whoah there... check the census again, liverpool is 439,000 whilst
manchester itself is 392,000. What I presume you actually mean is 'greater
manchester' (which as the mondays are from salford is what we have to
include), but since this is not a city you can't compare this to liverpool,
you'd miss out st helens, widnes, runcorn (and christ wouldn't we all like
to miss out st helens, widnes and runcorn - and bloody skelmersdale for that
matter) and birkenhead, which has produced the north west's most recent
success story. This brings up the population to 1.3m, as opposed to
Manchester's 2.4m; smaller, but certainly not a sixth of the size, and a far
bigger conurbation than anywhere in the UK apart from London, Birmingham and
Leeds/Wakefield/Bradford, and has certainly produced more music, even in
recent history, than the last two.
The second point is far more prescient, Manchester at the time of factory -
despite the limited success of the buzzcocks and the fall, was not a major
musical center. Remember that for most of the early eighties Liverpool, ZTT
and Erics were focused on to the expense of manchester, and even when
factory first surfaced it's biggest selling act were from merseyside. Even
after New Order's success, there wasn't what we'd recognise as any scene
around the city, and the only people taking any chances on the bands in the
area was Factory. It was largely as a result of the Mondays that the rest of
the country took notice (and gave us, er, northside - great).
In any case, as you point out, the UK is very much smaller than the US; so
the idea of 'east-buttfunk' is a bit anathema. Your nearest musical center
is only an hour's train ride away, so being stuck in the musical backwater
of, say, late-seventies sheffield is far less of a disadvantage than being
in minneapolis at the same time.
-s
or Liverpool.
Wuh? Me thinks it's time Mr. Earle paid the UK another visit. :) Your
megalopoli seem to be a bit confused with the inclusion of da pool (no
offense Scott). ;) Other than this trouble-with-fact, I am 100% in agreement
with your sentimonies, to invoke a Simpsonism.
According to the 2001 census, Liverpool has a population of 439,000, which
is not quite twice the size of Lambeth, the largest borough in London.
However, there are something like 19 boroughs in inner London, so Liverpool
is by no means a juggeraut of Engligh metropoli. Manchester is roughly 6
times that size, and Glasgow well outranks it. I think Bradford is about the
same size, and how many people outside of the UK have heard of it? To put
this in American terms, Omaha is over twice the population of Liverpool, and
England is dense!
But like I said, I agree with your sentiments, just not the Liverpool bit.
:)
_________________________________________________________________
Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband
