Opinions on Old Music

Started by Tptmanno15 pages

Opinions on Old Music

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.