Me recording a massive shit and putting a beat under it is pretty original, and it doesnt sound simular to anything. But that still doesnt make it any more then shit with a beat under it.
No but they don't necessarily make it a pile of shit either. If a band is original and does it while sounding good, than you have a quality band and not just a shitty attempt at originality.
Basicely I was saying that the argument "the best band in the world is band X cause they are original and have very diverse songs" doesnt really matter to me.
well i think that in order to be the best you have to be original. A band that is merely derivitive just doesn't have the talent or skill of a band that is original.
Yeah... you can be talented and play your instruments well but if you are just replicating something someone else has already done than I hardly think you can be the greatest. So I think the bottom line is originality doesn't necessarily make a good band, but is an essential element when considering who the greatest band is.
Question: If there was a band before the Beatles, that made music very simular to the Beatles' music, only of slightly less quality then the Beatles in your opinion, would you still call the Beatles the best band in the world?
I would have to hear the band's work. Chances are with the amount of changes in sound the beatles went through there is no band that could've came before them that they replicated but if you do know a band you feel they copied off of I'd like to know who so I can judge for myself. I would still like the beatles anyway because they have good music but if they did copy someone else it could lower my opinion of how big they actually were.
Im not saying they copied. Just an "if" question. Interesting that you might think lower of them if there was a band they sorta copied from. About the "If" question, note that the band they copied from had songs of lesser quality then the Beatles. So basicely the Beatles would be better then this band X they sorta copied from. The Beatles just wouldnt be as original as they are now, but there music would be exactly the same.
I said I would like their music just the same, but my opinion about their originality would change. But don't you think it takes something away from a band if they are just a clone of another band except maybe they do it better?
Talking post-65 Beatles, and Im not talking pre-Beatles artists that influenced them, just saying that what if the the Beatles' music wasnt as original as it was (like there were a million bands playing Beatles-esque music before and during the Beatles existance). I kinda asked the question the wrong way.
Okay, thats what I wanted to hear.
And I shouldnt have used the word copied in my last post, I meant more like stated below EB's quote.
Yes, I definitely regard a band ripping off another band lower then a more original band.
Sorry, but somehow today's not my day in making myself clear...
Last edited by Bierbommetje on Jan 8th, 2005 at 11:13 PM
There is a fine line between having inspiration and copying. If there were a band that did the same things that the beatles did before, they would have had to be famous. I just don't think that you can isolate the social and musical context from the equation when discussing the beatles.
Yeah, thats where my approach on determening the best band in the world differs from yours, I solely judge a band's greatness on there songs. I think we can say that we both have different definitions of Best Band in the world.
Well I say that it is impossible because so much of what the beatles did was dictated by the social and cultural changes that happened through the 60s. Not to mention the musical changes.
It was a brand new time for rock music; the button down performances of Buddy Holly and the like were shattered by Elvis the Pelvis. And then the age of The Beatles came. They were in the midst of the folk movement, the rock movement and boy bands. From this, they blended the three sounds to make a type of pop rock that was both familiar and different than anything before. They could play the standards like Twist and Shout with the best of them, and they wrote their own original songs
A major turn came in the mid-60s, Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys was writing his masterpiece, Pet Sounds. This was influenced by the Beatles music (rubber soul). Then the beatles came out with a response to Pet Sounds in Sgt Pepper's. So if you look at it this way, The Beatles were their own indirect influence - pet sounds was influenced by Rubber Soul. And Sgt Peppers was at least partially influenced by Pet Sounds.
So your hypothetical band does exist - it is the beatles themselves that were their biggest influences.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 8th, 2005 08:25 AM
