the U.S., via disco, then house, techno, garage and on and on. It wasn't until that music hit England in 1987 and 1988, and then hit England's powerful dance culture, that it blew up internationally.

Plus, we invented rock 'n roll!

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Plus, we invented rock 'n roll!

... jazz, blues, R&B, and hip-hop.

[ghporter]

It's a combination of what tooki and Millenium said. Radio stations are more and more owned by companies that don't know squat about music, but really love diversification, so they're not quick on the uptake for new talent. And the labels have a very tight grip on distribution, and they don't push too many artists at once, fearing they might saturate a market with one artist at the expense (and that's $ expense) of another.

It's all marketing here, it's sad to say.