Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To keep things fair (or cripple my options severely), I'll limit my videos to musicians from Kansas. The United States holds a pretty broad monopoly on music, even if the United Kingdom is responsible for starting most of it. Frankly, the musical selection here in Kansas is quite awful, so I'll try to pick out the cream of the crop.

Andy McKee is one of the greatest guitarists of all time, and he's a Kansas native.




LiD is an industrial act from my hometown of Overland Park, and they're one of my favorite Industrial Bands (as they take a somewhat comedic approach to the genre). I have no idea why Tom decided to use stock footage of the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers for this video, but it works.




Diskreet is one of the few Grindcore bands I can actually stand, as they're plenty technical and they actually manage to have decent production value. They're from Kansas' capitol, Topeka, though their lead guitarist hails from Tennessee.




More to come later.

Chrysaor686 wrote:To keep things fair (or cripple my options severely), I'll limit my videos to musicians from Kansas. The United States holds a pretty broad monopoly on music, even if the United Kingdom is responsible for starting most of it.

Actually, you have it the wrong way round. The UK has a dominant position in terms of the best bands/artists of all time, though blues and jazz are absolutely indispensable to the development of modern popular music. Even so, American music has it's roots in British Music Hall and the folk traditons of England, Ireland and Scotland.

Albatross wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:To keep things fair (or cripple my options severely), I'll limit my videos to musicians from Kansas. The United States holds a pretty broad monopoly on music, even if the United Kingdom is responsible for starting most of it.

Actually, you have it the wrong way round. The UK has a dominant position in terms of the best bands/artists of all time, though blues and jazz are absolutely indispensable to the development of modern popular music. Even so, American music has it's roots in British Music Hall and the folk traditons of England, Ireland and Scotland.

'Best' is definitely subjective. The sheer amount of music produced in The United States is not. You can find music of quite literally any genre in the United States, and while a select few British bands may have sold more records than literally anyone else, they are still dominated by sheer force of numbers and a wider array of music. The United States is also a haven for technical musicianship, refining the art that originated with (mostly) British music to a ridiculous degree.

The U.S. definitely owes it's roots in almost every genre to the U.K., but it has since evolved into a completely different (and much larger) beast. I don't think it can be argued that the United States currently owns more of the music market than the United Kingdom does.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:To keep things fair (or cripple my options severely), I'll limit my videos to musicians from Kansas. The United States holds a pretty broad monopoly on music, even if the United Kingdom is responsible for starting most of it.

Actually, you have it the wrong way round. The UK has a dominant position in terms of the best bands/artists of all time, though blues and jazz are absolutely indispensable to the development of modern popular music. Even so, American music has it's roots in British Music Hall and the folk traditons of England, Ireland and Scotland.

'Best' is definitely subjective. The sheer amount of music produced in The United States is not. You can find music of quite literally any genre in the United States, and while a select few British bands may have sold more records than literally anyone else, they are still dominated by sheer force of numbers and a wider array of music. The United States is also a haven for technical musicianship, refining the art that originated with (mostly) British music to a ridiculous degree.

The U.S. definitely owes it's roots in almost every genre to the U.K., but it has since evolved into a completely different (and much larger) beast. I don't think it can be argued that the United States currently owns more of the music market than the United Kingdom does.

Ah, so we're talking about sales? Popularity is not a reliable indicator of quality. Do I really need to list the sheer number of influential UK artists at this point? I thought it was just a given.

You should note that I'm not trying to act like the USA hasn't been home to some of the most influential artists of all time - it's just that compared to even just England there's really no comparison.

For the record (pun slightly intended), I am not America-bashing here. I love American music.

Well here are some of the fine bands that are native to Norway
Immortal<
object width="640" height="385">

Dark Throne


Mayhem


Gorgoroth

Not a band as such, but shush





Not so much a fave, but my other choices for local acts are Lost Prophets or Funeral for a friend....I think I've made the right choice here.

Albatross wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:To keep things fair (or cripple my options severely), I'll limit my videos to musicians from Kansas. The United States holds a pretty broad monopoly on music, even if the United Kingdom is responsible for starting most of it.

Actually, you have it the wrong way round. The UK has a dominant position in terms of the best bands/artists of all time, though blues and jazz are absolutely indispensable to the development of modern popular music. Even so, American music has it's roots in British Music Hall and the folk traditons of England, Ireland and Scotland.

OH YEAH, WELL YOU'D BE SPEAKING GERMAN RIGHT NOW!

Ahem. Sorry. Thought I'd just skip straight to the end of every America v Britain argument and get it out of the way.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:To keep things fair (or cripple my options severely), I'll limit my videos to musicians from Kansas. The United States holds a pretty broad monopoly on music, even if the United Kingdom is responsible for starting most of it.

Actually, you have it the wrong way round. The UK has a dominant position in terms of the best bands/artists of all time, though blues and jazz are absolutely indispensable to the development of modern popular music. Even so, American music has it's roots in British Music Hall and the folk traditons of England, Ireland and Scotland.

OH YEAH, WELL YOU'D BE SPEAKING GERMAN RIGHT NOW!

Ahem. Sorry. Thought I'd just skip straight to the end of every America v Britain argument and get it out of the way.

Ha! Yes, quite.

Albatross wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:To keep things fair (or cripple my options severely), I'll limit my videos to musicians from Kansas. The United States holds a pretty broad monopoly on music, even if the United Kingdom is responsible for starting most of it.

Actually, you have it the wrong way round. The UK has a dominant position in terms of the best bands/artists of all time, though blues and jazz are absolutely indispensable to the development of modern popular music. Even so, American music has it's roots in British Music Hall and the folk traditons of England, Ireland and Scotland.

'Best' is definitely subjective. The sheer amount of music produced in The United States is not. You can find music of quite literally any genre in the United States, and while a select few British bands may have sold more records than literally anyone else, they are still dominated by sheer force of numbers and a wider array of music. The United States is also a haven for technical musicianship, refining the art that originated with (mostly) British music to a ridiculous degree.

The U.S. definitely owes it's roots in almost every genre to the U.K., but it has since evolved into a completely different (and much larger) beast. I don't think it can be argued that the United States currently owns more of the music market than the United Kingdom does.

Ah, so we're talking about sales? Popularity is not a reliable indicator of quality. Do I really need to list the sheer number of influential UK artists at this point? I thought it was just a given.

You should note that I'm not trying to act like the USA hasn't been home to some of the most influential artists of all time - it's just that compared to even just England there's really no comparison.

For the record (pun slightly intended), I am not America-bashing here. I love American music.

I really don't think one is better than the other. British and US music is pretty much on par with each other.

Bob Dylan

The Beatles.

Albatross wrote:Ah, so we're talking about sales? Popularity is not a reliable indicator of quality. Do I really need to list the sheer number of influential UK artists at this point? I thought it was just a given.

Popularity is the only non-biased indicator of quality. Everything else boils down to pure, unadulterated, singular opinion. I'm not of the opinion that popularity = quality (in fact, the higher the level of musicianship and technical complexity that a band exhibits, the less popular they tend to be), but it's more democratic, and less biased, than any other approach to the subject. Besides that, all of the most influential British bands have sold incredibly well, so it's a good indicator regardless.

You should note that I'm not trying to act like the USA hasn't been home to some of the most influential artists of all time - it's just that compared to even just England there's really no comparison.

For the record (pun slightly intended), I am not America-bashing here. I love American music.

I'm not arguing that American music is more influential, I'm simply arguing that there's much more of it, and that it has branched out into far more genres than England could ever hope to. It's actually all very self-contained and subliminal influence, and it only trickles down very slowly throughout a genre's many subsets (there's no massive impact with our music as their has been with the most recognizable names in British music). Our cultural base certainly helps us out here as well; we have a lot to pick and choose from.

Though England is responsible for the creation of many genres, the information age (as well as a strain on creativity) has forced music into a much different evolutionary pattern.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Albatross wrote:Ah, so we're talking about sales? Popularity is not a reliable indicator of quality. Do I really need to list the sheer number of influential UK artists at this point? I thought it was just a given.

Popularity is the only non-biased indicator of quality.

Erm, actually no. Popularity is only an indicator of popularity. Hate to invoke Godwin's law, but fascism was pretty popular during the '30s.

Potato chips are popular. VERY popular. They are NOT a quality foodstuff.

I will credit you with this, you DO do a wonderful job of sounding like you know what you're talking about. You're very plausible.

I'm not arguing that American music is more influential, I'm simply arguing that there's much more of it, and that it has branched out into far more genres than England could ever hope to. It's actually all very self-contained and subliminal influence, and it only trickles down very slowly throughout a genre's many subsets (there's no massive impact with our music as their has been with the most recognizable names in British music). Our cultural base certainly helps us out here as well; we have a lot to pick and choose from.

Again, this doesn't actually MEAN anything. It just sounds like it does. I'm arguing that British music is of greater quality, and you appear to be trying to rebut that by stating that American music is of greater quantity. That doesn't make any sense.

Albatross wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Albatross wrote:Ah, so we're talking about sales? Popularity is not a reliable indicator of quality. Do I really need to list the sheer number of influential UK artists at this point? I thought it was just a given.

Popularity is the only non-biased indicator of quality.

Erm, actually no. Popularity is only an indicator of popularity. Hate to invoke Godwin's law, but fascism was pretty popular during the '30s.

Potato chips are popular. VERY popular. They are NOT a quality foodstuff.

I will credit you with this, you DO do a wonderful job of sounding like you know what you're talking about. You're very plausible.

What is popular may not equate to being wholesome, but it's still an indicator of what the vast majority of a population sees as quality. Potato Chips are 'quality' in the sense that they 'taste good', even if they may not be healthy for you. Fascism had not reared it's ugly head towards the majority of it's supporters at the peak of it's popularity, and the reparations had not yet appeared as a result of some rather heinous actions.

Quite literally everything else can be rebutted with 'I don't agree', and then the entire argument is all for naught. The value of 'quality' is fairly intangible for most people (It ends up being as simple as 'This music makes me feel good'). Even though I can explain my view of 'quality music' perfectly well, there is absolutely no point in doing so, because I guarantee that if you see the majority of influential British bands as honest quality music, then we already disagree in every conceivable way on this particular point. There is no way I can convince anyone that pure technical complexity or intricate knowledge of music theory equates to quality; one must be completely open to thinking in such a way.

Using 'influential' as an indicator of quality is bad form, as it contradicts your argument against popularity being equivalent to quality. Something must be popular to be influential, at least to the degree that you speak of.

Again, this doesn't actually MEAN anything. It just sounds like it does. I'm arguing that British music is of greater quality, and you appear to be trying to rebut that by stating that American music is of greater quantity. That doesn't make any sense.

My statement of 'The United States holds a pretty broad monopoly on the music industry' was based entirely in the notion that American music controls a vast majority of the music industry. You are the one who is attempting to argue a completely different argument. We can't argue quality, as there is absolutely nothing to base the argument in, and it would disolve into nonsense rather quickly.

Anyway, to get slightly back on topic, I'm very disappointed that I can't find any of my favorite Kansas City area Jazz on youtube.

Chrysaor686 wrote: Something must be popular to be influential.

Untrue, "Venom" a British heavy metal band was the first thrash metal and was highly influential to thrash, death and black metal. In fact there anti-christian themes, stage names, harsh sound and speed proved to be so influential to black metal

that the genre name actually comes from Venom's second album almost every black metal musician has heard of Venom and they're also well known among thrashers and death heads. The main populace probably doesn't know of them and are

regarded by critics as "a trio of buffoons".

Cheesecat wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote: Something must be popular to be influential.

Untrue, "Venom" a British heavy metal band was the first thrash metal and was highly influential to thrash, death and black metal. In fact there anti-christian themes, stage names, harsh sound and speed proved to be so influential to black metal

that the genre name actually comes from Venom's second album almost every black metal musician has heard of Venom and they're also well known among thrashers and death heads. The main populace probably doesn't know of them and are

regarded by critics as "a trio of buffoons".

That still directly correlates to the popularity of the music that Venom influenced. Venom did not have to be mainstream to influence Black Metal because Black Metal is not mainstream. As you've said, they're still exceedingly popular (or, at least, respected) amongst people who listen to Black Metal, which serves to prove my point.

Using 'influential' as an indicator of quality is bad form, as it contradicts your argument against popularity being equivalent to quality. Something must be popular to be influential, at least to the degree that you speak of.

And artist being widely influential to other artists is a vastly different thing to commercial success. I'm not arguing that popularity can't be used as a measure of quality to a certain degree, but to claim it's the only unbiased indicator of quality is just not true. There are plenty of very bad things that are popular.

There are artists who are unpopular in their time that go on to influence subsequent artists who become succesful, helping to popularise their hitherto unknown artistic progenitors. Nick Drake is a prime example.

Incidentally, have you read Adorno?

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote: Something must be popular to be influential.

Untrue, "Venom" a British heavy metal band was the first thrash metal and was highly influential to thrash, death and black metal. In fact there anti-christian themes, stage names, harsh sound and speed proved to be so influential to black metal

that the genre name actually comes from Venom's second album almost every black metal musician has heard of Venom and they're also well known among thrashers and death heads. The main populace probably doesn't know of them and are

regarded by critics as "a trio of buffoons".

That still directly correlates to the popularity of the music that Venom influenced. Venom did not have to be mainstream to influence Black Metal because Black Metal is not mainstream. As you've said, they're still exceedingly popular (or, at least, respected) amongst people who listen to Black Metal, which serves to prove my point.

I said they were popular to thrash, death and especially black metal. If you don't think there was any mainstream successes out of the thrash metal genre then I don't know what the big the "Big Four" is.

Incidentally, I can't be bothered with this. I think the Uk's record on popular music speaks for itself.

Ok well Ill just do a few from my state of Michigan

Ted Nugent

The white Stipes


Iggy made some pretty good tunes


Then bands like Sponge, The Verve pipe, Bob Seger, Stevie Wonder, Alice Cooper, Even Madonna, thats right, shes not a Brit, even though she would swear to god she was lol. I Think Michigan could go toe to toe with the Brits on music

Albatross wrote:And artist being widely influential to other artists is a vastly different thing to commercial success. I'm not arguing that popularity can't be used as a measure of quality to a certain degree, but to claim it's the only unbiased indicator of quality is just not true. There are plenty of very bad things that are popular.

To become the forefather of an entire genre requires a certain level of commercial success. Art begets art and all that, but there is a difference between a musician playing a part in creating another musician's music and a band giving birth to an entire genre. Artistic influence is so common that we would hardly have anything without it. Keep in mind that those bad things which are popular are only bad because of your own opinion. Even if someone's opinion conflicts horribly with yours, they still have a right to it, so long as it is not affecting you or anyone else adversely.

Of course, whether or not something is affecting you adversely is also up for debate.

Incidentally, have you read Adorno?

No, I haven't.

Cheesecat wrote:I said they were popular to thrash, death and especially black metal. If you don't think there was any mainstream successes out of the thrash metal genre then I don't know what the big the "Big Four" is.

Thrash metal was mainly influenced by Motorhead, who happen to be just as popular as the genre that they spawned. Death Metal's main influence most certainly wasn't Venom (probably more along the lines of Death and Napalm Death), and Death Metal is still chiefly considered an 'underground' form of music. Venom is most often credited with simply being the forefather of Black Metal, and they are proportionately popular to their respective genre.

These guys grew up a few hours drive away from me. They have so many good songs, i had trouble choosing.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Thrash metal was mainly influenced by Motorhead, who happen to be just as popular as the genre that they spawned.

Thrash metal's influences were from new wave of British metal, speed metal and hardcore punk not one main source. The earliest band of the emerging thrash movement formed in 1979, which was Venom from Great Britain. Welcome to Hell,

had many elements that would be very inspirational to thrash, death, black, and virtually every other form of extreme metal, serving as a primer for thousands of post-New Wave of British Heavy Metal teens to follow.

Damn Americans, you have metallica.

Murray wrote:Damn Americans, you have metallica.

Your kidding right? Was I just trolled?

KingCracker wrote:

Murray wrote:Damn Americans, you have metallica.

Your kidding right? Was I just trolled?

Not this again.

Hey if this were the 80s......or hell very EARLY 90s Id say sure why not. But uhm.......they havnt made a good cd in...well probably longer then ALOT of dakkites have been alive. IMO That doesnt make a badass band. Sure they made some real epic and awesome songs, but my point still stands

KingCracker wrote:Hey if this were the 80s......or hell very EARLY 90s Id say sure why not. But uhm.......they havnt made a good cd in...well probably longer then ALOT of dakkites have been alive. IMO That doesnt make a badass band. Sure they made some real epic and awesome songs, but my point still stands

But there's a lot of good bands who haven't produced awesome music in a long time Judas Priest, Motorhead, etc, etc...

ZZ Top


Destiny's Child


And of course Beyonce


Willie Nelson (this song always brings tears to my eyes)





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:To keep things fair (or cripple my options severely), I'll limit my videos to musicians from Kansas. The United States holds a pretty broad monopoly on music, even if the United Kingdom is responsible for starting most of it.

Actually, you have it the wrong way round. The UK has a dominant position in terms of the best bands/artists of all time, though blues and jazz are absolutely indispensable to the development of modern popular music. Even so, American music has it's roots in British Music Hall and the folk traditons of England, Ireland and Scotland.

Respectfully, Bull fu ing gak.

Without the Beetles, David Bowie, UT, and the Police, you aint got gak.

Ragtime, invented USA
Jazz invented USA
Rock n Roll invented USA
Hip Hop invented USA
Big Band invented USA
Grunge invented USA
Blues invented USA
Bluegrass invented USA
Western invented USA (ok in defense I'm sure every country has their own country/folk music version)
Rap invented USA
Cajun / Zydeco invented USA



Boy George invented UK






Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:Ok well Ill just do a few from my state of Michigan

I prefer this Iggy pop song personally

Yes they are all Belgian, and yes this is one of my fav native bands.