Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Excuse me? My crazy love for Mike Patton? Says the guy who is so far buried inside Paul McCartney that it's not even funny, and for less reason.Mike Patton has adapted to and altered/mastered more genres than The Beatles ever hoped to. Moreover, he does it all with nothing more than his mind and voice. I don't expect you to understand, I've encountered you enough to know how buried you are.
Then all I see there is inspiration. I see, nor hear, any influence. Nor can you prove there is, you assume.
-AC
Again, mike patton isnt in the same league than the beatles. Dont post those claims from a patton fanboy here. And more genres? good one, because the beatles used the pop, pop-rock, rock and roll, country, ballads, beat, etc when nobody knows mike patton.
And not, isnt only my assume. They have claimed it a lot of times. See interviews with oasis or blur, they are talking about lennon and the beatles all the time.
Originally posted by jaden101
i really dont see how anyone can say that urban culture is somehow enclosed given that it dominates youth culture throughout the worldnot to mention that hip hops influence can reach areas which were just not reachable to the beatles in their heyday...the former soviet union, africa, the middle east, china...they are all huge areas of the world that were pretty much untouched by western cultural influences in the 1960's...thats not the case now...and hip hop is the fastest growing western influence in terms of music influencing culture...in these parts of the world
like i said before...the beatles were all but forgotten among youth culture before oasis showed up in the early 90's...
'Throughout the world' is an exceptionally lazy comment- let's go check out India and China, shall we? You are really going to tell me that all these Chinese villages, all those hundreds of millions out there, are swinging on a large hiphop vibe? I very much doubt it. It 'dominates' youth culture in some cities. It is hardly part of a mass social change, a wave the Beatles were on. And their part in that can be overstated, but it was actually there to an extent, which is more than can be said for the effect that most bands have had.
What the hell does it matter trhat the Beatles were forgotten by youth culture in the 90s? See, this shows up that you are not paying attention to the argument at all, hence that worldwide comment.
No-one is claiming that the Beatles had a large influence in 90s youth culture. What the heck is that?
The charge is that when people say that the Beatles were the most influential band everm they mean culturally. And obviously, that means they affected SIXTIES culture! But the claim is not that they influenced all culture for all time. it was simply that, of all bands, they had the most effect; that no single band has had as much effect on culture as The Beatles. Whatever you are trying to say about the reach of hiphop, The Beatles, on their own, achieved more. 'Let it Be' became the first ever Western song televised in the Soviet Union, at a time when televsion there as a household object was basically invented. This is huge in ways that your little drips of hiphop influence cannot hope to match.
And that is a claim that is very credible, as is clear from a small amount of effort taken to examine the phenomenon that was The Beatles. it has bugger all to do with what 90s youth listen to, Oasis or otherwise, and it is in a different league to a fad like hiphop.
No-one is ever going to look back at the acts you mention and say that they had a notable effect on culutre, historically speaking. Maybe the entire movement, but not the individual groups. wheras there very much is a case for saying that about The Beatles.
Originally posted by bakerboy
I think that it is pretty relevant to the discussion.
You're not proving that they were the most influential musical band ever, aside from everything else. That's the debate.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Not in the same way that the sargent peppers. Cover, musical themes related , etc.
Bullshit. The Beatles didn't create the first concept album, Zappa did. Deal with it.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Not as famous or even close.
For crying out loud, why does it matter how famous the members are? It has no connection to the music.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Its both innovation and influence.
Says you.
Even if it is, all that proves is that they were influential in general. Nobody has, will or can prove that they were and are the most influential musicians of all time.
Originally posted by bakerboy
By the same way, could you proove that they arent or could you proove that there are some bands more influential than the beatles? and why they are more influential? Im waiting, because you all the time asking proofs and you dont show any one, only that one of frank zappa, that is a good one, but it wasnt as conceptual or innovate in all the terms that sargent pepper was.
Rush are more influential musically, MUSICALLY. They are better musicians, by light years. That's what's being discussed, how influential their MUSIC and MUSICAL ABILITY was. Not their album covers, not their fame.
They simply are not the most influential musicians ever. They played simple songs, and Alice Cooper even said that (If Who-Kid wants to involve the man). They didn't change the way people used instruments.
AS conceptual? Oh get over it. The Beatles didn't have the first concept album ever, and you believed they did for so long. I'm sorry to shatter the lie, but that's a fact.
To claim that The Beatles were more innovative than Zappa is pathetic, literally pathetic. The Beatles were the first people to use backmasking, that's about it.
Originally posted by bakerboy
So, if you are discussing music, why you post that argument here? Not sense here.
Because that's what this debate is about. Music, not fame.
Originally posted by bakerboy
The most infulential and more inspiring.
Not musically.
-AC
Originally posted by jaden101
but its not considered among the best is it?...no...thus proving you wrongand for that matter...harrisons stuff isn't regarded as amongst the best ever either...thus making you wrong again
and john lennon was to busy being a junked up hippy **** and getting shot to make too much solo stuff to prove himself
the beatles were a phenomenon in the same way that take that were a phenomenon...they made lots of girls scream at them for no apparent musical reason
and the only reason they persist in being touted as good is that it appears to be "cool" to do it
Harrison has a great stuff and was a great songwritter( something, here comes the sun, in your blue, when my guitar gently weeps, my sweet lord, taxman, in my life, gime some love, et)
Your claims about the hippy and junk and that shit are stupid. So, jim morrison, jimi hendrix, the stones, the zeppelin, dylan, etc are all junked and most of them hippies and they are genious. So what?
Paul did a great stuff alone, not as good as he was in the beatles, but also great . And that is a fact. Same with john, same with george. The three in the same group is a lot.
And your claiming of the people criying in their concerts its absurd. But i guess that you were hearing those screams and not the beatles music. But , anyways, the beatles did their best stuff when they worked on studio and finished the tours, and they prooved their individual talent many times.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Again, mike patton isnt in the same league than the beatles.
Oh he's most definitely not in their league, haha.
You're right there, champ.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Dont post those claims from a patton fanboy here.
Don't post those claims from a Beatles fanboy here. I'm discussing music because I can, and I can back it up. You can't, you try to weasel out of everything by using fame and album covers.
You're an idiot.
Originally posted by bakerboy
And more genres? good one, because the beatles used the pop, pop-rock, rock and roll, country, ballads, beat, etc when nobody knows mike patton.
Again, "Nobody knows Mike Patton".
Not only are you wrong, but it doesn't matter. Musical influence isn't dictated by popularity.
Originally posted by bakerboy
And not, isnt only my assume. They have claimed it a lot of times. See interviews with oasis or blur, they are talking about lennon and the beatles all the time.
Yeah, and? Oasis are shit.
It doesn't mean anything.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Paul did a great stuff alone, not as good as he was in the beatles, but also great . And that is a fact.
It's not a fact, you fool.
Originally posted by bakerboy
And your claiming of the people criying in their concerts its absurd. But i guess that you were hearing those screams and not the beatles music. But , anyways, the beatles did their best stuff when they worked on studio and finished the tours, and they prooved their individual talent many times.
How many times have you seen them live?
Because my Grandfather saw them twice, and he likens it to today's popstars, with regards to screaming and such.
-AC
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Anyone here ever heard that story that the USSR heard of The Beatles before even hearing about Elvis?
Television wise, definitely.
Underground culture trying to hear the West was always there, but the first official 'contact', as it were, was The Beatles.
It's just beyoind anything we can say about a single band now.
But that's still influence on culture, not on music.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriThat was quite the underlining message I wanted to get across...although I wouldn't mind if he'd do something awesome in the next few years. I have to admit though I didn't check out any of his stuff after The Smiths.
Probably because Oasis are shit and he's excellent.-AC
Originally posted by bakerboyBy the same way, could you proove that they arent or could you proove that there are some bands more influential than the beatles? and why they are more influential?
i've already put one forward...grand master flash...arguably the artist who invented the single most popular music genre of the day...
how abou the stone roses and happy mondays...arguably kick started not just the indie genre but also the dance music scene because they inspired acid house...then again that makes joy division there forefathers...a band who's lead singer died before the release of their first album yet are still regarded as massively influential on modern music
jeff buckley...enough said...directly influenced radiohead who many regard as "the best band ever"
Yeah, but jaden, all you are doing is saying that they started musical trends.
That's not in the same league as what is talked about in terms of the Beatles' cultural impact, and during a time when culture was changing faster than any other time.
No-one- NO-ONE- is going to look back in history and say that 'Grandmaster Flash', whoever the bloody hell he is (which says something in of itself, because The Beatles were such an explosive phenomenon on the new medium of tv that pretty much everyone had heard of them) and say that he had a greater impact on Western culture than The Beatles.
And you know that this is so. It's just not going to happen.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're not proving that they were the most influential musical band ever, aside from everything else. That's the debate.Bullshit. The Beatles didn't create the first concept album, Zappa did. Deal with it.
For crying out loud, why does it matter how famous the members are? It has no connection to the music.
Says you.
Even if it is, all that proves is that they were influential in general. Nobody has, will or can prove that they were and are the most influential musicians of all time.
Rush are more influential musically, MUSICALLY. They are better musicians, by light years. That's what's being discussed, how influential their MUSIC and MUSICAL ABILITY was. Not their album covers, not their fame.
They simply are not the most influential musicians ever. They played simple songs, and Alice Cooper even said that (If Who-Kid wants to involve the man). They didn't change the way people used instruments.
AS conceptual? Oh get over it. The Beatles didn't have the first concept album ever, and you believed they did for so long. I'm sorry to shatter the lie, but that's a fact.
To claim that The Beatles were more innovative than Zappa is pathetic, literally pathetic. The Beatles were the first people to use backmasking, that's about it.
Because that's what this debate is about. Music, not fame.
Not musically.
-AC
Again, you are wrong, little boy. Zappa albums wasnt as conceptual as the beatles . They created a whole world in that album, all the music, song, letters, sounds, cover, etc were conected in that album.
Agree, fame doesnts mean quality, but i didnt post that argument here.
Not only me, a lot of people more.
Again, there are are a lot of proof of that. They did it first , and all the people coping a lot of things from them.
Agree, rush are more squilled musical artists. But not so influential or best songwritter and not the same great stuff that the beatles did.
Alice cooper said that? I dont care a shit about that.
The only pathetic thing here are your arguments .
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh he's most definitely not in their league, haha.You're right there, champ.
Don't post those claims from a Beatles fanboy here. I'm discussing music because I can, and I can back it up. You can't, you try to weasel out of everything by using fame and album covers.
You're an idiot.
Again, "Nobody knows Mike Patton".
Not only are you wrong, but it doesn't matter. Musical influence isn't dictated by popularity.
Yeah, and? Oasis are shit.
It doesn't mean anything.
It's not a fact, you fool.
How many times have you seen them live?
Because my Grandfather saw them twice, and he likens it to today's popstars, with regards to screaming and such.
-AC
Thanks, your not.
Thanks again, you are the same.
The beatles mixed a lot of geners and in a lot of albums and years before patton. Fact.
Oasis are shit? I think that they have a lot of great stuff. Same with blur.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Thanks, your not.Thanks again, you are the same.
The beatles mixed a lot of geners and in a lot of albums and years before patton. Fact.
Oasis are shit? I think that they have a lot of great stuff. Same with blur.
Nah, Oasis are pretty much shit...not the shittiest shit but shit.
Originally posted by jaden101
i've already put one forward...grand master flash...arguably the artist who invented the single most popular music genre of the day...how abou the stone roses and happy mondays...arguably kick started not just the indie genre but also the dance music scene because they inspired acid house...then again that makes joy division there forefathers...a band who's lead singer died before the release of their first album yet are still regarded as massively influential on modern music
jeff buckley...enough said...directly influenced radiohead who many regard as "the best band ever"
You are claming exactly the same arguments from me and another people that you atacked before, only with different names and people. Really confussing.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Again, you are wrong, little boy. Zappa albums wasnt as conceptual as the beatles . They created a whole world in that album, all the music, song, letters, sounds, cover, etc were conected in that album.
Firstly, I don't give you the credit of assuming you fully appreciate what Zappa was doing, and secondly, it doesn't matter if they were AS conceptual or not. Fact: Frank Zappa made a concept album before The Beatles.
Stone cold fact. Sgt. Pepper's came out in '67, Freak Out! came out in '66. Do the math...s and that's a YEAR earlier. Stop trying to weasel out of it.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Agree, fame doesnts mean quality, but i didnt post that argument here.
You post it regardless, though.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Not only me, a lot of people more.
Millions of people said Bush was the man for the job.
Rape and hump popular opinion all you want. It will never mean anything other than lots of people agree. It's not a fact.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Again, there are are a lot of proof of that. They did it first , and all the people coping a lot of things from them.
Hahaha, that's really funny. Did what first? Concept albums? No. Hidden messages when you play records backwards? Yeah. Oh how we have to thank them for that contribution.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Agree, rush are more squilled musical artists. But not so influential or best songwritter and not the same great stuff that the beatles did.
Wait, try typing without Paul McCartney's genitalia in your hand. It'll probably make more sense.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Alice cooper said that? I dont care a shit about that.
It's true though isn't it? The Beatles wrote simple, great pop music. I can agree with him there. They aren't the most musically influential, they didn't change the way people played their instruments, bands like Rush did that. As a result, it created new ways of playing music.
Originally posted by bakerboy
The only pathetic thing here are your arguments .
Golden.
-AC