Why did England contribute so much to rock music, relative to

>>3349844
This looks like a /mu/ thread to me.

>>3349858
/mu/ is 90% teenage pop, plus one classical music thread that miraculously appears sometimes. Tumbleweeds would greet me there, most likely. And I suspect that the historical dimension is important. There's something about the cultural, historical, economic, and political climate of England in the 60s, I think, that made it ripe for hard rock to flower there.

>>3349844
For the most part it's because many black-blues records were taken from America to Britain.
Not many people in America were fond of black, southern blues, but the British were. They turned it into their own, thus creating bands like the Beatles, thus creating the well known "British Invasion" of music.

>>3349844
Say it with me now.

THE BEATLES ARE OVERRATED.

File: xtan.gif (110KB, 684x940px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 684x940px

MI6 was much quicker than the CIA is realizing the potential of popular music.

>> 3350223
(You)

>>3349844
Would like to see stats on this claim
OP is probably biased

>>3349858
/mu/ knows absolutely nothing about music though

>there are people on /mu/ who listen to total garbage like Lil Peep unironically

>>3350283
US: Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Dylan, Hendrix, Doors...
England: Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Who, Cream, Zeppelin, Sabbath, Floyd, Deep Purple, David Bowie...
It seems to me that the US invented rock and also, by inventing blues and jazz, set up two of the biggest non-rock sources that rock would use for inspiration.
The English took this in the late 60s and really ran with it all through the 70s, pushing the bounds of it. The Germans did too. I guess the Americans probably also did... maybe I'm missing revolutionary American rock bands of the 70s?
The question remains of why a nation of only a quarter the US' population achieved an at least equal level of influence in rock.

British Invasion. The Beatles becoming a huge success sparked off a whole new generation of young musicians in the UK, because The Beatles were ostensibly a few working class lads from Liverpool. It was a great time for young people finding themselves through music, which led to all those big bands of the mid to early 70s.

File: Elvis_Presley_1957.jpg (146KB, 816x1013px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 816x1013px

>>3349887
>Not many people in America were fond of black, southern blues

There was literally nothing to do in the UK in the post war decades

>>3350558
rock 'n roll ≠ blues

>>3349844
>>3349844
Because Brits don't have the same racial spooks as Americans.
White americans couldn't really play black american music, they got too worked up about it.
White Brits don't really give a fuck. They'll listen to Motown, Chess, Stax, and instead of being self-consious about having black influences they'll just take that music and jam with it and mix it up.

>>3351676
Elvis openly acknowledged his debt to and respect for the black rhythm and blues musicians like Fats Domino.

>>3353854
Elvis was a nigger himself

>>3350558
Sam Phillips created Elvis' career because he needed a white guy to sing R&B.

>>3353856
He was pretty white trash, can't be denied.
Great talent. Shit human being.

>>3351676
Rock grew out of blues. This is well documented and acknowledged by everyone who considered a founding member of the genre. Eventually blues was phased out in some genres ie punk rock. Blues and rock are different, but they are definitely related.

>>3355774
>Great talent
>sings covers of R&B songs while doing Bo Diddley's dance moves
Don't get the Elvis meme, desu.

File: british pepe.jpg (1MB, 2048x1972px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1972px

>>3349844
Because we're better and more creative than Americans.

And also this country is a grey, drab shithole, so we need something to do.