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

And oh by the way it is a one way street. The Beatles and the Stones (again just throwing out examples for academic purposes) were big everywhere because the world looked at western life and culture and wanted a piece of that pi…. and blue jeans.

No one in the west (the OP’s frame of reference) is looking at, say, Myanmar, with longing for a better brighter tomorrow.
 
USMC_Trev said:
And oh by the way it is a one way street. The Beatles and the Stones (again just throwing out examples for academic purposes) were big everywhere because the world looked at western life and culture and wanted a piece of that pi…. and blue jeans.
Click to expand...
I think of it more as the world discovering / embracing aspects of British culture. The Bealtes' style was "cool / adorable" in a uniquely British way, the Stones style was uniquely "cool / badass" in a uniquely British way. Alex / Geddy / Neil (rip) are uniquely "nice" in a uniquely Canadian way. These characteristics of the culture's style morph with the individuals' styles and great music (+ brilliant promotion, careful management, ... , and some magic dust) to create something new and unique that can spark a kind of viral interest abroad.
 
Last edited:
sprint said:
I think of it more as the world discovering / embracing aspects of British culture. The Bealtes' style was "cool / adorable" in a uniquely British way, the Stones style was uniquely "cool / badass" in a uniquely British way. Alex / Geddy / Neil (rip) are uniquely "nice" in a uniquely Canadian way. These characteristics of the culture's style morph with the individuals' styles and great music (+ brilliant promotion, careful management, ... , and some magic dust) to create something new and unique that can spark a kind of viral interest abroad.
Click to expand...
I’m not limiting my comments to just British music and I only use those bands as an example and not definitive at all of the entirely of the subject.
 
sprint said:
many factors I guess - language is one maybe?, I'm thinking of Celine Dion here in Canada who got nowhere with a number of albums sung more in French, then huge international success when she began singing more in English.
Click to expand...

Good point. Never considered the primacy of English as a requirement, and we know how the French feel about that. :)
 
Budda said:
Define “iconic” I guess? Im sure if you talk to French people interested in music, they have their own very famous artists.
Click to expand...

You forgot "globally"---which I also included in my query. Not here to diss the French, the Italians, or any other
nation or peoples. Just asking the really obvious question why there is such a dearth of significant artists from
France or Italy (among other nations) that have global reach and impact.
 
jamongrande said:
There are internationally renowned music stars from every corner of the earth. And their fame extends well beyond their home country's borders. It's listeners in the US who have often been the most deaf to what's been happening everywhere else.

And don't conflate Western pop artists' exaggerated economic backing by global media corporations for popularity, artistry, or success.
Click to expand...

I was waiting for a post like that. I am not guilty of the sins you are accusing me of, though. Next! :)
 
AlGrenadine said:
Yes, you just don't know music other than English - spoken one... Be more curious ;)
Serge Gainsbourg is pretty iconic, as is Jacques Brel or Charles Aznavour ;)
Click to expand...
I was just asking a question. ;)

And yes, I know other music. But my point still stands that the global reach of
some music from some nations is more prevalent and pronounced than from some
other nations---even as those nations/cultures have had a tremendous
impact in things like food and wine and literature.
 
Last edited:
USMC_Trev said:
The question answers itself. Significant cultures might not lend themselves to generating the kind of popular music you think is iconic. The iconic act you're looking for has nothing to do with what you want to hear, but is HUGE in Lithuania (for example). It's not your culture so it's not your music. It's not iconic to you, but it floods the basement of a 16 year old girl in a country whose name you probably can't spell.
Click to expand...

That's NOT what I was asking.
 
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. :)



1660425058421.png
 
la szum said:
I had no idea this thread and my seemingly obvious question would elicit so much butthurt.
Could probably go 100 albums deep and not seee a lot of diversity as far as Nation of origin.



View attachment 106533
Click to expand...

Sure, because that’s English-based. And English is somehow the “music” language. But sales of albums in Spanish run into millions too, in South America and other countries.
 
AlGrenadine said:
So what you call iconic is commercial success?
Click to expand...

I think I have been pretty explicit in my posts/questions.

Far-reaching impact. Beyond the borders of one's culture or ethnicity. If that equals commercial success, then I
am cool with that. How else can you measure impact? This is not about obscurity. How can an icon be obscure?
 
la szum said:
I think I have been pretty explicit in my posts/questions.

Far-reaching impact. Beyond the borders of one's culture or ethnicity. If that equals commercial success, then I
am cool with that. How else can you measure impact? This is not about obscurity. How can an icon be obscure?
Click to expand...
Well i'm not sure commercial success measures impact...
But you'd have to define impact. For me it would be inspiring others, maybe inventing a style
Other than this, music has pretty few impact on the world...
 
Key wpor
Admin M@ said:
Empire.
Click to expand...


Touche'. :)

Could be true, but does it answer why a tiny island seemed to be so massively creative when it came to music?
There wasn't just this regurgitation of known forms and standards (like repeating inherited folk tunes and classical
music written centureis before and not to be improved upon). It was this seemingly new and revolutionarry thing.

How and why was the UK so fertile. If Empire = leisure and luxury then does that explain the level of creativity allowed a nation
of kids who had opportunities other kids in other nations maybe don't, or didn't?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom