The European and American approach

Pollyanna

Platinum Member
Quoting from Joachim Berendt's 1973 book, The J___ Book" (we don't mention the J-word in polite company):

The American groups are almost always harder, more aggressive, more swinging, while the British groups are more meditative, sensitive, contemplative, many-sided.

Obviously there has been a fair bit of cross-pollination since that time but I feel the trend remains and you can see it in the way drummers approach the music. Your thoughts?
 
Quoting from Joachim Berendt's 1973 book, The J___ Book" (we don't mention the J-word in polite company):

The American groups are almost always harder, more aggressive, more swinging, while the British groups are more meditative, sensitive, contemplative, many-sided.

Obviously there has been a fair bit of cross-pollination since that time but I feel the trend remains and you can see it in the way drummers approach the music. Your thoughts?
I could be crass by twisting your opening observation and stating that British bands pollinated, the US bands took it up & did it bigger. Not strictly true of course, but there's certainly an historical element of truth in there. But then consider rock & roll, Motown, blues & many more huge genres. US pollinated, then taken up by British bands with generally less effective results.

Then consider punk. Much more gritty & harder in British hands. Same with Scandinavian metal vs. most US stuff.

I believe that the deepest music stems from social misjustice and life struggle. Blues is a classic US example, punk a good UK example. I think in general, British band material does tend to be more multi faceted, whereas US band material tends to be more streamlined. I think that's more of a commercial necessity identity tag driven thing than anything else. There is a tendancy for US material to be augmented towards mainstream taste in the persuance of acceptance and commercial success. There's clearly a significant element of that in British stuff too, yet still, a 1 finger up at the establishment stance is still prevalent in most non modern pop genres.

The British music industry is almost dead in global reach terms. The dizzy heights of the 60's & 70's are unlikely to return IMO. Understanding that, it's easy to see who has the more effective commercial approach, but does it necessarily produce the more satisfying music? The US will continue to produce great music in abundance. The British will produce a lot of home grown stuff with the occasional hidden gem.
 
I think that if you do look into the history of American and British band music, the theory presented does have some weight.

But I think it's kind of been diluted after all this time.

There are certainly some very heavy, aggressive bands from America(e.g., Slipknot), but I can't say I've heard of anything like that from the UK recently.
 
Early on in the 60's I think american drummers laid back behind the beat,I think because music of the day was influenced heavily by Music from the american south,jazz, blues ,gospel and early R+B,and early English rock drummers tended to play on top a little more,but when the brits began to hear and play in these styles they started to vary the way they played,and now it is more of what the style being played calls for.
 
I think that if you do look into the history of American and British band music, the theory presented does have some weight.

But I think it's kind of been diluted after all this time.

There are certainly some very heavy, aggressive bands from America(e.g., Slipknot), but I can't say I've heard of anything like that from the UK recently.

someother newish heavy uk bands include trigger the bloodshed, unearth, architechts etc etc
 
By the J-word, I'm assuming you mean jazz? I think every culture has brought their own feeling to the genre of jazz, and I think that the styles of music native to those countries plays a role in how they sound. Check out jazz from Latin countries (especially Cuba), Japan, Gypsy Jazz, etc. I've also heard Jazz artists who incorporated Flamenco. I even saw a video of a band that played jazz with an Irish folk influence, using instruments like tin whistle and uillean pipes. I can't remember their name, and I've been trying forever to find them again, but I've had no luck. Anyway, what I'm saying is that I think that people from other countries around the world play it with a different feel because they're influenced by their own native music and I think that tends to come out in their playing. I think it's great. It allows for a lot of variation, which keeps things interesting.
 
It's funny you should ask this question because I was thinking and was going to ask you whether you thought your tastes in music were more English or American.

If you're talking about about the Canterbury Scene, which in '73 were have been at its apex I can definitely see what the writer means. John Surman as well. As opposed to the hard-bop sound of the late 1950s and 60s coming out of blue note, Miles and Coltrane. But you do have Stan Getz or Chet Baker (and later Kenny G) and Brit Bebop, Ronnie Scott, John Mclaughlin or even Ginger Baker. British musicians generally do come from a long tradition of melodic music. But even to say that English or European jazz is more melodic or mannered or more contemplative would get you in a lot of hot water. Those dichotomies get you; but that is what you want though isn't it? :p

It would be helpful is you told us your thoughts on how drummers approach the music.
 
Last edited:
KIS, Michael - don't blow my cover! I never actually used the word "JAZ ... mmmpph"

KeepItSimple said:
I believe that the deepest music stems from social misjustice and life struggle. Blues is a classic US example, punk a good UK example.

KIS, I agree with what you said as a general idea. I also think it's worth considering that the passion and reality in music based on life struggle don't have to be group-based but can be individual and unique ... but there are elements in that unique struggle that can be understood as part of the human condition, such as loneliness, traumatic situations, etc.

By the same token, those who experience group or personal struggle don't always express their deeper feelings through their art, and opt for mannered stylisation and/or commercialism.

Here's a quote about the British punk movement, "Its good effects however are still with us, and this is its important legacy: the moves toward independence, sexual equality and stylistic diversity. The Sex Pistols and other money Hoovers had nothing at all to do with this".

I feel the British scene is different to the mainland European scene in some ways. For many years now musicians involved with highly noncommercial "arty" music have found mainland Europe far more welcoming than Britain; a number of artists from the US, the UK and Oz have found success in mainland Europe where they were more appreciated than at home. Prog, fusion and metal seem to do well there.

Scandinavia's metal scene appears to be as intense as the US's. The new brand of metal is full of anger and discontent. In the US, this seems to stem from annoyance at the rise of the religious right, which looks like a response to the Islamic play for the moral high ground. "Anything you can do I can do better" kind of thing.

In Scandinavia, however, I understand there's some racial/cultural tension regarding migration and, of course, they have a long history of eloquent melancholy as would anyone putting up with their awful weather (the Brits and northern Europe also share this misery to a fair extent :) Punk/post-punk and metal seem to be the white expression of angst, equivalent to blues and rap.

Whether hip hop, which was born of suffering, is great art is another matter. It seems to me that each new genre that stems from suffering - blues, punk, hip hop - comes to fruition in an increasingly commercialised age. So, instead of evolving fairly organically before becoming commercial - as the blues did - each subsequent movement has been absorbed into the mainstream and commercialised ever more quickly. Who knows what hip hop could have been without the immediate distorting influence of commercialism?

Personally, I'm more moved and interested in music that is more about personal/individualistic expression - be it happy, sad or philosophical - than in "movement music". To me there's a usually greater depth to it than the sproutings of self-appointed "spokespersons for a generation" etc, which seems to inevitably carry a lot of ego baggage that dilutes any verities expressed IMO.


Ken yes, Joachim Berendt's comments about European music tending to be more meditative, sensitive, contemplative, many-sided - basically less physical and more philosophical - than American music was based on the scene in 1973 but I feel this is still the case. There have been some outstanding exceptions of course, e.g. Zappa. On the other hand, I also feel that US pop rarely sinks to the depths of crassness as the most annoying European pop achieves (think EuroVision).

When it comes to drumming, in the US the visceral aspects - groove and swing - appear to be more heavily emphasised than in Europe, where the music strikes me as tending to be more imaginative and less physically compelling. I also feel the American music scene is more conservative, tending to less likely to stray from traditional approaches to melody, harmony and rhythm.

Of course this is very broad generalisation (think Don Moye, Rashied Ali) and obviously all regions have interest in both the visceral and cerebral, so I'm only speaking as a matter of degree. Globalisation has no doubt narrowed the differences too.

I have not talked about my native Oz because we hardly bother with music here any more - why bother with music when there's sport, gaming, sport, TV, sport, renovations, sport and making money? :(
 
I think we have to get over the hip-hop is not art line. What is hip-hop: Lauryn Hill, Public enemy, Tupac, Afrika Baambaata, Snoop Dogg? Who doesn't love Grandmasta's White Lines or the Message. That was great stuff.

There's enough interesting music that has come out of hip-hop to make up for the misogynistic, materialistic parts of Yo! MTV raps. And it has a long history going back to the griots, talking blues, The Last Poets, Gil Scott Heron, Jeremy Steig and soul jazz of the late 1960s. Also its influence on rock through the 1990s with Rage and Faith No More Chili Peppers and nu metal certainly cements its impact.

Of course, writers come from the bias when conceptualizing their books. I read a book on jazz rock fusion by Stuart Nicholson. He's a Brit. He followed jazz rock fusion into Brit music past from Graham Bond and Cream, as well as Jimi, in England of course. The fusion began in England in his view. The Beatles did change everything for better or worse. Rock n Roll baby. But America did invent all these genres. Tony Williams said he invented jazz-rock fusion and he may have been right about that. Williams did use rock beats on those Miles and Blue Note albums and even wanted Miles to open for The Beatles. Also many years ago I read Donald Clark Rise and Fall of Popular Music, also a Brit and the Brits in his view basically invented popular music back with the ballad operas of the late 18th century. He hated just about everything after 1960, except for The Beatles.

As far as Brendt. Sure America is a new country and does not tend to rely on a long standing history. It seems pop music needs to recreate itself every 25 years or so by starting over with minstrelsy, ragtime, jazz, r and b and then punk and hip-hip. (And those stuck in those genres do it for "the sake of the art." haha.) One of the changes that has happened in America over the last 30 years is the historicism of jazz and then rock tracing the lineage back to Africa and even Europe. Now you have a new world emerging where musicians tend to think back in 50-60 year stints rather than just five or ten years. Kids know the Beatles Led Zep and Aerosmith. When I grew-up, I learned so little about jazz, Gershwin or Irving Berlin, so much that it actually pissed me off. You went tt school and learned about songs, they taught you Schubert and Brahms

I will give him that there is a brashness to American music, a rawness in Iggy or Springsteen, Bon Jovi, Cannibal Corpse or Linkin Park.. But then you have all those Scandanavian bands who seem to delve into a deeper core of an almost mystical baseness perhaps because of the long history of those cultures.

We here in American do have our contemplative, sensitive side, that even a hard player like Coltrane was a great balladeer and soul searcher, never mind Bill Evans and Miles, who could play sweet and lyrical, detached and fragmented, almost contemplative, haha or hot and feisty.

In American drumming you have Paul Motian, Rashied Ali and Billy Higgins who are or were well-versed in a type of textural drumming that offered a contrast to the heavy groove of Elvin, Blakey or all those great funk and studio drummers. So that's my bias. Here in America, we have it all. lol
 
Whether hip hop, which was born of suffering, is great art is another matter. It seems to me that each new genre that stems from suffering - blues, punk, hip hop - comes to fruition in an increasingly commercialised age. So, instead of evolving fairly organically before becoming commercial - as the blues did - each subsequent movement has been absorbed into the mainstream and commercialised ever more quickly. Who knows what hip hop could have been without the immediate distorting influence of commercialism?


Just to quickly jump in with a resounding 'YES' for hip hop having great art within its realms, plenty of great material in the 80's and 90's, too much to list.
The first decade of the new millenium brought precious little by comparison but some albums regarded by many 'heads' as some of the best ever spawned were during this time. For example, 'Madvillainy' by the musical genius that is Madlib and the demented Kerouac of rap; MF Doom of rapping duties; 'Donuts' by J Dilla is some of the finest instrumental hip hop in history and albums by Y Society and Diamond District showed that true hip hop still exists.
The problem is the overwhelming amount of garbage and the fact that it is force fed to nations by more and more media outlets in evermore enticing ways....damn sheeple.



Personally, I'm more moved and interested in music that is more about personal/individualistic expression - be it happy, sad or philosophical - than in "movement music". To me there's a usually greater depth to it than the sproutings of self-appointed "spokespersons for a generation" etc, which seems to inevitably carry a lot of ego baggage that dilutes any verities expressed IMO.

Im actually writing a piece on musical movements at the moment and trying to show how the shift in movements over the years have gone from being about the collective to focusing on the individual....Just thought Id mention it. On the point of the individual expression, I like it when those topics are slightly abstracted for the sake of poetry. Ala Black Keys lyrics.


I have not talked about my native Oz because we hardly bother with music here any more - why bother with music when there's sport, gaming, sport, TV, sport, renovations, sport and making money? :(

Mega lols! No really, its a very accurate and sad state of affairs with many nations, not just Oz. Especially when you add a few more 'TV's' to the list for the UK...enough with the reality shows about NOTHING!!...Sorry...
 
Who doesn't love Grandmasta's White Lines or the Message. That was great stuff.

That's my point, Ken. I loved The Message when it came out. Yet afterwards the only hip hop track I heard that I found as clear, compelling and enjoyable was Eminem's Loose Yourself (even if it didn't have GMF's authenticity).


There's enough interesting music that has come out of hip-hop to make up for the misogynistic, materialistic parts of Yo! MTV raps.

Hmm, I need convincing. Do you have any links to hip hop that won't annoy me? :) Endless chanting of mofo - often one of the few discernible words - over a monotonous backing doesn't turn me on.

khanedeliac said:
For example, 'Madvillainy' by the musical genius that is Madlib and the demented Kerouac of rap; MF Doom of rapping duties; 'Donuts' by J Dilla is some of the finest instrumental hip hop in history and albums by Y Society and Diamond District showed that true hip hop still exists

You too, Khan. Any links? I'm sure there has to be better stuff out there than what I've been exposed to.


The fusion began in England in his view. The Beatles did change everything for better or worse. Rock n Roll baby. But America did invent all these genres. Tony Williams said he invented jazz-rock fusion and he may have been right about that.

Soft Machine were playing fusion about the same time as Miles, maybe earlier, but didn't get to record it until 69. As with any invention, the one who popularises it first gets the credit. You essentially had two fusion movements happening concurrently and independently across the Atlantic, one jazz-->rock and one from rock-->jazz. I think Soft Machine were the most likely founders of prog as well.


We here in American do have our contemplative, sensitive side, that even a hard player like Coltrane was a great balladeer and soul searcher, never mind Bill Evans and Miles, who could play sweet and lyrical, detached and fragmented, almost contemplative, haha or hot and feisty.

No argument here. I'm talking trends, not absolutes.

As a prog/alt/RIO enthusiast I had mixed feelings about American prog, although I tried. I was loving KC, Yes, ELP, Henry Cow, (early) Genesis, Soft Machine, Gong, Floyd, Steve Hillage (despite the lyrics haha) and, yes, Supertramp, . Across the pond the equivalent American bands that turned me on were Frank, Beefheart, (early) Tubes and Utopia. The American symphonic stuff like Rush and Kansas never did it for me. The arrangements were interesting but the sonics and rhythms were far more mainstream. Far prefer Tool - but only in measured doses due to the metal content.


Here in America, we have it all. lol

If not for Uncle Frank and The Captain, I think not :p
 
Last edited:
There are certainly some very heavy, aggressive bands from America(e.g., Slipknot), but I can't say I've heard of anything like that from the UK recently.

Although there are far more aggressive band in the UK than Slipknot, I haven't heard anything in the UK since Sikth who are pusing the boundries at all.

Where as the US has bands like Car Bomb, Hunab Ku, Brain Drill....
 
Some links to good hip-hop :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiOcVWQY2bc - early 90's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCRgl9n9SJQ&feature=channel - more early 90's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeTnog5RRQo&feature=fvst - late 90's socially conscious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzUY6Iiur6E - Madvillain (the 00's brought renewed interest to abstractions in both lyricism and beatmaking)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-UB9Efhk7A - Y Society (see the parallels with the first two videos I linked? this is from 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-xqeUjW5UY - The late J Dilla, revered by most, some feel he was the best ever.

Just some quick examples, mostly pointing out what I like and listen for in hip hop : good lyrics/wordplay and headnodding drums with nice melodic sensibilities.

Also, if you are finding Tool too heavy for extended play, have you tried A Perfect Circle? Its seen as Maynard's 'pop' band. You should also check out an album by Dead Meadow called 'Feathers' - truly beautiful (very wintery though) shoegazey psychedelic proggishness, from the distant year that is 2005.
 
That's my point, Ken. I loved The Message when it came out. Yet afterwards the only hip hop track I heard that I found as clear, compelling and enjoyable was Eminem's Loose Yourself (even if it didn't have GMF's authenticity).




Hmm, I need convincing. Do you have any links to hip hop that won't annoy me? :) Endless chanting of mofo - often one of the few discernible words - over a monotonous backing doesn't turn me on.

You too, Khan. Any links? I'm sure there has to be better stuff out there than what I've been exposed to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VTM4mwWfbc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGUsF-Whb1g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b7kWf6nXkc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_-4GFV7uTE

Soft Machine were playing fusion about the same time as Miles, maybe earlier, but didn't get to record it until 69. As with any invention, the one who popularises it first gets the credit. You essentially had two fusion movements happening concurrently and independently across the Atlantic, one jazz-->rock and one from rock-->jazz. I think Soft Machine were the most likely founders of prog as well.




No argument here. I'm talking trends, not absolutes.

As a prog/alt/RIO enthusiast I had mixed feelings about American prog, although I tried. I was loving KC, Yes, ELP, Henry Cow, (early) Genesis, Soft Machine, Gong, Floyd, Steve Hillage (despite the lyrics haha) and, yes, Supertramp, . Across the pond the equivalent American bands that turned me on were Frank, Beefheart, (early) Tubes and Utopia. The American symphonic stuff like Rush and Kansas never did it for me. The arrangements were interesting but the sonics and rhythms were far more mainstream. Far prefer Tool - but only in measured doses due to the metal content.




If not for Uncle Frank and The Captain, I think not :p

Iin the Nicholson book he contended that Graham Bond Organization with McLaughlin, Bruce and Baker were doing fusion earlier as well, like '64; but it didn't get on record. they popularized themselves to fall into the British Blues mvt. I didn't buy it. Herbie's Empyrean Isles has to be the earliest fusion. or Watermelon man from 1962 with Billy Higgins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYDH0ZGoo_M


American prog was not really supported by the industry; but the early Kansas stuff is quite proggy and shows the influence of Mahavishnu Orchestra among others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC-JhQ1p7nw

But the maintream prog bands like Rush and Styx may not have strayed far enough from their arena rock roots for you; but they did incorporate some classical elements on some of their mid 70s albums. Is this prog?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fet1ZViQL8g

What you had in America were the big jazz rock funk rock fusions bands. the classical impetus of The Moody Blues, Procol Harum, early Crimson, ELP and Yes wasn't there.But early American bands like Vanilla fudge, Simon and Garfunkel and Touch were influential on Brit prog. You could probably find countless numbers of records by early American prog bands that just never went anywhere.

I think the word is out that you have a British palette when it comes to music. :)
 
Last edited:
Each approach - complements, fits the other. It's a fusion of both, of course, trying to keep their identities and ownership feeling.
 
Found an interesting quote in Wikipedia re: jazz fusion

Fusion music generally receives little radio broadcast airplay in the United States, owing perhaps to its complexity, usual lack of vocals, and frequently extended track lengths. European radio is friendlier to fusion music, and the genre also has a significant following in Japan and South America.​

Liked a few of the hip hops, guys, but most didn't do it for me. I'm terrible at picking up lyrics and not very good at understanding heavy Americanese accents.

Ken, liked the '62 Watermelon Man. Sound like hints of 50s rock'n'roll drumming in there ... or was that loose Latin drumming played with the oomph of a big band player?

Kansas? I had one of their albums. It was ok but, as I said, very sonically standard. Not the kind of edge I look for.

Maybe I do have more of a Euro palate? I like a lot of American music but the kind of edge which is not slick but still brilliant that really knocks me out seems to be more often found in Euro bands. I doubt any American musos will be losing sleep over this :)
 
Back
Top