Now that I've heard them for myself,what was the big deal with The Beetles?Presley?.?

lol, I wasn't having a go at shredders. It's the idea that musicainship is the true proof of a musiains worth (which it isn't).
(Anyway, Punk origninated in the US... its just that Malcom Mclaren came here with it, and for a couple of years it changed dramatically, and got big).
Tom merollo is coppying turntables, not the other way round, heheh.
I mean, just listen to the Suga hill gang, or Grand master flash, and you'll see what turn tables can do.
In my oppinion, you should have BOTH, musicainship, and some kinda depth to your music... kinda like hendrix/ zepplin etc etc. I'm very intrested in shredding but not in the Way Via does, just in small doses.
Also Nirvanan did something intresting, they were surounded by poeple like GnR/ MEtalica/ Slayer etc etc, these were poeple who could play, but couldn't write a song to save thier life. Nirvana tilted the balance the other way, they could write great songs, but couldn't really play to save their lives. And that was refreshing, and it's good to learn from both groups, and remove what you dont like.

I know Tom Morrello is copying the turntuble,geez,but if yiou were simply going to scratch,do it Tom's way.
I had the ,I guess misfortune of spening summmers with my aunt in the Bronx as a youngin,so I have memories of the birth of Rap.I remember beingshocked that other kids my age had never heard of KISS,Ozzy or Sabbath.I played "School's Out" fro Cooper,and they went nuts,like I wrote it.

Anyway,my point is I rarely hear the turn-table in these metal bands,I have both Slipknots,Mushroomhead,these are big turntable bands,I don't hear it.I don't think teens see those bands and think,"hey I gotta learn to play the turn-table".Any fool can DJ.I got stuck cuing tapes and cds at a wedding reception,I had people shakin my hand afterwards,askin where my next appearence would be,I'm like HUH???

And what on slam on Guns 'N Roses.In 1987,G'n R,WAS Nirvana,Appetite hads great songs,and the album rollled back a few years,with a bluesy foundation,and dirty Les Pauls,and gritty Production.There is not a bad song on Appetite,the other albums,SuCK.

I love Nirvana maybe I'm not making that clear,but I was jammin like every other young adult to teen spirit,and I thouht wow,thse song is heavy,I bet the guitar solo's gonna be amazing!!!
Then we heard it,we still loved the song,but we knew what was coming,we were able to relate to the dinosaurs.
The session player became a thing of the past,as far as a good sololist.

So we all had to adapt,and find a middle ground,so inevitably when I had to play Teen Spirit in a cover band,like most people did,I realized n one cares what kind of solo is in this,cuz the tue just rocks.
So I pretty much played Yngwie thru the whole solo,no one cared,the song still rocked,and everyone was happy.

If I an find the middle ground,why can't EMP-TY-V.

Originally posted by THE_HACK_PACK
HE certainly is a rascal ain't he.

I’m not a rascal.
If I'm Skippy, what does that make you? Arthritis cream?
Thing is, there’s plenty of boards out there where you can go and trash people till kingdom come. They’re probably dedicated to it, where guys go and try to out do each other and stuff. Mean while, this is a guitar forum. A mature one, I might add. Don’t snide me on account of my age. Considering I was born when Jimmy Carter was president (he was in’79, right?) a guy who, say, attended a Beatles concert is old, relative to me. That doesn’t mean you go ahead and give me stupid names, as if being young means you can’t think.Or as if being old means you can. I’ve heard four years olds talk stuff that makes a lot of sense.
Back to the thread.
I don’t want to question what Lord says in response to Pony’s saying that Nirvana are his Beatles. I don’t a have a basis on which to do that. But I wish to put this forward:
Industries change. The industry that The Beatles lorded over is very different from the one that exists today. Andrew Carnegie (or was it Mellon) was a very big guy in the finance industry in America at the beginning of the 20th century, but the field he was king of was very different from the one Greenspan superintends today. Wilt Chamberlain is a b-ball legend that holds the NBA’s record for the highest score in a single game (100 points or something like that. A hundred, to skippys like me, sounds absurd. I mean, was it 60 minutes of free throws or what?) And this guy was a phenom in his day. But the game has changed, so much so that it has been argued that had he been playing today, with the way teams can develop an entire game plan around locking out a single guy, Wilt probably wouldn’t be getting stats like that. Which brings me to a question I would like to ask you, not to suggest you’re wrong, but so I know; you lived that age and you still living. If the Beatles were breaking out just about now, do you think they’d do as they did back then? I mean, the timing counts, right? Like for instance, the Model T vehicle launched by Henry Ford in 1908 is said to be the most popular make of all time , in terms of sales volume. Have better cars been made since then. You bet. So why didn’t they then do as well as the T? The game had changed.
Good journalists and historians tell their stories in such a way that if you didn’t live in that era, you get to know exactly what living in that era meant, such that, for instance, when the magazine [u] Fortune [/u] votes for Henry Ford as the business man of the century,you see exactly why(he was nominated along with Bill Gates,Watson,the guy who made IBM as we know it,who was also during the Carter adminstration the US ambassador in Russia,and Alfred Sloan,the guy who made GM what it is,and who also nearly brought Ford the company to it’s knees while still being ran by Ford).
Hack Pack alleges that Cobain stole some riff from Beatles. Led Zepp doesn’t recognize it.Maybe that’s coz he’s never heard the song.Or maybe coz there really was no rip off.So he asks.The Hack says “it’s not exact”,but he’s “leaning” towards Because,because Cobain used a bunch of minor and dominant sevenths that he wasn’t using previously.Now,all you open minded people out there tell me;does that alone qualify it as a rip off?Just coz I’ve used something I haven’t used previously,and it happens to have been used by someone else,and the someone happens to be the beatles,that means I copied them?They didn’t invent these sevenths,did they?I bet they’re not the only ones who’ve used sevenths.This kind of thinking is what makes me think there really was more to beatle mania than just music.And speaking of openmindedness,I find that NEVER EVER betrays one hell of a closed mind.The only way you can know for sure would be asking the guy who wrote the song,and hope he’ll be honest enough to admit he copy,assuming he did.I’ve had the opportunity to hear from an experienced writer that it’s possible to independently write stuff that sounds similar.There’s only so many notes and chords.And a book I have,published in ’91,estimates there are about 50 million guitarists around the world.Aand if you ask me,rip offs are easy to hear.I hear a lot of songs on "oldies" programs on radio which you just can clearly hear was copied by a present day artist.Like JD,the rapper,uses Peter Gabriels stuff in the song "I gotta to have it".The example are too numerous to write here.But they all have one thing in common;it's not ambiguous,you can hear it.
All said,I've noticed this thread has 507 views.I wonder how that figure is split,between the people wondering what this(it must be a kid,right?)kid is saying,and those who,like me,really ask the same(or similar question).
I'm sure there are people here from whom I could learn truckloads of stuff.But there's more to it than just what you know.Analogy:Angelina Jolly.She has this lips that make me wonder......But,if she has bad breath,it won't do.Bad attitude is like bad breath,cute notwithstanding.

[Edited by kingdavid on 06-06-2002 at 09:19 AM]

Oh my god Prince,are you gonna drag this out forever.
Okay,after In Utero came out,Cobain did several interviews and admitted he went back and lstened intently to The Beatles,and the influence was evident on th album.Also,Cobain was planning on writing an epic like Seargent Peppers,hopefully with Michael Stipe from R.E.M.

Cobain often spoke of how their explosion on the market was the new British invasion.I heard dave Grohl say on Stern he helped Kurt with some "lifting" because Kurt and Pat Smears were more or less pure punks,they never had much need for anythng other than a power chord,but Grohl was trying to write for In Utero,but only got the riff for "Scentless Apprentice" on the album.But I think most will agree,that Grohl is/was a better guitar player then Kurt,and he just helped out some points for Kurt.
So,grab a download or something of "Serve The Servants" and judge for yourself.I HEAR BEATLES.

Originally posted by kingdavid ...I don’t want to question what Lord says in response to Pony’s saying that Nirvana are his Beatles. I don’t a have a basis on which to do that. But I wish to put this forward:
Industries change. The industry that The Beatles lorded over is very different from the one that exists today...[/B]

...which I think illustrates my point, ie. that the level of skill and creativity expected by the consumers catered to by The Biz is lower than it was in the day. The Beatles started out with unremarkable material (check out the stuff they were playing in Hamburg!) and transformed the scene by creating, and serving, a market that wanted something better.

My opinion that the importance of Nirvana's influence on the course of popular music will prove to be less durable than that of The Beatles, is still just my own opinion. Whether you 'get' The Beatles, or not, is a matter of your own personal enjoyment, not related at all to your age or mental capacity. I cringe every time I hear an Elvis song, (other than "Fever"), but I recognise his importance in shaping the music we listen to now. I suspect that if you wrote a piece of music that you were sure was completely original and utterly devoid of outside influence, someone would compare it to another piece of work, simply to try to describe it. It might even get compared to a Beatles song! :)

Originally posted by THE_HACK_PACK
Oh my god Prince,are you gonna drag this out forever.

It's not draging anything out;it's simply making sure that you can back whatever you say up,so I'll be sure of what I'm saying when I go and tell someone.....This is what you should have done in the first place.State the facts.Keep the rest to yourself.I read a PhD say that is how men work:facts.
And don't forget,there's a bunch of stuff that can inspire a guy.From the Beatles to a whispering thorn tree.
Lord is the guy that talks like he's listening to whatever is being said,not "skippy" and "prince".
Stick to the issues.
When you tell me about how the Beatles changed whatever they changed,now I begin to get an idea of what it was all about.
Coz to start and argue,for instance,that Nirvana are better than the Beatles,like Lord says,it goes to your own tastes.It's what I call an argument whose area is pi R squared.
And Hack,sometimes being a bit controversial helps athread,and by extension,the amount and quality of responses.
To be straight with you,I don't imagine everyone in the sixties was a nerd who couldn't tell a good song if it hit him/er in the face.
And speaking of which;I heard "This is where I came in" by the Beegees.Boy,I dug it.
And "sweet home alabama" by Lynyrd Skynyrd.It's the song in the movie Conair.
I like that guitar and all.

Amen,Dave.what I stated about Kurt is in the MTV archives,or a good video collector.Now let's all get back to soccer!
PeAcE!!

I have an answer in my own opinion. I see too often that guitar players especially anyone into virtuosity or 80's metal they just look at things like speed, tapping, sweeping. Well these techniques add to music however music is only memorable when there is a great melody. You ever hear someone try to sing a song that didnt know the lyrics but for some reason they were having a blast rocking out. They are thinking of the melody.

I am only 22 years old so I dont have a bias view.

The beatles were masters of song writing and melodies. If you try to disect their songs by looking at the intervals they used to come up with the best and most memorable melodies written you will begin to see how talented they are, mostly I admire John Lennon.

I think that is a common theme of the 50's and 60's and has lost its place now. Most bands now arent concerned with there music as much as their look. I personally dont like alot of metal especially the new stuff with the exception of Pantera, Down, and a few others. The stuff I dont like is like Lincoln Park, Slipnot.....

If the new musicians spent more time on melodies there music would be better, I think. Perhaps its just there is no one with the talent that lennon had around anymore, it wouldnt surprise me if that was the answer. Also keep in mind that in te 50's the effects were very limited of non existent so great melodies were absolutely neccesary unlike nowadays.

All in all the beatles were without a doubt the best song writers of all time. I think anyone who wants to grow musically has to take the time to analyze bands like the beatles and learn what it was that made their melodies soo good.

THomyorke575

Originally posted by kingdavid
...If the Beatles were breaking out just about now, do you think they’d do as they did back then? I mean, the timing counts, right?...

I think the biggest obstacle to such a breakout is the current fragmentation of the music market.

Back then, AM radio (broadcasting in monaural), was just about the only mass outlet for music. Let that thought roll around in your head for a while. No stereo popular music stations. Any song that played for longer than 2 minutes was considered too long to air on AM. The FM stations that did have stereo signals, all played classical music. Back then, 'long-hair music' meant symphonies!! The AM stations were dominated by either Country music, or light Jazz and Big Band tunes.

Elvis and company came in through the side door at the country stations, while whitebread lounge-lizard copies like Pat Boone slithered into the light Jazz and Big Band scene. By the time The Beatles arrived, both of the older programming formats had made room for Rock'n'Roll. Country music had expanded its definition to embrace the resurgence of Folk, which became Modern Folk, which became Folk-Rock. The Jazz stations were brought into the Rock era by way of The Beat Generation.

A major sea-change in popular music was under way. Instead of mashing newly discovered music into a proven formula, record companies were actively seeking a lead on 'The Next Big Thing'. What was needed was a group of people who had the right combination of timing, drive, talent, business backing, and promotion. The Beatles.

As kingdavid suggests, there may well have been someone else to fill that role if The Beatles had disintigrated early. That almost happened twice, actually. A very early member, (named Dave Stone??) died of a brain tumour. Ringo Starkey was brought in, to replace Pete Best, over the objections of fans who rioted in the streets!

Today, even with the consolidation of The Biz, there are too many sources for music, and way too many genres, for any one band to have a dominant influence. If The Beatles were to appear now, the depth of their writing talent and their musicianship would definitely get some attention. Its impossible to say if they would achieve anything even resembling the kind of success they had.

In a simpler market, if Kurt had lived, and assuming that Nirvana had as much depth of talent as The Beatles, (by no means a sure thing), maybe Cobain et al would have had as much impact... but the market isn't simpler, there is not much evidence to suggest an equal depth of talent, and the band was unable to maintain its influence without its key member.

Enjoy the music. Anything past that is just 'what if'.

I appreciate your comparison of Nirvana with the beatles becasue I feel Nirvanas key was in fact their melodies just like the beatles. I dont think Nirvana had the publicity and hype of the beatles however Cobain was certainly one talented fellow. I think if would be interesting if Cobain was around at the time the beatles were if he would have made it huge? Or was it influences such as the beatles that led him to be the star he was? I believe the latter however he was without a doubt a musical genious that would have had something to contirbute to music regardless of when he was born(I fell).

THomyorke575

Lord nailed it,TOO many genres.

I've actually read how the media critics became spoiled by The Beatles and Stones.They were so ecclectic and diverse on each album,and you would get a helping of blues,reggae,gospel,folk,acoustic,art rock,pyschedelia,early metal,be-bop,,,,,Well the critics always have and always will love diversity.

The problem that followed was the people influenced by these bands only liked some of the songs.Thats when all this branching off started.Bands like Sabath focused on metal,Zep,,,blues rock,,critics killed these bands cuz they repeated themselves.It's gotten really sad.

Also a Phil Anselmo note,besides Pantera and Down,he's got his"other" "other" side-side project,"Super Joint Ritual".
Check Out Phil on Lead Guitar,he's good,been hiding those chops for years.

I agree with lord and the half pac.

Definitely too many generes!!!!!!!!

Why cant bands do it all and please everyone? THats what I'd like to do, it all!!!!!!!

Maybe thats the problem that I had neglected to see, everybody is trying to hard to nail one style instead of doing it all like bands once did.

Originally posted by Thomyorke575
...They are thinking of the melody...

The melody is the song.So much so that,I gather,in a typical lawsuit,the Judge will nearly always rely on the melody in reaching a verdict.And as a guitarist,or musician,you would know;you and I can both play a G C D,in that order,but come up with entirely different songs.
And think of Darude's "Sandstorm".There isn't a word there,but people so love it.It's the melody.
Hack,they say all is well that ends well.I have to say you were beginning to scare me.But s'all good.
I learnt a lesson in my very first 'tricks days;the way you word a thread affects how people respond.And before anyone starts,I'm not trying to become the champion threads tarter or anything(although I'd probably do well if such a contest were to be held).I simplt want to get people to talk.There was this thread titled "GUITAR SUCKS!!!".Naturally you'd want to see why a guy registered on a guitar forum would say that,right?So I did.The content was entirely different from the title,and the thread had a nice response.So I took a lesson.
I imagine if this thread's title was "The Beatles were Gods!!",it's growth curve would be entirely different.Coz anyone knows there was something to them.Even if you wouldn't call it "god",it's there.So I called it as I did(although again,I have to admit there's an element of truth to it,but that's neither here nor there).And when you say “inflammatory” remarks about stuff that stood out/stands out,people want to come at you with the facts that prove you wrong.Some show respect while doing it.Others don’t.But in the end,the facts come out.Which is what anyone would want.
Hack is right too,Lord knows what to do with the nails head(now,is that a smart way of phrasing a cliché or whatJ).
Speaking of which;this thought also crossed me Lord(Lord,don’t let the way this sentence sounds get to your head,like you’re a king or something,J);Carl Lewis is probably more famous than Maurice Green,even though the latter has ran a faster 100 M.I’m not saying this is how it was with the Beatles,but that’s a thought one should let tip toe around in one’s head.
As for versatility,you don’t need to be told versatile is better.Even with your own guitar;you want to have an instrument that produce as many different sounds as possible,for the money you forked out.

PLAY IT ALL!!!

You said it Thom,I wrote 7 songs in May,in preparation for my eventual Morpheus/Music City upload,and they range from,Thash,Acoustic Pop,Grunge,Punk and of course,ONE instrumental track,I had to do it.to hell with the rules,play what ever you want people.

PeAcE!!!

Its great to hear other musicians say that. I want to be able to do it all and enjoy doing it all. I love rock, blues, punk, psychadelic, melodic(slower), and so forth. Why should we as musicans be confined to a particular style? We shouldnt I think we may feel at times that we must, however the only thing we must do is what we want. If your happy being a one trick pony go for it, if you want to explore all sounds, styles, tones...go for it. I think the inability to go agianst the grain is what has developed the crappy sounding half rate bands that we have now. Dont get me wrong there are some awesome bands also!!!!!! I mean the ones who just want radio play that we all now.


Thomyorke575

I think itd be difficult for a band to get a fanbase unless they play a fixed style of music.

I agree with led zep's comment unless its a jamband then they have more flexibility. Say phish for example they certainly have a fan base but I couldnt label them as a particular style. I think they appreciate be on their own. Nowadays a genre is a prerequisite for a fanbase, to some degree at least.

Thomyorke575

I think the thoughts or feelings you want to express dictate the style of music you write in. To some degree, at least. One-trick ponies don't make it. I think if Britney Spears put out a song to raise awareness of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, for instance, the message would get lost in the production.

I happen to like Blues for its ability to express a wide range of emotions. I admit my own efforts are too deeply jazz-tinged to claim any sort of purity, but I can get my meaning across. If I felt like I'd had way too much Sht'n'abuse, my writing would come out with a lot of screaming metal in it. My most abstract mood pieces get written on an acoustic 12-string.

People always do that on any thread that goes beyond,say,five pages.
I guess it has to do with the way conversations go.One thing leads to another and a whole lot get's talked about.

[Edited by kingdavid on 06-14-2002 at 03:59 AM]

So... you're saying...?