Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Does this mean we can't trust what is put out by the media?
Glad to know you’re still alive, and not an imposter.I am not the walrus
Of that era, I have always preferred the Stones for rock. For my lifetime, the single artist I most appreciate is Johnny Cash.Just out of curiosity, who are your favorite bands?
Which era? The reason I ask is that pop music was changing so fast back then. Music from 1963 sounded very different from music from 2 years later and wildly different from music 4 years later. The Who did some great music, but most of it was after the Beatles had broken up. If you're comparing them in the same timeframe, when the Who was doing "My Generation," the Beatles were doing Rubber Soul. Much better, IMO. When the Who was doing "Magic Bus" and "I Can See for Miles," the Beatles had already done Revolver (which was their best work) and were doing Sgt. Pepper.
What I think gets lost here is that the Who and many others who were great (including the Yardbirds, who became Led Zeppelin) were British Invasion bands, and the Beatles led the Invasion. I'm not saying those groups ripped off the Beatles, though they were certainly influenced by them. I'm saying that the Beatles were the leaders who opened the doors. The Who and the Yardbirds were followers who walked through them.
Great artist, but I consider it a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. I don't consider the Beatles to be a competitor of Jimmy Hendrix. Honestly, I'm not sure he had many competitors. Obviously, he had his influences and imitators like any other artists, but he was sorta in his own class. Of course, countless were influenced by by him after he was gone.
Of that era, I have always preferred the Stones for rock. For my lifetime, the single artist I most appreciate is Johnny Cash.
I look at the Beatles in the same way I looked at Michael Jackson, Madonna, and any number of other MTV era "entertainers". When their hype gets so overblown, and it becomes almost impossible to escape whatever screeching noise they produce, I go into "screw them" mode, and immediately turn the dial any time some DJ is banal enough to think people want to hear that crap - again.
Basically the 60s. The Who were virtuosos that should be obvious. The Beatles were pop like N Sync and K Pop. Zeppelin's first album came out in 69, after those other bands were already big. There is overlap in their "eras". But to me Zeppelin is like Rock 2.0.
Your claims are more coincidence than causal because the music style is much different and the source material was much different. The Rolling Stones, The Who, Yardbirds, and Zeppelin were all copying American roots music. They were playing elevated Blues.
The Beatles weren't doing that. Like I said they were big commercially the same way the Back Street Boys were big.
Well yeah there was no competition. Jimi was miles better . He wasn't all that different though. He played elevated Blues like the other bands I listed. He added psychedelic and soul influences into his music but the foundation was Blues rock.
Frankie Valli is most definitely NOT crap.
You are henceforth disqualified from opinioningThe Beatles ruined music
UH never should have been allowed into the SWC.
You are henceforth disqualified from opinioning
Elaborate some on the musical connection between N Sync to the Beatles. (I've never heard of K Pop, but I've heard at least a few secons of some N Sync songs while reaching to turn off the radio.) What would be N Sync's equivalent to the music on the Revolver or Sgt. Pepper albums? I'm more than happy to give it a listen.
They copied American roots. I think that's an oversimplification of those groups, but I can go with it. However, the Beatles also copied American roots. It was less "bluesy," but it was pretty American. Their earliest stuff was heavily influenced by Little Richard, Carl Perkins, Buddy Holly, and of course, Elvis, but like the other groups you cite, they obviously took it a lot further.
When I say the Beatles led the way for the others, I'm not saying that from a musical standpoint (though one of the Rolling Stones's earliest hits was a cover of a Beatles song). I'm saying that the Beatles forced the record industry to go outside the box. Before they came along, the industry basically was interested in crap like Frankie Valli, Lesley Gore, Ricky Nelson, etc. (Black artists were a different ballgame.) They dabbled in some surfer music like Jan and Dean the Beach Boys, but nobody was interested in British music. (They had already rejected the Beatles.) It took the Beatles enjoying success with a small label (Vee Jay who frankly humiliated the hell out of Capitol Records) to wake the industry "experts" up enough to even be open to groups like the Stones, the Who, or the Yardbirds.
When I said there was no comparison, I meant with the Beatles specifically. Was there some overlap in their influences? I guess, but it was pretty limited. I think there is a much bigger connection to the groups you brought up in the roots (especially the Yardbirds and therefore Led Zeppelin), but I think where he took those roots was pretty unique. Kinda blows my mind to ponder where he would have gone with his sound had he lived longer.
They are all sucky pop music that are popular because the boys have cute hair cuts. If you don't believe me ask your mom
That is like saying Pearl Jam or Soundgarden would have never been big without Nirvana. Nirvana did exist so they ended up opening up the market to grunge, but grunge was going to be huge whether or not Nirvana existed.
Admitted the Beatles did that too, but it was much more bland! This is what I mean by ruined music. They followed the fads in a mediocre way.
Music evaluation is largely a matter of opinion
He was there trolling for the girls who liked the cute haircuts.However, my dad also liked the Beatles, and he's pretty straight, so I don't think it was the cute haircuts. Like most straight men, he also didn't particularly go for "sucky pop" music.
He was there trolling for the girls who liked the cute haircuts.
Happiness is a Warm GunCan you name a specific song we can point to for comparison?
Lol. My mom may have liked them because they had cute haircuts. She went to a few of their concerts in the Los Angeles area and was one of the screaming chicks you see in the video clips. However, my dad also liked the Beatles, and he's pretty straight, so I don't think it was the cute haircuts. Like most straight men, he also didn't particularly go for "sucky pop" music.
I actually think my parent's musical tastes illustrate my point here. My mom tended to go for earlier Beatles music - the stuff that was pop-oriented and aroused the screaming chicks. My dad tended to go for mid to late Beatles music which wasn't. If you want to claim that "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" or "She Loves You" (the stuff my mom liked) was pop, that's fine. I wouldn't disagree. However, if you argue that songs like "Rain," "She Said, She Said," "Eleanor Rigby," or "Strawberry Fields" (the stuff my dad liked) were pop-oriented, that's just crazy. There's nothing poppy about those songs or much of anything they made during that era. Definitely haven't heard anything by N Sync that was similar.
What I suspect is happening is that you're looking at the songs that made the Beatles initially famous and defining their entire careers on those songs. Well, that would be like me defining the Who by "My Generation" or Led Zeppelin by "Shapes of Things" (one of the earlier Yardbirds hits with Page, though that was a kick-*** song) when both groups obviously did far more impressive work than those initial songs.
The comparison doesn't hold up. First, Nirvana didn't really open the door. Lollapalooza did. (In other words, Jane's Addiction did.) Furthermore, Alice in Chains had found success before Nirvana did. Second, it's one thing to open the door from Seattle, a city that was on the rise at the time and that the music industry already followed. It's quite another to do it from a decaying port city on a continent that the industry was almost entirely ignoring.
Do I think there market would have eventually opened up to Brits? Yes, but it would have been much slower and more gradual, which means it very well could have missed groups like the Who or the Yardbirds and therefore Led Zeppelin.
I don't know what to tell you. Music evaluation is largely a matter of opinion, so I suppose someone could say Mozart followed the fads in a mediocre way because Bach came before he did and influenced him. However, I don't see what fad Revolver and Sgt. Pepper were following and I wouldn't call them mediocre. It was pretty impressive stuff and pretty original at the time it was made. Definitely not N Sync-style pop.