Zint Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 so what if the beatles were sat in a room and said nothing? it means fuck all.why do you cling on to such rubbish information?why??Because you had the foolish,utter ridicilous stupidiy to post this piece of shit comment:believe me when I say this, I can assure you, you're brilliant country is hardly relevant when it comes to the importance of an artist, their output, and their place in the history of music. You fucking shot yourself in the foot with that one big guy (actually,right square in the face)...and it has unexpectedly become quite fun proving you wrong.(even more fun watching you chase your tail in circles) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallagher Rose Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Next Year they can put Rihanna,Ne-Yo, Madonna and change the festival name to Glastonselloutbury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanGenie Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 You couldn't name 100 that mattered worldwide if you tried.I could name 1,000 American bands that important worldwide.I'd like to see that. with a logical argumentation of course. I'd say you couldn't name 100 american band of world wide significance with a logic argumentation. other than you are better than anyone else simply because you are american. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidSnake Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 so what if the beatles were sat in a room and said nothing? it means fuck all.why do you cling on to such rubbish information?why??Because you had the foolish,utter ridicilous stupidiy to post this piece of shit comment:believe me when I say this, I can assure you, you're brilliant country is hardly relevant when it comes to the importance of an artist, their output, and their place in the history of music. You fucking shot yourself in the foot with that one big guy (actually,right square in the face)...and it has unexpectedly become quite fun proving you wrong.(even more fun watching you chase your tail in circles)Yet again you fail miserably. Well done.That comment was directed towards bands like Oasis.who's creative output and place in music history has fuck all to do with the US music industry. your inability to fathom points in certain contexts is baffling, and rivals that of a 3rd grader.at best you are a rambling lunatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDRE Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 You couldn't name 100 that mattered worldwide if you tried.I could name 1,000 American bands that important worldwide.I'd like to see that. with a logical argumentation of course. I'd say you couldn't name 100 american band of world wide significance with a logic argumentation. other than you are better than anyone else simply because you are american.Don't tempt me.I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 so what if the beatles were sat in a room and said nothing? it means fuck all.why do you cling on to such rubbish information?why??Because you had the foolish,utter ridicilous stupidiy to post this piece of shit comment:believe me when I say this, I can assure you, you're brilliant country is hardly relevant when it comes to the importance of an artist, their output, and their place in the history of music. You fucking shot yourself in the foot with that one big guy (actually,right square in the face)...and it has unexpectedly become quite fun proving you wrong.(even more fun watching you chase your tail in circles)Yet again you fail miserably. Well done.That comment was directed towards bands like Oasis.who's creative output and place in music history has fuck all to do with the US music industry. your inability to fathom points in certain contexts is baffling, and rivals that of a 3rd grader.at best you are a rambling lunatic.And still you avoid pertinent points made.Master of the smoke screen...kudos! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanGenie Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 You couldn't name 100 that mattered worldwide if you tried.I could name 1,000 American bands that important worldwide.I'd like to see that. with a logical argumentation of course. I'd say you couldn't name 100 american band of world wide significance with a logic argumentation. other than you are better than anyone else simply because you are american.Don't tempt me.I can.go ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffrankwhite Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) so what if the beatles were sat in a room and said nothing? it means fuck all.why do you cling on to such rubbish information?what he meant by the Beatles not saying anything ( i think you've REALLY misunderstood this because you seem to be taking it literally, with references to sitting in a room silent etc) is that when they met Bob Dylan said their songs werent saying anything as in they lacked substance, they were just frilly little pop songs, its not a reference to the first Dylan/Beatles meeting as if to say they sat in silence ya dingbat, it means Dylan was saying that their songs lacked substance and this is no secret, all the Beatles admit this freely, its not something to be ashamed of or even a diss it just it what it is, i think you're really getting the wrong end of the stick on this one.what you gotta understand about the Beatles is that they were sponges (this isnt a diss, try and understand what im saying here) and they soaked up any and every musical influence that tickled their fancy and incorporated it into their music (reggae, the blues, roy orbison, buddy holly, eddie cochran, gene vincent...hell, even artists like William S Burroughs who arent even musicians)...its ALL in their catalogue, they had an incredible sense of competitiveness and a good ear for what was going on at the time, this was part of what was so magical about them.and the "spoonfed them rock n roll thing" its not an insult its just a fact and even in being a fact its still not an insult. shit has to start from somewhere y'know its not fuckin...i dont see why you're taking that so bad and citing any and every whoosamawhatsit from the 60s to run contrary to that fact. its not a fuckin ego thing, it doesnt make america any better or worse than England, its just how it happened, im sorry but its true...i mean you only have to look at the early stuff of the beatles or the stones or the who to see where they were coming from with theirs.America dont have a lot that it can call 'culture', not in the rich and varied way England has culture but you cant fuckin honestly go around denigrating americas contribution to rock n roll...especially when the bastard thing came out of America, thats just silly. what you're doing is like, pedantic knit-picking off on a tangent or just flat out ignoring pertinent points...and Sunny, i can name you a 100 english bands that are important internationally...want me to?The beatlesThe stonesThe kinksThe who The slitsJoy divisionSex pistolsThe damnedThe clashLonnie donneganOasisCreamJohn Mayalls Blues BreakersThe Stone RosesPublic Image LtdThe beegeesQueenDavid BowieNew orderMadnessPink floydRadioheadThe smithsThe stranglersThe small facesT rexFleetwood macWingsRoxy musicThe animalsThe happy MondaysIan Dury and the blockheadsSiouxsie & the bansheesKate bushYesEmerson Lake and PalmerElvis CostelloThin LizzyThe buzzcocksThe fallLed ZeppelinThe yardbirdsThe jeff beck groupBlues incThe pretty thingsMassive attackProdigyThe undertonesIron MaidenGang Of FourBlack Sabbaththeres over 50 for ya, off the top of my head (and i dont even know that much about music, my areas of interest are very specific). now if you're gonna match my 100 with 1000, surely that 50 is worth 500 of yours right? so come on, lets have em Sunny, 500 American bands that are important worldwide Edited July 5, 2008 by ffrankwhite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 so what if the beatles were sat in a room and said nothing? it means fuck all.why do you cling on to such rubbish information?what he meant by the Beatles not saying anything ( i think you've REALLY misunderstood this because you seem to be taking it literally, with references to sitting in a room silent etc) is that when they met Bob Dylan said their songs werent saying anything as in they lacked substance, they were just frilly little pop songs, its not a reference to the first Dylan/Beatles meeting as if to say they sat in silence ya dingbat, it means Dylan was saying that their songs lacked substance and this is no secret, all the Beatles admit this freely, its not something to be ashamed of or even a diss it just it what it is, i think you're really getting the wrong end of the stick on this one.what you gotta understand about the Beatles is that they were sponges (this isnt a diss, try and understand what im saying here) and they soaked up any and every musical influence that tickled their fancy and incorporated it into their music (reggae, the blues, roy orbison, buddy holly, eddie cochran, gene vincent...hell, even artists like William S Burroughs who arent even musicians)...its ALL in their catalogue, they had an incredible sense of competitiveness and a good ear for what was going on at the time, this was part of what was so magical about them.and the "spoonfed them rock n roll thing" its not an insult its just a fact and even in being a fact its still not an insult. shit has to start from somewhere y'know its not fuckin...i dont see why you're taking that so bad and citing any and every whoosamawhatsit from the 60s to run contrary to that fact. its not a fuckin ego thing, it doesnt make america any better or worse than England, its just how it happened, im sorry but its true...i mean you only have to look at the early stuff of the beatles or the stones or the who to see where they were coming from with theirs.America dont have a lot that it can call 'culture', not in the rich and varied way England has culture but you cant fuckin honestly go around denigrating americas contribution to rock n roll...especially when the bastard thing came out of America, thats just silly. what you're doing is like, pedantic knit-picking off on a tangent or just flat out ignoring pertinent points..."ouch"Excellent post ffrank..well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidSnake Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) so what if the beatles were sat in a room and said nothing? it means fuck all.why do you cling on to such rubbish information?what he meant by the Beatles not saying anything ( i think you've REALLY misunderstood this because you seem to be taking it literally, with references to sitting in a room silent etc) is that when they met Bob Dylan said their songs werent saying anything as in they lacked substance, they were just frilly little pop songs, its not a reference to the first Dylan/Beatles meeting as if to say they sat in silence ya dingbat, it means Dylan was saying that their songs lacked substance and this is no secret, all the Beatles admit this freely, its not something to be ashamed of or even a diss it just it what it is, i think you're really getting the wrong end of the stick on this one.what you gotta understand about the Beatles is that they were sponges (this isnt a diss, try and understand what im saying here) and they soaked up any and every musical influence that tickled their fancy and incorporated it into their music (reggae, the blues, roy orbison, buddy holly, eddie cochran, gene vincent...hell, even artists like William S Burroughs who arent even musicians)...its ALL in their catalogue, they had an incredible sense of competitiveness and a good ear for what was going on at the time, this was part of what was so magical about them.and the "spoonfed them rock n roll thing" its not an insult its just a fact and even in being a fact its still not an insult. shit has to start from somewhere y'know its not fuckin...i dont see why you're taking that so bad and citing any and every whoosamawhatsit from the 60s to run contrary to that fact. its not a fuckin ego thing, it doesnt make america any better or worse than England, its just how it happened, im sorry but its true...i mean you only have to look at the early stuff of the beatles or the stones or the who to see where they were coming from with theirs.America dont have a lot that it can call 'culture', not in the rich and varied way England has culture but you cant fuckin honestly go around denigrating americas contribution to rock n roll...especially when the bastard thing came out of America, thats just silly. what you're doing is like, pedantic knit-picking off on a tangent or just flat out ignoring pertinent points...and Sunny, i can name you a 100 english bands that are important internationally...want me to?The beatlesThe stonesThe kinksThe who The slitsJoy divisionSex pistolsThe damnedThe clashLonnie donneganOasisCreamJohn Mayalls Blues BreakersThe Stone RosesPublic Image LtdThe beegeesQueenDavid BowieNew orderMadnessPink floydRadioheadThe smithsThe stranglersThe small facesT rexFleetwood macWingsRoxy musicThe animalsThe happy MondaysIan Dury and the blockheadsSiouxsie & the bansheesKate bushYesEmerson Lake and PalmerElvis CostelloThin LizzyThe buzzcocksThe fallLed ZeppelinThe yardbirdsThe jeff beck groupBlues incThe pretty thingsMassive attackProdigyThe undertonesIron MaidenGang Of FourBlack Sabbaththeres over 50 for ya, off the top of my head (and i dont even know that much about music, my areas of interest are very specific). now if you're gonna match my 100 with 1000, surely that 50 is worth 500 of yours right? so come on, lets have em Sunny, 500 American bands that are important worldwidein no way whatsoever is spoonfed the correct term, obviously I've acknowledged the importance of american music to important bands. MANY TIMES IN THIS THREAD. However when a band like the beatles take certain elements, expand on them and make them so much better, and in return become THE SINGLE MOST INFLUENTIAL band of all time. Them im sorry, in no way whatsoever is that down to american artists spoonfeeding them. Why do I have to keep repeating myself... my main argument against this US spoonfeeding rubbish is that it never happened after the 60's, as the UK made rock n roll their own, this is FACT and not opinion. and let me add to the list.heres another 30 or so, off the top of my head. The VervePrimal ScreamThe JamThe La'sMy Bloody ValentineThe CharlatansSupergrassBlurThe Chemical BrothersEcho & The BunnymenHumble PieThe FacesThe Jesus and Mary chainJohn LennonPaul MccartneyMorrisseyNew OrderPortisheadPulpRideBrian FerryRoger WatersThe Stone RosesSpiritualizedSuedeSuper Furry AnimalsI defy anyone to list 500-1000 american bands/artists from the 50's or 60's onwards that really mattered in some capacity and who were at least critically acclaimed internationally.I mean surely that wont be difficult as the US apparently spoonfeeds rock n roll to the rest of the world.and like ffrank I havent really diversified my choices, and have simply picked bands off the top of my head. my god this is too easy. Edited July 5, 2008 by SolidSnake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffrankwhite Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) However when a band like the beatles take certain elements, expand on them and make them so much betterexpand how?? where?? i want examples...i asked for this when you said the Stones expanded on and perfected rock n roll and im asking now...examples of how and where and in what sense the beatles expanded on rock n roll or any of the sub-genres of it that they duplicated or any style of music of any kind, i'd like to know, could ya show me? Them im sorry, in no way whatsoever is that down to american artists spoonfeeding themthe ability to duplicate (and give off an amazingly authentic vibe whilst doing so) is not due to spoonfeeding but the product itself, yes, was due to spoonfeed, the awareness of the product. lets face it, the shit was pumped in from America...end of. no ones saying that the beatles talent was due to spoonfeeding, thats just ridiculous and no one has even vaguely implied anything of the sort, what was said was that the music, the culture was spoonfed to other parts of the world...not the resultant immitative or duplicative abilities of the people that took it upon themselves to immerse themselves in the music. you cant give someone talent, thats ridiculous.Why do I have to keep repeating myselfbecause you've latched yourself onto a comment regarding spoonfeeding which was relevant to the origins and begginings or rock n roll (i.e. the the 50s and to an extent the very early 60s) and seem to be responding, over and over again saying that spoonfeeding is an unfair term to use because after the 60s bands like the beatles and the stones added to and perfected rock n roll. see how nonsensical that reply is? its like me asking you if you've got a headache and you describing your haemroid problem to me at length...by the way, half the bands you've named there i've already named, the other half aint bands...they're solo artists, which none of mine are, with the exception of Lonnie Donnegan. weren't you the one getting all smart ass with me yesterday about knowledge and all that? and my knowledge is most areas of rock n roll is sketchy at best... Edited July 5, 2008 by ffrankwhite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidSnake Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) The Beatles synthesized all that was good about early rock & roll, and changed it into something original and even more exciting.They established the prototype for the self-contained rock group that wrote and performed its own material. As composers, their craft and melodic inventiveness were second to none, and key to the evolution of rock from its blues/R&B-based forms into a style that was far more eclectic, but equally visceral.this is all part of an expantion process, and if you fail to see this then you clearly know nothing of music. They introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century. Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did.and heres the catch, if you really want examples, go listen to their albums you absolute muppet.The group's harmonies were intricate and exhilarating. As performers, they were (at least until touring had ground them down) exciting and photogenic; when they retreated into the studio, they were instrumental in pioneering advanced techniques and multi-layered arrangements - FACTS They were also the first British rock group to achieve worldwide prominence, launching a British Invasion that made rock truly an international phenomenon.yet even more examples of the beatles expanding an entire process. I feel a bit embarrassed for you.dont worry, I dont expect you to reply. Edited July 5, 2008 by SolidSnake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidSnake Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 and as for the rolling stones, who were a self-conciously dangerous alternative to the beatlesby the time they started calling themselves the greatest rock n roll band in the world, the Stones had pioneered the gritty, hard-driving blues-based rock & roll that came to define hard rock - FACTmick jagger with his preening machismo and latent maliciousness became the prototypical rock frontman - FACTtempering his macho showmanship with a detached, campy irony while Keith Richards and Brian Jones wrote the blueprint for sinewy, interlocking rhythm guitars - FACTme being a smartass? erm no, calm down please. the above is a clear indication of you and others knowing very little. spoonfeed that please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffrankwhite Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) The Beatles synthesized all that was good about early rock & roll, and changed it into something original and even more exciting.They established the prototype for the self-contained rock group that wrote and performed its own material. As composers, their craft and melodic inventiveness were second to none, and key to the evolution of rock from its blues/R&B-based forms into a style that was far more eclectic, but equally visceral.this is all part of an expantion process, and if you fail to see this then you clearly know nothing of music. They introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century. Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did.and heres the catch, if you really want examples, go listen to their albums you absolute muppet.The group's harmonies were intricate and exhilarating. As performers, they were (at least until touring had ground them down) exciting and photogenic; when they retreated into the studio, they were instrumental in pioneering advanced techniques and multi-layered arrangements - FACTS They were also the first British rock group to achieve worldwide prominence, launching a British Invasion that made rock truly an international phenomenon.yet even more examples of the beatles expanding an entire process. I feel a bit embarrassed for you.dont worry, I dont expect you to reply.intricate harmonys is not expanding the format. im sorry but it just isnt, how do intricate harmonys expand the format??? it just means that they were a cut above in terms of having an ear for music, it doesnt actually alter the format or alter rock n roll in any sense. what the FUCK has photogenic got to do with expanding a musical format??? really, the way you're photographed has something to do with the format of rock n roll?!?!?! nor is achieving worldwide prominence...the only thing you've cited that even vaguely relevant is the bit about multi-layered arrangements but again, all that is is an advance in technology and the beatles being around to take advantage of it. thats the one solitary point you've made thats even vaguely relevant but again, this isnt altering or even expanding on the format of rock n roll, its augmentation at best. so, i'll ask you again, HOW did the Beatles expand on the format of rock n roll, the three chord, verse chorus verse format of rock n roll and try and come up with something a little better than intricate harmonies because their harmonies being better or a cut above or even a little different doesnt actually alter the format of rock n roll...i'm sorry but it just doesnt, the format is still the same, its still 2 or 3 or 4 or even 5 chord verse chorus verse music. explain to me how they altered or expanded on the format...and please, dont call me names, it doesnt make you some big tough guy, i can do it too, look:Solidsnake, you're an idiot, ya mother sucks hippo dickthere, not really relevant is it? if you have a point, please make it, if not, dont but this name calling, honestly, if you're so intelligent then it should be beneath you, how about engaging in a discussion properly instead of just making yourself look silly..the Stones had pioneered the gritty, hard-driving blues-based rock & roll that came to define hard rock - FACTand how different was what they did from the Muddy Waters that came before?? the answer is not very at all...FACT. your point was they bought about some form of significant change which enhanced the music and made it something different that what it was...with just aint true at all. they just took the bare bones of RnB and yes, it sounded different but all music sounds different from one artist to the other but the fact is they never altered the framework in any significant way and this is what you were previously implying...if they did alter the framework (of the music im talking about so dont start telling me how famous they were or how photogenic they were for chrissake) then please tell me...im still waiting..mick jagger with his preening machismo and latent maliciousness became the prototypical rock frontmantwo words: James Brown two more words: Little Richard two more: Elvis PresleyKeith Richards and Brian Jones wrote the blueprint for sinewy, interlocking rhythm guitars - FACTfinally, something relevant to the music. took a while but we got there. someone give this guy a hand. but again, how does that deviate or expand on what the blues had already laid down in any significant way? Edited July 5, 2008 by ffrankwhite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidSnake Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 The Beatles synthesized all that was good about early rock & roll, and changed it into something original and even more exciting.They established the prototype for the self-contained rock group that wrote and performed its own material. As composers, their craft and melodic inventiveness were second to none, and key to the evolution of rock from its blues/R&B-based forms into a style that was far more eclectic, but equally visceral.this is all part of an expantion process, and if you fail to see this then you clearly know nothing of music. They introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century. Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did.and heres the catch, if you really want examples, go listen to their albums you absolute muppet.The group's harmonies were intricate and exhilarating. As performers, they were (at least until touring had ground them down) exciting and photogenic; when they retreated into the studio, they were instrumental in pioneering advanced techniques and multi-layered arrangements - FACTS They were also the first British rock group to achieve worldwide prominence, launching a British Invasion that made rock truly an international phenomenon.yet even more examples of the beatles expanding an entire process. I feel a bit embarrassed for you.dont worry, I dont expect you to reply.intricate harmonys is not expanding the format. im sorry but it just isnt, how do intricate harmonys expand the format??? it just means that they were a cut above in terms of having an ear for music, it doesnt actually alter the format or alter rock n roll in any sense. what the FUCK has photogenic got to do with expanding a musical format??? really, the way you're photographed has something to do with the format of rock n roll?!?!?! nor is achieving worldwide prominence...the only thing you've cited that even vaguely relevant is the bit about multi-layered arrangements but again, all that is is an advance in technology and the beatles being around to take advantage of it. thats the one solitary point you've made thats even vaguely relevant but again, this isnt altering or even expanding on the format of rock n roll, its augmentation at best. so, i'll ask you again, HOW did the Beatles expand on the format of rock n roll, the three chord, verse chorus verse format of rock n roll and try and come up with something a little better than intricate harmonies because their harmonies being better or a cut above or even a little different doesnt actually alter the format of rock n roll...i'm sorry but it just doesnt, the format is still the same, its still 2 or 3 or 4 or even 5 chord verse chorus verse music. explain to me how they altered or expanded on the format...and please, dont call me names, it doesnt make you some big tough guy, i can do it too, look:Solidsnake, you're an idiot, ya mother sucks hippo dickthere, not really relevant is it? if you have a point, please make it, if not, dont but this name calling, honestly, if you're so intelligent then it should be beneath you, how about engaging in a discussion properly instead of just making yourself look silly..can you read properly? The Beatles synthesized all that was good about early rock & roll, and changed it into something original and even more excitingHowever when a band like the beatles take certain elements, expand on them and make them so much betterthis is all part of an expantion processa few key words for you*Process*Elements*Expantion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffrankwhite Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 yes i can read perfectly well thank youThe Beatles synthesized all that was good about early rock & roll, and changed it into something original and even more excitingi said specific examples...is that what you call specific?However when a band like the beatles take certain elements, expand on them and make them so much betteragain, that word, specifica few key words for you*Process*Elements*Expantionexpation huh? right, okay.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidSnake Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) maybe you need a bit of visualness.existing process------------>take elements------------->expand---------------new inventive product.Please change your avatar. You dont suit it.it is the same as simple business logic. please be quiet now. Edited July 5, 2008 by SolidSnake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffrankwhite Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) maybe you need a bit of visualness.existing process------------>take elements------------->expand---------------new inventive product.Please change your avatar. You dont suit it.again, what i was asking for is specific examples of that "expantion" y'know what the fucking sad sad tragic thing about all this is? you dont know what you're talking about and you're afraid to admit it. so much so that you're now just flat out refusing to address or understand what i'm asking of you. whats even more tragic and pathetic is that i know the answers you COULD be giving that would be fucking relevant. would you like me to give you like...i dunno, a headstart maybe or some ideas, a point in the right direction? theres no need to be embarassed, i will if you ask nicely...in fact fuck it, i'll do it anyway.I) the beatles pioneered the use of feedback on record...FACT. I Feel Fine, first song to use feedbackII) the beatles pioneered the use of tape loops, Tommorow Never Knowsnow take that and run with it, its a step in the right direction...sorry, just looks like you need a little help use of the sitar too? how about that? Norwegian Wood..Jesus, this is like having a conversation with myself, im holding your end and my end up, come on SolidSnakes...throw some punches here, sheesh.. Edited July 5, 2008 by ffrankwhite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidSnake Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 maybe you need a bit of visualness.existing process------------>take elements------------->expand---------------new inventive product.Please change your avatar. You dont suit it.y'know what the fucking sad sad tragic thing about all this is? you dont know what you're talking about and you're afraid to admit it. so much so that you're now just flat out refusing to address or understand what i'm asking of you. whats even more tragic and pathetic is that i know the answers you COULD be giving that would be fucking relevant. would you like me to give you like...i dunno, a headstart maybe or some ideas, a point in the right direction? theres no need to be embarassed, i will if you ask nicely...in fact fuck it, i'll do it anyway.I) the beatles pioneered the use of feedback on record...FACT. I Feel Fine, first song to use feedbackII) the beatles pioneered the use of tape loops, Tommorow Never Knowsnow take that and run with it, its a step in the right direction...sorry, just looks like you need a little help The fact that you mention points I and II only prove one thing. You have conceded defeat to SolidSnake and are now attempting to join me in the hall of fame of knowledge.however to quickly dismiss you're heroic (awww!) points (if you were infact correct, you're not).... Pioneering the use of loops and feedback on record falls into my aformentioned point which was "when they retreated into the studio, they were instrumental in pioneering advanced techniques and multi-layered arrangements"try harder, old boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffrankwhite Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 maybe you need a bit of visualness.existing process------------>take elements------------->expand---------------new inventive product.Please change your avatar. You dont suit it.y'know what the fucking sad sad tragic thing about all this is? you dont know what you're talking about and you're afraid to admit it. so much so that you're now just flat out refusing to address or understand what i'm asking of you. whats even more tragic and pathetic is that i know the answers you COULD be giving that would be fucking relevant. would you like me to give you like...i dunno, a headstart maybe or some ideas, a point in the right direction? theres no need to be embarassed, i will if you ask nicely...in fact fuck it, i'll do it anyway.I) the beatles pioneered the use of feedback on record...FACT. I Feel Fine, first song to use feedbackII) the beatles pioneered the use of tape loops, Tommorow Never Knowsnow take that and run with it, its a step in the right direction...sorry, just looks like you need a little help The fact that you mention points I and II only prove one thing. You have conceded defeat to SolidSnake and are now attempting to join me in the hall of fame of knowledge.however to quickly dismiss you're heroic (awww!) points (if you were infact correct, you're not).... Pioneering the use of loops and feedback on record falls into my aformentioned point which was "when they retreated into the studio, they were instrumental in pioneering advanced techniques and multi-layered arrangements"try harder, old boy.right but i asked for specifics, which i had to provide for you...the whole "falls under" thing is directly indicative of the fact that you were unable to provide me with specifics because you got your knowledge of the band in question off the back of a crackerjack box. you couldn't provide me with specifics and when i ended up doing it for you, after asking you umpteen times, you proceed to tell me that my specifics were covered by your broad statements. well thats sort of the point wasnt it? that you were unable to be specific or provide specifics because you didnt have any real knowledge of the subject you were talking about.but again, all this has gone to prove is that your interest is in looking intelligent and impressing people on the internet as opposed to like, having a civilised discussion. in short...grow up (and thats coming from me, the most immature person i know) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidSnake Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) maybe you need a bit of visualness.existing process------------>take elements------------->expand---------------new inventive product.Please change your avatar. You dont suit it.y'know what the fucking sad sad tragic thing about all this is? you dont know what you're talking about and you're afraid to admit it. so much so that you're now just flat out refusing to address or understand what i'm asking of you. whats even more tragic and pathetic is that i know the answers you COULD be giving that would be fucking relevant. would you like me to give you like...i dunno, a headstart maybe or some ideas, a point in the right direction? theres no need to be embarassed, i will if you ask nicely...in fact fuck it, i'll do it anyway.I) the beatles pioneered the use of feedback on record...FACT. I Feel Fine, first song to use feedbackII) the beatles pioneered the use of tape loops, Tommorow Never Knowsnow take that and run with it, its a step in the right direction...sorry, just looks like you need a little help The fact that you mention points I and II only prove one thing. You have conceded defeat to SolidSnake and are now attempting to join me in the hall of fame of knowledge.however to quickly dismiss you're heroic (awww!) points (if you were infact correct, you're not).... Pioneering the use of loops and feedback on record falls into my aformentioned point which was "when they retreated into the studio, they were instrumental in pioneering advanced techniques and multi-layered arrangements"try harder, old boy.right but i asked for specifics, which i had to provide for you...the whole "falls under" thing is directly indicative of the fact that you were unable to provide me with specifics because you got your knowledge of the band in question off the back of a crackerjack box. you couldn't provide me with specifics and when i ended up doing it for you, after asking you umpteen times, you proceed to tell me that my specifics were covered by your broad statements. well thats sort of the point wasnt it? that you were unable to be specific or provide specifics because you didnt have any real knowledge of the subject you were talking about.but again, all this has gone to prove is that your interest is in looking intelligent and impressing people on the internet as opposed to like, having a civilised discussion. in short...grow up (and thats coming from me, the most immature person i know)a few specifics for you, let me know if you'd like me to expand on them further.has this turned into a knowledge competition now? have it your way old boy. To most music fans from liverpool, such as myself, the below is pretty much common knowledge.The beatles basically invented and pioneered the following:1) Album Rock/Cocept Rock/Concept Album - Peppers is the first ever concept album.2) Sample based recording, or "looping" (you've already mentioned this well done)3) Using a lesley Speaker to sing vocals through, to give lennons voice a watery effect, tons of bands have since "borrowed" this trick4) Backwards masked guitar\effects\vocals5) The Studio Album - They were the first ever band to make albums so intricate and studio-centric that the sound could not be replicated on stage in a live surrounding.6) The producer - Before the beatle, the producer was in charge of almost everything, the beatles broke down this mentality. 7) Eastern music - The first band to incorporate eastern melodies and scales into their music. 8) distortion - The distortion on songs like revolution 1, were unheard of at the time. 9) inventing the 4 track.10) Esoteric or non-sensical lyrics - John Lennon was one of the first song writers to recognize that a song didn't have to make sense from a "logical" perspective.The Beatles are the cream of the crop when it comes to music, no other band or artists has or will ever come close to the beatles in terms of achievment, expantion and invention for fuck sake, and anyone who thinks otherwise knows nothing of music. im sorry ffrank you've finaly been put to sleep. Edited July 5, 2008 by SolidSnake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffrankwhite Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 FINALLY...it seems the nudge i gave you finally sent you into the right direction, took you long enough...what, were you doing a google search? Album Rock/Cocept Rock/Concept Album - Peppers is the first ever concept albumand how much of a concept album is Pepper REALLY if you think about it? i mean the concept is that they are this band called Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band and thats supposed to make it a concept album. i mean, what is a concept album, an album that tied together by a notion. by what ties do the songs on Pepper have, REALLY if you think about it?? only the title track and the reprise. Oh yeah and the fact that the first song leads into the second (with a little help from my friends) by the fact that they introduce Ringo's character as Billy Shears. apart from that theres nothing that ties those songs together...nothing at all. not really much of a concept album really is it? the following quote is from wikipedia but its actually historically correct, watch the Beatles anthology and watch what Lennon has to say about it...and the other members too....its more like an attempt at a concept album, the concept isnt actually followed through on:Thus, the album starts with the title song, which introduces Sgt. Pepper's band itself; this song segues seamlessly into a sung introduction for bandleader "Billy Shears" (Starr), who performs "With a Little Help from My Friends". A reprise version of the title song was also recorded, and appears on side 2 of the original album (just prior to the climactic "A Day in the Life"), creating a "bookending" effect.However, the Beatles effectively abandoned the concept after recording the first two songs and the reprise. Lennon was unequivocal in stating that the songs he wrote for the album had nothing to do with the Sgt. Pepper concept. Since the other songs on the album are actually unrelated, one might be tempted to conclude that the album does not express an overarching theme. However, the cohesive structure and careful sequencing of and transitioning between songs on the album, as well as the use of the Sgt. Pepper framing device, have led the album to be widely acknowledged as an early and ground-breaking example of the concept album.Try Tommy by The Who for what a concept album REALLY is...or Quadrophenia (and this is all fairly knew knowledge for me)your second point:2) Sample based recording, or "looping" (you've already mentioned this well done)which is something they lifted directly from William S Burroughs and Brian Gysion, Paul shared studio space with Brian and picked up on this technique...they neither created nor effectively introduced it in terms of it being a recording technique in art. look it up, William S Burroughs and Brian Gysion, pioneers of the cut up technique.6) The producer - Before the beatle, the producer was in charge of almost everything, the beatles broke down this mentalityagain, just plain not true. example, Jerry Lee Lewis...7) Eastern music - The first band to incorporate eastern melodies and scales into their musicthats pretty much a tarted up version of my point regarding Norwegian Wood9) inventing the 4 track. 10) Esoteric or non-sensical lyrics - John Lennon was one of the first song writers to recognize that a song didn't have to make sense from a "logical" perspectiveone of the first?!?!?! hmmm...one of...that i cant argue with. but then if he was "one of" he wasnt "the" so its not him making the change, its him following a lead isnt it? Bobby Dylan anyone?but again, all of this stuff, including the points i made does not do anything to alter the format of rock n roll. to this very day rock n roll has not really been significant changed or altered from what Chuck Berry, Little Richard et al were doing. the 60s was a period of experimentation and the Beatles etc got really deep into experimentation and all of that and it was a good time and music definitely started treading new ground but when the dust settled where'd all this shit end up? it ended with Get Back, thats where it ended, ass in the grass balls to the wall rock n roll. Baby says she's travellin' on the one after 909, thats what it all amounted to, basic rock n roll...the shit was unchanged and unscathed and unaltered by all this fuckin experimentation....one after 909 they wrote when they were 16 for godssake, doesnt that tell you something? how the stones suddenly went from Satanic Majestys back to Beggar Banquet, back to takin' on covers of fuckin Robert Johnson songs, doesnt that tell you something??? they played with shit, sure but when it was all said and done, they didnt really change what rock n roll was...because they can't...rock n roll is bigger than the beatles...its bigger than the stones...bigger than all of em. point of fact, it is the reason for their being and not the other way around. and when all the frills quit flapping and the smokes cleared, rock n roll is still what it always was...and nobody changes that and nobody can. they can record it in different ways, they can double track, they can fuckin gargle water with a finger in their butt but when the real shit kicks in and ol' Rich goes "Gonna tell aunt mary bout uncle john" thats it right there, everything else falls to the wayside and history bears witness to that shit and will do forever more.The Beatles are the cream of the crop when it comes to music, no other band or artists has or will ever come close to the beatles in terms of achievment, expantion and inventioni agree with you....again, check the avatar. doesnt change the fact that 90% of what you're saying is misguided and false. not to mention that i had to walk you through this fucking discussion to FINALLY get some shit goin..rock n roll is what it was 50 years ago and it hasn't changed a fuckin stick to be quite honest with you and it wont because it is something bigger than the mere talents of the people that choose to assimilate it into their life or their culture. nobody has changed rock n roll really...y'might change its direction but musically, it doesnt really alter like that...it doesnt work like that. the minute you fuck around with formats to any significant degree like bands like say PiL did with their first 3 albums to the degree of making some real change to format, rock n roll (and the people in and around the art form) become very suspicious of you and you become something else altogether. The beatles managed to tread that thin line with experimentation without getting to a point where they'd get disassociated with rock n roll because like John said:JOHN: I was influenced by acid and got psychedelic, you know, like the whole generation. But really, I like rock and roll, you know.and thats what it boils down to when its all said and done, the shit aint no different from the blueprint laid down by Chuck Berry et al and your preposterous claims about the stones perfecting rock n roll are just that...preposterous. shit, you've only got to ask the stones themselves where they think they stand in relation to people like Chuck Berry and Little Richard and Elmore James and all of those motherfuckers..im sorry ffrank you've finaly been put to sleepagain, grow up...throw insults when you're lookin people in the eye, face to face, y'know, when it makes a difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidSnake Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) why are you being so protective? when have I said The Beatles rendered everything before them useless? that thought is this is the underlying notion behind your every post. The beatles changed music forever.The beatles changed the way people percieved music. What dont you understand about that?Try incorporating those two facts alongside their end product and try telling me they never expanded what rock n roll was all about.Rock N Roll was such a simple concept and followed such a simple structure and it's still the same now.The fact that no band has come close musically to the beatles to this very day only further proves my point. Rock N Roll will always be there.James Brown singing sex machine will always be there, rock n roll is immortal, why do you think people do not understand this?Rock n Roll is not about a single entity, rock n roll is about evolution, influence and a whole circle of other other things. and to say the beatles played a massive part in the evolution of rock n roll is the biggest understatement of all time. Edited July 5, 2008 by SolidSnake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffrankwhite Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 why are you being so protective?im not, im specifically addressing the statement on your part that was saying that the stones et al bought about any significant change to the format of rock n roll..The beatles changed music forever.never denied that. jesus, doesnt my silly amount of knowledge on them, coupled with my avatar tell you something?!?!The beatles changed the way people percieved music. What dont you understand about that?not the format of rock n roll they didnt and thats what i was addressing, what dont YOU understand about that? about the fact that i am responding to a specific statement on your part.Try incorporating those two facts alongside their end product and try telling me they never expanded what rock n roll was all about.Rock N Roll was such a simple concept and followed such a simple structure and it's still the same now.right so its been expanded but its still the same now...well make your mind up..The fact that no band has come close musically to the beatles to this very day only further proves my point.again, never argued that point. just because im pointing out factual inconsistencies on your part regarding the beatles doesnt mean that im devaluing them in any way. Rock N Roll will always be there.damn skippy..James Brown singing sex machine will always be there, rock n roll is immortal, why do you think people do not understand this?now you're just basically saying what i was saying a few posts earlier..Rock n Roll is not about a single entity, rock n roll is about evolution, influence and a whole circle of other other thingswhat rock n roll is or isnt depends on what each individual identifies with from it...and to say the beatles played a massive part in the evolution of rock n roll is the biggest understatement of all time.arguably the biggest but again, its a relative thing and despite the HUGE part they played, it never really changed much and THATS the point i am making and have been consistently making in the face of a lot of really childish insults on your part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolidSnake Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) ok so in your own words the beatles never really changed much. and this is the point you're trying to make, I see now. I (as well as many others, millions in fact) would entirely disagree and say you were simply wrong. I will now stop arguing. oh and the childish insults were a result of boredom, nothing personal old boy.and also I never ONCE claimed that the beatles or the STONES changed the entire format of rock n roll for fuck sake. You've basically been arguing about NOTHING for two days, and you look a bit silly. Edited July 5, 2008 by SolidSnake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.