Red Mosquito

I'm digging this groove stip has settled into in this thread.

I can't remember what many of the Beatles songs I listened to earlier sounded like.

theplatypus wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

stip wrote:

Sarah. wrote:Anyone else really curious on stips opinion of Nirvana? Just me? Ok.

I loved nirvana.

For a guy who seems to have such a preference for more traditional male singing voices I find it unusual that you'd love Nirvana which relied so heavily on Cobain's non-traditional singing style. Especially if you don't like Neil Young's voice which would have to be much less harsh on the ears.

Stip is a big Tom Waits fan, so I don't think the "traditional male singing voices" thing applies.

But Waits fits in with the barritone sound with Vedder and Lanegan. I can get that. Cobain's signature is a throaty scream.

Birds in Hell wrote:

stip wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:(brief thoughts here as I'm on my phone)

stip wrote:Look at the way best songs lists are dominated by the 60s and 70s, as if the last several decades have failed to produce a fraction of the same quality music.

If we're talking pop and rock music generally, I think that's largely because bands like the Beatles and Led Zeppelin got there first and, in a lot cases, did it better.

You're never going to see a band like Pearl Jam revered in the same way; they do what they do very well but there's nothing truly innovative happening, it's just a synthesis of things other bands have already done.

My Bloody Valentine's Loveless, for example, is cited more frequently as an important album than Ten or Vs are (and for good reason).

this is equating innovation and quality, and the two may go together often, but they're not identical. I think we tend to assume that they are far too often, which is why we revere the past.

Aristotle was a far more innovative physicist than probably anyone working today. But I wouldn't want to ride in a car he designed.

"Quality" in this context is entirely subjective, however.

of course

Fuzzcharger wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

stip wrote:

Sarah. wrote:Anyone else really curious on stips opinion of Nirvana? Just me? Ok.

I loved nirvana.

For a guy who seems to have such a preference for more traditional male singing voices I find it unusual that you'd love Nirvana which relied so heavily on Cobain's non-traditional singing style. Especially if you don't like Neil Young's voice which would have to be much less harsh on the ears.

Stip is a big Tom Waits fan, so I don't think the "traditional male singing voices" thing applies.

But Waits fits in with the barritone sound with Vedder and Lanegan. I can get that. Cobain's signature is a throaty scream.

I do generally like deeper voices, but I tend to go for voices that have a slightly cracked or broken quality to them.

stip wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

stip wrote:

Sarah. wrote:Anyone else really curious on stips opinion of Nirvana? Just me? Ok.

I loved nirvana.

For a guy who seems to have such a preference for more traditional male singing voices I find it unusual that you'd love Nirvana which relied so heavily on Cobain's non-traditional singing style. Especially if you don't like Neil Young's voice which would have to be much less harsh on the ears.

Stip is a big Tom Waits fan, so I don't think the "traditional male singing voices" thing applies.

But Waits fits in with the barritone sound with Vedder and Lanegan. I can get that. Cobain's signature is a throaty scream.

I do generally like deeper voices, but I tend to go for voices that have a slightly cracked or broken quality to them.

Sure. I wouldn't call Cobain's singing 'slightly' cracked or broken though.

How many people who have immersed themselves in the Beatles back catalog have done so for other innovative, revolutionary, ground breaking artists? I'm not accusing people here of not doing so, but I'm often taken aback by how many people will defend the Beatles status as being (to paraphrase an earlier post) the wheel as opposed to just another spoke without having really bothered to look beyond a narrow view of what that wheel actually is. I'm hard pressed to think anyone who really spends time with the catalog of Sly & The Family Stone or Stevie Wonder or Bob Dylan or the Rolling Stones or Prince or Public Enemy or Chuck Berry or Elvis can honestly still think the Beatles are the wheel. They may be the most popular guest at the party, but to act like they're the house the party is being thrown is in just sheer fucking insanity.

harmless wrote:

bada wrote:

stip wrote:

bada wrote:

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote:
you keep implying my point is that people are brainwashed into liking the beatles. There has to be something there people will want to listen to. And taste and personal preference is the lion's share of this. But I don't think it's the entire story.

I didn't mean to imply that you think people are brainwashed into liking The Beatles, but it seems clear that the 'mythology' for lack of a better term must do a lot of the lifting if we're going from here...

If the Beatles just broke today they'd be remembered as just another pretty good band. Everyone would talk about how much more talented arcade fire is. and they'd be right.

...to most celebrated rock band ever, right? I think that's a pretty large gulf.

it is, and in fairness my comment about arcade fire may just reflect my personal disinterest in the beatles

If George Washington was born today he'd be just another red neck with bad teeth. The timeline is pretty important. There would be no Arcade Fire without the Beatles.

sure. the historical importance and cultural significance of the beatles cant really be challenged. My argument is that this historical and cultural significance predisposes us to continue to like them more than the music might warrant in a vacuum.

That's kind of hard to do since you can listen to an incredibility high percentage of songs today and pick out the Beatles influence. They are more than a spoke on the wheel as Harmless contends. They are the wheel and everyone afterwards is the treads.

What about everyone before?

ok who?

Lament wrote:How many people who have immersed themselves in the Beatles back catalog have done so for other innovative, revolutionary, ground breaking artists? I'm not accusing people here of not doing so, but I'm often taken aback by how many people will defend the Beatles status as being (to paraphrase an earlier post) the wheel as opposed to just another spoke without having really bothered to look beyond a narrow view of what that wheel actually is. I'm hard pressed to think anyone who really spends time with the catalog of Sly & The Family Stone or Stevie Wonder or Bob Dylan or the Rolling Stones or Prince or Public Enemy or Chuck Berry or Elvis can honestly still think the Beatles are the wheel. They may be the most popular guest at the party, but to act like they're the house the party is being thrown is in just sheer fucking insanity.

YES.

bada wrote:

harmless wrote:

bada wrote:

stip wrote:

bada wrote:

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote:
you keep implying my point is that people are brainwashed into liking the beatles. There has to be something there people will want to listen to. And taste and personal preference is the lion's share of this. But I don't think it's the entire story.

I didn't mean to imply that you think people are brainwashed into liking The Beatles, but it seems clear that the 'mythology' for lack of a better term must do a lot of the lifting if we're going from here...

If the Beatles just broke today they'd be remembered as just another pretty good band. Everyone would talk about how much more talented arcade fire is. and they'd be right.

...to most celebrated rock band ever, right? I think that's a pretty large gulf.

it is, and in fairness my comment about arcade fire may just reflect my personal disinterest in the beatles

If George Washington was born today he'd be just another red neck with bad teeth. The timeline is pretty important. There would be no Arcade Fire without the Beatles.

sure. the historical importance and cultural significance of the beatles cant really be challenged. My argument is that this historical and cultural significance predisposes us to continue to like them more than the music might warrant in a vacuum.

That's kind of hard to do since you can listen to an incredibility high percentage of songs today and pick out the Beatles influence. They are more than a spoke on the wheel as Harmless contends. They are the wheel and everyone afterwards is the treads.

What about everyone before?

ok who?

i don't know his name, but the first caveman to bang rocks together in a rhythmically pleasing way was probably important

bada wrote:

harmless wrote:

bada wrote:

stip wrote:

bada wrote:

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote:
you keep implying my point is that people are brainwashed into liking the beatles. There has to be something there people will want to listen to. And taste and personal preference is the lion's share of this. But I don't think it's the entire story.

I didn't mean to imply that you think people are brainwashed into liking The Beatles, but it seems clear that the 'mythology' for lack of a better term must do a lot of the lifting if we're going from here...

If the Beatles just broke today they'd be remembered as just another pretty good band. Everyone would talk about how much more talented arcade fire is. and they'd be right.

...to most celebrated rock band ever, right? I think that's a pretty large gulf.

it is, and in fairness my comment about arcade fire may just reflect my personal disinterest in the beatles

If George Washington was born today he'd be just another red neck with bad teeth. The timeline is pretty important. There would be no Arcade Fire without the Beatles.

sure. the historical importance and cultural significance of the beatles cant really be challenged. My argument is that this historical and cultural significance predisposes us to continue to like them more than the music might warrant in a vacuum.

That's kind of hard to do since you can listen to an incredibility high percentage of songs today and pick out the Beatles influence. They are more than a spoke on the wheel as Harmless contends. They are the wheel and everyone afterwards is the treads.

What about everyone before?

ok who?

Come on, really? Do I need to answer this?

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Lament wrote:How many people who have immersed themselves in the Beatles back catalog have done so for other innovative, revolutionary, ground breaking artists? I'm not accusing people here of not doing so, but I'm often taken aback by how many people will defend the Beatles status as being (to paraphrase an earlier post) the wheel as opposed to just another spoke without having really bothered to look beyond a narrow view of what that wheel actually is. I'm hard pressed to think anyone who really spends time with the catalog of Sly & The Family Stone or Stevie Wonder or Bob Dylan or the Rolling Stones or Prince or Public Enemy or Chuck Berry or Elvis can honestly still think the Beatles are the wheel. They may be the most popular guest at the party, but to act like they're the house the party is being thrown is in just sheer fucking insanity.

YES.

I don't think anyone's denying that some Beatles fans are myopic windbags, that's not a knock against the band.

and look the one thing I believe we can ALL agree on, is that the Beatles, be they the greatest band ever or the the worst band ever, could only have been made EVEN BETTER if they were produced by one Brendan O'Brien. The fact that O'Brien was born 20 years too late to make this happen is proof that god, in fact, has no plan.

Lament wrote:

bada wrote:They are the wheel and everyone afterwards is the treads.

This sentence sums up everything that is wrong with a lot of people's perception of the Beatles.

Yeah I over sold it a bit. My wife came home with dinner so rather than finish my thought I coughed that up. I guess in my defense you need more than one wheel to move a cart so there are other wheels.

Lament wrote:How many people who have immersed themselves in the Beatles back catalog have done so for other innovative, revolutionary, ground breaking artists? I'm not accusing people here of not doing so, but I'm often taken aback by how many people will defend the Beatles status as being (to paraphrase an earlier post) the wheel as opposed to just another spoke without having really bothered to look beyond a narrow view of what that wheel actually is. I'm hard pressed to think anyone who really spends time with the catalog of Sly & The Family Stone or Stevie Wonder or Bob Dylan or the Rolling Stones or Prince or Public Enemy or Chuck Berry or Elvis can honestly still think the Beatles are the wheel. They may be the most popular guest at the party, but to act like they're the house the party is being thrown is in just sheer fucking insanity.

Indeed. I'm not a music history genius, but I've got a pretty big hunch that 50's rock-and-roll invented some kind of wheel, as did the blues before it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

bada wrote:ok who?

Is this a joke?

Chuck Berry. Buddy Holly. Elvis. Johnny Cash. Richie Valens. Fats Domino. Little Richard. Jerry Lewis. Bo Diddley. Ray Charles. The Drifters. Carl Perkins. Eddie Cochrane. Sam Cooke. James Brown. Gene Vincent. Link Wray. Duane Eddy. The Chantels. Jackie Wilson. The Flamingos. The Coasters. Ricky Nelson. Ike Turner.

Should I keep going?

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't think anyone's denying that some Beatles fans are myopic windbags, that's not a knock against the band.

Like I said, I'm not debating that they'd be the most popular guest at the party. But someone would be very justified in being more excited to see James Brown or Marvin Gaye show up.

harmless wrote:

bada wrote:

harmless wrote:

bada wrote:

stip wrote:

bada wrote:

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote:
you keep implying my point is that people are brainwashed into liking the beatles. There has to be something there people will want to listen to. And taste and personal preference is the lion's share of this. But I don't think it's the entire story.

I didn't mean to imply that you think people are brainwashed into liking The Beatles, but it seems clear that the 'mythology' for lack of a better term must do a lot of the lifting if we're going from here...

If the Beatles just broke today they'd be remembered as just another pretty good band. Everyone would talk about how much more talented arcade fire is. and they'd be right.

...to most celebrated rock band ever, right? I think that's a pretty large gulf.

it is, and in fairness my comment about arcade fire may just reflect my personal disinterest in the beatles

If George Washington was born today he'd be just another red neck with bad teeth. The timeline is pretty important. There would be no Arcade Fire without the Beatles.

sure. the historical importance and cultural significance of the beatles cant really be challenged. My argument is that this historical and cultural significance predisposes us to continue to like them more than the music might warrant in a vacuum.

That's kind of hard to do since you can listen to an incredibility high percentage of songs today and pick out the Beatles influence. They are more than a spoke on the wheel as Harmless contends. They are the wheel and everyone afterwards is the treads.

What about everyone before?

ok who?

Come on, really? Do I need to answer this?

Sure I think a fair question to ask who prior to the Beatles moved the needle to such a degree in the rock music tradition. Asking the question doesn't mean it's rhetorical or I will disagree with who you list. It's more than possible I'm completely overlooking people. There are a whole bunch of incredibly significant artists that come to mind that the Beatles built on top of but they were mostly one or two hit wonders outside of Elvis or Ray Charles.

Lament wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't think anyone's denying that some Beatles fans are myopic windbags, that's not a knock against the band.

Like I said, I'm not debating that they'd be the most popular guest at the party. But someone would be very justified in being more excited to see James Brown or Marvin Gaye show up.

That sounds like one hell of a party.

Birds in Hell wrote:

Lament wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't think anyone's denying that some Beatles fans are myopic windbags, that's not a knock against the band.

Like I said, I'm not debating that they'd be the most popular guest at the party. But someone would be very justified in being more excited to see James Brown or Marvin Gaye show up.

That sounds like one hell of a party.

So many drugs.