Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

You know older bands like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones up to the 70's rock area. I was just wondering what people thought about these bands and their revalance today.

Personaly I think most to overrated, a fleeting memory from people that euphamize the past. The past had been built on. If it took Bands like Rolling Stones and Beatles to create Tool (I'm not saying it was direct like that, but by musical evolution...) And if say Porcupine Tree took what Pink Floyd did and improved upon it, does that mean the original band is better? Is Tool better than The Beatles, yes. Porcupine Tree better than Floyd? Possibly (This might not be an exact example, but you know what I mean) The past was fine, but todays Bands have perfected/improved upon thier acheivements and become even better.

Your thoughts?

I think the beatles are the best band of all time - not because of age, but because they have at least 6 albums that are as good if not better than anything anyone else has put out: Abbey Road, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Let It Be, Sgt Peppers and The White Album.

No one else has had six albums of this caliber (The Beach Boys had Pet Sound, Talking Heads had Remain In Light, Rolling Stones had a couple, the Replacements had Let It Be, etc) let alone six albums released in five years of this caliber.

Considering what The Beatles did with the technology they had, it makes it even more impressive. Like the tale of Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" being overdubbed so many times the tape was nearly clear, George Martin had to come up with new ways to make the sounds that Lennon and McCartney wanted with primitive technology. One can only imagine what they would do with modern studio techniques.

There are very few songwriters who can match the tandem of Lennon/McCartney and none are quite as prolific; that's what sets the Beatles apart. Besides catchy pop music, the lyrics are what set them apart - and the ever changing sounds of the band.

If you listen to The Beatles on Help, then onto Abbey Road, the only thing that is the same is the voices. They were always changing their sound, dabbling in psychedelia (Sgt Peppers) back to old fashioned pop (Let It Be before Spector got his hands on it), even early hard rock (Helter Skelter has been said to have inspired entire bands' careers).

I find them boring, and yes I have listened to them, I have revolver, and found it boring. But we have gotten in this discussion before....

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
I think the beatles are the best band of all time - not because of age, but because they have at least 6 albums that are as good if not better than anything anyone else has put out: Abbey Road, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Let It Be, Sgt Peppers and The White Album.

No one else has had six albums of this caliber (The Beach Boys had Pet Sound, Talking Heads had Remain In Light, Rolling Stones had a couple, the Replacements had Let It Be, etc) let alone six albums released in five years of this caliber.

Radiohead have 6 albums. Not only are they better albums but they are more innovative and quite clearly set the bar for what evolution is within a band.

To claim those albums by The Beatles as better than anything else anyone has put out is just utterly ridiculous. Even for an opinion.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
Considering what The Beatles did with the technology they had, it makes it even more impressive. Like the tale of Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" being overdubbed so many times the tape was nearly clear, George Martin had to come up with new ways to make the sounds that Lennon and McCartney wanted with primitive technology. One can only imagine what they would do with modern studio techniques.

Probably find another George Martin to do what they wanted as opposed to doing it themselves.

Or doing it themselves and not being anywhere near as good. There's alot of options besides them using today's tech and still being great.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
There are very few songwriters who can match the tandem of Lennon/McCartney and none are quite as prolific; that's what sets the Beatles apart. Besides catchy pop music, the lyrics are what set them apart - and the ever changing sounds of the band.

Maynard James Keenan, Chris Cornell, Mike Patton, Jason Lyttle. All much better lyricists that McCartney and Lennon. By far. As for ever changing sound, I fail to see how The Beatles top Radiohead or an endless wealth of Mike Patton's projects.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
If you listen to The Beatles on Help, then onto Abbey Road, the only thing that is the same is the voices. They were always changing their sound, dabbling in psychedelia (Sgt Peppers) back to old fashioned pop (Let It Be before Spector got his hands on it), even early hard rock (Helter Skelter has been said to have inspired entire bands' careers).

I think that's a remarkable stretch to say that the only thing the same is the voices. There are quite clearly similarities on how they wrote and recorded. Once again, if anyone, Radiohead can make that claim.

Pablo Honey to The Bends. The Bends to OK Computer. OK Computer to Kid A. Kid A to Amnesiac (not that different as they were recorded together). Amnesiac to Hail to the Thief.

Much different each and every step of the way.

As for inspiring bands careers, Faith No More inspired Metallica. Who inspired thousands and thousands. Mike Patton created Serj Tankian's singing style. Countless bands cite one or more Mike Patton projects as their reasons for being involved in music. Even the Red Hot Chili Peppers frontman Anthony Kiedis more or less ripped off Mike Patton after seeing the video for Epic.

With regards to the topic, I love alot of old bands. Some are better, some are worse. I don't think the inspiration is always better then inspiree. Inspiration isn't always heard in music either.

Mike Patton influences me but I could never make music like him, so you'd probably never know unless I told you.

-AC

The Betles helped inspire an entire genre of music with "Helter Skelter" and countless other bands with "Revolution 1". Hell, even Ozzy Osbourne says he was inspired to create a band by the Beatles. The production of all the beatles albums were very different, Georege Martin was forced to come up with many, many innovative things. I mean, Help to Sgt Peppers? Abbey Road to Let It Be?

For the most part I find Bands like The Beatles, Rolling Stones ect...Boring and Overrated..Just an Opinion though.

Ditto, i think they must of just been good in that time, now we haev better people, like slipknot

Slipknot...Beatles...Slipknot..Beatles...Slipknot..Beatles...

Yep, about even.

Originally posted by lilmisskitten
Ditto, i think they must of just been good in that time, now we haev better people, like slipknot Don't know if you're being serious there but Either way you're right.

I like older Bands, I don't know if they are Musical Genius but I like their sounds their lyrics all that....I like almost every song I ever heard of the Beatles, they are probably not as good as Radiohead but by personal taste I like to listen to them....same with artists like Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan....I feel like I say that over and over again I need to broaden my mind I guess......

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
The Betles helped inspire an entire genre of music with "Helter Skelter" and countless other bands with "Revolution 1". Hell, even Ozzy Osbourne says he was inspired to create a band by the Beatles.

Patton has created countless styles of music that are unlike anything that exist. Let alone inspire one.

As for the Ozzy comment, the same has been said about many bands. I also think that Ozzy said "I wanted to be a Beatle" in the context of doing what they did. Not neccessarily that their music made him realise he wanted to be in a band.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
The production of all the beatles albums were very different, Georege Martin was forced to come up with many, many innovative things.

So why are The Beatles getting credit for being so innovative?

-AC

'For the most part I find Bands like The Beatles, Rolling Stones ect...Boring and Overrated..Just an Opinion though.'

thats the best oen I've read for a long time, coming from a guy that likes Slayer and Slipknot, bands that just make noice damn slip you made make me laugh sometimes

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
thats the best oen I've read for a long time, coming from a guy that likes Slayer and Slipknot, bands that just make noice damn slip you made make me laugh sometimes

That's the best one I've read for a long time.

Coming from a guy who loves Bon Jovi. A band that just made shit.

-AC

Beat me to it AC.

To be fair, he's a solo artist.

Radiohead, to me, misses the one thing that I like in music: fun to listen to factor. I can only stand so much of Thom Yorke's annoying voice. I truly believe they get way too much credit. To say that Pablo Honey is as good as any of the albums I listed of the beatles' is silly. Even teh most hardcore Radiohead fans will agree that it isn't their best effort. And Hail to the Thief? That was not a good album. Nothign stood out, it seemed almost rushed even though they had plenty of time to make it. To me, Radiohead is just a boring band.

And trying to say that Mike Patton influenced more people than the beatles is hilarious. Don't try to play 'beat the influence' with teh ebatles. I mean, one band that has influenced hardcore bands (The Replacements), hip hop (Beastie Boys, De La Soul), electronica (Chemical Brothers), indie rock (Flaming Lips), classic rock (Elivs Costello, Jimi Hendrix). And see if you can't find the punk sound of "Helter Skelter"

And i didnt' even mention Brit Pop acts like Oasis or Blur.

They dont make shit man, when will you hear it? they have a SINGER you know what that is? thats not shouting GET THIS OR DIE, GET THIS OR DIE, GET THIS OR DIIIIIEEEE!!! yeah sure thats a singer clearly says for itself that you know nuthing about the matter, and Slipknot along with the rest of those ''metal'' bands Slayer are just makin noice with the insttruments, bet they all grw up in a stonemine workin with the machines and now they think everything has to sound like that, some bnads think makin metal is just makin heavy sounds and shouting louder then then the band down the road and thats it, but it takes something to make it music you know, say early Metallica, they kew what they where doing,a nd Manowar who are btw kings of metal, those are guys playing music metal

Manowar? Please

I have somethign to say about Slipknot: people don't realize that they are more closely related to boy bands than they think. Both are more or less based on their images. While the boy bands want an image of cuteness and safety, the Slipknot image is of aggression and anger.

Slipknot and many other bands of the same persuasion play on adolescent males' need for acceptance and aggression. It's almost the same formula that Lou Pearlman uses, only targeted at males instead of the fairer gender.

Another note of influence of course, The Beatles were the original boy band.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
One can only imagine what they would do with modern studio techniques.



The Frog Chorus ennit.

First off:

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
They dont make shit man, when will you hear it? they have a SINGER you know what that is? thats not shouting GET THIS OR DIE, GET THIS OR DIE, GET THIS OR DIIIIIEEEE!!!

Yes, they do make shit.

Second, what bands do that? No band I listen to shouts "Get this or die!!!".

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
yeah sure thats a singer clearly says for itself that you know nuthing about the matter, and Slipknot along with the rest of those ''metal'' bands Slayer are just makin noice with the insttruments

Just making noise with the instruments....that's probably the best one yet. Actually suffered throatal chokage on my tea.

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
bet they all grw up in a stonemine workin with the machines and now they think everything has to sound like that, some bnads think makin metal is just makin heavy sounds and shouting louder then then the band down the road and thats it, but it takes something to make it music you know, say early Metallica, they kew what they where doing,a nd Manowar who are btw kings of metal, those are guys playing music metal

I'm not gonna disagree that there are alot of shit Metal bands, but then maybe you shouldn't talk about what a shit band is. You like Bon Jovi.

Bon Jovi.

Maybe you should change your name to Lord_Andrex, because you just toilet papered up your music opinion pretty much. With andrex.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
Radiohead, to me, misses the one thing that I like in music: fun to listen to factor. I can only stand so much of Thom Yorke's annoying voice. I truly believe they get way too much credit.

I would go on about you claiming that Thom Yorke has an annoying voice, but I think the main part of the above quote is this:

"I truly believe they get way too much credit".

Funny for a person who claims that The Beatles have produced better music than anybody else, ever, over all of time.

Can't get more overrated if you tried.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
To say that Pablo Honey is as good as any of the albums I listed of the beatles' is silly. Even teh most hardcore Radiohead fans will agree that it isn't their best effort.

A) Good thing I didn't then, isn't it?

B) It's not. I was showing their evolution from album to album. Would be a bit stupid of me to leave out their debut wouldn't it?

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
And Hail to the Thief? That was not a good album. Nothign stood out, it seemed almost rushed even though they had plenty of time to make it. To me, Radiohead is just a boring band.

It doesn't change the fact that you claim The Beatles did more in 6 albums than anyone ever. Which is false, because love or hate, Radiohead have done more. That much is obvious from listening to their albums.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
And trying to say that Mike Patton influenced more people than the beatles is hilarious. Don't try to play 'beat the influence' with teh ebatles. I mean, one band that has influenced hardcore bands (The Replacements), hip hop (Beastie Boys, De La Soul), electronica (Chemical Brothers), indie rock (Flaming Lips), classic rock (Elivs Costello, Jimi Hendrix). And see if you can't find the punk sound of "Helter Skelter"

And i didnt' even mention Brit Pop acts like Oasis or Blur.

Yes, yes you did mention them. Just then.

Well Damon Albarn of Blur has actually been on an album with Mike Patton and according to an article I read in an old issue of Mojo (I was bored, I didn't pay for it), cites him as a big influence.

Mike Patton actually has influenced more people. Either him or his bands, to one degree or another.

Most people claim that they are influenced by The Beatles purely because they think they have to. Just like any band worth their salt, trying to look good, name check Zeppelin. Nobody is gonna name check Patton's bands by chance. Because he has hardly any "for the sake of it" fans. The Beatles perhaps have the most, ever.

Mike Patton is probably the most uncredited inspiration in music. Bands and genres exist because of him.

As Victor pointed out, they also created the boyband. So if we compare who has influenced who down the line, Mike Patton's list would be more impressive.

-AC

What bands do that? the crappiest bands like Slipknot, shout ''get this or die'' or maybe this one will do it for you ''**** this world, **** everything you stand for, **** my cat and mom, and I'l give you some lovin'' yeah thats what slipknot gose around shouting and people yet like them, I mean WTF? and yeah they just make noice, the singer shouts waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh **** THIS WORLD!!!! and guitar gose like those machines two handed that they use to dig into the roads, and then another WAAHAHAHHH **** IT ALL!!! rofl but still we have Manowar they are good, nuthing like playing World Of Warcraft and listening to Warriors of The World, or maybe Brothers Of Metal, thjats class!

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
What bands do that? the crappiest bands like Slipknot, shout ''get this or die'' or maybe this one will do it for you ''**** this world, **** everything you stand for, **** my cat and mom, and I'l give you some lovin'' yeah thats what slipknot gose around shouting and people yet like them, I mean WTF? and yeah they just make noice, the singer shouts waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh **** THIS WORLD!!!! and guitar gose like those machines two handed that they use to dig into the roads, and then another WAAHAHAHHH **** IT ALL!!! rofl

*Attempts to decipher post*

Ri-right I think I've got it. Now, first off, Slipknot aren't one of the "crappiest bands". They get lumped in with them because they have alot of young fans, which to me, matters none. As for calling into question the guitar, Mick Thompson is one of the greatest metal guitarists in the world.

Second, that's nothing at all like Slipknot music. Maybe vaguely so in the past, but they have matured alot more now, as musicians. Factually.

So you posting lots of fangirlish, uninformed nonsense, doesn't make you look cool, or right. Just silly and uneducated.

You actually call Slipknot out, when once again, you like Bon Jovi.

I cannot take anything you say seriously, with regard to musical quality or talent.

-AC

t.... t.............. talent? now all of a sudden slipknot has any talent? where? when did this happen? I've heard their new vol.3 cd, its all the same crap, the singer sounds dead, the guitar is nuthing I repeat nuthing close to 'one of the greatest metal guitarists in the world' all he dose is make souds that makes one want to just break the damn stereo, its so bad, hey take a listen to Bon Jovi's Wanted Dead Or Alive guitar play, now thats something, thats worthy of rememberance!

I cant help but notice this thread topic has nothing to do with Slipknot.

oh yeah, well anyway I like old music like Bach or Vivaldi, I think they are great for relacxing, or when playing WoW, also when just before I want to sleep, and I respect their music very much

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
t.... t.............. talent? now all of a sudden slipknot has any talent? where? when did this happen? I've heard their new vol.3 cd, its all the same crap, the singer sounds dead, the guitar is nuthing I repeat nuthing close to 'one of the greatest metal guitarists in the world' all he dose is make souds that makes one want to just break the damn stereo, its so bad, hey take a listen to Bon Jovi's Wanted Dead Or Alive guitar play, now thats something, thats worthy of rememberance!

No, you're wrong.

You're aware that people like Zakk Wylde and Dimebag Darrell (R.I.P), two of the best technical guitarists in the world, both cited Mick Thompson as a great metal player, as do others today, right?

Why do you assume that because you can't appreciate it, there's no talent? Why?

Infact, wait. The biggest question should be why am I even here discussing musical talent with a Bon Jovi fan? A man and band with distinct LACK of any talent.

-AC

It doesn't change the fact that you claim The Beatles did more in 6 albums than anyone ever. Which is false, because love or hate, Radiohead have done more. That much is obvious from listening to their albums.

I never said they did more in those six albums than anyone did ever, i said:


And sying that Radiohead has done more than the Beatles? That's just dumb. The Beatles completely changed the culture of music - Radiohead has just transferred alleged music snob's favorite band from Pavement or The Smiths to Radiohead; why is it that when Thom Yorke makes a banal song about crushing insects, fans slurp it up?


Well Damon Albarn of Blur has actually been on an album with Mike Patton and according to an article I read in an old issue of Mojo (I was bored, I didn't pay for it), cites him as a big influence.
Most people claim that they are influenced by The Beatles purely because they think they have to.

i'm sure it's only one way, right? So if Albarn had said that he was influenced by The Beatles would you discount it?

But if you cannot hear the influence the Beatles had on Blur, I'm not sure you are listening to the same music that I am.


Probably find another George Martin to do what they wanted as opposed to doing it themselves.

Or doing it themselves and not being anywhere near as good. There's alot of options besides them using today's tech and still being great.

So you are attacking The Beatles for not being great producers? They dreamed up the music, and George Martin would tell them that it was impossible, it had never been done before...then he'd find a way to do it. His genius does not detract from the fact that they were the creative impetus behind the changes. Einstein had theories that could not be proven for years after his death - does the fact that they were not yet tangible at his death make the theories any less worthy?

First of Zakk Wylde and Dimebag Darrell aint the 2 best technicaly guitar palyeres, they are far from that I might say, Steve Vai, Joe Satriany, michael Angelo, mattias IA, and tons of others are better

though if you play bad music technically perfect it's still bad music.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
though if you play bad music technically perfect it's still bad music.

dillinger escape plan...

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
And sying that Radiohead has done more than the Beatles? That's just dumb. The Beatles completely changed the culture of music - Radiohead has just transferred alleged music snob's favorite band from Pavement or The Smiths to Radiohead; why is it that when Thom Yorke makes a banal song about crushing insects, fans slurp it up?

Seemingly you've slurped up the old stereotype that Radiohead are for musical snobs, sadly.

As for fans slurping it up, you were clearly not around when the Kid A mass exodus occured. You make it sound as if Radiohead try to earn fans, that's the last thing they do and I admire that.

To say all Radiohead have done is made people like them as their favourite band, THAT is ridiculous. Thom Yorke and the other members of Radiohead are very very clever men in what they do with their music and what it's about.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
i'm sure it's only one way, right? So if Albarn had said that he was influenced by The Beatles would you discount it?

But if you cannot hear the influence the Beatles had on Blur, I'm not sure you are listening to the same music that I am.

No I wouldn't discount it, but you're claiming that you don't compete with who is more inspirational than The Beatles. I was merely proving that you can with Mike Patton, and win. Just because you can hear one type of influence and not the other, doesn't mean it's any less of an influence. The debate was who has influenced more, not who has been ripped off more. Which could also be Patton.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
So you are attacking The Beatles for not being great producers? They dreamed up the music, and George Martin would tell them that it was impossible, it had never been done before...then he'd find a way to do it. His genius does not detract from the fact that they were the creative impetus behind the changes. Einstein had theories that could not be proven for years after his death - does the fact that they were not yet tangible at his death make the theories any less worthy?

I'm not attacking The Beatles. I'm pointing out that without George, they couldn't have done the things they did. Since he had to find a way to do it.

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
First of Zakk Wylde and Dimebag Darrell aint the 2 best technicaly guitar palyeres, they are far from that I might say, Steve Vai, Joe Satriany, michael Angelo, mattias IA, and tons of others are better

Note the fact that I said they are two of, not THE two. Then leave, coz you're stupid for even claiming that they are far from the best. Because they're not. Well, one isn't. Dimebag is dead now, sadly.

You seem to complain about bad music when:

A) You listen to Bon Jovi

and

B) You felch the most technical terrys in music, who have records of putting out really shit music.

Dimebag Darrell wasn't as technically sound as Satch or Vai but he and the band he was known for put out better music than any of the people you listed ever will.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
dillinger escape plan...

They're not just a technically great band though. I really fail to see why you think they're so shit but I can't prove to you how great they are in terms of the opinion on what their music sounds like. I can't hear it for you.

However, I could sit here and talk all day about how mundane Chimaira and Hatebreed are. Two bands you really like who couldn't touch The Dillinger Escape Plan if they wanted to.

I also fear we've strayed drastically off topic.

-AC

''You seem to complain about bad music when:

A) You listen to Bon Jovi''

What do you mean by that? I'm not really understanding what you are saying, please be more clear

You complain about ''bad'' music, when in fact the music you like is bad. E.g. Bon Jovi. Quite simple really.

No thats what AC and Slipknot are always doing, I mean comon, lets face listen to Bon Jovi, you can hear a fantastic voice on vocals, you can hear amazing guitar, and superb meloies that are unforgetable, and GREAT lyrics, and the rest of hte bnad just follows, it all comes down so great, I mean they have everything you could want froma aband, singing, playing, lyrics, and those great meloies, lets take Tin Lizzy for example, they are bad, I mean they have such bad melodies that its just pain to listen too, you dont want to go on hearing it, now Slipknot, is as bad as it gets almust, they ahve everything bad, singer, lyrics, seems like each of the 9 guys are playing their own song in their own world, and what we have is a no melodier, and a freakin T-rex shouting like its no tomorrow, only rivaled by Morbit Angels singer, donmt you hear? ITS BAD thats bad! Bon Jovi on the other hand has something going you know

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
No thats what AC and Slipknot are always doing, I mean comon, lets face listen to Bon Jovi, you can hear a fantastic voice on vocals, you can hear amazing guitar, and superb meloies that are unforgetable, and GREAT lyrics, and the rest of hte bnad just follows, it all comes down so great, I mean they have everything you could want froma aband, singing, playing, lyrics, and those great meloies, lets take Tin Lizzy for example, they are bad, I mean they have such bad melodies that its just pain to listen too, you dont want to go on hearing it, now Slipknot, is as bad as it gets almust, they ahve everything bad, singer, lyrics, seems like each of the 9 guys are playing their own song in their own world, and what we have is a no melodier, and a freakin T-rex shouting like its no tomorrow, only rivaled by Morbit Angels singer, donmt you hear? ITS BAD thats bad! Bon Jovi on the other hand has something going you know

All that typing and you seem to actually believe you can convince a sane and credible music fan that Bon Jovi is anything but shit.

He's not, he's shit. Very very shit.

-AC

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
They dreamed up the music, and George Martin would tell them that it was impossible, it had never been done before...then he'd find a way to do it.

Sounds like the man was out for a bit of PR.

John Lennon: I have an idea.

George: You can't do it, it can't be done! Unless....

John: You always say that.


On another note, Did Lord Andres just state that Thin Lizzy are inferior to Bon Jovi? I thought it might have said that, but I'm sure I must have been mistaken.

I did sy that, they are bad, many of the times they dont even sing they like talk, bad melodies, and average playing

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Another note of influence of course, The Beatles were the original boy band.

Argh...that is just not a nice thing t say...even if its true....

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
All that typing and you seem to actually believe you can convince a sane and credible music fan that Bon Jovi is anything but shit.

He's not, he's shit. Very very shit.

-AC

That's not true....he made a great cover of "Knocking on Heavens Door" ..... but this is a good song to begin with so I guess that's not much.....

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
I did sy that, they are bad, many of the times they dont even sing they like talk, bad melodies, and average playing

Don't even know where to start with that.

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
I did sy that, they are bad, many of the times they dont even sing they like talk, bad melodies, and average playing

Average playing? Man, just because you suck off Yngwie Malmsteen (who for the record, can just play really fast, he isn't good at making music) it doesn't mean everyone who isn't Scandanavian or Bon Jovi, is average.

Learn this.

Bardock: So he's a great kareoke artist, so what? Can find them in any decent club.

-AC

A band that is still relevant today as they were throughout
the 60's, 70's 80's & early 90's, then The KinKs and the song writer Ray Davies are something that if you read quite a lot of the lyrics and look at the date they were first published, then you will come to the conclusion that they were quite ahead of their time and predicted the future, not intentionally though.

KinKs lyrics at... http://kinks.it.rit.edu/

Also... If you want to talk about an up to date studio, that was always that ever since it was established in the mid to late 70's KonK Studio is the one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v242/hot_knight/dd_banner.jpg

Someone who likes Bon Jovi (who is shit, whether you want to admit it or not), saying that Slipknot is shit.

This is almost as ridiculous as whoever it was that said that Slipknot was skater grunge.

As to older bands like the Beatles...well, they have their merits, but I don't care for them. Just simply not my thing, and I don't really like how people seem to worship them. Vastly overrated.

And for the record, I love Radiohead (and would count them among one of my favorite bands), and I think that Mike Patton is a genius.

I dont just like Scandanavian's and Bon Jovi, I love good music where ever its from, I love Vivaldi, Bach and lots of others of same kind, I like lots of different music, but not crap music like Slipknot, Morbit angel, Antrax, and all that crap, that I dont like, get it?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Bardock: So he's a great kareoke artist, so what? Can find them in any decent club.


Nah, he's not great....he just played that song fairly well...and I just wrote that just to have written something

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
I dont just like Scandanavian's and Bon Jovi, I love good music where ever its from, I love Vivaldi, Bach and lots of others of same kind, I like lots of different music, but not crap music like Slipknot, Morbit angel, Antrax, and all that crap, that I dont like, get it?

The thing is, you just don't like that music. It doesn't mean they're crap.

Bon Jovi isn't shit because I don't like his music, it's actually shit.

-AC

I always wondered how "good" music is defined...especially people that listen to Rock think their Music is "good" music. I mean I like it too...I just can't define "good" music.....nor "bad" music for that matter....by personal taste yes...that's possibly...but lots of you probably would say that the music I listen to is crap...

Well I recognise that I can't hear music for someone and make them agree that what a band produces is good to great to excellent music. I know that. As stupid as it sounds, I can't factually and scientifically prove that Metallica are better than Simple Plan, but common sense just makes that sort of thing a borderline fact.

However, when it comes down to things like integrity, technical ability, these things are provable. Because they are measureable and when held up against what makes an artist, they are factual.

But that's another thread.

-AC

mmmm....technical ability i think can be something that is actually really difficult to prove from albums and even from live performances

many bands write songs that are very simple to play even for relatively unpracticed musicians...an example being a band that for some reason i have the feeling AC doesn't like....the strokes....many of their songs are almost as simple as 1 or 2 chords repeated over and over again....something in my view that the beatles also done

but i dont think it can be assumed from hearing those tunes that the guitarists are technically inferior to guitarists who wank out every guitar solo as fast as their stubby little fingers will allow and use every ridiculous harmonic/pig squeal/ finger tapping technique known to the guitaring world.

but what does grate me more than anything is the fact that in the pop world...the majority of "hits" are written by musically inept fat men in suits who are paid to churn out catchy trash made only to generate as much cash s possible

onto the subject

older bands and artists...i think that people such as don mclean, bob dylan etc are the golden era of their genres and probably wont be bettered but as newer genres emerge then there will obviously be bands from the modern era that will be seen as the defining moments of those types of music...radiohead will undoubtadly be one of them although i dont particularly like their music...i can appreciate their massive influence of bands and artists that i do like

another thing that really bothered me was when oasis emerged with their pro beatles shouting...then all of a sudden ever person my age who hadn't given the beatles a look at were suddenly saying they are the greatest band going....

Originally posted by jaden101
mmmm....technical ability i think can be something that is actually really difficult to prove from albums and even from live performances

I don't, really.

Originally posted by jaden101
many bands write songs that are very simple to play even for relatively unpracticed musicians...an example being a band that for some reason i have the feeling AC doesn't like....the strokes....many of their songs are almost as simple as 1 or 2 chords repeated over and over again....something in my view that the beatles also done

I think The Strokes are great.

Originally posted by jaden101
but i dont think it can be assumed from hearing those tunes that the guitarists are technically inferior to guitarists who wank out every guitar solo as fast as their stubby little fingers will allow and use every ridiculous harmonic/pig squeal/ finger tapping technique known to the guitaring world.

As said. Satch, Vai etc, they're all greats in terms of technical ability. They'll never be as good as making music on a guitar as Hendrix was. So he's the better guitarist overall.

You don't have to be a technical guitar god to make great guitar music.

Originally posted by jaden101
another thing that really bothered me was when oasis emerged with their pro beatles shouting...then all of a sudden ever person my age who hadn't given the beatles a look at were suddenly saying they are the greatest band going....

If Mr. Bungle got back together and became the biggest band on Earth, everyone would claim they were a fan.

Just how things go.

-AC

God I hate Oasis.......

indeed...i totally agree and in fact said the same thing almost word for word in another thread




i'm thouroughly shocked...given your distaste for the "NMEish" bands...i thought you wouldn't be a fan...

perhaps i didn't come across correctly...what i mean is that a guitarist can play in a relatively crap band...but still be a brilliant guitarist...

i know a few great guitar players who are stuck in shit bands because they dont have anyone in the band who can write a good tune...

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
but not crap music like Slipknot, Morbit angel, Antrax, Again....You listen to Bon Jovi.

you see, what many people don't seem to realize is that the beatles made music after Help! that didn't sound anything like the simple music of their pop days. Though even in their "Beatles For Sale" days, their music was never 1 or 2 chords oever and over, they actually had complex chord progressions for pop music,and the arrangements were years ahead of their time.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
you see, what many people don't seem to realize is that the beatles made music after Help! that didn't sound anything like the simple music of their pop days. Though even in their "Beatles For Sale" days, their music was never 1 or 2 chords oever and over, they actually had complex chord progressions for pop music,and the arrangements were years ahead of their time.

can someone pick out the words that made my post factual

"many of their songs"

along with

"something the beatles also done"

did i say all their songs?...no...was what i said correct?...yes

You act like that is the Beatles definitive music. It isn't.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
You act like that is the Beatles definitive music. It isn't.

i dont act like anything...i'm just stating a fact...

i dont like the beatles be it simple of complex...they are over rated...the westlife of their day...

I guess i forgot the part of Westlife's career where they bridged the gap from boy band to innovaters. Or as Charles Aaron once put it, "Imagine if, over course of about five years, 'N Sync (circa "Bye Bye Bye" evolved into Radiohead (circa The Bends), into the Chemical Brothers (circa Exit Planet Dust), and into Nirvana (circa In Utero). That was the BEatles from, say, 1964 to 1969."

no...it wasn't...it just wasn't

i guess a better evolution for the beatles would be more akin to

"beer to marjuana to acid to heroin to everything combined to getting shot by a nutter"...

and there you have a far bigger influence on the beatles sound than any degree of musical ability

they never did heroin, only one got shot.

actually their contemporaries were their largest influences (Rubber Soul influenced Pet Sounds which in turn influenced Sgt Pepper's). You can discount it as only the drugs, but you have to realize - everyone was doing LSD at the time. Or nearly everyone. Taking LSD was no big deal, it was something that most musicians did.

Originally posted by jaden101
indeed...i totally agree and in fact said the same thing almost word for word in another thread




i'm thouroughly shocked...given your distaste for the "NMEish" bands...i thought you wouldn't be a fan...



The thing about NME is, there are bands they like to boost the magazine's pathetic image as trendsetters, and there are bands that are actual NME bedwetting lame music.

The Strokes are just unfortunate that the NME fellate them: they aren't 'NME type music' as such.

Your makin a fool out your self AC, you said that if it can be messured then ofcourse, the one thats higher messured most by all means be better, soa in a way your saying that Thin Lizzy singer, Nirvanna singer, Slayer singer or maybe Ozzy is a better singer then Bon Jovi, they sing better? they have a better singer voice? Now take a listen to Sebastian Bach, not the composer, but the singer in Skid Row, or listen to a band called Steelheart, the singer in Europe Joey Tempest, or Goran Edman, its really comon knowleage that these hard rock guys have the voice superiour to most of the bands you guys are listening to, now to play, technicly Yngwie Malmsteen, Kee Marcello, Mattias IV, Steve Vai at the top when speakin techinicly, they own that lame guy in SoD, speakin about SoD, that guy CANT SING, ask anyone knowleagable about singing, they know it, hes a freakin faker!

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
Your makin a fool out your self AC, you said that if it can be messured then ofcourse, the one thats higher messured most by all means be better

No, it doesn't. At all. Not overall.

Is Joe Satriani a better technical player than Hendrix was? Yes. Was he a better guitarist as a result? No.

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
soa in a way your saying that Thin Lizzy singer, Nirvanna singer, Slayer singer or maybe Ozzy is a better singer then Bon Jovi, they sing better? they have a better singer voice?

Yes, because Bon Jovi is a talentless Pop-Hair Metal retard who tried to fit in with about 3 different scenes before settling in on making party music for women.

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
Now take a listen to Sebastian Bach, not the composer, but the singer in Skid Row, or listen to a band called Steelheart, the singer in Europe Joey Tempest, or Goran Edman, its really comon knowleage that these hard rock guys have the voice superiour to most of the bands you guys are listening to

Nobody you've mentioned is better than anyone I like.

You can reply saying "Yeah they are" but they're not. It's one of those borderline facts I mentioned.

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
now to play, technicly Yngwie Malmsteen, Kee Marcello, Mattias IV, Steve Vai at the top when speakin techinicly, they own that lame guy in SoD, speakin about SoD, that guy CANT SING, ask anyone knowleagable about singing, they know it, hes a freakin faker!

Man, you actually know absolutely NOTHING about music.

I've seen some shockers on here, but you really do not know anything. At all.

That's no insult, I just feel brain cells dying when I read your post.

-AC

first of all, skid row isn't hard rock. it's pop-metal before the phrase existed. second of all, he does not have a good voice. if you want a good voice, go listen to some jeff buckley.

The funny thing about hair metal is, it knew it was shit. Then when grunge came along, it tried to sneak off before too many people pointed and laughed.

oh dear, everybody knows that Skid Row's music is called Hard/Melodic Rock, and if you seriously think Bon jovi cant sing, then your dead wrong, you know nuthing about the matter, I dont want to argue with you about what a good singer if you think Sebastian Bach and Bon jovi are bad, when you think grunge singers are better, that kinda talks for itself, you have no clue what your in about, and you must be loosing all your braincells cause when reading my posts you see how stupit your opinion is and how right I am, thats simple truth.

Phhs.
Opeth's singer is better than any of the people you mentioned.
And half of what he does is Growl-y yellish metal... But his voice is just amazing when he's lyrical.
and don't even get into MJK.... Only guy I've heard sing 5 part harmony with himself.

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
oh dear, everybody knows that Skid Row's music is called Hard/Melodic Rock, and if you seriously think Bon jovi cant sing, then your dead wrong, you know nuthing about the matter, I dont want to argue with you about what a good singer if you think Sebastian Bach and Bon jovi are bad, when you think grunge singers are better, that kinda talks for itself, you have no clue what your in about, and you must be loosing all your braincells cause when reading my posts you see how stupit your opinion is and how right I am, thats simple truth.

Dude, you're f*cking clueless.

Seriously.

-AC

Nope you are

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
oh dear, everybody knows that Skid Row's music is called Hard/Melodic Rock, and if you seriously think Bon jovi cant sing, then your dead wrong, you know nuthing about the matter, I dont want to argue with you about what a good singer if you think Sebastian Bach and Bon jovi are bad, when you think grunge singers are better, that kinda talks for itself, you have no clue what your in about, and you must be loosing all your braincells cause when reading my posts you see how stupit your opinion is and how right I am, thats simple truth.

You apparently have no clue of 1) what good music is, and 2) what different musical genres are.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Phhs.
Opeth's singer is better than any of the people you mentioned.
And half of what he does is Growl-y yellish metal... But his voice is just amazing when he's lyrical.
and don't even get into MJK.... Only guy I've heard sing 5 part harmony with himself.

Agreed, on both parts.

(Yeah, I've been listening to Opeth )

Bon Jovi does not have a great voice. He has, what, a 2 octave range? Jeff Buckley had a six octave range - he could hit the high notes (Corpus Christi Carol) and do a pretty good hard rock growl (Eternal Life live version). Bon Jovi would sell his right testicle to have half the voice that Jeff or his father Tim had.

NWA

Alright I took a listen to that fella Jeff.B I must say he dosent have a bad voice, infact he's quite good, makes good songs too, I listend to hallelujah and Lover, You Should've Come Over good stuff that I could use to listen to when I come home from work and just wanna takle a break, but I wasint arguing with you about signing, I was saying that SoD, Slipknot, Slayer, Cradle of Filth, Tool, Thin Lizzy, Ozzy, and yeah i think that was it, where all much worse then Jon Bon Jovi, Sebastian Bach (Skid Row singer), Mike Matijevic (steelheart sionger), hell Rishie Sambora is even better then those singers, I also took a listen to TooL I listened to 2 songs 'The Grudge' and 'The Patient' and I couldint belive what I was hearing, it was a really bad singer somehow it reminded me of the Slipknot singer from time to time he had that dreadful dead voice, I took 2 listenes to each song, and I only got a headache out of it, now since I was so nice to take a lsiten to those songs I want you AC to listen to this song and tell me he is a bad singer afterwards, electric your welcome to listen aswell, I know you can tell how good he is, this is a song by Steelheart, just press link and look at the lower right corner, you'l see a list there its the one lsited Nr'5 She's Gone, right click it, then 'save as' and it only takes very small amout of space, then open it with media player after you've downladoed it,s hould work

http://www.gimpo.info/igimpo/entertain/music/main.htm

...okay.

If you say Maynard James Keenan, the singer of Tool and someone who is highly praised as a singer, is a bad singer, you obviously have some sort of hearing problem.

I'm listening to The Grudge right now, it being one of my favorite Tool songs. I cannot think of where your comparison between MJK and Corey Taylor has come from, as they sound NOTHING alike.

You've heard TWO Tool songs. Not nearly enough to give any sort of opinion, for one thing. And if you want to hear exactly how much MJK's singing can range, go listen to 3 Libras or Orestes by A Perfect Circle. The man is a great singer.

I'm sorry, but by saying that Maynard James Keenan is a terrible singer, you've completely and totally invalidated any musical opinion you may have.

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
Alright I took a listen to that fella Jeff.B I must say he dosent have a bad voice, infact he's quite good, makes good songs too, I listend to hallelujah and Lover, You Should've Come Over good stuff that I could use to listen to when I come home from work and just wanna takle a break, but I wasint arguing with you about signing, I was saying that SoD, Slipknot, Slayer, Cradle of Filth, Tool, Thin Lizzy, Ozzy, and yeah i think that was it, where all much worse then Jon Bon Jovi, Sebastian Bach (Skid Row singer), Mike Matijevic (steelheart sionger), hell Rishie Sambora is even better then those singers, I also took a listen to TooL I listened to 2 songs 'The Grudge' and 'The Patient' and I couldint belive what I was hearing, it was a really bad singer somehow it reminded me of the Slipknot singer from time to time he had that dreadful dead voice, I took 2 listenes to each song, and I only got a headache out of it, now since I was so nice to take a lsiten to those songs I want you AC to listen to this song and tell me he is a bad singer afterwards, electric your welcome to listen aswell, I know you can tell how good he is, this is a song by Steelheart, just press link and look at the lower right corner, you'l see a list there its the one lsited Nr'5 She's Gone, right click it, then 'save as' and it only takes very small amout of space, then open it with media player after you've downladoed it,s hould work

http://www.gimpo.info/igimpo/entertain/music/main.htm
Too bad that was painful....
Amazingly basic and annoying, his voice had no depth, no anything, it was like he ws singing a monotone, with the annoying warbley crap.
He sounded like my grandmother at church.

Fine, go Download The Fiddle and The Drum, By A Perfect Circle, off the album Emotive. And TRY to tell me why exactly MJK is worse than what you posted?

Oh it could ahve been in 'The Patient' it was deffently in one of them, he has that same dead voice not trough the whole song but its there when he sings a bit slower, I could hear it right away, I didint mean Corey screaming but in some of the songs on their Vol.3 he aint screaming all, there is just no power in their voices

The Patient is one of his best songs...
Obviously you have no clue what your talking about...
Go back to your MTV...

I downloaded that song you linked.....

Wow, that was terrible.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
The Patient is one of his best songs...
Obviously you have no clue what your talking about...
Go back to your MTV...

Agreed. If you can think that Bon Jovi and that crap you linked is better than MJK....well, you must be deaf or something.

Maynard James Keenan is an INCREDIBLY expressive singer, I've never heard any of his songs where he sounded flat or dead, as you put it. And being as I own every Tool and APC CD, plus have heard a lot of his collabs he's done with other groups....I'd say that my opinion on his singing ability is a hell of a lot more educated than yours.

You do all realise that you're arguing with a Bon Jovi fan about who is better out of Tool....and Bon Jovi?

The only reason I'm posting again is this.

Andres....did you say Jeff Buckley doesn't have a "bad voice"? The man is possibly the greatest singer of all time. That's not actually up for debate either.

Reflection is probably Maynard's best vocal performance.

-AC

True......very pointless in trying to argue with him over this. May as well argue with a brick wall.

But you know how I can't stand ignorance

When trying to compare Bon Jovi to Slipknot, Tool, and Slayer...You really have no argument.

true Bon Jovi is many leagues ahead, and Tool singer aint shit, he is deepshit, Jeff is good though, but Tool no where close, hell he is on par with Corey Taylor, need I say more? ina sometime you'l grow very tired of those crap bands Slip, when I was 12 I loved Slipknot and the rest of the crap, but took only a half year or so then gave the cd's away, but you still like those bands... oh well you'l see what I mean ina few years, you'l hate slipknot, I know you will

No...Unlike you over the years I have kept good taste in music, and I wont end up listening to cheesy 80's hair pop bands...

Originally posted by Lord_Andres
true Bon Jovi is many leagues ahead, and Tool singer aint shit, he is deepshit, Jeff is good though, but Tool no where close, hell he is on par with Corey Taylor, need I say more? ina sometime you'l grow very tired of those crap bands Slip, when I was 12 I loved Slipknot and the rest of the crap, but took only a half year or so then gave the cd's away, but you still like those bands... oh well you'l see what I mean ina few years, you'l hate slipknot, I know you will

You truly, truly have less sense than continually returning battered wives.

On that note, why are people referencing APC tracks? Maynard's best performances are all on Tool tracks. APC is just standard melodic rock.

To help show his range and flexibility....at least that's why I listed a couple APC songs.

Kewl.

I don't think it shows him at his best though. Wasn't a major point anyway, just passing comment.

I don't think it does either, but meh. If it works, it works.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
On that note, why are people referencing APC tracks? Maynard's best performances are all on Tool tracks. APC is just standard melodic rock.

Sorry to pick up on the passing point again, but although I agree he has produced superior performances with Tool, I think it's a little unfair to call the band that produced the superbly fabulous Thirteenth Step ''standard melodic rock''

My opinion anyway.

Originally posted by Deathblow
Sorry to pick up on the passing point again, but although I agree he has produced superior performances with Tool, I think it's a little unfair to call the band that produced the superbly fabulous Thirteenth Step ''standard melodic rock''

My opinion anyway.

I think they are a lot better than most other good bands out there. I just don't think APC is anything 'non-standard' in the sense of being alarmingly different or better than other great similar bands.

Tool on the other hand, to me, are one of the few that reinvent the wheel as it were.

Not to mention that Emotive was ******* **** 8******* ****88*** crap.

yea we know...

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
You know older bands like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones up to the 70's rock area. I was just wondering what people thought about these bands and their revalance today.

Personaly I think most to overrated, a fleeting memory from people that euphamize the past. The past had been built on. If it took Bands like Rolling Stones and Beatles to create Tool (I'm not saying it was direct like that, but by musical evolution...) And if say Porcupine Tree took what Pink Floyd did and improved upon it, does that mean the original band is better? Is Tool better than The Beatles, yes. Porcupine Tree better than Floyd? Possibly (This might not be an exact example, but you know what I mean) The past was fine, but todays Bands have perfected/improved upon thier acheivements and become even better.

Your thoughts? So when you say older music you mean classic rock only?

I don't hold the Beatles as high as I used to but I still do like them.. I don't listen to them very often but I do put on Abbey Road or Magical Mystery Tour from time to time.

Now I'm more into bands like Rush (thanks to people on this site always talking about how good they are) and some of Pink Floyd's stuff and I don't find them inferior to newer rock bands at all. But I really don't see why people here seem to think that all music has to be compared to Tool or Radiohead or whatnot before it can gain any credibility.

Public Enemy are one of my favorite rap groups ever but I don't use them to try and debunk rappers that I feel are inferior to them. If I think a rapper/band sucks it's because I don't like listening to their music, not because they can't live up to my favorite artist. Just a thought.

I had Classic Rock in mind specificly when I created this, but thats just me.
i wasn't thinking as old as the classical or even Jazz Era's...

Hmm, seems as though people have very strong opinions on the music they like; I commend you all on it.

Personnally, which this entire topic is about, I think old music has been influential on many new artists and groups. As for the Beatles, I'm not a huge fan, but they're pretty good. I like bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and Rush for kinda psychedelic/ progressive/ hard rock at the time. I also like "southern" rock bands like Lynyrd Skynyrd and Creedence Clearwater Revival for a kind of mesh of country and rock.

All those from the 60's & 70's went psychedelic except for The KinKs, while everyone was ingesting LSD & so on
The KinKs stayed true to Rock 'n' Roll in it's general form and stayed away from the drugs, only thing was the two Davies brothers fighting all the time.

They are the most underrated band of that era and beyond into the 80's & 90's.

Their music never really reached the full commercial hype that it could have, due to the efforts of front man Ray Davies, constructing situations where things would go wrong in the studio and getting the timing not so perfect on a couple of recordings
over 30 + albums between 1964 to 1997 with The KinKs.

As the other bands were swept up into the mass media and he press, The KinKs vacated out the back entrance of the premises no matter where they were. That is the reason why still today they can all walk down the street in your local address
and not be recognized.

http://kinks.it.rit.edu/

.

Originally posted by The Highlord
t.... t.............. talent? now all of a sudden slipknot has any talent? where? when did this happen? I've heard their new vol.3 cd, its all the same crap, the singer sounds dead, the guitar is nuthing I repeat nuthing close to 'one of the greatest metal guitarists in the world' all he dose is make souds that makes one want to just break the damn stereo, its so bad, hey take a listen to Bon Jovi's Wanted Dead Or Alive guitar play, now thats something, thats worthy of rememberance!

Actually, some of the individual members of Slipknot have a fair amount of talent. They just don't do much with it. Just because someone's talented doesn't mean they make good music.

You're only referencing the music they make. Yet you say they have no talent. Sorry, but you fail.

Originally posted by The Highlord
true Bon Jovi is many leagues ahead, and Tool singer aint shit, he is deepshit, Jeff is good though, but Tool no where close, hell he is on par with Corey Taylor, need I say more? ina sometime you'l grow very tired of those crap bands Slip, when I was 12 I loved Slipknot and the rest of the crap, but took only a half year or so then gave the cd's away, but you still like those bands... oh well you'l see what I mean ina few years, you'l hate slipknot, I know you will

That's a waffle roffler. The day MJK is on the same vocal/lyrical level as Corey Taylor is the day that Marilyn Manson gets "saved".