[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: American Music - Shallow?



Mark L wrote:

> >I don't want to forget the late Steve Marriott either,

> I didn't know that he had died. What a shame.
> And I don't know that I agree that he lost it in the `60s. Some of the
> Humble Pie stuff is pretty good. Have you ever heard TOWN AND COUNTRY? SMOKIN'?

A sad story and perhaps a cautionary tale. He died in a house fire 2-3 years 
back which was caused by a cigarette. He apparently came home after a drinking 
session and fell asleep without putting his cig out. I haven't heard all the 
Humble Pie stuff, but remember being seriously underwhelmed by a double-live 
album.
 
> Mark, you've gone off in a completely different direction than I was
> thinking of. Let me state my opinion here, and then comment on yours:
> When listening back (I didn't notice it at the time) to `60s-`70s Rock
> music, I have found that there is an element of timelessness in a lot (or
> maybe I should say more) of the British music, as opposed to the American
> bands. Britian had bands like The Who, Beatles, Kinks...whereas we had Grand
> Funk, Chicago, The Monkees...bands whose music hardly echoes down the halls
> forever, although they were all fairly well at the top.

Oops! Perhaps I was too focused on lyrical content. We're certainly lucky to 
have had such a golden age in the 60's and 70's, but I think this was 
kick-started by a big British interest in American R&B in the early 60's, which 
all the British bands of the time cut their teeth on. How all that songwriting 
inspiration came along at once, I'm not really sure. I think if you balance it 
all out over the years, there's just as many good, original American acts.

> So to me, British music seems to have a bit more depth than the American
> counterpart. For example, look at the return of The Who as opposed to the
> current Monkees tour (and The Monkees were a LOT more popular over here than
> The Who ever dreamed...believe it or not, they were considered the number
> one or two band in the country against The Beatles, depending on what week
> it was).

I believe it, the same thing happened with The Monkees over here. They probably 
outsold everyone but the Beatles in the UK as well for the short time they were 
stars. Weren't they just the first bunch of "scammers" to try it and get away 
with it? Remember one of them was British, so please don't feel entirely 
responsible for them.

> Anyway, my favorite North American bands back then, Mountain and The Band,
> hold up better than most. But neither of them were on the level of the top
> British bands.

Music from the Big Pink? I've heard that described as something of a landmark 
album. I've been trying to find it on CD for ages. I'm also aware of Leslie 
West as a guitarist, but only in passing.

> I have nothing against The Allmans other than that Gregg narked out his road
> manager on a cocaine charge to save his own ass and that he changed his
> hairstyle and grew a goatee in order to look more like me.

I remember reading about that (the drug bust, not the impersonation). Didn't he 
do some sort of deal with Jimmy Carter (allegedly)?

> I worked for them in `74 (before it happened), and they were a good band,
> especially live (even without Duane). But it was a limited concept, even as
> with The Stray Cats. I'd say that their first four albums were great, the
> next one (BROTHERS AND SISTERS) pretty good, and then the rest pretty
> bad...except for the recent BACK WHERE IT ALL BEGAN, which surprised me as
> being their best since B&S.

It's their earlier (Duane) work I prefer too. I just think Dickie Betts never 
gets enough credit for his contribution. What was your job with them?
 
> I must confess to never having heard that one. I think the Little Village
> album put me off Hiatt. Have you heard that one? Complete rubbish, despite
> an all-star band including Ry Cooder and Nick Lowe.

It's the first track on "Bring the Family". I don't know Little Village. Hiatt 
is perhaps one of those guys whose songs are often better when sung by someone 
else. He's had his "angst" periods (heroin, booze etc.) which may have damaged 
his career somewhat.

> British bands just seem to put more into their songs, rather than rattling
> off another formula song. Journey, Kansas, Styx, Van Halen...all have good
> to great musicians in them, but their songs are empty as Hell.

All the British bands you've mentioned were strong on content, certainly, but 
we had our share of content-challenged ones: ELP, Rick Wakeman, plus most of 
the heavy metal lot. Most of ours were purged by Punk, of course, but yours may 
have survived longer.

> Hendrix had to "make it" in Britian after years of trying here. So that says
> something, too.

I think that's because he had an already "trained" audience in Britain that he 
could tap into immediately, and was readily accepted as a great talent by his 
British contemporaries. Can't remember where for the moment, but I've read that 
Pete was scared of Hendrix. Something along the lines of "This black American 
guy has come along to take it all back from us and steal our women".

> Anyway, it's my thinking that the British bands, with more history and
> tradition behind them than the American ones, just put more into their music.

I'm grateful that we have a musical tradition but in a very real sense, we took 
it from your country, reprocessed, repackaged and re-exported it. Much as I'd 
like to, I just find it impossible to agree that British is on the whole 
better.

Just out of interest, could it be "inventory log-jam" which is keeping on 
reminding you of American bands you'd possibly rather forget? e.g. "if anyone 
else brings in a copy of Chicago VIII..."

Cheers,
Mark T.