Which cunt has better music and why?

Fleetwood Mac

One part was Stevie & Lindsey.

I would argue the British had the edge during the 1965-73 period although we had the Doors, the Dead, Airplane, Grand Funk Railroad, Dylan, and CSNY which is hardly an unenviable record.

For most of the 70s it was fairly even, the 80s definitely the British scene declined and didn't have a lot going on except synthpop. The 90s were also kind of a wash since there was just Britpop which didn't have a lot of impact in the US. The 2000s were a lot stronger decade for British music with the spate of indie rock groups.

Europe. America just sounds trashy by comparison.

Oh boy, you know nothing of Oasis and the "people" if you want to call them that that they have for fans.

U.S. Jazz is boring.

youtube.com/watch?v=s-jtdKjzQaE

This. American music sounds tacky and dirty.

Fagsame.

depends on genre and time period, current british music is awful

American music: soul
European music: soulless

>and CSNY
>group consisting of two Americans, a Brit, and a leaf

UK's rave and club scene is definitely one of the best in the world

The US was the only place where popular music could have emerged because of the different musical traditions that reflected the different cultures that found their way there. British folk mixing with African beats and European classical orchestration couldn't really have happened anywhere else.

Never understood how CSNY made it so big, I can't deny that their voices mix well but Nash's high harmony just drives me crazy. Stephen Stills is a genius though

>"[band name] is an English post-punk band formed in 197X."
Seeing this immediately gets my dick hard. I can't get enough English post-punk.

Jazz is too loud

Oasis aren't even that horrible on a surface listen. I could name many worse American bands.

Led Zeppelin blatantly stole from bluesmen
The Rolling Stones idolized American blues, country, rock and roll, and R&B
So did The Who.
The Beatles worshiped Elvis and Chuck Berry and then their transformation from simplistic pop rock to Serious Artists (TM) wouldn't have happened without Dylan, Phil Spector, and the Beach Boys.
The Jam were a pretty fair punk group but they wouldn't have happened without the Ramones
No Velvets or Dolls means no Bowie or Queen

Bowie had his own vision to be fair, is there really that much apparent connection to TVU aside from Queen Bitch, where he's open about paying tribute to them?

Britain doesn't really have an answer for instrument re-definition on the order of Jaco Pastorius, Miles Davis, Pat Metheny, Bela Fleck, Mark O'Connor, John Coltrane, and others or composing giants like Frank Zappa. I can't think of many English players who have had that kind of impact on their instruments. Perhaps Bill Bruford on drums or David Gilmour's guitar leads?

Shit, even Jimi Hendrix was American.

I would argue the British charts are more open to experimental stuff/weirdness/novelty, but that's probably because of the country's small size compared to the US.

The US had way more genius solo artists in comparison to genius bands, maybe it's a result of an individualistic culture. The British pretty much just had Bowie and I guess Van Morrison in terms of transformative solo artists, while the US had Dylan, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Hendrix, Johnny Cash, Ray Charles, Prince, and Stevie Wonder just to name a few.

>I would argue the British charts are more open to experimental stuff/weirdness/novelty
That's true. Siouxsie & The Banshees, a band that took risks and changed the face of alternative music, was considered a pop group in the UK and consistently failed to chart in the US.

UK does electronica miles better so they win IMO.

but without the US jazz movement this moe shit wouldn't exist lmao

It's kind of notable that American bands tend to be dominated by one guy while British groups are more an "all for one and one for all" arrangement.

>The British pretty much just had Bowie and I guess Van Morrison in terms of transformative solo artists
Rod Stewart

Domineering figures who steered the creative ship kind of emerged in all of those British prog bands too though. Roger Waters, Robert Fripp, Peter Gabriel, etc.

Transformative, not mom rock. As great as he is Elton is disqualified for that same reason since he never tried nor claimed to be an innovator

Jam bands seem to mostly be an American thing due to their grounding in roots rock while prog is a more particularly British (and European) thing perhaps due to the classical music tradition. American attempts at prog like Kansas and Styx were usually pretty terrible and cringe-inducing.

UK as a whole
America if we cut out everything except for New York and California

American music is dirtier, more jammy, and more down-to-earth and relatable.
European music is cleaner, more sophisticated, and touches on more philosophical/conceptual themes.

How about Australia? They have a pretty kickass scene that never gets much attention due to their geographical distance. Most people's awareness of Australian music is limited to AC/DC, Men at Work, and INXS.

America had quite a few prog progenitors in its own right to be fair. The Byrds, Grateful Dead, Doors, and even the Beach Boys.

>American music is dirtier, more jammy, and more down-to-earth and relatable.
Or more specifically, country and blues sounds have always kind of been the underpinning of American pop music.

>blues rock
>jammy southern rock / psychedelic rock
>regular psychedelic rock
>psychedelic pop
None of those are progressive rock. America doesn't have an answer to Pink Floyd, or Genesis, or Yes.

Aussie music is a lot closer to American music stylistically which is ironic given how they have closer cultural ties to the UK than any place else.

This. America can't let go of "muh blues." European music sounds whiter.

Of the Big Four thrash bands, Metallica were the closest to sounding European probably because one of the band members is European. But then especially after the 80s, James Hetfield's redneck rock antics really came to the front.

>European music sounds whiter
It also sounds more pompous and pretentious. Euros always act like they're so sophisticated and so much better than us.

I can do that too user,

>Estelle
>Adele

Vs.

Boston
Steve Miller Band

dubi dubi dam and the birdie song are shit
british rock music sure as hell does not sound 'whiter' than american

That's because we make better music than you.

Go to bed Christgau.

Heres the thing; Classic Rock and regular rock was born out of blues and new Orleans jazz.

Prog rock was born out of Brits love for classical music. That's why prog is so experimental.

Prog is obviously better

That's a wew moment
Tell that to Eurobeat as a whole

UK has Talking Heads, enough said

Any time you leave Brits to their own devices, they'll invariably and without fail churn out a bunch of Gilbert & Sullivan compositions. I'd have a hard time thinking of a British group who didn't do that other than maybe the Stones because they're wannabe Delta bluesmen.

Genesis sounds white as fuck. They're so aggressively British.
American rock bands all sound like blues rock.

Nothing wrong with a little G&S pal.

Those musicals were god-tier

I am the very model of a modern major general

you really think TMWSTW would've happened without WL/WH or The Stooges?

Pere Ubu is the best band in the world when it comes to capturing the modern human condition

Even if you look at hip-hop, many of its basic concepts/cliches can be traced back to blues, particularly:

>life in the hood fucking sucks
>grrr damn bitches and hos giving me grief

Hip-hop is something that Brits have never really managed to pull off. I think our culture is too genteel for that.

You're not wrong, but blues makes your soul feel good when listening to it, hip-hop doesn't.

The path to progressive required blues and jazz though. Jazz and blues lead to 50s rock and roll, which leads to the quaint white kid rock and roll of the early 60s, which leads to key proto-prog albums like Rubber Soul. It's like saying you love chocolate milk but hate milk.

genesis =/= all british rock music

um excuse me?

Attached: man's not hot.jpg (640x360, 29K)

I like to give UK shit every chance I get but their club music is GOAT, no denying it.

It's also peculiar how British punk rock was a thing of disenfranchised working class kids while American punk was a thing of upper middle class collegiate artfags on the coasts.

Yes, but the Brits emphasized the classical roots of the genre instead of the blues, which is why their music is arguably subjectively better

Dru8nk American here. It's a tie if we're being honest here.

We don't really have that whole "macho angst" thing Americans do. I don't think we could have done a Black Flag or a Nirvana.

Why was there no one else even remotely in the competition? Why did other world powers of the time like the French have no apparent musical tradition that they could have exported to the rest of the Western world?

There wasn't a real American metal scene until thrash happened, all metal bands up to 1983 were British or continental European.

The French have a great music scene but they hardly ever sing in English so most of it remains unknown outside of Francophone countries.

Europe is far more relevant than the US nowadays when it comes to underground music. Electronic is the only genre that matters and Americans are incapable of making it like they are incapable of writing high literature.

I wouldn't call the Ramones art fags; Dee Dee turned tricks for heroin and Johnny was known to be a political conservative

Dont want to be unnecessarily picky, but I cant see that Queen owe anything at all to the Velvets or the Dolls. I don't even really feel that Queen were a glam band, and from what Ive read in interviews neither do they. I can see perhaps a Hendrix influence but I cant see the two you mention for Queen. Bowie, sure but not Queen.

No but you guys have a pretty unique "macho laddy" thing going on. Oasis, for example.

USA
>Frank Zappa
>GG Allin
>The Ramones
>Elvis
>Thelonius Monk
>Eric Dolphy
>Louis Armstrong
>The Misfits
>Black Flag
>Dead Kennedys
>The Germs
>Minor Threat
>The Dictators
>Van Halen
>Michael Jackson
>John Cage
>Bad Brains
>Beach Boys
>Nirvana
>Soundgarden
>Mudhoney
>sonic youth
>Miles Davis
>smashing pumpkins
>Nas
>death grips
I could keep going but I think the point is clear

American exceptionalism exists even in music, across every genre. Brits don’t stand a Chance.

Attached: F77BFB77-8522-4974-8F61-3F35A863A6B7.gif (412x384, 1.3M)

Hell yeah, ex-French student here, teacher showed us all sorts of French songs, can confirm, is good music:
youtube.com/watch?v=h41sgWRIL_I
youtube.com/watch?v=oiKj0Z_Xnjc

I dunno mate, if you go back to Boomer Rock times, England's got us beat in a lot of ways.
Consider the following:
>Pink Floyd
>Led Zeppelin
>Manfred Mann
>Queen
>Def Leppard
>Dire Straits
>Motorhead
it's pretty tough honestly.

>Sex Pistols
>Pink Floyd
>The Beatles
>The Rolling Stones
>Joy Division
>The Cure
>Slowdive
>Ride
>Siouxsie & The Banshees
>The Clash
>Magazine
>Depeche Mode
>King Crimson
>Yes
>Led Zeppelin
>New Order
>Oasis
>Jethro Tull
>Black Sabbath
>Queen
>Deep Purple
>Kate Bush
>The Who
>The Smiths
>Pulp
>The Yardbirds
>Iron Maiden
>The Police
>Gary Numan
>Judas Priest
I can name artists too.

Only about half of these are actually good, and out of those, maybe a quarter of them are actually great.

Almost all of these are good or great.

The UK fucking destroys the US.

Considering how short-lived the UK punk movement was (realistically it lasted 9 months), it had a huge cultural impact and colored British pop culture for an entire generation. Punk groups in the US didn't have so big or obvious an impact and the vast majority of the American rock audience were and continued listening to arena hard rock and metal.

It's over, America. We have the high ground.

As I said, punk in the US was mostly a coastal thing and practiced by bohemian artfags, which is why critics liked it so much--they could relate to the bands and the culture they were a part of while Ted Nugent and REO Speedwagon didn't make any sense to them.

The question of this thread is similar to asking if English tea is better than Chinese or Indian.

US is everything. UK is just a euro-scene that happen to sing in English a lot.

Attached: Q49hZKffOcQ.jpg (480x470, 30K)

one hit wonders: the list

Is Talking Heads and American band or a British band?
Is Scott Walker an American man or a British man?

How fucking retarded are you? Almost all of those artists have multiple 10/10 albums.

Generally true, but there's always exceptions like Motorhead.

Australia had one really great period of music during the 80s and absolutely nothing before or since.

Why is it all the great British groups mostly sing with an American accent?

UK if your a bleep fag like I am

Aussie hard rock in the 80s was really good and contrasted with the soft British synthpop of that time. Didn't like Midnight Oil though, they were even preachier than U2.

>current british music is awful
Uggh, it is. This decade the British music scene has been AWOL.

Even so, there are plenty of American groups where everyone was important including Metallica, Velvets, Aerosmith, KISS, Airplane, Pantera, Doors, Beach Boys, Grateful Dead, Eagles, RHCP, Van Halen, etc, etc.

Fuck me this is a hard one.
Both had fucking fantastic music
during the 60's, 70's, 80's, and ups and downs during the 90's
I dunno.
If I honestly had to choose I'd say the UK.
60's UK Rock & Pop was fantastic.
70's UK Hard Rock, Punk and Early metal was badass and fuckin raw.
80's UK Heavy Metal, Post Punk, Gothic Rock, and New Wave was god tier era of UK music.
90's Britpop, Shoegaze, Hardcore Breakbeat and Jungle/DnB was pretty cool.
Its pretty hard for me to choose 90's UK over 90's US since I enjoy 90's US music much more, but when it comes to 60's,70's,80's absolutely UK.

France makes the best music.

Attached: 35928179_1813838402038197_7795661904789110784_n.jpg (960x960, 1.2M)

US definitely but UK has the Fall which is a huge booster

I think UK was better overall, but the very best artists were mostly American. There was good music coming out of every part of the UK while the vast majority of the USA made forgettable junk with most of the irrelevant states having one token good band that people care about.

Considering its size UK is much more impressive than US

That's more because Britain is small and talent is more concentrated.

Solo artists do seem to have a harder time getting a foothold in the UK. Most of the ones who did succeed like Elton and Rod Stewart had big American followings.

Brits don't seem to care much for American music post-50s. I would argue the British music press is worse than the American music press. Also the US is big enough that artists can survive from American sales alone while Brits need the US market to get big.

So that explains why Americans tend to be more aware of British music than Brits are of American music. I think they also blamed Americans for a lot of the worst aspects of the 80s and Americans often tend to view British bands as too exotic/weird.

I find it weird how the UK flag is used in the US as a symbol of youthful rebellion while the Confederate flag is sometimes used by countercultures in Europe.

Beach Boys Vs The Beatles?

I choose the Doors.

Americans created blues and country which spawned rock...true. But, blues and country mainly trace back to the musical traditions of the British Isles especially Celtic folk.

This basically. Both have their fair share of good and bad music. UK music would be boring by now without the US, and vice versa.

Prior to 50s rock and roll, guitar music wasn't really a thing in the UK.

Well I don't see a lot of American artists trying to LARP as Brits but a whole lot of Brits try to LARP as Americans.

UK is better for pop, rock, and electronic. US is better for everything else.

jap jazz is even worse
jap culture in general is just US culture but 20 years behind because the nukes fucking obliterated any sense of national identity they had

Dude this is true
Yet weeb hipsters cream over city pop and shit yet hate the American bands it ripped off

No dire straits, genesis or simply red

I do love me jarre

The Beatles
Black Sabbath
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
The Who
The Rolling Stones

VS.

The Eagles
Aerosmith
Kansas
Journey
The Bee Gees
Earth Wind and Fire

Canada

Guess Who, Rush, Neil Young, Tragically Hip

We rule

Triumph is my boomer friends favorite band

UK.

Lol. So many artists on that list, the world would be better without.

USA wins hands down in hip-hop they better admit that

Even drunker American guy here... we got these damn here slaves, made good music; why not claim them. It would be racist not to. Regardless, UK never had a Woody Guthrie.

>
sure buddy

Attached: Persell.jpg (600x600, 41K)

change that to 20 and you're mostly right

Between the 60s and 80s, the UK had some claim to be better than the US. Nowadays, nothing good from them.

can i use wiki? artist over 250mill sales 3 US, 3 UK, 1 barbados

nobody is ever really going to outdo the classical music operating in the UK / europe

jazz is cool for the US but even then jazz is owned by jews / blacks so kinda stolen

hehe bee gees

THE TING GOES SKRRRAAAA

It's kinda impossible to choose. Great bands from both countries.

When I think of the great classical composures...The United Kingdom is dog swine for that. I mean, at least burgers have the kike Irving Berlin.

this post makes me proud to be british

we've managed to pull it off user, you just aren't digging deep enough.

yeah because magazine have put out a one hit wonder, fuck out of here

UK
>big beat
>idm
>acid house
>jungle/dnb
>trip-hop
>ambient
>post-punk
>[spoiler]punk[/spoiler]
>doom metal
>ska
>dubstep
>garage
>prog

US:
nah.

bee gees isn't from the us dumbass

Plus the Band, which was actually a pretty influential group despite not being a household name

Bob Dylan is influential and a burger.

>punk
Sorry, but that is not true.

I'm biased being a Brit, but I feel our music has (or had) a common touch that seems to be missing in American music.

>acid house
chicago
>ambient
germany
>ska
jamaica, dafuq

oo wait, that was George Gershwin. Sorry, bros.

U.S. has Randy Newman, U.S. wins

the U.S. has had a lot of fantastic Jewish composers, including Berlin, Gershwin, the Newmans, Stravinsky, and Bernstein

UK had better bands and US had better solo acts

Honestly I'd have a hard time naming a really great white jazz artist other than maybe David Brubeck. For some reason white guys just cannot into jazz.

I've heard the opposite, that American music has grit and realness to it and British music is ploofy Gilbert & Sullivan compositions.

Please try harder with your bait... We might not have afro beat but come you crack head.

>eurobeat as a whole
I would if it could make it out of Europe

BIEBER

rockists will actually argue for USA but UK electronic music has been miles better for the past 30 years

It's not about digging deep it's about how few there are.

Better question who has the better national dish?
For me? Its the chip butty.

Attached: chipButty.jpg (491x378, 49K)

Land of punk turns sissy

As a Britbong, I gotta say America are fucking crushing us lately. We had an inordinate amount of classic/influential artists though, considering the population difference.

okay by that logic brits didn't make any good rocknroll. All of it is garbage just like your opinion

>clearly no butter on that bread
What are you doing?

>barely outside of one genre
Yeah they're completely better...

I didnt make that picture ya silly goose im just posting it here. Be more humble senpai

It's like Ireland. One moment of glory in the 80s and that was it.

>not making chip butties
Why?

Idk if this is bait but Talking Heads are a New York based band

The only two people in the band that matter (Eno and Byrne) are British.

Eno wasn’t in Talking Heads, he just produced Remain in Light and Byrne only lived in Scotland until was 2 - then his family moved to Canada

Bill Evans is the GOAT

Belgium somehow manages to be an underrated music country due to Brel and Django Reinhardt.

To be fair most of AC/DC also grew up in Australia and only lived in the UK as small children.

This. Kind of pissed at the US that they keep Urban music for so long.

>I would argue the British music press is worse than the American music press
I don't know much about the British music press, but I think it would hard to get much worse than Christgau, Marsh, etc.

I actually rather loathe G&S myself.

Yea but people call AC/DC an Australian band, not a British band

The punk movement were nothing like G&S

>simply red
DUDE R&B COVERS LMAO

>The Brits didn't do anything noteworthy in the 80s but synthpop
>What is post-punk
>What is gothic rock

>he just produced Remain in Light
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Songs_About_Buildings_and_Food
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_Music

>punk
>classic rock
>heavy metal
>progressive rock
>shoegaze
>dream pop
>post-punk
>new wave
>britpop
>synth-pop
>barely outside of one genre
Face it. We're better than you.

>hip-hop
Not something to be proud of. The UK almost wins for this reason alone.

>Stravinsky
>Jewish
>the US
He was born in Russia, to two Russian parents and didn't move to thr US until he was an adult. He was still living in Russia when he wrote the Rite Of Spring, his most famous piece. Don't try to claim him as American.

Sure, not when they were just playing three chord rock. As soon as they developed some skills and evolved into post-punk...

A few pops and offsprings of RocknRoll wowo

American culture has a lot more of the "cult of the common man" going where even yuppie hipsters try to wear flannel and drink PBR so they can LARP as a redneck from Tennessee.

Funny because the UK had actual working class heroes. Just look at their punk and post-punk scenes. Those kids were poor as shit. The Sex Pistols literally stole their instruments.

The British rock scene from the 2000s was pretty good and they even had some semi-notable pop stars, but in this decade...

British bands have an operatic grandeur that American bands aren't capable of. I can't picture an American group making LZ IV or Animals.

Were the British Invasion groups better than their US counterparts? Yes. Kinda hard to argue with the Beatles and Rolling Stones, even if the US had the Byrds and Beach Boys.

Were they better than Motown, Atlantic, Stax/Volt, and a dozen other regional R&B labels? No way. The British groups simply weren't the performers those acts were.

this

The Beatles lit a fire under Americans' collective backsides. Everyone knows how Dylan, the Beach Boys, Roger McGuinn, the Byrds were overawed by the Beatles and strived to compete with them.

Songs like Please Please Me didn't sound like anything Americans were doing at the time. Bob Dylan said he was blown away by the Beatles and their harmonies and aggressive chords. Yes the Beatles certainly owed a lot to American rock and roll and R&B, but their style was uniquely British and couldn't have come from an American group.

Beach Boys
vs
Beatles
I think the answer is clear here.

One big difference if you compare American groups of the 60s versus British groups is that the American ones like the Byrds, Airplane, and the Dead never quite had the same cohesiveness as bands. They felt more like supergroups with a bunch of solo musicians jamming together but not really being a unit, which is probably because they tended to be from privileged upper class backgrounds and didn't come up in the working class club scene as the Beatles did.

>muh beatles
Literally just popularizers of previous shit, mostly american. They impressed everyone because of how fine-tuned the production of it sounded.

Attached: piero.jpg (474x437, 22K)

I would agree prog rock was something Americans never figured out and all the great prog groups were European and undoubtedly because of the classical music tradition.

What bands did it rip off? I want to listen to them.

The Byrds came out of an era when once you hit big, live performances were perfunctory. You'd just get up there and play your hit singles, which you couldn't hear anyway because ear monitors hadn't been invented yet, amps were still tabletop-sized, and there were thousands of screaming teenage girls. By all accounts they were never particularly good live performers anyway, even though they certainly had the chops for it, but not the desire. Even so, they made five great albums which is more than a lot of bands can say.

And a greater shame is that McGuinn never followed through on his original concept for their sixth album, with the jazz and other elements mixed in. I understand that Sweetheart of the Rodeo was groundbreaking in a different way, but it wasn't well-accepted at the time, and The Byrds' place in history might well have been different had the original concept gone forward.

Ok just cause he produced 3 of their albums doesn’t mean he was in Talking Heads

They're both hot garbage like really really bad even pic related makes better music

Attached: image.jpg (550x550, 14K)

To be honest most of the British groups had honed their chops better in the club scene. It's estimated that at least 300 rock groups existed in Liverpool in the early 60s. They had by all accounts a better club/dance scene than the US. The idea that you could actually go to The Cavern on your lunch hour and hear a band play was utterly unknown in the US as was, in all but the biggest cities, the idea of bands playing evening gigs on days other than Friday or Saturday.

>replying to bait this obvious

When Cream first hit American shores in 1967, Eric Clapton said "I knew we were going to blow away the competition because they'd all grown up listening to the wrong records."

Well considering the only American prog musician worth his salt is Frank Zappa, I'd vote the UK.

Prog is shit

I think people forget that the British Invasion had a lot of awful, derivative trash bands like Herman's Hermits that rode off the Beatles' coattails and quickly vanished after 1-2 hits.

Based indiekid and/or hip hop head

Elvis said the same thing first time he went across the pond

It is not as if nothing was going on over here in the early 60s. Rock was barely a decade old and people were still absorbing all the changes from just a few years earlier. By contrast, see how stagnant music has been since 2000 with hardly anything new happening. Anyhow, not just the Beach Boys, but a whole surf sound was emerging on the west coast. In New York, Bob Dylan was changing popular songwriting forever, playing clubs in Greenwich and paving the way for an entire generation of singer/songwriters, including Simon and Garfunkel.

Meanwhile, in Detroit, Berry Gordy was transforming popular music with his Motown sound. Meanwhile, a whole group of bluesmen like Muddy Waters and John Lee Hooker were playing an electric blues that the Rolling Stones could only hope to emulate. Before extolling the greatness of Cream, listen to some mid 60s Albert King and that whole Stax sound. I like Eric Clapton's guitar playing, but I love Albert King's music.

Getting back to pop music, once the initial wave of new British acts was over, the influences went back and forth. It is common knowledge that the Brian Wilson was influenced by the Beatles when he wrote Pet Sounds, and the Beatles were influenced by both Pet Sounds and by Dylan.

Not even mentioned yet are The Band, who of course also emerged from Dylan, a great North American group. Or the Velvet Underground, who were tremendously influential, if not popular. I know, John Cale is Welsh, but the Velvets were based in NYC.

Another direction not even mentioned is soul. Remember Ray Charles was making records as far back as the mid 50s. By the mid 60s, Otis Redding emerged as a major star, as did Aretha Franklin.

I could go on and on, but my point is that compared with the rich diversity of American artists of the early to mid 60s, their British counterparts seem derivative and culturally quite limited, as you might expect of the inhabitants of a small island off the coast of Northwest Europe.

They actually had like 10 hits dude. It's just that the 1960s singles charts were fierce and bands came in and out at a much faster pace than they have since the seventies

>Elvis
>ever touring outside the US
...

It's more accurate to say groups like HH and Dave Clark Five couldn't make the transition from the British Invasion to psychedelic rock from 1966 onward so they quickly dropped off the radar.

Neither. Prog is just awful. I'll take a good CCR album over the wankery prog bands were putting out at the time. Also this thread seems hung up on British Invasion crap of the early/mid 60's. I'll take a good Motown record instead, thanks.

He never did because no venues were big enough

I don't agree with this. For a couple years, yes the British bands were definitely better and rocked harder than American ones. The Byrds, the Dead, Airplane, the Doors...none of those groups would have happened without the Beatles. Dylan and the Beach Boys were totally awestruck by them and were inspired to try things that would have never occurred to them otherwise.

Bob Weir: "The Beatles were the reason we went from a jug band to a rock and roll band. What they were doing was impossibly attractive. How could anyone have thought otherwise?"

The Kinks, Stones, and Yardbirds hugely influenced garage rock and proto-punk in the US. Like it or not, the American pop music scene circa 1963 was lame and cornball as fuck. No Beatles=no Pet Sounds. Simple as.

Actually he didn't tour outside the US because Colonel Parker was a secret illegal immigrant from the Netherlands and he would have been exposed had he tried to travel abroad, so he always invented one excuse after another why they couldn't tour internationally.

Fair enough
youtube.com/watch?v=hCDAfa-NI-M

Was Elvis Presley bigger than The Beatles ?

No doubt, Beatles inspired many groups to form but Beatles influencing GD? Sorry, that is a stretch.

The surf sound was more than just the Beach Boys. Listen to some Dick Dale sometime.

Dylan went electric for a number of reasons, but he certainly influenced the Beatles as much as or more than the Beatles influenced him.

Beatles influencing folk rock? Again, a tricky question. Many on this board have made the point that the Beatles were influenced by the West Coast Folk rockers. It is more likely that without Dylan and his Folk influence, the Beatles phenomenon would have petered out by 1966 and they would have returned to Liverpool like most of the original British Invasion bands.

They all influenced each other the Beatles influenced the Byrds and vice versa. No one makes in a vacuum. The facts the Beatles had a skiffle background. You can hear it on their early music and that's what influenced the Byrds first. Where do you think the Byrds got the idea to get the Ricky guitar sound also? The Byrds in turn influenced the Beatles. They all were checking each other out and taking things from each other.

Listen to the The Beatles (Revolver) 1966 was music used preoccupation with "psychedelic" effects as a studio instrument, including electronic/backward tape effects, sound distortion, influence of Indian music, and avant-garde. This has nothing to do with what Dylan, the West Coast sound, and Brian Wilson. What does "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Strawberry Fields Forever" has in common with American rock music really nothing. It has more in common with British psychedelia or the early psych/prog sound.

"The Beatles would have returned to Liverpool like most of the original British Invasion bands."

Well it did not happen so it's pointless to speculate something that did not happened. I would rather give credit then speculate that something that never happened. What would have happened to Dylan and the Byrds if there was no British Invasion? That is the more relevant question? The Beatles got there before them. The Beatles were not the most covered songwriters in the history of rock because of Dylan and folk music. Please

My last point was rock based music not R&B music, soul music, and blues music in which I always said myself were much better than the British attempts at it. I'm only talking about rock.

Good point.

I don't know why America didn't develop a weird avant-prog band inspired by Charles Ives, that would've been weird

UK all day every day

It would have been shit, that's why

>Like it or not, the American pop music scene circa 1963 was lame and cornball as fuck.
When Roy Orbison and the Shirelles were the best we had to offer, it says a lot.