| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lemonade kid
Old Love
USA
9873 Posts |
 Posted - 31/10/2008 : 16:28:13
|
Beach Boys. 
They were there before the Beatles...changed the face of rock (Beach Boys Today!) & grew and changed with the times right through to Pet Sounds, Sunflower, Surf's up , Holland and right to now with SMiLE & the Pacific Ocean Blue 3 disc release! 
____________________________________________________________
I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.
-- Elwood P. Dowd
|
 |
|
|
bob f.
Old Love
USA
1308 Posts |
Posted - 31/10/2008 : 22:02:10
|
it's funny that i was thinking of my post about the list of my soundtracks of my life, and because the list is big, and i was bound to leave somethig out, so...the Beach Boys came to mind. this is , " Surfer Girl". i have always loved it, and will always be transported back to happy days when this special jem arrived, in simple times, when good vibes were good vibes before they were called good vibes!
just wonderful magic,
...what the world needs now... |
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2008 : 00:57:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by boombox
Well, the music of my 'era' should be the late 70s and early 80s - punk, post-punk and new wave with a bit of NWOBHM thrown in. However, it isn't and the 60s is in fact my era, even though I was born the year the Beatles stopped touring. Yes, I admit to being partial to The Undertones and the Teardrop Explodes (some post-punk did age well) and will always have a (now restrained) headbang to Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Saxon and Motorhead. However, the new romantic stuff still doesn't really do anything for me, nor does 95% of the hip hop and rap monotony that came out then. I also hated punk at the time (and still don't really tolerate much except The Damned), not just because it wanted to destroy trully great bands like Genesis and Yes, but because most of the 'stars' of this new genre couldn't play - cacophanies of badly played guitar, bass and drums and quasi-meaningful lyrics spouted by some cretin with a voice with the musicality of a cement mixer seemed more than enough justification to ignore it. Age hasn't softened my opinion of it either. Indeed, for me, the best thing about punk was that it encouraged others who actually had musical talent to have a go so we got two mini Mod revivals.
IMHO the 60s will always remain the finest musical era as I can listen to any genre from that time and still enjoy it, be it proto-metal bands like Blue Cheer, the folk pop of the Lovin' Spoonful, garage punk from the Standells, country from Johnny Cash, rockin' r'n'b (and psych) from the Pretty Things, soul from Otis and Aretha, crazy psychedelia from Kaleidoscope, protest songs from Phil Ochs or even out and out pop like Barry Ryan, Gerry & the Pacemakers or Lulu. And this is, of course, without mentioning the big guns like the Airplane, Jimi, Janis, the Dead, the doors, Beatles, Love, Who, Country Joe, Pink Floyd, and then there are early Gong, Soft Machine, Caravan, Yes, Genesis, Uriah Heep, Black Sabbath etc.
This thread is about all-time favourite bands and regulars here know mine (well, it wouldn't be difficult to work out from the above!) However, I am not closed to music from different eras, even if I believe those eras to be not so profitable a field to be mined. Most current mainstream music I couldn't give tuppence for, but there is a rich seam of music out there today being played by some of the finest musicians around, but which remains largely unheard outside of the bands' own regions. Ironically, this is much the same as in the 60s when many good garage bands never got a hit outside their home states. The US jamband scene contains many such bands eg The Breakfast and Tea Leaf Green, who are only really now getting nationwide notice, but who are yet to get international recognition. Some of the musicians in these bands are as good, if not better than the established names, but will probably never make it on the same scale as their counterparts of yesteryear.
I guess their only hope (and ours) is that communities like us can put out the word for our favourite bands and let the internet spread it further. We can never get the 60s again, but many of that era's stars have gone on to the Great Gig In The Sky (Merl Saunders died this week), have retired eg Grace Slick or are in their 70s eg David Freiberg, or even 80s eg Chuck Berry. When they go, to whom will out children look for their musical inspiration? Girls Aloud or Mylee Cyrus? I hope not.
Oh well, that's where we differ. For me the best thing about punk was trying to get rid of truly awful bands like Yes and Genesis
For me, music is about spirit not technical excellence, if I wanted that I would spend my life at classical concerts. |
|
|
|
John9
Old Love
United Kingdom
2154 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2008 : 09:31:58
|
| I cannot see how Yes and Genesis are without 'spirit' - and still less can I see how classical music can be. I think that it is important to remember that people find their own meaning in music according to their individual values and life experiences. We have here the wonderful opportunity to share and discuss these in a positive spirit.......and not simply to denigrate. |
Edited by - John9 on 01/11/2008 10:18:02 |
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2008 : 00:48:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by John9
I cannot see how Yes and Genesis are without 'spirit' - and still less can I see how classical music can be. I think that it is important to remember that people find their own meaning in music according to their individual values and life experiences. We have here the wonderful opportunity to share and discuss these in a positive spirit.......and not simply to denigrate.
It's true I think the likes of Yes and Genesis are as boring as hell and I totally agreed with the Punk idea of them being pushed aside. However, if you would have looked closely you would have noticed a little , it was being said in the 'spirit of fun' not trying to denigrate anyone. |
|
|
|
lemonade kid
Old Love
USA
9873 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2008 : 16:49:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by caryne
quote:
Originally posted by John9
I cannot see how Yes and Genesis are without 'spirit' - and still less can I see how classical music can be. I think that it is important to remember that people find their own meaning in music according to their individual values and life experiences. We have here the wonderful opportunity to share and discuss these in a positive spirit.......and not simply to denigrate.
It's true I think the likes of Yes and Genesis are as boring as hell and I totally agreed with the Punk idea of them being pushed aside. However, if you would have looked closely you would have noticed a little , it was being said in the 'spirit of fun' not trying to denigrate anyone.
I think you like the heated discussions, caryne!! There are a lot of bands I "hate" too but I still can acknowledge their impact & accomplishments. For instance, I'm luke warm for the Clash, but I like Iggy....but I usually go for the originators & not the imitators. That 'll get caryne going! And I don't love everything 60's....there were some pretty bad things being recorded then, as well as now....but nothing as good now--as then!!...and that is likely a feeling due to when I grew up. Nothing can stand up to "the soundtracks of our lives". like the music of our generation. But--I am finding more and more younger generations becoming disenchanted with the "new" music & instinctively going more and more to the 60's greats.
At least we know (here) that Love bridges that generation gap, and has for 40 years.
That's amazing music!! Gimme some Arthur Lee & Debussy and I'm HAPPY!
____________________________________________________________
I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor,
and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.
-- Elwood P. Dowd
|
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 01:09:06
|
Everyone likes what they like. The originators not imitators argument is pretty silly though as all music is derivative of what had gone before (apart from the first caveman beating out a rhythm with a stone!!) so I just won't rise to it, it is a pointless statement to make. After all, your beloved 'Beatles' started out as a pale imitation of better, black American, acts, as did The Rolling Stones and many others.
As for 'Yes', 'Genesis' etc, no I cannot see what they added to music except terminal boredom and pomposity. If you like them then good for you but, long term, their music has meant little in the annals of 'rock history' and, thankfully, to most younger people today they mean nothing, even those who are 'really into music'. |
|
|
|
John9
Old Love
United Kingdom
2154 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 09:45:31
|
I'm wondering just how much the punk movement means to most young people today. The prog groups were certainly capable of pomposity - but at their best, they also opened doorways into new worlds, musically. Surely, the great thing about the time in which we live is that it is the most musically diverse and yet also musically tolerant we have ever known. I remember sometime in the 1980s being in a Virgin Record Store - the really big one on Oxford Street, London. They had prominently displayed up above, waxwork effigies of The Beatles in full mop top regalia. Suddenly I noticed four lads with spiked hair staring at them. One of them shouted,ironically I'm sure, "Who are those pr..ks?" This was an amusing incident certainly - but I really think we have moved on from all that in 2008. Whether your bag is The Sex Pistols at their most iconoclastic...or Cliff Richard at his most devotional, I say share, celebrate..... and be joyful! The title of a classic Forever Changes song comes to mind here.
|
Edited by - John9 on 04/11/2008 09:55:58 |
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 12:53:18
|
The thing is, John, the majority of 'young' bands today only exist because of the 'punk' movement, many of them cite punk/indie bands of the late 70's/early 80's as influences, I have never heard any cite a 'prog' band. I don't expect you read the 'NME', I do, so I see what these young artists are saying.
Personally, I don't care what anyone likes, if it gives you pleasure then that is great, however, I do get so tired with people harping on about The Beatles when there were so many great bands in the 60's, and other eras, that get ignored. |
|
|
|
Kula John
Old Love
United Kingdom
756 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 13:20:17
|
I think punk obviously played a massive part in influencing recent bands like The Strokes and The Libertines and a fair few other decent bands of the 90s and 00s.
I think the NME though is a terrible magazine. I stopped reading it a while back as it latches onto a band and builds them up until whoosh, they become unpopular and so the NME moves on. It cares more about image and fashion than the music and seems to enjoy starting ridiculous hate campaigns against certain bands and doesn't stop until it's done enough damage. It seems as long as you wear a leather jacket and cite the Clash or the Sex Pistols as a major influence you get yourself on the front of NME.
They have an irrational hatred of Kula Shaker which stems from a jealousy of Crispian Mills' 'privileged' upbringing as they seem to think that the only way a band can be respected is if they have working class origins. They also seem to elevate characters like Pete Doherty and Amy Winehouse as they obviously fit the perfect image of the rock and roll star.
It's not a magazine I would refer to as being musically knowledgeable. To be fair maybe it was when it first came out but these days it's soulless.
This is the time and this is the time and it is time, time, time, time, time, time, time.....
|
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 14:01:57
|
I don't disagree with what you say about the NME, they do have a terrible habit of bigging acts up and then knocking them down. However, they are the only music paper these days and they do feature new and up and coming acts as well as list tours and new records so it's a bit of a necessary evil. My point was really to show how much punk and 'indie' of the late 70's/early 80's have influenced todays young bands as so many bands, in interviews, say this. They do not, however, say this of any 'prog' acts.
I can't say I've ever noticed the NME elevating Amy Winehouse, she's more for the tabloids. I have mixed feelings about Doherty, he is a very flawed individual but has written some great songs, his lyrics are up there with the best of the last few years. I think there dislike of Kula Shaker doesn't only stem from Mills upbringing, they were always very fond of Joe Stummer, for example, and he went to public school too. I think they just didn't like the band so the upbringing was just something else to (in their childish way) mock. I think they also had certain issues over his fondness for swastikas and other comments he made on the imagery
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1431065/19970516/kula_shaker.jhtml |
|
|
|
boombox
Old Love
United Kingdom
548 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 14:34:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kula John
I think the NME though is a terrible magazine. I stopped reading it a while back as it latches onto a band and builds them up until whoosh, they become unpopular and so the NME moves on. It cares more about image and fashion than the music and seems to enjoy starting ridiculous hate campaigns against certain bands and doesn't stop until it's done enough damage. It seems as long as you wear a leather jacket and cite the Clash or the Sex Pistols as a major influence you get yourself on the front of NME.
They also seem to elevate characters like Pete Doherty and Amy Winehouse as they obviously fit the perfect image of the rock and roll star.
It's not a magazine I would refer to as being musically knowledgeable. To be fair maybe it was when it first came out but these days it's soulless.
Well, put john - I gave up on NME over twenty years ago - and that was well before they started sniping at Crispian & Co, who I would rate higher than ANY other new British band of the last 30 years, both in terms of song-writing and artistic integrity. Melody Maker was always a much better, more balanced publication, which gave equal coverage to both new and old bands, but unfortunately we got left with an inferior rag. Far too often, the British press in general have accorded way too much importance to these new bands, whose musical talent is doubtful (Doherty and Winehouse definitely spring to mind), just because they are, frankly, complete idiots. They are not rock stars. By definition, a star should have some stellar, out-of-this-world talent. Arthur had that, Bryan had that, as did Syd, jerry, jimi, janis, jim, frank and john lennon.
I would also disagree that punk is as important musically to bands as it is in terms of attitude. If you actually dissect many of the newer acts raved about in the press, while they may have been inspired by the "anyone can do it" mentality of punk, the ones who will last and be respected will be the melodic ones whose music harks back to the 60s. If you don't believe me, let's revisit this thread in ten years time.
And as for modern bands not listing prog bands as influences, that is simply because prog is too difficult to play and requires dedication to practising for hours and hours, which today's youngsters do not have. We live in a society where everyone wants everything straight away. Bands do not serve their apprenticeships anymore, playing fleapits for beer money, honing their chops, as the expression goes.
To become as accomplished a band as Genesis or Yes would take too much time and anyway modern young audiences couldn't cope with the sustained concentration needed to attend a concert. Granted, Tales from the Topographic Oceans should have been edited down to a single LP, but Close to the Edge is as near a perfect album as anyone will ever make.
In a world dominated by music videos which change camera angle every 2 seconds and films which mess about with too much camera trickery, slowing down, zooming in etc, people expect this with their music. These are the reasons why prog is not cited as an influence, nor its leading lights given the respect they deserve. |
|
|
|
boombox
Old Love
United Kingdom
548 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 14:37:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by caryne
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1431065/19970516/kula_shaker.jhtml
Oh come on, caryne, I would have expected something far more intelligent than that! That is exactly the sort of story and fuss over nothing the NME is so good at dressing up. Dragging that up, as the press always seem to do on a regular basis just proves how crass MTV and the like are. However, while I hope it was partially tongue in cheek to mention it again, some people, even here might get the wrong idea.
What annoys me most is the way such institutions like to build up bands, just because they are new, then drop them. Even John Peel did that, becoming almost a hypocrite in his denigration of older bands like Yes, Country Joe, The Misunderstood after he had championed them in the late 60s. NEW does not equal GOOD, whatever people try to say! |
Edited by - boombox on 04/11/2008 14:46:38 |
|
|
|
rocker
Old Love
USA
3606 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 15:04:10
|
hmmm..so is it true that the younger'uns are disenchanted with the "new music". I don't know. I'd think they're as tied as we were back in those aged eras that some of us inhabited... You know musical history has repeated itself in a way in our day and I'll argue that the Beatles,Kinks and Stones are the Beethovens, Haydns and Mozarts of rock in our day. They're certainly the bedrock of "classical rock". The great thing about music is the fact that everything that went before are all the bricks that new music builds on. What I noted among the rock greats is that they weren't afraid to leave it for other areas i.e say doing classical compositions. That had to challenge them and in the end music and listeners are the better for it.
The comments on prog and punk rock were interesting. Who knows? Perhaps 20-25 years hence some bands will reference Yes and Genesis and the Ramones as the ones that got them going. I just don't think we can knock out a "back to the future" type of musical scenario appearing. That's the way the world works sometimes. |
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 15:05:04
|
I was just giving an indication of why the NME had it in for Kula Shaker... not saying I agree with it, just pointing it out. They have had it in for Morrissey for years for similar reasons (and I'm a huge Morrissey fan) so I know how silly they can be, I was just giving an explanation.
It's daft to argue what is best as it's very subjective. If you are into prog then fair enough but I have the equal right to say I hate it and, from years of reading interviews with all sorts of bands, I think I can say that it has not been influential in the way Punk/Indie has been. You say that is because it is 'hard to play', well, as the people who played it seem to manage it then I find it hard to believe that there has been no-one else of this capability emerge in recent years. Are you saying there is no-one born with the inate ability to be that 'good' a musician any more? That is just impossible. No, great musicians, then and now, play what they play by choice, it's just the great, young, musicians choose not to play 'prog'. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Share your all-time favorite BANDS......
