Too British?

The recent Kirsty MacColl thread made me think this would make a good topic.

---

Let's start with the assumption that an artist can indeed be "too British" to appeal to a significant number of American listeners. Certain British obstacles to that wide Transatlantic appeal can include a thick accent (Mr. Weller, your agent is on line 1) or relatively alien references, slang or dialect (Ms. MacColl, there's a guy down the chip shop swears Bob's your uncle).

Beyond those obvious signifying barriers, what about such an artist makes them "too British"? Plenty of artists who sounded very British to my ears (and still do) have gone on to great acclaim, and have sold a few records on these shores along the way — The Kinks, The Clash and Oasis, to name just three.

Is there a certain ineffable sound or sensibility to British rock that alienates a lot of American listeners? If so, how would you describe it ... or can you?

For any Canadians who post to this board: Would you say that British artists usually receive a warmer welcome among rock fans in Canada? Do they face any of the same "translation" problems to your country?

Reading back over this, I see I'm doing a half-arsed job of putting my thoughts into words for posting, as usual. I hope I'm getting my point across well enough to start a decent thread.

I think there is a set of cultural sensibilities (including a different relationship with irony) that makes some music prohibitive to the American listener, especially to Joe 12-pack. Funny though, how this very magazine started out as an Anglophilic type of endeavor, even adopting the Bonzo Dog Band influence for the title.

I think of that band and people like Ian Dury as being "too English" to translate.

Then again, some larger cultural things we just don't *get*: bangers, skiffle, English football anthems (Lightning Seeds' "Three Lions," New Order's "World in Motion"). Georgie Fame. Cliff Richard. . . etc. etc.

Vive Le Difference!

Good thread, by the way.

Erik, both George Fame ("Yeh, Yeh", "Bonnie & Clyde")& Cliff Richards ("T's So Funny Why We Don't Talk Anymore")had big hits here in the US. There have been periods in pop history where being British was an advantage (the "British Invasions" of ca. 1964 & 1984). I think that some of the reasons why British bands failed in the US may not have to do with cultural differences as much as screw-ups in various areas. For example, the Pretty Things never toured here until 1999, even though they were an influence on the 60s garage bands. Also, the Kinks were very popular in the U.S. until they were banned from touring after their disastrous 1965 visit & their popularity didn't pick up until the ban was lifted in 1969. T. Rex & Slade were caught in the middle between the great Top 40-FM divide of the early 70s; they were too poppy for the FMers & too heavy for the AM boppers.
The Bonzos did attract audiences in their US tours; however they didn't receive sufficient record company (no albums in stores)support. Instead of going to NYC in their U.S. visit, the Sex Pistols toured the South & ended up in San Francisco due to the dubious genius of Malcolm McLaren, who prized confrontation over profit. Just a few observations, 6 o' one 1/2 doz o' the other.

Fame and Richard had nowhere near the degree of success here they had in the U.S. For example, over there, Richard has charted every decade since the '50s. Fame is a household name over there as well.

A further question might be: how does this relate to American roots musicians (or Americana or whatever you want to call it), who often find bigger audiences in Great Britain than they do in their own country? Are Britons more welcoming to sounds they'd find "exotic" than Americans?

On the flip side, there's XTC, Robyn Hitchcock and Richard Thompson, all of whom are very British, and all of whom have bigger audiences in the U.S. than at home.

There's a lot of ground to cover here that would encompass cultural differences (and similarities) in general.

Inherent in the question is the idea that the words, the phrasing, the cultural references are key. But I would contend that the MUSIC is more important in many cases, which is why the Clash did as well as they did here, as well as XTC for example.

Now in a case where the words DO matter, I don't "get" the Bonzo Dog Band or GRIMMS. But I know they are popular with many of TP's original writers and editors, so it's more complex than just that, I guess.

> Instead of going to NYC in their U.S. visit, the Sex Pistols toured the South & ended up in
> San Francisco due to the dubious genius of Malcolm McLaren, who prized confrontation over
> profit.

I've always understood that the Pistols' '77 tour was intended to begin in NYC, but those dates had to be canceled due to visa delays. Truth? Legend? Complete misunderstanding on my part?

McLaren certainly did value confrontation, but considering how he controlled the Pistols' royalties for nearly ten years after their breakup, I wouldn't say he ignored the profit motive. "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" Why yes, now that you mention it, thanks.

And McLaren's "genius" definitely is dubious. More savant than genius, I'd say.



Post Edited (08-07-08 15:57)

In general, I think pop music is more integral to the social fabric of the UK than it is elsewhere, including the US. I mean having musicians knighted sort of speaks for itself.

I also think there are some inherent fundamental differences - Europe has the composer model historically and not enough room to accommodate rehearsal spaces, so I think electronics have always been more predominant there while guitar bands have always been the bread&butter in the US and the masses' tastes have followed those lines.

The output is so significant in the UK, that personally, it's case to case basis - The British Invasion was pretty enjoyable, but all their grooves were stolen from the US R&B scene and somewhat successfully reexported to the US.

I liked most of the punk/post-punk scene even tho punk's true origins are US (MC5 , Rocket from the Tombs & Stooges are easy Midwest! examples of punk before UK traction, without even touching NYC).
John Cooper Clarke was definitely too British tho =)

It seems that sub-classifying music is what the UK is best at - since they thrive on music production, it seems they need a new flavor every 3 weeks to move product to the kiddies - Grime/Bassline House/Dark D&B... I mean give me a break - I think that angle never goes over well in the US either - too intellectual for what is usually looked at as a disposable entertainment medium. I think that's why a lot of garage and 60s psych didn't hit here well on the first round - the headz weren't ready.

The Pulp-era Britcore scene fell flat for me - totally too 'British' and I didn't
care for most of those bands - both because the content didn't reach me and vocals annoyed - but the equivalent happening on these shores - Green Day, Offspring, etc were equally dire - 90s music has a lot to answer for. =P

I feel a lot of 2000s British music has been pretty derivative - I can't stand The Streets and most euro-hip-hop in general, although maybe if they keep the stabbings going, there will be enough street cred to rap about. =P
On the other hand, there have always been UK label outposts of continuously high quality from 4AD/Beggars/Some Biz/RT days through Ninja/Big Dada/Domino/Warp...

now about Krautrock...

i always thought the jam were an example of a band being too british.
although they were very influenced by american soul music/

question. are there bands that are just too american and are not popular outside of the states?

The English Beat
The British Lions
UK
Cher UK. wait. They were from Kansas City.

I have sort of a sociological/political theory about British vs American music.
England is traditionally more of a socialistic society and they have a better history of bands whereas the US prides itself more as an indivdiualistic society so it has a better history of solo artists. Now this doesn't mean there are no good British solo acts and there are no good American bands. But America blows the Brits away as far as the quantity and quality of solo acts. From Ellas McDaniels to Hank Williams, from Bob Dylan to Lou Reed, there is no comparison. As far as Brit bands, the first invasion almost makes the argument, but punk, new wave, and Brit Pop complete it. Once again there are good British solo acts - Bowie and good American Bands - VU, Beach Boys... it is pretty overwhelming though.

Sometimes one thing about the band will sort of outweigh all the other attributes and skew the way you hear it.

I think of the Libertines specifically who were a quintessentially British band - I mean right down to the lyrics, thick accents and the Union Jack laden photos.

But to me when I first heard them, they reminded me of the NY Dolls - their songs were stuffed (overstuffed even) with the same kind observational lyrics and the songs could go in any direction, or just kind of collapse (in a good way).

I would agree - that's a pretty good observation. It's even rare of the lead singer to move forward under his/her own name - UK acts usually come up with a new 'band' name.

I remember the Smiths getting flack from Anglophobes back in the day (they didn't quite fit in with the "roots rock" - Del Fuegos, etc. - that was trendy in some quarters at the time).

Great thread, Delvin.

Blur is an obvious "too British" nominee.

The big one, though, is The Beautiful South. Legend has it their first best-of, Carry On Up the Charts, is in 1 in 4 homes in the UK, while they quit even trying to breaking the US way back in 1992 or so. It's not like they had a song or two chart over here, but failed to capitalize on it–they never made a dent in the states, and they have the second all-time best-selling UK album by a British artist. Or maybe third best-selling. I think you get the point.