I have to agree - Salon never really does seem to cover "world" music. Pop, hip-hop, indie, etc are all fine, but it's a big world out there and there's alot of great music that's not made in English that's increasingly coming to these shores.

You might not like the way the other Anon phrased it, Anon, but you've got to admit that he/she has a point.

The other anon stated a fact--maybe there's not much coverage of world music here.

Then anon, the other, flew into the realms of rarified snobbery.

But if you're a fan of said musics, there are plenty of other media outlets to peruse, and like minded fans to hobnob with. It's a big internet, after all. It would be pretty useless to complain about the lack of indie rock coverage on a site dedicated to tropicalia.

This anon thinks the other anon's complaints were off target--Salon's going to write about things Salon's interested in. Some of us are interested in those interests as well. If you're not interested in said interests, you're free to read and be interested in other things.

Seems like the box set is all the usual subjects. Many of the songs are classics but it's not as though it reaches deep into the stew. For instance, it barely touches the C86 movement. Is Sarah Records represented at all? I would have thrown Heavenly in there -- "She Says", "I Fell In Love Last Night", etc. But f*** me, I'm twee. There are very few of us in America who like sugar-smacking bands like this, and apparently Mr. Reynolds is not one of them.

My question is: why should Brits bother to try to imitate music that Americans do so much better? Like DeBeers and diamonds, Americans have a near monopoly on what it is to be cool. Anyone who grows up in England -- I don't care what race or class he or she comes from -- is already at a coolness disadvantage. Have you ever seen an Englishman dance? Son, it's not pretty.

That's why, for the most part, British music is all beatless and shambling. Just as no American band is likely to be able to match Radiohead (who get no attention from Mr. Reynolds) in Werther-like self-indulgence, no Brit is likely to be able to match Jay-Z for his flow. The Streets? Cute, but it wouldn't be a repeat of 8 Mile. We Americans do what we do very well, and the Brits do what they do very well. And rarely do the twain meet.

Those few times when the Brits do rip off quintessentially American music, however, they tend to satisfy. Take Amy Winehouse, Lily Allen, and Joss Stone...please! And when the Brits really want to deliver block-rocking beats, they're capable: see, e.g., Portishead and Chemical Brothers. These are just a few singers and groups who don't fit the pop mold complained of here. And let's not forget M.I.A. (How could you, with the current promotional blitz coming at us like the Wehrmacht into Poland?)

Nevertheless, for the most part, the British ought to stay away from the R&B, soul, and hip-hop until they've sorted out the ramifications of the loss of the Empire. Call again in another 50 years. The rock criticism here (and that of Frere-Jones) is really just a lament that the great dream of "I'd Like To Buy The World A Coke" still seems a long way off. Well, let's leave the societal criticism to the students of sociology, rather than the students of rock. I mean, is the criticism here that the Brits are racist? Penetrating insight, Mr. Orwell.

Anyway, hooray for My Bloody Valentine. I've got tix for one of the Glasgow shows in July of next year. I was also moved to buy some MVB rarities I wasn't aware of, including Ecstasy & Wine, which has on it a wonderful song that I'd never heard called "Never Say Goodbye". Apparently I was not as much a member of the cult as I'd thought! I highly recommend it. The amazing thing is that it still sounds fresh.

Yes, Britpop on the whole wasn't the funkiest music ever made. That's a really profound insight, Simon.

But what the better Britpop bands lacked in funkiness they made up for in superb melodies and songcraft, which is the real reason, Simon, why rock fans like me loved these bands. Not because we're racist, pathetically "Anglophile" or vaguely insecure in our sexuality! What an asinine and insulting argument.

During the early '90s, American rock was mired in drab, fourth-generation rip-offs of Nirvana and British bands like Oasis, Blur and Supergrass were making music that was fresh, vibrant and catchy as hell. But I guess to a certain strain of self-hating rock critic, that's not enough. You have to lay down a funky breakbeat or some world music trappings, maybe get in a guest rapper -- suddenly you're "innovative" and thus more worthy or a four-star review.

"Nevertheless, for the most part, the British ought to stay away from the R&B, soul, and hip-hop until they've sorted out the ramifications of the loss of the Empire."

I don't understand your need to request that musicians go out of their way to stick to their national identities--it's the opposite of the cross fertilization that's created so many new genres from things that previously never mingled: the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup Effect!

I for one love the way that native musics get ripped off, bowlderized and mutated when taken across national identity membranes. The "fakes" are often just as interesting as the "pure" source music. What they lack in authenticity, they gain in both intentional and accidental metamorphoses.

For example: Kodwo Eshun pointed out that the great trick of Detroit techno was to treat the native European symphonically oriented Kraftwerk the same way that the Beatles and Stones ripped off/misinterpreted Delta blues. And this bastardization turned into great alchemy, spawning an entirely new aesthetic.

Long live ripping off other cultures! The only alternative is mind numbing musical monoculture.