For too long now hats, haircuts and edgy attitudes have mattered far more than what comes out of the amps. The general level of musicianship in the UK is a joke. Most "guitarists" would struggle to come up with a pentatonic scale, much less one played above the third fret.

In short, American music is generally more interesting to listen to because most British bands can't play their instruments. Or sing.

I blame that Sid Vicious, me.

I think, on one level, that you're not wrong. The marketing budgets, such as they are in these difficult times, seem to be spent on the most malleable, photogenic, bland acts that the labels can find. Generally, these also happen to be uniformly untalented. Thanks for that Mr Cowell, although I also blame the general trend towards boybands, blandbands, clothes, fashion and our whole social decay into trivia and "fame" (15 mins max)being the be all and end all.

I believe that there is still talent out there but mainly well off the radar or locked away in niches such as folk.

I do agree about the US though - almost all of those listed feature in my collection and it's hard to think of a UK act that is an essential buy at the moment.

(only joking, or am I?), Oasis and current NME for a post-punk (erase pre-punk) cul-de-sac, where being clever is frowned upon. It's either that or it seems to be slavishly copyist, not as good as the original retro-ism.

American acts tend to combine influences more adventurously. I am sure we're not all bad, there must be exceptions, but can't think of anyone at the moment, bar Radiohead and Doves, and they've been around quite a while now.

Other across the pond progressives (OK not that original but interesting styles at least) - MGMT, and Secret Machines. Certainly far easier to think of good new stuff from over there doing rather well over here rather than homegrown.

Harsh but fair.

...I'm still a big believer that you don't need to be a hugely talented musician to make great music. But that 'all you need are three chords now go and form a band' stuff did send British music down a lot of cul-de-sacs that it never returned from, the musical equivalent to all those new build housing estates where every house looks kind of the same and none are built to last.

Record companies investing in the short term and/or the blandest bands to make the most money didn't help. We produce far less of those bands that take their time to develop, building up big followings as they go on. Remember the days when bands might make five albums before they hit any success?

Scotland's Frightened Rabbit released a terrific album last year for example. I've got big hopes for the new Doves release too. I'm sure The Massive can suggest a number of other examples.

All of the American examples used above would not be regarded as mainstream but are compared to the likes of Coldplay, Duffy and Keane who most certainly would.

I have a theory that the size of the UK doesn't help, in that it's too easy for bands to get discovered too early, way before they've learnt their trade.

A band can head down to London and play their third gig in Camden to an audience of A&R men and journalists, all of whom are desperate to discover and promote the next big thing, whereas a band from Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (pop. 108,000) will plough their own furrow and be given time to develop, simply because there is no industry where they come from.

This is why a band like Guided By Voices can play for a decade and release five albums before anyone outside their hometown really notices. And when people finally do, the band are fully-formed. They're doing their own thing, and they can play.

I always remember an interview with Roger Daltry in a DVD magazine (he was probably promoting The Kids Are Alright). He said that if you ask the average American teenager to list some British bands, they can usually only name five bands. The Who, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. Otherwise Britain doesn't exist to most American teenagers. Add Radiohead to that list and that's about it.

Also someone once accused me of only listening to American bands. It was such a random, out of nowhere thing for me to be accused of. It made me ponder if that was true, but I think my whole record collection is probably 69% UK, 30% USA, 1% other.

As for modern music? I have nothing interesting to say.

Last year there were some outstanding British albums, but, unlike most of the people listed so far, they weren't bands or really obvious choices.

In the Word's top 10 albums of last year, off the top of my head, were found Mogwai, Last Shadow Puppets and Roots Manuva. Portishead may have been there, but I don't have the issue in front of me to check.

Innovative / different artists. But people always go for the obvious people when slagging us off. The Kooks..... ewww.

But think outside the box a little bit and I'd say we're more than keeping up with the Americans, just not in the same ways as before.

agree to a point but you're looking through a very narrow 'rock-ist' prism - someone like adem could rank alongside bon iver, a band like friendly fires could rank alongside MGMT, likewise hot chip or late of the pier with LCD for kooky neo-mutant-disco-indie-dance - then ofcourse the swedes and norwegains are making most of the running in pure pop/cosmic electronica and the yanks have allowed themselves to get bogged down in a narrow r&b/hip hop cul de sac using the same old samples/production tricks - even the neptunes/timbland are sounding stale these days compared to the best uk grime/dubstep producers/artists. but we shouldn't get too wrapped up in petty nationalism, it's not a competition mate. or is it?

In fact my all time favourite artists are mainly British ie. Richard Thompson, Elvis Costello, Ian McNabb and John Martyn to name but a few. The point I was making is that the cutting edge new music that I like is mainly coming out of the USA and has been doing so for a number of years. It is probably no real surprise then that Elvis Costello and Richard Thompson both live over there now so I guess they kind of think along these lines too.I dont know what it is - I wish I did but there is definitely a stifling of new talent over here. I get the impression that unless it fits into a round hole it wont work. When someone does step out of the straightjacket and try and do something different they open themselves up to ridicule for example Damon Albarn who I believe is immensely talented. Unfortunately he dared to split up the darlings of Britpop because he wanted to do something different and now his star has fallen even though arguably his post Blur stuff has been very good.
Same could be said of Peter Gabriel and Roger Waters in the past and Costello is always criticised for not being as good without the Attractions which is just lazy journalism.

with anything in this thread so far, I think there is an area of UK music where there is both innovation and high quality musicianship and that's the folk scene.

So to my mind, Bellowhead, Rachel Unthank & the Winterset, Alaistair Roberts, Lau, Jim Moray and Julie Fowlis and Chris Wood can sit comfortably with The Decemeberists, Sufjan etc.

And if you grow up in Aberystwyth playing the harp, you might end up as good as this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/introducing/artists/georgiaruthwilliams/fflur...

in Britain is in rude health at present but one could argue that it would do even better if properly supported. It is still very much a niche market and one unfortunately that is laughed at by the sneering editors of mainstream media. With the exception of BBC Radio 2 and the odd programme on BBC 4 there are not that many advocates for what is probably our only groundbreaking musical genre at present.

Interesting that a number of people are mentioning the folk scene, have often thought that a failing of UK guitar bands is their lack of willingness to try different instrumentation/styles. The original list above includes a lot of bands whose instrumentation moves above the guitar bass and drums template. There are bands in the list that can move between rock, country, folk, soul, hell even mariachi. In the UK when a band wants to extend its range they add on a string section and hope that it will add gravitas

before we berate ourselves to harshly, is there not a tendency for those of a wide interest in music to often over absorb the less familiar? I was minded of this as I penned a response to the "too cool for school" strand. When I were a lad, me and my similarly music-loving chums affected admiration for the more exotic american psychedelics, eventually hearing and liking same. Those less afflicted by music made do with whatever was on the radio. Similarly, whenever I read an article about or interview with nearly any and every american musician, their admitted tastes often extend to little known british artists, at least little known, I would have thought, within the american mainstream. Isn't this all part of the human tendency to cite their influences within as wide and "different" territory as the perceived rest of the herd? Namedropping then, really, albeit tempered, hopefully, with an experiential awareness and belief in those names.

Its an interesting question but unlike the majority of commenters here I dont think the problem is directly related to the amount or quality of the talent in the UK.

I honestly believe that the UK has always been a leader in establishing a new music scene because it always had its finger on the pulse of youth culture. If you think back to the great bands the UK has produced they sprung up from a youth movement, the need for change and something new.

Unfortunately the youth culture of the UK at the moment is far less socially aware and cares more about mugging someone or being mugged themselves. The UK youth have lost their way and look to America and the rap scene especially (youth movement again) for inspiration. They look at the american divas as examples of how to sing and all the originality of their own perspective is wiped away.

Until the youth of the UK start looking at themselves and find their own voice I fear the music scene will stay sterile.