Why Have Otherwise Globally Significant Cultures Failed To Produce Iconic Music Acts?

It's easy to forget the impact African American (specifically Blues/jazz) had on British music....and indeed the whole world.

Personally I think it's these genres mixed in with centuries of a Celtic musical background, that produced a popular formula for the British. Let's not forget that the UK stands for more than just the Brits.
With the Irish passion for poetry and Scots storytelling it's no surprise to me why the 'British invasion' has been so successful, and IMHO the English language lends itself to be bent & twisted in all sorts of directions, oftentimes with one word having multiple meanings.

In any case, the blend of black & white in African rhythm & groove with Celtic melody/harmony/languages is a beautiful thing....not withstanding the many other cultures contribution of beautiful music to the world.
 
Last edited:
And this is where the thread diverges from the central theme, right on time after 2 pages - maintaining my central thesis is that no thread stays on topic after two pages.
 
When I visited Italy, I became hooked on a band that was played on the radio called Circus 2000.

To describe them in a sentence, think of The Doors with a Grace Slick singing.

I think the reason France and Italy don't have more iconic acts that sell a lot is due to exposure in other countries.

Rammstein can pack sports arenas in the USA with German songs. Then again they were fortunate to be exposed to a USA audience through movie soundtracks. There's other artists like Sepultura that get big through underground word of mouth.
 
Last edited:
Rammstein can pack sports arenas in the USA with German songs. Then again they were fortunate to be exposed to a USA audience through movie soundtracks. There's other artists like Sepultura that get big through underground word of mouth.
Well, they're western bands doing western music in western languages, and metal is always going to rally on the fringes anyway.
 
Last edited:
We all know about this tiny little Island in the Atlantic that has wowed the world with it's consistent
musical output that is both consistent and revolutionary. The Mists of Avalon must be very powerful
indeed.

And this is where the thread diverges from the central theme, right on time after 2 pages - maintaining my central thesis is that no thread stays on topic after two pages.
I see you deleted your quote of my post.

I guess I approached the subject from the opposite end by reasoning why Britain (which clearly the OP was making reference to) has produced so many "Iconic Music Acts" as opposed to why "Otherwise Globally Significant Cultures Failed to", so not off topic IMO.

I'll try very hard to approach the title from the right end next time in the interest of not maintaining your central thesis.
 
Last edited:
Could be true, but does it answer why a tiny island seemed to be so massively creative when it came to music?
There was definitely something about England. As an anecdote, that may give a clue..., wasn't Hendrix unsuccessful at first in the US, but the opposite in England, and after that happened, he blew up in the US? Maybe it was just the timing or coincidence, but imo England seemed to spark an inordinate amount of "new" music that just took off.

And whatever the reason, or combinations of reasons, I think it's a really good question.
 
I had no idea this thread and my seemingly obvious question would elicit any butthurt. Geesh!
Could probably go 100 albums deep and not see a lot of diversity as far as Nation of origin.

I am still curious. Just don't bring your Oud and try to argue for the global primacy of Turkish
folk tunes. Because that is not what this was about, and is missing the point. :)



View attachment 106533
Now excuse me while I go look up #3. Thanks for that.









;)
Edit: I should've known!
 
Man, that was a mouthful of a title. Whew! :)

We all know about this tiny little Island in the Atlantic that has wowed the world with it's consistent
musical output that is both consistent and revolutionary. The Mists of Avalon must be very powerful
indeed. Yet, why is a nation like France so bereft of anything remotely close to what Britain has produced
musically. And yeah, you, too, Italy. I know you have your Opera and France you have your Chopin. Why
no monumental rock or pop acts, though? Did Italy and France get the Food and Wine blessing from
Dionysius and Britain received the Music blessing? :)

Any thoughts on why the UK is a powerhouse of musical influence to this day, with the well still a gushing,
and France and Italy (among others) are veritable deserts, with few if any lasting musical icons outside the
3 Tenors and Edith Piaf. Just seems odd to me that some cultures seem incapable of nurturing musical icons,
and others are world-class at it.

I think you're looking at this backwards, and from an Anglo-centric point of view. My take: the "pop" (rock) music industry was pioneered by the British and Americans largely due to accidents of history.

The technology to make and sell recorded music came up in the first half of the 20th century, mainly in Europe and the US. In the second half of the 20th century, the industrialized nations that weren't shattered and trying to rebuild after World War II were English speaking, most significantly the UK and the US. So I'll argue it was the UK and US that had the best ability to 1.) make recordings, 2.) distribute them, 3.) sell them, 4.) play them on the radio and 5.) spend the money to promote the music to lead to more of #4 and #3 (in that order). Et voila! English-speaking acts sell the most because they sell the most! They invented that market and effectively cornered it.

I don't think it's that the English-speaking world produces "better" music. The English-speaking part of the world created the biggest market for popular music in the world by perfecting the art of selling that music to massive audiences.
 
Back
Top Bottom