Nah. 70s had Led Zeppelin; 80s had Def Leppard. Black Sabbath put the fear of God into 70s parents; by the 80s Motley Crue... didn't. And Deep Purple gave us Rainbow. Fortunately without Zippy but otherwise...
tl;dr - you're wrong.
Lez Zeppelin and most 70's "classic rock" is terrible. Black Sabbath was great, Deep Purple was pretty cool, but the 80's gave us Mercyful Fate, Celtic Frost, Iron Maiden (yes, they started in the 70's but their best work was in the 80's), Slayer, Bathory, Sepultura, etc.
Music today is really exciting. You just have to work a little harder to find it.
People say that, but wouldn't it be nice if they could help us lesser mortals by pointing to it, or are you only allowed to enjoy this exciting music if you found it for yourself? It's like some kind of musical Gnosticism.
It depends what kind of music you're looking for and where you are. If you're in the UK I suggest listening to BBC Radio 6 which is an online station. Also listen to Late Junction on Radio 3 if you like Jazz, world, and the more experimental stuff. On BBC2 you can watch Later with Jools Holland when it's on.
You could also bookmark this site and listen to stuff that's uploaded. https://vk.com/newalbumreleases As always, you have to listen to it to find out if it works for you.
The most entertaining and enlightening thing about this thread is the level of vitriol. Really, all of you, go tend your gardens.
Years ago, we had a summer student on the trading floor at the bank where I was ungainfully employed, and she had the unfashionable name Martha. One Friday afternoon (it was a slow trading day) we (four of us?) stood and broke into "Martha, My Dear." She blushed.
A song which actually highlights one of the biggest problems I have with the Beatles - the way they criminally marginalised George Harrison. That opening riff is amazing, and what's it used for? A comedy song sung by Ringo Fucking Starr.
If the Beatles had let Harrison write more songs per album they'd have been an even better band than they were. The man was a legit musical genius. If you don't believe me then just listen - properly listen - to the guitar work on Abbey Road.
Without the Beatles, music wouldn't be where it is today. Literally.
Influence is outside of a particular individual's Dope or Nope. Take the Velvet Underground, since you mention them. Everyone has heard of the Beatles. The Velvet Underground? Ask the average millennial and you'll get more crickets than anything else. And yet they, too, helped shaped contemporary music.
That's a bit like saying without Wat Tyler Britain wouldn't be where it is today. It's probably true that Britain wouldn't be where it is today without Tyler but there are so many other significant events and people it's odd to single any one of them out.
No, it is not. Cause and effect are a practical and important factors in many types of study.
A more pertinent question would be: had the Velvet Underground heard of the Beatles? Had they listened to the Beatles? Did they own Beatles records? Had they sung along to them?
In which case, a band which Colin thinks are more influential than the Beatles was influenced by the Beatles.
The Velvet Underground never included any cover version on any of their studio albums, but there are a few recordings of the Velvet Underground playing cover versions on rehearsal tapes.
On this rehearsal tape, the VU plays the opening riff from the Beatles, Day Tripper, which then segues into an instrumental version of Boom Boom by John Lee Hooker.
I rest my case.
That The Velvet Underground played some cover versions of the Beatles does not mean they were influenced by the Beatles, or at least not especially influenced.
But even if they were it wouldn't mean that The Beatles are still relevant. The bands the Beatles influenced went on to influence other bands, and so on through the generations.
My great, great granddad had an influence on me, albeit at several stages removed, but since I never met him, can't name him, and don't know a damn thing about him, he's hardly relevant to my life now.
Your great grandparents are not being referenced by current musicians as influential on their careers, so...
Your great grandparents are not being referenced by current musicians as influential on their careers, so...
What do you mean by current musicians? Robert Plant is still releasing music but I wouldn't call him current. No idea if Plant was influenced by the Beatles or not, but my point is are the late-teens and twenty-somethings forming bands and creating today's new music referencing the Beatles at all?
That The Velvet Underground played some cover versions of the Beatles does not mean they were influenced by the Beatles, or at least not especially influenced.
No, no, not at all... dear Lord, you are so determined to appear denser than neutronium, I can see the back of my monitor when I look at your posts.
Given any reasonable definition of the word "contemporary", I'd say it's hard to define a band that split up half a century ago as such.
In terms of modern-style pop/rock bands it's hard to think of many that were truly influential and predate the Beatles. Bill Haley and the Comets deserve mention for Rock Around the Clock, but that's only one song (albeit a very important and genre-defining one). The Shadows influenced a great many future guitar legends, but as an instrumental band their influence on the genre as a whole must perforce be limited (though if you include Cliff Richard as part of the band rather than as a solo singer then their inclusion in this list is more justified).
There are obviously a number of solo performers who predate the Beatles and were unarguably influential, but we're talking about bands here.
Well that is kinda weird to separate it so. It is more balanced, IMO, to think of musical entities. Some musical entities were one person, like Chuck Berry. Some were groups, like the Beatles. Part of what made the Beatles extraordinary was the multi-talented, multi-faceted nature of the individuals in the group, the way they worked together and what they produced.
That The Velvet Underground played some cover versions of the Beatles does not mean they were influenced by the Beatles, or at least not especially influenced.
No, no, not at all... dear Lord, you are so determined to appear denser than neutronium, I can see the back of my monitor when I look at your posts.
They were influenced by a lot of bands and singers. I think you need something stronger than played a bit of their music to show an influence.
That The Velvet Underground played some cover versions of the Beatles does not mean they were influenced by the Beatles, or at least not especially influenced.
No, no, not at all... dear Lord, you are so determined to appear denser than neutronium, I can see the back of my monitor when I look at your posts.
They were influenced by a lot of bands and singers. I think you need something stronger than played a bit of their music to show an influence.
No, no I don't. They actually played their music. That they were also influenced by other bands and singers is immaterial to the argument. They were influenced by the Beatles, sufficiently so to be able to play, without the sheet music, the intro to one of their songs in an entirely unforced way that indicates that the guitarist in question had heard it, learnt it, and practised it.
That's how it works. You hear stuff, you play it, you incorporate what you've learnt into your own music. This isn't an exclusive Beatles and No Other Influences allowed. Musicians are magpies. They pick up shiny stuff from everywhere. And it's simply pride that you can't admit that you're wrong about this one, minor aspect of VU's past. Try not to be such a dick about it.
Unless you can name three popular bands composed of twenty-somethings who play a song entitled, "The Beatles Are Super Cool", you can't expect any rational person to seriously think the Beatles are relevant.
The Beatles are relevant to the history of popular music, but not, imo, relevant to where music is today.
Music is nowhere today.
Music today is really exciting. You just have to work a little harder to find it.
People say that, but wouldn't it be nice if they could help us lesser mortals by pointing to it, or are you only allowed to enjoy this exciting music if you found it for yourself? It's like some kind of musical Gnosticism.
BBC 6 music - something there should work for you (and quite a lot probably wouldn't).
But it is harder than just pointing you to it, because I need to know what you like, what you want, and then I might be able to point you to something that works for you.
Given any reasonable definition of the word "contemporary", I'd say it's hard to define a band that split up half a century ago as such.
In terms of modern-style pop/rock bands it's hard to think of many that were truly influential and predate the Beatles. Bill Haley and the Comets deserve mention for Rock Around the Clock, but that's only one song (albeit a very important and genre-defining one). The Shadows influenced a great many future guitar legends, but as an instrumental band their influence on the genre as a whole must perforce be limited (though if you include Cliff Richard as part of the band rather than as a solo singer then their inclusion in this list is more justified).
There are obviously a number of solo performers who predate the Beatles and were unarguably influential, but we're talking about bands here.
Buddy Hollly and the Crickets. I already said this and nobody has spoken to it, let alone refuted it.
That's a bit like saying without Wat Tyler Britain wouldn't be where it is today. It's probably true that Britain wouldn't be where it is today without Tyler but there are so many other significant events and people it's odd to single any one of them out.
That's because you don't understand the Beatles' influence. It's not that somebody played one of their songs. It's that hundreds or thousands of young persons went out and bought guitars and many became musicians who wouldn't otherwise have bothered if not for the Beatles. This is really basic rock history. I'm surprised you don't know this.
But even if they were it wouldn't mean that The Beatles are still relevant. The bands the Beatles influenced went on to influence other bands, and so on through the generations.
You are using "relevant" in a way I am completely unfamiliar with. Either that or in a way that makes your claim simply tautological. The Beatles broke up 50 years go. Therefore they are no longer "relevant" in the sense of contemporary. BFD. Nobody would deny they aren't still around making music. But that's different from the claim that they didn't have a huge impact on subsequent popular music. You're trying to sneak in the latter claim, and when confronted with hit, throw up your hands in innocence and deflect to the former claim. A classic case of moving the goalposts.
Yeah, no one listens to the Beatles anymore. I can't even name a single song.
Can you name an Oasis song? They were in effect a Beatles cover band, all of whose Beatles covers are lost and all we have left are their own compositions. Telling that in the movie "Yesterday", where there's an alternate timeline that didn't have the Beatles in it, it also didn't have Oasis.
I can name Beatles songs in the way that I can name English kings and queens and remember things I ate for school dinner back in the seventies.
You are aware that the plural of anecdote is not data, right? Your personal memories aren't the point of debate here, but the lasting influence of the Beatles.
They were influenced by a lot of bands and singers.
This is a strange argument. Every band or singer is influenced by lots of bands and singers. It's tautological, so it's sort of like adding zero to a stack of numbers and claiming it changes the outcome.
If you're a band that normally plays its own songs, but at rehearsal you take the effort to cover another band, it's because you're influenced by it.
I'm not a huge Beatles fan myself. I'm to young to have experienced their heyday. But I can appreciate how they maintained their dedication to melody while they experimented with sounds. That was very innovative at its time.
Their influence on music is undeniable. If I'd define the start of contemporary music to lie at the point where music changed the most from what it was before, then yes, the Beatles would be a good candidate for this starting point.
If I'd define the start of contemporary music to lie at the point where music changed the most from what it was before, then yes, the Beatles would be a good candidate for this starting point.
That is a little more difficult because music isn't a single line of influence and the Beatles didn't exist in a single point in time. Buddy Holly was a massive influence on them as were Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis and so on. And the Beatles influenced the Beach Boys who influenced the Beatles. Whilst particular entities can be singled out for their outsized influence, it is really a melange of continuous cross-pollination.
You can't give me alleged anything until you've defined what the term means. You could say "the first blaggamaggazig" and then proceed to mock various things when I ask you to say what "blaggamaggazig" means. That still won't define the term. What is a contemporary music band?
I thought it was meant to be true for "all reasonable definitions" (although I'd also read and associated the quote you initially responded too with you).
For what it's worth, I think it is pretty much the case where for any definition (or choice of band)
You can find earlier bands that you ought to include
You can find later bands that are a more pure form.
However with the Beatles to a greater extent than average it also goes the other way.
Comparing to Buddy Holly and the Crickets, clearly influential on the Beatles (as you say), much that you'd look at the Beatles at they did.
On the other hand I can't name any of the Crickets, and don't know what they (as supposed to Buddy) sound like vocally. Buddy Holly got 2 UK Number 1s, while the Beatles has 20 odd Number 1s in Norway. Buddy Holly is all from a time (because the music died), while the Beatles got to vary a lot. The instruments are more in the background.
Eno, invented the Tape Delay system, building on the Beatles experiments with tape effects (among I'm sure others). Which doesn't make it not cool.
Finally of course, it's not a zero sum game [except in the context of the thread], the Beatles can be influential as well as everyone else.
Finally of course, it's not a zero sum game [except in the context of the thread], the Beatles can be influential as well as everyone else.
I don't think anyone s playing that game, though.
Side note: Given the level of experimentation and style shifting he went through in his short career, a Buddy Holly that lived would have been amazing.
I'm surprised this thread has lasted so long. Love them or hate them it seems dafter than a daft thing in a sea of daft to deny the influence of The Beatles on popular music.
It has to be the daftest Hell thread in ... well, since the last daft one.
You can't give me alleged anything until you've defined what the term means. You could say "the first blaggamaggazig" and then proceed to mock various things when I ask you to say what "blaggamaggazig" means. That still won't define the term. What is a contemporary music band?
I thought it was meant to be true for "all reasonable definitions" (although I'd also read and associated the quote you initially responded too with you).
For what it's worth, I think it is pretty much the case where for any definition (or choice of band)
You can find earlier bands that you ought to include
You can find later bands that are a more pure form.
However with the Beatles to a greater extent than average it also goes the other way.
Comparing to Buddy Holly and the Crickets, clearly influential on the Beatles (as you say), much that you'd look at the Beatles at they did.
On the other hand I can't name any of the Crickets, and don't know what they (as supposed to Buddy) sound like vocally. Buddy Holly got 2 UK Number 1s, while the Beatles has 20 odd Number 1s in Norway. Buddy Holly is all from a time (because the music died), while the Beatles got to vary a lot. The instruments are more in the background.
Eno, invented the Tape Delay system, building on the Beatles experiments with tape effects (among I'm sure others). Which doesn't make it not cool.
Finally of course, it's not a zero sum game [except in the context of the thread], the Beatles can be influential as well as everyone else.
Again the goalposts have been moved. "First contemporary music band" was the claim. That claim is patently false. It doesn't matter a fuck-all that the Crickets aren't as well known or influential or hit-making as the Beatles. The claim was FIRST. I swear this one part of the conversation has more twists and turns than the Mississippi.
The Beatles are relevant to the history of popular music, but not, imo, relevant to where music is today.
Music is nowhere today.
Music today is really exciting. You just have to work a little harder to find it.
People say that, but wouldn't it be nice if they could help us lesser mortals by pointing to it, or are you only allowed to enjoy this exciting music if you found it for yourself? It's like some kind of musical Gnosticism.
BBC 6 music - something there should work for you (and quite a lot probably wouldn't).
But it is harder than just pointing you to it, because I need to know what you like, what you want, and then I might be able to point you to something that works for you.
I would have thought my posts on this thread and threads passim would have given a hint, but pretty much anything in an arc running from soft folk rock (think Al Stewart) through Fairport and Tull via Sabbath, Purple and the NWOBHM through to approximately Metallica.
It's a broad church but I'm struggling to hear anything new I like.
Just spare me anything disco, rap,hip-hop or dance oriented.
I would have thought my posts on this thread and threads passim would have given a hint, but pretty much anything in an arc running from soft folk rock (think Al Stewart) through Fairport and Tull via Sabbath, Purple and the NWOBHM through to approximately Metallica.
It's a broad church but I'm struggling to hear anything new I like.
Just spare me anything disco, rap,hip-hop or dance oriented.
Actually, that's not a broad church at all, but I suggest you try bands like 'The Clientele' (particularly recommend their album Binfires On The Heath, 'And Also The Trees', 'Sólstafir' (have a listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANyeaSZju6I), 'Iron & Wine', and 'The Magnetic Fields'.
No, no I don't. They actually played their music. That they were also influenced by other bands and singers is immaterial to the argument. They were influenced by the Beatles, sufficiently so to be able to play, without the sheet music, the intro to one of their songs in an entirely unforced way that indicates that the guitarist in question had heard it, learnt it, and practised it.
That's how it works. You hear stuff, you play it, you incorporate what you've learnt into your own music. This isn't an exclusive Beatles and No Other Influences allowed. Musicians are magpies. They pick up shiny stuff from everywhere. And it's simply pride that you can't admit that you're wrong about this one, minor aspect of VU's past. Try not to be such a dick about it.
'Oasis' were influenced by The Beatles. The Velvet Underground were not.
Do try not to make everything personal. It reflects badly on you.
A song which actually highlights one of the biggest problems I have with the Beatles - the way they criminally marginalised George Harrison. That opening riff is amazing, and what's it used for? A comedy song sung by Ringo Fucking Starr.
If the Beatles had let Harrison write more songs per album they'd have been an even better band than they were. The man was a legit musical genius. If you don't believe me then just listen - properly listen - to the guitar work on Abbey Road.
That's my biggest beef with Lennon & McCartney. I think they were afraid of George, but George was too passive and preferred to get on with the music, and after the break-up he gave Ringo his biggest hit.
That's because you don't understand the Beatles' influence. It's not that somebody played one of their songs. It's that hundreds or thousands of young persons went out and bought guitars and many became musicians who wouldn't otherwise have bothered if not for the Beatles. This is really basic rock history. I'm surprised you don't know this.
I said that the Beatles are a part of music's history but I still don't think they are relevant to music that is being written today.
You are using "relevant" in a way I am completely unfamiliar with. Either that or in a way that makes your claim simply tautological. The Beatles broke up 50 years go. Therefore they are no longer "relevant" in the sense of contemporary. BFD. Nobody would deny they aren't still around making music. But that's different from the claim that they didn't have a huge impact on subsequent popular music. You're trying to sneak in the latter claim, and when confronted with hit, throw up your hands in innocence and deflect to the former claim. A classic case of moving the goalposts.
You are aware that the plural of anecdote is not data, right? Your personal memories aren't the point of debate here, but the lasting influence of the Beatles.
I accept the Beatles had a huge effect on subsequent popular music but that effect has waned considerably in the last 50 years to the point where they are no longer relevant.
My point re personal memories is that Beatles songs, or at least the titles, have entered into mainstream knowledge in the same way that the kings and queens of England have, but that knowledge is essentially trivia and they are as irrelevant to the present as is the reign of Henry IV.
I would have thought my posts on this thread and threads passim would have given a hint, but pretty much anything in an arc running from soft folk rock (think Al Stewart) through Fairport and Tull via Sabbath, Purple and the NWOBHM through to approximately Metallica.
It's a broad church but I'm struggling to hear anything new I like.
Just spare me anything disco, rap,hip-hop or dance oriented.
Actually, that's not a broad church at all, but I suggest you try bands like 'The Clientele' (particularly recommend their album Binfires On The Heath, 'And Also The Trees', 'Sólstafir' (have a listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANyeaSZju6I), 'Iron & Wine', and 'The Magnetic Fields'.
'Oasis' were influenced by The Beatles. The Velvet Underground were not.
Do try not to make everything personal. It reflects badly on you.
Aaaand, you still can't back down, because Dick. The VU cared enough to learn at least one Beatles song. And John Lee Hooker. And probably a bunch of other people. Musicians, eh? How very dare they.
No, no I don't. They actually played their music. That they were also influenced by other bands and singers is immaterial to the argument. They were influenced by the Beatles, sufficiently so to be able to play, without the sheet music, the intro to one of their songs in an entirely unforced way that indicates that the guitarist in question had heard it, learnt it, and practised it.
That's how it works. You hear stuff, you play it, you incorporate what you've learnt into your own music. This isn't an exclusive Beatles and No Other Influences allowed. Musicians are magpies. They pick up shiny stuff from everywhere. And it's simply pride that you can't admit that you're wrong about this one, minor aspect of VU's past. Try not to be such a dick about it.
'Oasis' were influenced by The Beatles. The Velvet Underground were not.
Do try not to make everything personal. It reflects badly on you.
Given any reasonable definition of the word "contemporary", I'd say it's hard to define a band that split up half a century ago as such.
In terms of modern-style pop/rock bands it's hard to think of many that were truly influential and predate the Beatles. Bill Haley and the Comets deserve mention for Rock Around the Clock, but that's only one song (albeit a very important and genre-defining one). The Shadows influenced a great many future guitar legends, but as an instrumental band their influence on the genre as a whole must perforce be limited (though if you include Cliff Richard as part of the band rather than as a solo singer then their inclusion in this list is more justified).
There are obviously a number of solo performers who predate the Beatles and were unarguably influential, but we're talking about bands here.
Buddy Hollly and the Crickets.
Good shout. In my defence, I'd been thinking of Buddy as a singer rather than member of a band.
The Beatles are relevant to the history of popular music, but not, imo, relevant to where music is today.
Music is nowhere today.
Music today is really exciting. You just have to work a little harder to find it.
People say that, but wouldn't it be nice if they could help us lesser mortals by pointing to it, or are you only allowed to enjoy this exciting music if you found it for yourself? It's like some kind of musical Gnosticism.
BBC 6 music - something there should work for you (and quite a lot probably wouldn't).
But it is harder than just pointing you to it, because I need to know what you like, what you want, and then I might be able to point you to something that works for you.
I would have thought my posts on this thread and threads passim would have given a hint, but pretty much anything in an arc running from soft folk rock (think Al Stewart) through Fairport and Tull via Sabbath, Purple and the NWOBHM through to approximately Metallica.
It's a broad church but I'm struggling to hear anything new I like.
Just spare me anything disco, rap,hip-hop or dance oriented.
I would recommend approaching hip-hop with an open mind. Since there is a metal streak though to your taste, I guess we can start there to get you at least through the 90's. Try the following albums:
Blind Guardian- Somewhere Far Beyond Combines NWOBHM with thrash and prog. Here's the first song from it.
Cathedral- The Ethereal Mirror. Groovy, dark, psychedelic metal in the Black Sabbath lineage.
Sleep- Sleep's Holy Mountain. Another great development from the Sabbath line, with extra cannabis.
Dark Tranquillity- The Gallery. Usually classed as a death metal band but they really have more to do with Iron Maiden. Their early work has this lovely melancholic baroque/ romantic tinge.
Aaaand, you still can't back down, because Dick. The VU cared enough to learn at least one Beatles song. And John Lee Hooker. And probably a bunch of other people. Musicians, eh? How very dare they.
I'm not backing down because I believe I am right. Or to be specific, I understand 'influence' in this situation to mean a clear and direct connection between the Beatles and a subsequent artist which is apparent in that subsequent artist's music. You are using 'influence' in a much broader way.
Side note: Given the level of experimentation and style shifting he went through in his short career, a Buddy Holly that lived would have been amazing.
This. In one of the bands I play in, we do a few Buddy Holly covers. "Well All Right" gets a wah solo. If Buddy had one available, he'd have used it. ;-)
The Beatles are relevant to the history of popular music, but not, imo, relevant to where music is today.
Music is nowhere today.
Music today is really exciting. You just have to work a little harder to find it.
People say that, but wouldn't it be nice if they could help us lesser mortals by pointing to it, or are you only allowed to enjoy this exciting music if you found it for yourself? It's like some kind of musical Gnosticism.
BBC 6 music - something there should work for you (and quite a lot probably wouldn't).
But it is harder than just pointing you to it, because I need to know what you like, what you want, and then I might be able to point you to something that works for you.
I would have thought my posts on this thread and threads passim would have given a hint, but pretty much anything in an arc running from soft folk rock (think Al Stewart) through Fairport and Tull via Sabbath, Purple and the NWOBHM through to approximately Metallica.
It's a broad church but I'm struggling to hear anything new I like.
Just spare me anything disco, rap,hip-hop or dance oriented.
I would recommend approaching hip-hop with an open mind. Since there is a metal streak though to your taste, I guess we can start there to get you at least through the 90's. Try the following albums:
Blind Guardian- Somewhere Far Beyond Combines NWOBHM with thrash and prog. Here's the first song from it.
Cathedral- The Ethereal Mirror. Groovy, dark, psychedelic metal in the Black Sabbath lineage.
Sleep- Sleep's Holy Mountain. Another great development from the Sabbath line, with extra cannabis.
Dark Tranquillity- The Gallery. Usually classed as a death metal band but they really have more to do with Iron Maiden. Their early work has this lovely melancholic baroque/ romantic tinge.
Some good stuff there; not a great fan of the death metal vocal style but DT put me in mind of Master of Puppets.
I tried with hip-hop; that John Peel rated it was a point in its favour, but I just couldn't. The sound is the wrong shape.
Aaaand, you still can't back down, because Dick. The VU cared enough to learn at least one Beatles song. And John Lee Hooker. And probably a bunch of other people. Musicians, eh? How very dare they.
I'm not backing down because I believe I am right. Or to be specific, I understand 'influence' in this situation to mean a clear and direct connection between the Beatles and a subsequent artist which is apparent in that subsequent artist's music. You are using 'influence' in a much broader way.
Your definition is literally not the way that word works.
But even so,CURRENT musicians cite the Beatles as an influence.
The Beatles are relevant to the history of popular music, but not, imo, relevant to where music is today.
Music is nowhere today.
Music today is really exciting. You just have to work a little harder to find it.
People say that, but wouldn't it be nice if they could help us lesser mortals by pointing to it, or are you only allowed to enjoy this exciting music if you found it for yourself? It's like some kind of musical Gnosticism.
BBC 6 music - something there should work for you (and quite a lot probably wouldn't).
But it is harder than just pointing you to it, because I need to know what you like, what you want, and then I might be able to point you to something that works for you.
I would have thought my posts on this thread and threads passim would have given a hint, but pretty much anything in an arc running from soft folk rock (think Al Stewart) through Fairport and Tull via Sabbath, Purple and the NWOBHM through to approximately Metallica.
It's a broad church but I'm struggling to hear anything new I like.
Just spare me anything disco, rap,hip-hop or dance oriented.
I would recommend approaching hip-hop with an open mind. Since there is a metal streak though to your taste, I guess we can start there to get you at least through the 90's. Try the following albums:
Blind Guardian- Somewhere Far Beyond Combines NWOBHM with thrash and prog. Here's the first song from it.
Cathedral- The Ethereal Mirror. Groovy, dark, psychedelic metal in the Black Sabbath lineage.
Sleep- Sleep's Holy Mountain. Another great development from the Sabbath line, with extra cannabis.
Dark Tranquillity- The Gallery. Usually classed as a death metal band but they really have more to do with Iron Maiden. Their early work has this lovely melancholic baroque/ romantic tinge.
Some good stuff there; not a great fan of the death metal vocal style but DT put me in mind of Master of Puppets.
I tried with hip-hop; that John Peel rated it was a point in its favour, but I just couldn't. The sound is the wrong shape.
I don't care if some people do not like hip hop, but at least dislike it legitimately.
Hip hop doesn't have a sound. Just as rock n roll doesn't. It is a varied genre.
But I'm not judging, old people gonna old.
Varied or not, I've not liked the shape of the sound of any I've heard. There comes a point where you conclude you don't like a genre, even if you'd not sampled every example of it. It's like beer; I don't expect everyone to try every beer on the market before concluding they don't like beer; they have something in common and if that thing is something you don't like, you won't like any of them. So it is with me and the hip-hop genre.
Comments
Lez Zeppelin and most 70's "classic rock" is terrible. Black Sabbath was great, Deep Purple was pretty cool, but the 80's gave us Mercyful Fate, Celtic Frost, Iron Maiden (yes, they started in the 70's but their best work was in the 80's), Slayer, Bathory, Sepultura, etc.
It depends what kind of music you're looking for and where you are. If you're in the UK I suggest listening to BBC Radio 6 which is an online station. Also listen to Late Junction on Radio 3 if you like Jazz, world, and the more experimental stuff. On BBC2 you can watch Later with Jools Holland when it's on.
You could also bookmark this site and listen to stuff that's uploaded. https://vk.com/newalbumreleases As always, you have to listen to it to find out if it works for you.
Sarcasm or serious, please? Thx.
I can name Beatles songs in the way that I can name English kings and queens and remember things I ate for school dinner back in the seventies.
I'm just kidding. My friends and I are actually starting an apocalyptic death cult based on the lyrics of Octopus' Garden.
Years ago, we had a summer student on the trading floor at the bank where I was ungainfully employed, and she had the unfashionable name Martha. One Friday afternoon (it was a slow trading day) we (four of us?) stood and broke into "Martha, My Dear." She blushed.
A song which actually highlights one of the biggest problems I have with the Beatles - the way they criminally marginalised George Harrison. That opening riff is amazing, and what's it used for? A comedy song sung by Ringo Fucking Starr.
If the Beatles had let Harrison write more songs per album they'd have been an even better band than they were. The man was a legit musical genius. If you don't believe me then just listen - properly listen - to the guitar work on Abbey Road.
What do you mean by current musicians? Robert Plant is still releasing music but I wouldn't call him current. No idea if Plant was influenced by the Beatles or not, but my point is are the late-teens and twenty-somethings forming bands and creating today's new music referencing the Beatles at all?
No, no, not at all... dear Lord, you are so determined to appear denser than neutronium, I can see the back of my monitor when I look at your posts.
They were influenced by a lot of bands and singers. I think you need something stronger than played a bit of their music to show an influence.
No, no I don't. They actually played their music. That they were also influenced by other bands and singers is immaterial to the argument. They were influenced by the Beatles, sufficiently so to be able to play, without the sheet music, the intro to one of their songs in an entirely unforced way that indicates that the guitarist in question had heard it, learnt it, and practised it.
That's how it works. You hear stuff, you play it, you incorporate what you've learnt into your own music. This isn't an exclusive Beatles and No Other Influences allowed. Musicians are magpies. They pick up shiny stuff from everywhere. And it's simply pride that you can't admit that you're wrong about this one, minor aspect of VU's past. Try not to be such a dick about it.
BBC 6 music - something there should work for you (and quite a lot probably wouldn't).
But it is harder than just pointing you to it, because I need to know what you like, what you want, and then I might be able to point you to something that works for you.
Buddy Hollly and the Crickets. I already said this and nobody has spoken to it, let alone refuted it.
That's because you don't understand the Beatles' influence. It's not that somebody played one of their songs. It's that hundreds or thousands of young persons went out and bought guitars and many became musicians who wouldn't otherwise have bothered if not for the Beatles. This is really basic rock history. I'm surprised you don't know this.
You are using "relevant" in a way I am completely unfamiliar with. Either that or in a way that makes your claim simply tautological. The Beatles broke up 50 years go. Therefore they are no longer "relevant" in the sense of contemporary. BFD. Nobody would deny they aren't still around making music. But that's different from the claim that they didn't have a huge impact on subsequent popular music. You're trying to sneak in the latter claim, and when confronted with hit, throw up your hands in innocence and deflect to the former claim. A classic case of moving the goalposts.
Can you name an Oasis song? They were in effect a Beatles cover band, all of whose Beatles covers are lost and all we have left are their own compositions. Telling that in the movie "Yesterday", where there's an alternate timeline that didn't have the Beatles in it, it also didn't have Oasis.
You are aware that the plural of anecdote is not data, right? Your personal memories aren't the point of debate here, but the lasting influence of the Beatles.
This is a strange argument. Every band or singer is influenced by lots of bands and singers. It's tautological, so it's sort of like adding zero to a stack of numbers and claiming it changes the outcome.
It was claimed that the Beatles were the first contemporary music band. You're clearly not using the term the same way it was used when first mooted.
I'm not a huge Beatles fan myself. I'm to young to have experienced their heyday. But I can appreciate how they maintained their dedication to melody while they experimented with sounds. That was very innovative at its time.
Their influence on music is undeniable. If I'd define the start of contemporary music to lie at the point where music changed the most from what it was before, then yes, the Beatles would be a good candidate for this starting point.
You have been going to the cinema too often this year
I thought it was meant to be true for "all reasonable definitions" (although I'd also read and associated the quote you initially responded too with you).
For what it's worth, I think it is pretty much the case where for any definition (or choice of band)
You can find earlier bands that you ought to include
You can find later bands that are a more pure form.
However with the Beatles to a greater extent than average it also goes the other way.
Comparing to Buddy Holly and the Crickets, clearly influential on the Beatles (as you say), much that you'd look at the Beatles at they did.
On the other hand I can't name any of the Crickets, and don't know what they (as supposed to Buddy) sound like vocally. Buddy Holly got 2 UK Number 1s, while the Beatles has 20 odd Number 1s in Norway. Buddy Holly is all from a time (because the music died), while the Beatles got to vary a lot. The instruments are more in the background.
Eno, invented the Tape Delay system, building on the Beatles experiments with tape effects (among I'm sure others). Which doesn't make it not cool.
Finally of course, it's not a zero sum game [except in the context of the thread], the Beatles can be influential as well as everyone else.
Side note: Given the level of experimentation and style shifting he went through in his short career, a Buddy Holly that lived would have been amazing.
It has to be the daftest Hell thread in ... well, since the last daft one.
Again the goalposts have been moved. "First contemporary music band" was the claim. That claim is patently false. It doesn't matter a fuck-all that the Crickets aren't as well known or influential or hit-making as the Beatles. The claim was FIRST. I swear this one part of the conversation has more twists and turns than the Mississippi.
I would have thought my posts on this thread and threads passim would have given a hint, but pretty much anything in an arc running from soft folk rock (think Al Stewart) through Fairport and Tull via Sabbath, Purple and the NWOBHM through to approximately Metallica.
It's a broad church but I'm struggling to hear anything new I like.
Just spare me anything disco, rap,hip-hop or dance oriented.
Actually, that's not a broad church at all, but I suggest you try bands like 'The Clientele' (particularly recommend their album Binfires On The Heath, 'And Also The Trees', 'Sólstafir' (have a listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANyeaSZju6I), 'Iron & Wine', and 'The Magnetic Fields'.
'Oasis' were influenced by The Beatles. The Velvet Underground were not.
Do try not to make everything personal. It reflects badly on you.
That's my biggest beef with Lennon & McCartney. I think they were afraid of George, but George was too passive and preferred to get on with the music, and after the break-up he gave Ringo his biggest hit.
I said that the Beatles are a part of music's history but I still don't think they are relevant to music that is being written today.
I accept the Beatles had a huge effect on subsequent popular music but that effect has waned considerably in the last 50 years to the point where they are no longer relevant.
My point re personal memories is that Beatles songs, or at least the titles, have entered into mainstream knowledge in the same way that the kings and queens of England have, but that knowledge is essentially trivia and they are as irrelevant to the present as is the reign of Henry IV.
Edit. That should be Bonfires On The Heath.
Aaaand, you still can't back down, because Dick. The VU cared enough to learn at least one Beatles song. And John Lee Hooker. And probably a bunch of other people. Musicians, eh? How very dare they.
You do realise how that reflects on you?
Good shout. In my defence, I'd been thinking of Buddy as a singer rather than member of a band.
Probably, but it wasn't mine.
I would recommend approaching hip-hop with an open mind. Since there is a metal streak though to your taste, I guess we can start there to get you at least through the 90's. Try the following albums:
Blind Guardian- Somewhere Far Beyond Combines NWOBHM with thrash and prog. Here's the first song from it.
Cathedral- The Ethereal Mirror. Groovy, dark, psychedelic metal in the Black Sabbath lineage.
Sleep- Sleep's Holy Mountain. Another great development from the Sabbath line, with extra cannabis.
Dark Tranquillity- The Gallery. Usually classed as a death metal band but they really have more to do with Iron Maiden. Their early work has this lovely melancholic baroque/ romantic tinge.
I'm not backing down because I believe I am right. Or to be specific, I understand 'influence' in this situation to mean a clear and direct connection between the Beatles and a subsequent artist which is apparent in that subsequent artist's music. You are using 'influence' in a much broader way.
I am employing passive-aggression and sarcasm. So yes I do.
This. In one of the bands I play in, we do a few Buddy Holly covers. "Well All Right" gets a wah solo. If Buddy had one available, he'd have used it. ;-)
Some good stuff there; not a great fan of the death metal vocal style but DT put me in mind of Master of Puppets.
I tried with hip-hop; that John Peel rated it was a point in its favour, but I just couldn't. The sound is the wrong shape.
But even so, CURRENT musicians cite the Beatles as an influence.
Hip hop doesn't have a sound. Just as rock n roll doesn't. It is a varied genre.
But I'm not judging, old people gonna old.