Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
I'm guessing critics and musicians would not have the Beatles #1. Any case the Beatles have, Pink Floyd does as well. They have the second highest selling album of all time. They are critically revered as well.
Hall & Oates
I also imagine that if you polled musicians and critics, you'd get a lot fewer 60s-70s era bands in the mix than some people around here expect.
That's because you're disallowing anything that's a good song! "Hey Jude" was the longest #1 song ever, but you disallow it because it's too good? "I Am the Walrus" is a song that has a random Shakespeare broadcast in the mix, but it doesn't count because it's got a great melody.
What made the Beatles great is that they were incredibly experimental
You are missing the point. Along every access the Beatles will be at or near the top.
Anything with an electronic beat is descended, in some way, from groups like Suicide and New Order and other early synthpop bands, all of which are influenced deeply by VU.
(Also, if you're fool enough to consider the editors of Rolling Stone to be respected critics, the Beatles have four of the top ten albums in history)
I think Hey Jude is terrible. But it sounds like a pop song, length has nothing to do with. It starts off with singing right away and has signing almost the entire time. It's supremely melodic with the vocals super high in the mix. The outro is freaking "na na na nanana". That's like the definition of pop.
Their experimentation always took a back seat this and never interfered with the melodies.
My experience is that Pink Floyd is largely viewed as a joke by people under 40. I don't necessarily agree, but it's a fairly common opinion.
If we're talking electronic music, I think Can is easily the most influential band in that category. This #### sounds like Ratatat in 1972
I'm 20 and I don't think I've ever heard anyone my age say anything bad about Pink Floyd. In my experience, them, the Beatles and Led Zeppelin are bands that literally everyone likes or at least begrudgingly agrees are good.
Well, they're a pop band. Does that by itself disqualify them from greatness?
So they can't be experimental if they also have great melodies? They have to have bad melodies to qualify for greatness?
(Let me know if you give it a shot. I got 37 seconds in. Harrison's basically making a synthesizer sound like a sitar crossed with bagpipes. There's your unlistenable nonsense experimentation!)
It's pretty cool, but I doesn't really sound like anything that's been made since and is clearly from the 60's. Can sounds likes stuff that's made in 2010 which is why it's so cool.
No I never said the Beatles aren't great. I'm saying 95% of their songs are pop songs, that's what they were best at and that's why they were considered great.
Pink Floyd was to 1977 as Coldplay is to now.
Almost universally viewed with contempt by most of the people I know, and rightly so.
You're really going to stake your case on much of the worst music of all time? (With apologies to Mr Jackson and Madonna.)
Take, for example, U2 -- a band which a lot of people don't like, but which is probably the most popular rock group since the Beatles. The VU influence is clear and obvious, dressed up in a little Joy Division and a lot of very earnest politics. The Beatles influence . . . look, I'm sure that The Edge listened to the Beatles plenty, but their ideas aren't turning up in the music he's writing.
U2 did manage to cover Helter Skelter on an album, and a quick perusal of Youtube produces at least a half-dozen other Beatles songs covered by U2 in concert. Bono cites the Beatles as being his first taste of rebellion in music (both their irreverence toward class in the UK in everything they did, and in their lyrical choices at the time), and cites Lennon as a huge influence in their use of politics for musical/lyrical inspiration.
If you have to stake your case that pop music excludes anything that doesn't appeal to the ears of a VU fan, then it requires a redefinition of pop music that excludes nearly 100% of actual pop music. That's not a case; that's desperation.
Most pop music of the past 15 or so years (not including rap) is pretty heavily influenced by VU.
I guess I'm thinking of more indie pop/rock than true pop.
Barely, and neither does anyone else. That's the point of the pushback on your Velvet Underground claim.
Most "true pop" today owes as more to Marvin Gaye and Michael Jackson than to Lennon/McCartney.
Whoever was in the studio with Madonna and Michael Jackson can still hear their tricks all over the radio, I would think.
All Things Must Pass is the best post-Beatles record, of course.
Hatred of Pink Floyd is specific to a very thin slice of first gen punks and New Wave kids. Johnny Lydon was famously wearing a home made "I Hate Pink Floyd" t-shirt when McClaren "discovered" him and put him in as front man of the Sex Pistols. Pink Floyd were seen by first gen punks as all that was terrible and wrong with bloated, lethargic, self-indulgent corporate "rock." And not wrongly so.
How do you feel about the third disc?
it's pretty obvious that the vile, wretched likes of ELP, Rod Stewart, etc. were far worse offenders when it came to "bloated, lethargic, self-indulgent, corporate 'rock.'" PF early on had at least had the genuinely drug-ruined Syd Barrett as an ace in the hole.
In terms of melody, Beatles rank #1 (very slightly ahead of Nirvana IMO).
'Pop,' 'catchy,' 'melody' - I do not think very many people think these words mean anything remotely close to the way you're using them.
Kurt Cobain adored The Beatles, BTW, and was only persuaded to accept a lot of the production on Nevermind because they told him that Lennon had used the same tricks
I mean, I love Nirvana (and The Beatles) because they had such a keen ear for melody. But they're great precisely because they could write melodic songs that went way beyond 'catchy' and did something far more substantial. Which pushes them (and VU) far outside the realm of 'pop music.'
I'm also like the only person in my generation who cant stand Pink Floyd. I find them extremely depressing; but maybe that's why they are so well like because they convey emotion. Like that guy upthread said about their performance bringing tears to his eyes. I just get depressed by them...
we are missing out on a great deal of music from UK and europe because the mainstream american market seems to be exclusive to american artists
as if Charles Dickens had written Silas Marner or something to see if he could have a bestseller aside from his brand name.
A few years ago Gordon Waller, of "Peter & Gordon," died, and had a major wire-service obituary because they'd had a #1 hit, "World without Love." That's a very pretty song, maybe not a deathless classic, but well-done. Come to find that the song was written by Paul McCartney, and (at least according to Waller's obituary) was given to Peter & Gordon because, in 1964, McCartney was concerned that his success was predicated too much on Beatles recordings: could he have a hit song if another group recorded it? Just hilariously prolific: as if Charles Dickens had written Silas Marner or something to see if he could have a bestseller aside from his brand name.
*No one* should ever have written that book. I still get the shudders, 30 years after high school... What in God's name were English departments thinking back then?
Syd Barrett's stuff was kind of emotional, but Waters Pink Floyd wasn't until Wish You Were Here,
To my ear (I also think Cobain acknowledged this), they owe a lot of their melodic sound to the Pixies.
Obscured by Clouds is very emotional: Free Four, Wots, uh the Deal, Childhood's End.
I wrote this in response to the Feist thing "I guess I'm thinking of more indie pop/rock than true pop.", but I guess you just decided to ignore that like a douche.
Obscured by Clouds is very emotional: Free Four, Wots, uh the Deal, Childhood's End.
The lyrics are, but the music still sounds too cool to be emotional for me.
I assume many of you nerds know the last was inspired by Arthur C. Clarke's novel of the same name, but if you didn't, you do now.
Really? How much Velvet Underground influence do you find in the following:
...actually, here's the list of singles that reached number one from 2000 through 2009. I see very little Velvet Underground influence in there.
Miley Cyrus re-stole the black man's music.
A few years ago Gordon Waller, of "Peter & Gordon," died, and had a major wire-service obituary because they'd had a #1 hit, "World without Love." That's a very pretty song, maybe not a deathless classic, but well-done. Come to find that the song was written by Paul McCartney, and (at least according to Waller's obituary) was given to Peter & Gordon because, in 1964, McCartney was concerned that his success was predicated too much on Beatles recordings: could he have a hit song if another group recorded it?
So which Rolling Stones/Beatles casual hookup is responsible for "I Wanna Be Your Man"? :-P
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 1.2115 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed