Reply With Quote
i would say that bob dylan and duke ellington were more influential than the beatles, but that's just me and i'm not talking strictly about rock music.
Bite me, Nancy-boy.
i would say that bob dylan and duke ellington were more influential than the beatles, but that's just me and i'm not talking strictly about rock music.
The Beatles influence and popularity went well beyond any genre of music and even beyond music.
BTW, Duke Ellington and Bob Dylan? Get real, I mean really, come on. That is cooky talk.
What song is that from?
"Blues..." is my favorite Kyuss album, but it's the only one that I don't have.
It's from Allen's Wrench on BftRS. I think all 4 of their albums switch between my favorites... Welcome to Sky Valley has Whitewater, Asteroid, Space Cadet, Demon Cleaner, Supa Scoopa and Might Scoop, Gardenia, and Conan Troutman (What song is that from?
"Blues..." is my favorite Kyuss album, but it's the only one that I don't have.
I basically just listed the entire almbu) so I sometimes feel like it's the better album... but it's hard to argue with Blues... but Thong Song kinda gets old after a bit ... but that's the only one IMO. Wretch is good when I feel like listening to that fat ass bass by Nick ... that is looooow. and circus is right up there with bftrs and welcome... imho.
I could never really get into "Wretch". To this day, imo, it's the weakest of the 4.
"Blues...." is just great from start to finish. "Thumb", "Green Machine", "50,000,000 Year Trip", "Freedom Run", "Allen's Wrench"......it just straight-up rocks.
Talk about an overlooked underappreciated band, that was Kyuss all over.
Wretch is just as good as the others ... it just sounds different...Katzenjammer, The Law, I'm Not, and Stage III are all great songs. You really should try to give them a thorough listen.
I feel the same way ... I really don't understand why more people don't like them ... I guess people hear the term stoner rock and have preconceived notions about what it's going to sound like.
duke ellington influenced every jazz artist from about 1930 on, and dylan himself was a huge influence on the beatles. i think both of them were in the top 5 on time's most influential artists of the 20th century list, ahead of the beatles. i don't like elvis, but you could make an argument for him as well.
quoted:
"Bob Dylan's influence on popular music is incalculable. As a songwriter, he pioneered several different schools of pop songwriting, from confessional singer/songwriter to winding, hallucinatory, stream-of-conscious narratives. As a vocalist, he broke down the notions that in order to perform, a singer had to have a conventionally good voice, thereby redefining the role of vocalist in popular music. As a musician, he sparked several genres of pop music, including electrified folk-rock and country-rock. And that just touches on the tip of his achievements. Dylan's force was evident during his height of popularity in the '60s -- the Beatles' shift toward introspective songwriting in the mid-'60s never would have happened without him -- but his influence echoed throughout several subsequent generations. Many of his songs became popular standards, and his best albums were undisputed classics of the rock & roll canon. Dylan's influence throughout folk music was equally powerful, and he marks a pivotal turning point in its 20th century evolution, signifying when the genre moved away from traditional songs and toward personal songwriting. Even when his sales declined in the '80s and '90s, Dylan's presence was calculable."
There are people alive today (including me) who think that 99% of the songs on some of those 90's bands are amazingly good. Not unlike the led zepplin heads, pink floyd heads, and beatles punks who think the same thing.
I happen to think every song on Broken, and Downward Spiral is amazing (although he reached his artistic peak with Fragile..)
Do you people really think that every ing beatles song was worshipped back in the 60s? Every song, not just the hits. Do you really think every Led Zepplin song (EVERY SONG) was considered a classic in the 60s and 70s?
Good bands popularity increases with time...sgt pepper will always be more popular than the predator, broken, etc, but i'd bet a huge chunk of scrilla that the popularity level of each increases fairly linear over time.
I don't think that's the case for Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, or NIN. But what I would guess is that over time, MORE (not less) Led Zeppelin and Beatles songs received radio airplay as their legend grew.... which brings me to your next point.I happen to think every song on Broken, and Downward Spiral is amazing (although he reached his artistic peak with Fragile..)
Do you people really think that every ing beatles song was worshipped back in the 60s? Every song, not just the hits. Do you really think every Led Zepplin song (EVERY SONG) was considered a classic in the 60s and 70s?
Take Led Zeppelin IV for example. "Black Dog," "Rock and Roll" and "Stairway" got airplay when the album was out, but over time you also heard "Four Sticks" "When the Levee Breaks," "Misty Mountain Hop" and "Going to California" get pretty regular airplay. That's 7 of the 8 songs on the album. On any given Beatles album, half of the songs can be heard on Classic Rock and Oldies radio stations.Good bands popularity increases with time...sgt pepper will always be more popular than the predator, broken, etc, but i'd bet a huge chunk of scrilla that the popularity level of each increases fairly linear over time.
It's the exact opposite trend with NIN. Do you ever hear anything off of Broken anymore? Do you ever hear anything besides "Closer" from Downward Spiral? Do you really think they'll be playing "Happiness in Slavery" or "Mr. Self Destruct" regularly on whatever form of Radio we have in 2025?
Don't get me wrong, I like NIN and Rage a lot... But I think you're living in a nostalgic bubble if you think those kinds of groups are actually growing in popularity over time. At best, in 25 years they will be MC5 and Blue Oyster Cult.
I've heard from people the country over that Texas modern rock stations are notorious for sucking, but here in dallas on the Edge they still play 2 or 3 songs from the Spiral alone, and just hte other day I heard Down in it. They play unexpected Rage songs from Evil Empire, I heard Snake Charm the other day. Who really expected them to keep playing Down Rodeo on rock stations?
It does happen.
You really think that any of those bands will remain relevant to pop culture for 40+ years? You think you will hear NIN songs in countless movie soundtracks in 20, 30, or 40 years from now? Will their be all sorts of NIN songs covered in countless concerts? Will it be plastered all over the news when Trent Reznor and whoever else is in the band pass away? Will millions upon millions of people gather in the streets to morn their passing?
I took a college course called The History of Rock and Roll, 2 of the 14 weeks of that class was strickly Beatles. That is 1/7 of Rock and Roll History. The Proffessor said he could have easily tought us about the Beatles for 14 straight weeks if they would let him.
I don't think you appreciate how big the Beatles were and still are.
Who is the quote from?
By that logic you could say that anybody that influenced the Beatles was more influential than they were, but I don't agree. The Beatles were influenced by The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds album, does that mean that they were more influential?
Dylan was definitely influential, but come on......we are talking about THE IN' BEATLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! You know, more famous than Jesus.
Since when is songs in a soundtrack relevant to anything? Those re ed Irish Twin Brothers had a hit single from the movie Benny and Joon but that still doesn't mean ...Have you not been paying attention to movies for the past 10 years? they suck donkey balls, period.
And noone back then had any clue hendrix, zepplin, beatles would be so relevant today. Out of every old person I have asked, not one of them thought those bands would be how they are today. Probably the astute music listiner had forseen this, but the common mariott beatle listener back then had no clue, just like the common 90's music fan at that time.
You keep going on about their pop culture iden ies, but we are talking music only here. I could give a if they tell me when Reznor dies. But the music, and the way it shapes future music---If you ignore all the big name, engineered acts like Linkin Park, and flesh out the good original bands from beatles to now....beatles, etc influenced the future, but those 90's bands shifted the paradigm just as much as they did back then. In fact, they shifted it so much that the stuff that comes out ripped them off to an extreme, every major label jumped on that style to cash in cuz it was so bad ass...flash forward 5 years, and then new stuff ripped THAT off, then newer stuff ripped THAT off...its a neverending cycle of rehashing . If the 90's weren't that big of a deal, why was it hte last real phase of true substance in rock?
There are bands every once in a while that rock, but its jsut harder to find them, cuz we aren't a society sitting around a radio hearing 20 same bands every day. We're a society that has nearly infinite access to an infinite number of bands at any time we want. With the dilution of mainstream music, people are forced to seek real substance elsewhere, and its more difficult for a "power band" to emerge because every person in this country has an entirely different collection of favorite bands.
This all started after that mid 90's trend, aided by the growth of media technology. That nu metal that emerged late ninties that eventually turned into emo-punk and now goth-emo-sissy-rock? That all started with the 90's. At first glance you can say they maxed out everything there was to do with rock, but really the big dollar guys just started telling producers to churn them out more nirvana songs, etc.
And dude, if I had enough time to prepare, I could give a 9 week course on Smashing Pumpkins, so what's your point?
You are insane, are you even listening to what you are saying? The early 90's bands shifted the paradigm as much as the Beatles did? You have to be in' kidding me. Some arguements are just too asinine to take part in.
BTW, who do you think was the band to really expiriment with loops, sampling, dubbing, ect. In other words who used the studio as an instrument to create sounds that had never been heard before?
sir george martin, their producer. i was saying that dylan was a HUGE influence on the beatles. after they met him, their songwriting went off in a lot better direction. dylan's influence isn't as overt as the beatles, he didn't come close to selling as many records, but i think it is a lot further reaching - a lot of his songs were political and very socially relevant in the 60s and 70s, and became anthems for political movements and social change.
Last edited by leemajors; 07-14-2006 at 07:53 PM.
phil spector also pioneered a lot of that work with his "wall of sound"
Phil Spector was huge in the evolution of music, no doubt about it.
I miss Marley.
I agree that Dylan was very influential in to the Beatles and countless others, but I see the Beatles as more influential because of the number of people that their music reached. I think that their are a lot of people that couldn't even name a Bob Dylan song, and maybe some that have never heard one either.
I miss Tosh.
Is Cant_Be_Faded really compareing NIN to the Beatles? I think my computer is broken....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
