Originally posted by bakerboy
First of all, Patton genious cant be compared with the beatles.Second of all, the beatles had only a career of 8 years or less. To do the things that they did in so short time and with that age only shows their musical genious.
Third of all, tell me what patton did that the beatles didnt?
Wait a second..what Patton stuff have you heard? I just heard 3 Albums and I am more than sure that it can...
Originally posted by who?-kid
Five classic albums in what, 8 years ? Not many bands can say that. That's something to take into consideration.
Regarding what? How good they were? We're not discussing that. We're discussing your unable to be proven claim that they are the most influential band, musically, ever.
Originally posted by who?-kid
Pfft I don't know... it has to be pretty good before it can be considered a classic.
And pretty good is...? Opinion.
Originally posted by who?-kid
And I like them too. But I only have four albums of the Beatles, so I'm not the biggest fan ever. But on those albums, they defined pop music.
Right...point?
Originally posted by who?-kid
Partially true. But again, it's something it has to be taken into consideration. You can't deny every single bit of respect they receive from fellow musicians.
I never would, ever. I agree they're influential, I agree they are inspirational and I agree they were very good. If you feel they're the best or ONE of the best bands ever, go for it, I disagree, you disagree, opinions and preference.
They're not the most influential musical band ever, though. There are bands with more musical talent that changed the way music was played and thus, created.
Originally posted by who?-kid
Over two generations ? Didn't they split in 1970 ?
True facts, had something else on the brain there. My bad.
Originally posted by who?-kid
And still, Mike Patton isn't that well known or influential. People who follow (alternative) music, know him. Musicians know him. People who follow pop/rock music, know him from his time with Faith no More.
It doesn't matter if he's well known, does it? You don't need to be well known to be critically influential. Him not being as influential in general is your opinion, and The Beatles are the pinnacle of CULTURE influence from a group of musicians, but he has more musical ability than they did, so he can do more with music.
Originally posted by who?-kid
Don't ask the average John Doe about Fantômas or Mr Bungle however. He wouldn't know what the hell you're talking about.
Why does that matter? I could go and ask someone if they knew Rush, it wouldn't matter if they didn't. Stop judging by popularity and knowledge.
Originally posted by who?-kid
You want an influential band ? Try Radiohead, or to a lesser extent, Coldplay. Not Mike Patton.
Or I'll try Patton, given all that he's done, given his back catalogue that puts people to shame with regards to diversity, and you can just not agree with me.
Radiohead also, there you go.
Originally posted by who?-kid
The thing you don't seem to realize, is that the biggest reason of their popularity, is because they made great music !
Yeah, so did Nirvana. They were CREATIVELY good with what little technique they had, as were The Beatles. That doesn't make them the most influential musical band, that's the thing YOU don't seem to realise.
Originally posted by who?-kid
Nothing is timeless.
Fair point.
Originally posted by who?-kid
You're avoiding the question. Until somebody gives me a more influential band than the Beatles, I stick to them.
In what way, though? Culturally? I can't. Musically? There are many. Rush, Dream Theater, Tool, King Crimson, Faith No More, Metallica.
All of those bands changed the way people play music, or what's possible with instruments. They have technical ability above and beyond anything The Beatles could ever muster.
The Beatles didn't need that to make some great music, sure, but that doesn't mean they were the most influential band in music, WITH music.
Originally posted by who?-kid
That's playing with words.
It's also a valid claim with a base and a point.
Originally posted by who?-kid
I know. Without the Beatles, some musicians would never have picked up a guitar. That's of course also influencing people.
The same with Metallica, the same with Rush, the same with The Velvet Underground.
This doesn't mean they were THE most influential music band ever, STRICTLY regarding music.
Originally posted by who?-kid
Stop doing that. Like everybody who votes for the people, is an old hippie.
I'm not the one saying that.
Originally posted by who?-kid
I asked you who. You didn't answer the question...
I answered it fine, you just didn't like the answer. Many bands have influenced many people, but as we're strictly discussing music, I mentioned Rush. They innovated the way people look at instruments, play instruments and thus create music. Same with Hendrix.
They didn't have the cultural impact, but that has nothing to do with the music.
Originally posted by who?-kid
Imagine is a good song, but not that great. A bit overrated.
That's like saying Pink Floyd are a bit full of themselves.
Originally posted by who?-kid
No I couldn't.
You couldn't, I mean you in general. Someone who knows enough about musicians who have cited Rush and their ability to change the way people play instruments and therefore write music.
Originally posted by who?-kid
And I provide a lot. You don't even look at it.
You provide quantity, not quality. Nothing you've provided has proven them to be the most influential musicians ever, as musicians.
Originally posted by who?-kid
You got a point there. I could quote Bono, is that okay ?
If you wish to quote the man who calls his band the greatest rock band in the world, and think of it as credible, then do so.
Originally posted by who?-kid
Bono : What would have my life been, without the Beatles ?
A life without The Beatles. I hate people who say shit like that, it means nothing. He loves The Beatles, so what?
None of this proves what you are claiming.
Originally posted by who?-kid
True, but I don't want to turn this into a Beatles vs the Beach Boys vs the Rolling Stones thread. There are enough of them already.
It wasn't my intention, I proved a point.
Originally posted by who?-kid
Peerless.... I don't know... I don't care about Rush and I respected Zappa more than I appreciated his music.
Precisely the problem. You don't care about Rush and nor do many others, in comparison to The Beatles, and that comes from fame. Because Rush are worlds above The Beatles as influential musicians. Three members and all of them so much better on their instruments than...most people, let alone The Beatles.
Zappa did more, and he did it before The Beatles.
Originally posted by who?-kid
So Tony Iommi is the one who should get shot ?
You deduced this how?
Originally posted by who?-kid
I backed it up. I can back it up much more. But why should I ?
Burden of proof. When you say things like "Without a doubt...", bold and underlined, I expect proof.
You've proved they were influential, big deal, wasn't a doubt. You've not proven what I've asked you to prove.
Originally posted by who?-kid
I can give tons of examples of famous musicians claiming how the Beatles changed their life, but you won't accept it.
Why are you being stupid? I've accepted that they are influential, inspirational and a very good band in my opinion. I accept that loads of musicians genuinely love them outside of the namechecking, which you seemingly won't accept.
The thing YOU won't accept and realise is that...ready? None of this proves they were the world's most influential musicians ever, regarding music. "The Beatles changed my life!" isn't the same as "The Beatles made everyone think about the way they played, they made innovative song structures, time signatures, odd meters, song lengths, instrumental skill..." etc. That's influence, when you can not only make people love your music, but create whole new ways of playing your instrument.
The Beatles didn't do that, Rush did.
Originally posted by who?-kid
So tell me, why should I even bother ?
Because it's what you do. Though if you are going to bother, realise that this isn't about general and cultural influence.
Originally posted by who?-kid
WK
I am an influential poster, though. Apparantly.
-AC
Originally posted by bakerboy
I have heard some faith no more albums, and mr bungle albums. Also, with fantomas and tomahawk and some things from his solo albums: adults themes for voice and pranzo oltranzista. And some things from his colaborations with dillinger, the melvins or bjork.
Funny, because not long ago you admitted you didn't care enough to listen, that "Nobody knows him".
Now you're reeling off a list of some projects that are quite exclusive. Something is screaming Google here.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Funny, because not long ago you admitted you didn't care enough to listen, that "Nobody knows him".Now you're reeling off a list of some projects that are quite exclusive. Something is screaming Google here.
-AC
Screaming google? Dude, i only talk about what i know, and i have heard songs from those albums and some colaborations.
And dont change the things. One thing is that he isnt as knowed or influential as you claims and another very different thing is to heard some work of him. I have heard some work from another people and they arent very knowed.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Screaming google? Dude, i only talk about what i know, and i have heard songs from those albums and some colaborations.And dont change the things. One thing is that he isnt as knowed or influential as you claims and another very different thing is to heard some work of him. I have heard some work from another people and they arent very knowed.
Now arrange that into a decently readable argument and we can move on.
It makes no sense, grammatically or relevently.
Originally posted by who?-kid
Maybe. Or you don't recognize a little joke. Apparently.
Oh come on, I was joking. You're not that serious, 'Kid.
Either way, I agree with you on many counts, so I don't see why we should tread old ground. My argument merely concerns the idea that you believe them to be the most musically influential ever, as musicians. Not including anything else.
-AC
Originally posted by bakerboy
Stop your crazy love for mike patton. How can you compare the album from an artist who is still working with a group with less of 10 years of career? Also, with that handicap, the beatles albums are more classic the the patton ones, and yes, classic means good. Not only old.
Jeff Buckley, 1 album, dead. He wins.
Originally posted by bakerboy
I have heard some faith no more albums, and mr bungle albums. Also, with fantomas and tomahawk and some things from his solo albums: adults themes for voice and pranzo oltranzista. And some things from his colaborations with dillinger, the melvins or bjork.
You...haven't, have you?