My Top Rock Songs
Submitted by AsColdAsIce on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 05:45
Tags:
- Once again, no order.
- *************
- The Modern Dance - Pere Ubu
- Non-Alignment Pact - Pere Ubu
- Give It Away - The Red Hot Chili Peppers
- Higher Ground - The Red Hot Chili Peppers
- Fell In Love With a Girl - The White Stripes
- Epic - Faith No More
- We Care a Lot - Faith No More
- Why Don't You Eat Carrots - Faust
- Hallogallo - Neu!
- Sea Song - Robert Wyatt
- Willie the Pimp - Frank Zappa
- Purple Haze - The Jimi Hendrix Experience
- Voodoo Chile (Slight Return) - The Jimi Hendrix Experience
- Break on Through - The Doors
- Light My Fire - The Doors
- Blitzkreig Bop - The Ramones
- I Wanna Be Sedated - The Ramones
- Hate To Say I Told You So - The Hives
- Vietnam - The Minutemen
- Good Morning Captain - Slint
- Roulette Dares (The Haunt Of) - The Mars Volta
- Been Caught Stealing - Jane's Addiction
- Alright - Supergrass
- Uncontrollable Urge - Devo
- Gut Feeling - Devo
- Saints - The Breeders
- Venice Queen - The Red Hot Chili Peppers
- Negro Observer - Butthole Surfers
- Dum Dum - Butthole Surfers
- King Queen - GWAR
- Vengeance and Fashion - Electric Six
- Lenny Kravitz - Electric Six
- Gang of Four - Damaged Goods
Very nice, I would agree with a lot of these. IMO "Won't Get Fooled Again" is really the ultimate rock song. To me it represents the raw and rebellious sound of rock the best. I would say "Radio Radio" by Elvis Costello also deserves a spot. They stand next to the classics like "Break On Through" and "Purple Haze". However this list seems to have a pretty leinient definition of 'rock' given that "Sea Song" and "Why Don't You Eat Carrots" are there? What exactly are you using as your definition of rock - is it as broad as to say, anything non-classical and non-electronic? Anything with guitar and drums? I mean I don't know how to define 'rock' really, but it does bring to mind many of the songs on this list. In my mind it is generally as broad a definition as 'pop' music, which could describe 90% of what I listen to...
I'd have to agree with you on the "non-classic, non-electronic thing", as well as the "guitar, drums, bass or vocals in there somewhere".
I'll have to chase up those songs, thanks.
"Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Tomorrow Never Knows". Influence on Progressive and Avant Music in Pop and Rock Music. The later also was a huge influence in Electronic Music.
Avant-pop refers to music that employs conventional pop idioms -- engaging melodies and harmonies, a straightforward verse-bridge-chorus structure, accessible hooks and changes things up by putting an exotic, unpredictable spin on things. This can be accomplished through the addition of unexpected and unconventional instrumentation, tape effects and electronic instruments, studio trickery, stylistic curveballs, or any other wacky innovation an artist can dream up. When done right, this approach creates a pleasing and exciting tension between the catchy and the dissonant. The first real instances of avant-pop can probably be found in the Beatles and Beach Boys' warring experimental opuses of the late '60s. Brian Eno and David Bowie's mid '70s albums also fall into this category. More recent examples include the catchy left-field gems
I'm not the most knowledgable about this type of thing, but since you did post on my page....
What can't you Beatles lovers understand about the fact that the Beatles influenced mainstream rock/pop and marketing of rock/pop, and not anything else to any great extent?
All the Beach Boys and Beatles did was muck around a little with some effects. Frank Zappa did Freak Out!, and more specifically the last four songs on the album, in 1965, so even if I believed that little tricks the Beatles did is avante pop, Zappa did it before them, and in a far more convincing and experimental fashion.
You cannot in all seriousness put the Beatles up with Stockhausen, Cage, the Silver Apples or even Zappa in the formation of electronic music.
I think you can't accept the fact that the Beatles were more progressive than you know. The are one of the pioneers of Progressive Rock. When experts marvel at how a song can contains passages in 4/4, 3/4, 5/4, etc., and "strange" modes like the mixolydian. The Beatles sense of adventure with melodies and chord progressions, The Beatles also expanded rock's view in terms of style and musical texture.
The Beatles "Love You To" First conscious effort in pop music to emulate non-western music in structure, rhythm and instrumentation.
Frank Zappa Freak Out was recorded one month before Revolver and that should not matter because they were experimenting with different things. "Tomorrow Never Knows" based harmonically on Indian Music and musical sounds based on Avant Electronics. On top of that it has a very upfront bass 'n'drum sound. Sampling with a drum 'n' bass sound I wonder who really invented that in rock music.
No one denies Zappa was more experimental but the Beatles were able to contruct it with a strong melody base and unusual chord progressions. Zappa music is strictly avant in nature.
"Tomorrow Never Knows" is a proto-type for what comes in future music. I mean how can someone not respect the fact this song uses drum loops, pre-recorded samples and the heavy repeated drum and bass sound. What is that some Beatles haters don't get. I wonder what you are going to think when the 14 minute unreleased "Carnival of Light" is released soon? What will be your excuse then? Stockhausen called the Beatles greatest mediators between serious music and popular music.
I agree with you somewhat, the drumming was fresh to the mainstream at the time, but other bands did it way before then. Even then, it would have mainly influenced the Motorik sound, big deal.
Well, since I was talking about how the Beatles did not particularly influence anything other then the mainstream, and not how brilliant they were, this new song doesn't really fit into the argument. It wasn't released then, so it has no bearings on what I'm trying to say.
And there seems to be some sort of assumption that I hate the Beatles. They are good for what they are; simple pop music. They aren't the best band ever, they aren't the second coming of Jesus, and most importantly, they aren't a blanket of influence over every single genre of music as most Beatles lovers seem to think they are.
I would not call the Beatles simple pop music. They are actually were known for being harmonically advanced compared to say the Stones or the Yardbirds. It got Dylan to like them
Only the Kinks who came later, The Beach Boys from the second album were compared to the Beatles harmonically in rock music in 1963-1964. I would like you to find pre "Tomorrow Never Knows" drum sound for me?
Some of their later stuff is very complicated and I dare say no one was doing this it in Pop Music. Maybe Zappa but he is hardly mainstream
Within You Without You- With its fusion of Eastern instruments and western strings. Indian classical music Within You uses a raga-like form that contains both major and minor thirds in different octaves, kind of a combination of mixolydian and Dorian modalities).
Good Morning Good Morning- Anyone say Math Rock on this track the song, which is played at 117 beats per minute, has an unusual time signature in that 5/4 alternates with 4/4. For transition between 5/4 and 4/4 beat, 3/4 is used. There are a total of 64 bars, which can be grouped in seven groups with three, unique bar sequences: A, B, C, B, C, B, A, which is symmetrical relative to the middle B part (disregarding the last, fadeout bar).
Sgt Pepper Reprise/ A Day in the Life- This is Progressive Rock in my opinion. You start with the hard rocking musical reprise and it segues into 'A Day in the Life' full orchestra playing atonal, aleatoric crescendos. Another song that uses mixed time signatures and its in Muliple Parts
I agree with you the Beatles did not influence every genre and it's not for me to say the Beatles are the greatest band either.Some people consider the length of a song as a Progressive Rock feature a point I don't agree. Sgt Pepper has two songs that go over five minutes. Now compare this with Pink Floyd The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, Jefferson Airplane Surrealistic Pillow have one only one song each over five minutes long. The Byrds Younger than Yesterday and The Beach Boys Pet Sounds have no songs going over four minutes. Then when you factor much of Sgt Pepper is connected without pauses it was an interesting experiment in long form
They did not play simple pop ditties they did experiment.
Once again, bully for the Beatles, they were better then their mainstream rivals, helped create a genre of overblown wankery in Progressive Rock, and used weird guitars in a conventionally Western way.
It doesn't matter that Zappa isn't mainstream, and by using your definitions, Zappa's second record, Abosultely Free, which was recorded before Sgt Pepper, had two long (15 min +) suits that changed musically multiple times. And don't forget jazz.
Uh! I happen to think Kahutz is mostly on the money. Maybe too much chatter though.
Why does it bother you? Is it because The Beatles are still r-e-l-e-v-e-n-t, and it burns some people's asses that they are still relevent, and influential. I love it. It just shows how important they were, and the era they came from.
Zappa stuff is zanny and quite interesting but not really that good to the ears. The Beatles worked with medody and harmony in mind.
I would not knock the Beatles or George Harrison use of Indian instruments and it's effect on his peers and popular music. He was more traditonal than the Byrds or the Yardbirds. Know the difference mate in what they were doing.
Doesn't seem to be that he's biased or even bothered by it. Some people just don't think the Beatles were that great or their cup of tea. Zappa isn't good to the ears? Maybe not some of his most experimental stuff but his work was compelling and crooked enough to pique the interests of those who found the Beatles too plain. And, he did it without the massive amounts of hype and recording cash that the Beatles got. Zappa did work with melody in mind, how could you not say something like "Absolutely Free" (the song) was melodic?
You seem to be assuming that melody and harmony are the be-all-end-all of music. Lest I remind you N*Sync had both of those things in spades.
It's r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t, by the way
The Beatles chord progressions and harmony are what makes the Beatles music valid like Dylan would say. I have "Absolutely Free" and it would not even come close to the melodies on Revolver. "Absolutely Free" is a zany experimental piece of work. I would not call it Art.
Take away some of the experimental touches on the Beatles tracks and you still have beautiful melodies, harmonies, vocal harmonies and fusing of different styles. That of course did not need recording cash. Some of you people give credit where credit is due.
I don't think there has ever been a better song written than 'Eleanor Rigby'. Jerry Leiber
"Lest I remind you N*Sync had both of those things in spades". That does even deserve a comment Jamool there is a difference between being catchy songs and devising complex melodies.
So without harmony music is invalid? By the way as I said I'm talking the song not the album "Absolutely Free". So you might want to give that a whirl. Saying it is "zany" and "experimental" but not "art" is very closed-minded.
I give Beatles credit. They were one of the best pop groups ever. I would argue against some of their accomplishments "not needing recording cash" however. It is the same with Zappa. Take away all the "experimental nonsense" and there is still plenty of great music. Listen once to "Peaches en Regalia"; the Beatles certainly never jam-packed one song with so many melodic ideas.
For the N*sync comment; obviously complexity was not what I meant. But if the most important things to you are harmony and melody, why aren't you a fan??
"The Beatles certainly never jam-packed one song with so many melodic ideas"
Try one three minute song called "Happiness is a Warm Gun" or maybe "You Never Give Me Your Money" and calling them a pop group is pretty narrow minded. When they explored everything from Classical Avant to Classical Music.
Jamool play the Beatles music on a lone acoustic guitar and you hear music that is To my mind, Beatles was how, on many of their recordings, classical music elements were incorporated in the structures of songs as well ‘Yesterday,’ ‘Michelle’ and ‘Eleanor Rigby’ are a few examples. Strings enhanced "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby" yet they sound great just on a violin or a lone guitar.
I know Zappa hearing his music his style was complicated and unique. I am not a great fan of Zappa when I feel the Beatles were a much better listen. You might like "Peaches en Regalia” but I will take Side Two of Abbey Road over anything Zappa did. Listen to "Because" and "Sun King", Zappa certainly never had any songs with great vocal harmonies or melodies.
I take exception to saying that Zappa never had songs with great vocal harmonies or melodies. Try pretty much all of Freak Out! for vocal harmonies and Hot Rats for melodies. But really, vocal harmonies is such a small part of anything.
With regards to classical influences, How Could I Be Such A Fool, of the top of my head, contained strings and trumpets. And you have to remember, Zappa didn't have to same amount of money to bring in all of these instruments.
Can't we just all agree that the Beatles were a good pop band, who due to several factors (mainly marketability and an nonthreatening musical ideology) had access to state of the art equipment/ideas, and while they did things that could be construed as new and innovative to the mainstream at the time, with hindsight it can be said other bands and/or artists were doing far more radical things while the Beatles were around and even before them, and weren't/aren't receiving credit because of this "Beatles are the Greatest Band Evahh" stigma that seems to surround them, which Beatlites use to block them of any criticism whatsoever.
What a long sentence, but it needed to be said.
Zappa vocal harmonies on Freak Out sounds like a joke attempt at trying to sing do Doo-wop. It's no match for the Beatles exquisite vocal harmonies on "Here There and Everywhere". This is actually hilarious. Stripped down “Yesterday” of it’s strings classical influences are there without it.
Have your opinion but the Beatles being described as a good pop band it like calling Hendrix a good guitarist. Most level headed people call them the greatest pop band that happen to play rock music. Hey man you are a funny person right at it's musical core still classical musicians like Leonard Bernstein and folkies like Dylan and McGuinn commented on the uniqueness of the Beatles music. That has nothing do with popularity. No one ever comments on the Stones or the Backstreet Boys chord progressions. So really man get over it.
Some comments on the Beatles when they were just mostly a guitar, bass and drum band
The Beatles were why we turned from a jug band into a rock 'n' roll band," said Bob Weir. "What we saw them doing was impossibly attractive. ...
Brian Wilson. Impressed by the consistent quality and variety of the tracks on the Beatles’ Rubber Soul, he wanted to move beyond singles and surf music toward ‘a new type of sophisticated-feeling music.
It can be said that Rubber Soul marked sophisticated-feeling music or helped put it on the map.
The same Scarziod mentality that is more radical is the more experimental. Have you actually listened to tracks like "Love You To". “Tomorrow Never Knows” harmonically is based on one chord Indian drone from a tamboura. It goes against all Western Music thinking both tracks, Not even the Velvet Underground was doing that in 1966. The Beatles were popular but they actually earned it and they could have stand pat and do the same type of music. They moved on and experimented. Hindsight my butt they did their share of pop songs but they experimented.
Find me jazz, rock and pop musicians creating tracks like “Tomorrow Never Knows”, “Love You To”, “Norwegian Wood”, and “A Day in the Life”. Heck even a track like “Think For Yourself” with it’s distorted bass track imitating a riff driven figure throughout it’s track would be hard to find precedent. Since the Beatles were really rock act go find examples for me. If you don’t like the Beatles that’s fine but to say the Beatles talent came on marketability is plain ignorant. They were not the most covered musicians in the last 50 years on marketability. If that’s the case then were are all those Backstreet Boys and NSYNC covers out today. Please LOL. Like Bob Dylan said don’t comment on something you don’t know nothing about.
My main tiff isn't with the Beatles as such, as they were just musicians that wanted to make money, the same as anybody else. It's this Cult of the Beatles, who can't stand to think that they didn't influence everything under the sun, and think that everyone is trying the live up to the Greatness that is the Beatles, but failing.
"Most level headed people call them the greatest pop band that happen to play rock music. Hey man you are a funny person"
Ohhhhh, are you just gonna take that Ice???
I completely missed that comment amongst all of the other stuff.
Seriously, why do people feel the need to tell me I am funny? I do realise that I am a hilarious person.
S/he has got a point there, I am not 'level headed'. Neither is JAMOOL, or AfterHours, or darktremor. Why? Because we aren't musical conformists, we don't blindly follow what the mainstream tells us is great. And as we know, having a widely ranging difference in musical tastes is a big no no. I much rather be "not level headed" then having to think that the Beatles and classic rock is the absolute best that music can possibly offer.
I have heard those songs. "Peaches" has many more melodic ideas. Zappa never had any sogns with great melodies? I doubt anyone would agree with that, sorry. He did experiment way more than the Beatles did and even composed a lot of modern classical music himself. Freak Out was totally unique for its time regardless of whether or not you like the harmonies.
Geez, musical superiority is determined how experimental the music is? Let’s judge how good music is by how avant or weird it sounds. Honestly what nonsense. Experimental or pop music if its good music and you like it that's what matters. Zappa and the Beatle come from different avenues. They had different ideas. So Zappa experimented more than the Beatles. What does it actually say? Is Zappa music better or memorable? Is Zappa music more influential and innovative? I say for me personally no to all of the above. There are more recording innovations on Revolver than any VU or most experimental musicians ever had. The Beatles arguably influenced Progressive Rock more than Zappa.
Lennon & McCartney are arguably the most prominent songwriters in the history of popular music, having pretty much changed the face of pop and rock as the world knows it today. What started as a charming, upbeat British Invasion band with infectiously catchy songs (Love Me Do, Please Please Me, etc.) evolved into something different entirely? They integrated classical composition, complex harmony, melody and musical components previously unknown in popular music like feedback, non- western instruments, and by exploring all sorts of new lyrical themes and topics (She's Leaving Home, Revolution, etc.) they created a new face for pop and rock music.
So if I like the Beatles we are musical conformists, we follow what the mainstream tells us is great. No we all don't think the Beatles invented every genre in Pop Music or Rock like Blues-Rock or Heavy Metal. Nor do we all think that every Beatles song was great. Frankly I would rather hear "A Day in the Life" and "Eleanor Rigby" to "Plastic People" or the "Duke of Prunes". LOL
I think the Beatles and Zappa were very adventurous. But save "Revolution #9" the Beatles never really got to be particularly avant since they had millions upon millions of fans watching their every step. Zappa experimented much more and not all of it worked, but then again some of it did and as a result he produced a wealth of great music early in his career.
I get the point; you don't like Frank Zappa. But it doesn't mean he should be trivialized because his music is too weird for you. Also you shouldn't compare "Elenor Rigby" to "Duke of Prunes", like I mentioned earlier, "Peaches en Regalia" is far more accomplished and complex, as are some parts on We're Only In It For The Money. Not to mention Zappa's guitar skills would shred Harrison to pieces.
I do recognize the Beatles as a great group that also happened to be the biggest on the planet - they are unique in that respect. But to say their approach is the only valid one definitely is comformity.