Than in the UK, why is that?

I think it's particularly noticeable amongst drummers; probably because bad drummers stand-out even when playing the dumbest pop-punk or whatever. In the UK 'musicians' seem happy to think of themselves as 'musicians' as soon as they can knock out a few open chords or hold down a steady 4/4 beat.

This doesn't seem to be the case so much with US bands; US rhythm sections tend to sound more like...well, rhythm sections. US bass players don't give the impression that they just couldn't be arsed to learn guitar. US guitarists seem like they might have some chops even if they choose to play atonal drones...

Maybe I'm totally wrong.

I think it's due to a completely different playing environment. And an overall higher expectation for music to be good.
There are so many gig venues in the UK which will let any little group of losers play a friday night gig to all their mates, and then give them a pat on the back afterwards. Bands and live music are becoming such a novelty that people LOVE whatever shit is performed. HENCE covers bands.

Also a lot of bands here, have a really negative view of other bands who do well, just like kids do in schools. It's the national underachiever bug. No one ever creates a scene anymore, there are never a few good bands playing stuff which is original but shares a sound. They never have bands around them getting better at doing the same kinda stuff to aspire to.
When bands in the UK go and see a signed band play live it's more like watching gods perform on stage, and the band watching never thinks they could be that good, but somehow still think that plodding along doing THEIR BEST is good enough?!?! Whereas Americans have a more calm approach to seeing bands like this and aspiring to be that good, mainly cos some of the time they would be from the same town/city/street as the band they're watching, but most importantly they understand they are just people like everyone else and you can be THAT good.

Also there aren't as many good venues, good Audiences, good indie music outlets, or people interested in Indie music. But this all comes from Indie music in general being pretty shit.

So I think it's a downward spiral of medioacre bands playing badly and never getting anywhere.

Those are some excellent and interesting points, but I'm really talking more about competence than artistic merit. I don't think that US bands are particularly better from an artistic point of view.

The Americans invented rock and roll and have more of an obligation to maintain its reputation. This inspires the higher degree of proficiency of which you speak.
Seriously though, we're the size of a US state, so maybe it's unfair to draw such an extrapolated comparison, no? But I do agree to a certain point. I can only think of a handful of British bands that confound your assertion.

I'm currently a bass player, but I learnt to play guitar first. I can't help but feel the other way round about this though - namely that because I play guitar I don't need to learn to play the bass. I was thinking about this recently and decided it was time to stop being so gae and 'practice my chops'. It's people like me that are giving British musicians a bad name.

Rimbaud III wrote:Seriously though, we're the size of a US state, so maybe it's unfair to draw such an extrapolated comparison, no?

Yes; a friend and I had a rather heated debate about this a few months ago. I am happy to be proved wrong about my wild generalisation!

I suggested to my friend that since we (in the UK) only get to see the supposed 'cream' of US bands, and that we (in the UK) are probably familiar with a far greater percentage of non 'cream' bands of our own then perhaps this judgement is pure nonsense.

I also wondered whether perhaps A&R in the US is more concerned with technical competence than UK A&R is? Perhaps the greater popularity of AOR in the US inspires a greater focus from US record companies on whether the band can actually play well or not...

I was also commented on technical ability as well as artistic daring.
The size of the country does definitely prove problematic, but I think a lot of does come from peoples attitudes towards the music they play and the music they hear.

Also must not forget the limiting array of radio stations and new music inspiring peoples playing styles and tastes. Whereas in America with the abundance of local stations and rock radio, does help to open peoples minds a lot.

As far as technical ability or whatever you wanna call it. I think it's somewhat the same, imagine a young drummer in this country. He wouldn't get to regularly hear a really great solid drummer play, maybe only when he goes to see his fave band every now and again. So like most averag drummers he plays light, loose, and fills ALL the time.

I dunno though. Maybe the problem isn't as bad as I make out, but out here in the sticks (East Anglia) it's a pretty dire situation at the moment.

I do also remember my old band once went to play a few shows in MN USA, and we found the experiece really inspiring. The level of professionality of everyone putting on those gigs, the promoters, the support bands the headliners, the venues seemed AMAZING. We learnt so much from it and took away loads of new things. Most bands don't get the chance to support bands of this level.

Rimbaud III wrote:Seriously though, we're the size of a US state, so maybe it's unfair to draw such an extrapolated comparison, no? .

Hmmm. But we have one fifth the population of the US.

I think there are two main reasons why there are no rock and roll bands in Britain who can play like, say, Descendents or New Bomb Turks or Fugazi. (Bear in mind it's only rock and roll bands. Not jazz or electronica or classical music.)

a) American rock and roll bands rehearse for eight hours. British ones rehearse haphazardly for two hours, then go down the pub and talk about what will happen when they become famous. There is a lack of dedication borne out of historical arrogance, particularly in the South East. Why? Because in Britain it's easier to become famous because of the centralised music press and industry (now fragmenting and homogenising). Many is the list of average bands launched skywards by a single rave review in the NME.
Moons ago I was once in a band signed to a major label before we'd done nine gigs. The ninth was at the Reading Festival. We could barely play together, but we were flavour of the month enough for it to happen. Why bother slogging round every region of the country getting good if you can just move to London and nail a deal by sitting in the right pub? (see (famously) Menswear and, I understand, Razorlight) Why bother hooking up with other bands and creating something new?

b) You get really good/tight by playing and touring, not rehearsing. It is very difficult for most bands, especially non-niche bands to set up a three week tour in the UK, because of the lack of venues/tedious venue policies/lack of 'scenes', quite frankly. In the US it's not simple but it is actually possible.

That sounds about right.

Good answer.

Yep, sounds about right to me too.

johnnyshape wrote: ENOUGH

Whoomp, there it is.

Complacency. Simple as that really. And insularity? We get carried away too easily with momentary fads. What you wrote reminded me of this article from last week's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/fridayre ... 10,00.html

It seems that we're actively encouraging sloppiness by making stars of people before they've even learnt to play Smoke On The Water...