Kahutz, I have had the strangest debates with Sean. Sean won't accept anything unless it's comes from the Scarziod himself. The so called rock concept albums of 1968 most of them had some influence from Sgt Pepper itself. He refuses to accept that their is guitar drone on Ticket To Ride or jangle on songs like "A Hard Days Night" "You Can't Do That" or "What You're Doing" or their is phasing on "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds". That’s just the start.
Here is my advice to you Sean go read Songwriting Secrets on the Beatles. Go get the vinyl version of Sgt Pepper and hear Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds with phasing. In fact, go get Anthology I and listen to the demo versions "A Hard Days Night" or "I'll Be Back" you notice how the 12 string jangle sound and folk rock was already there. The chords are the same they just fastened the pace that all. Now if you where a musician you would notice. Now Peace
I apologize to Sean. I have debated with Sean many times and I have been cordial and Sean has been the same way. This time I think Sean thought process was way out of line. Not that it's an excuse. Brillian post Kahutz again. Peace dude.
Honestly Sean get a life and give it a rest. I thought Kahutz put you in your place. You have some nerve to put down an artist if they come up with something new. If it influences others thats what matters. If it it's not creative by your standards then its deem not an innovation.
Recording/playing techniques are important just because your bands did not come up with any. If others used that Recording/playing technique its important. I don't mean to dump on you but if someone comes up with a new recording/playing technique they should be applauded. Honestly being a musician you have some nerve.
Future developments- Please if someone music influences a future development it’s important. Something that should not be casually thrown away. Like the Beatles with Byrds or the Beatles with Can and ELO
INFLUENCE- anyone influencing a musician or a group is important. Whether its Rush who was influenced by the Who or the Beach Boys influenced by Phil Spector.
Innovation- First if someone innovates something who the hell are you to say its uncreative when the innovation is from the musician itself. The only thing I agree with is your last statement. No music starts from scratch and you could innovate or make variations of music.
Ok someone from the other side. Buddy Holly is rock and roll more than he was pop. Chuck Berry, Little Richard were also that.
Classic Rock fall under a huge umbrella from 1965-1980 the Beatles Pop/rock, The Doors, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Yes, Hendrix etc. You forgot Dylan I am surprised at you Sean.
Velvet Undergrounds lyrics are too radical for classic rock. Classic Rock is more convetional and it's sound has more of a pop influence. "Stairway To Heaven" and "Hey Jude" are the great example of this. There is a book on Classic Rock called All Music Guide to Classic Rock.
By the way you should have added for Musical Personalities the Beatles or Beatleheads. The Beach Boys fall under the umbrella of Pop.
Honestly Sean get a life and give it a rest. I thought Kahutz put you in your place. You have some nerve to put down an artist if they come up with something new and if it's not creative for you it's not deem worthy. If it influences others that’s what matters. If it it's not creative by your standards then it’s deem not an innovation. I know the Scarzoids will side with you Sean. Sort of double talk when you Scarzoids champion the unheard but God forbid if someone popular comes up with something only a handful use it or it. Would you guys come to their defense? Look in the mirror Sean.
Recording/playing techniques are important just because your bands did not come up with any. If others used that Recording/playing technique it’s important. I don't mean to dump on you but if someone comes up with a new recording/playing technique they should be applauded. Honestly being a musician you have some nerve.
Future developments- Please if someone music influences a future development it’s important. Something that should not be casually thrown away. Like the Beatles with Byrd’s or the Beatles with Can and ELO
INFLUENCE- anyone influencing a musician or a group is important. Whether its Rush who was influenced by the Who or the Beach Boys influenced by Phil Spector.
Innovation- First if someone innovates something who the hell are you to say its uncreative when the innovation is from the musician itself. The only thing I agree with is your last statement. No music starts from scratch and you could innovate or make variations of music
Frank Zappa was combining free jazz with rock before VU. I don't think intense feedback and droning is a actual innovation rather a extension of what others have done before. As for avant garde minimalism others were doing the two chord-avant approach in music. I think using Indian drone in its original context with rock is more innovative than something that had been done already. You know who I mean Sean right.
As for Beefhart I think he was more original in his approach but in no way does that make him very influential or good.
Like I said before everyone uses something from the past to make something new whether its The Velvet Underground or Captain Beefhart. Though having listen to one album by Beefhart and four by the Velvets.
I give the edge to Beefhart in originality, and his use odd time signatures influenctial on Prog Rock and Math Rock, and odd song form. Does originality equal innovation? When you use the term pioneered do you mean proto or full blown?
Wow thanks for this new term MFEAOYCCIEGNOM. Is this a way to devalue someones music or a way to justify Captain Beefhart or the Velvet Underground obvious shortcomings. I judge music whether it sounds good not how emotional it is. If thats what you deem as good music then who am I to argue though I think you are off your rocker to be blunt. Its the differnece for someone who likes "Eleanor Rigby" or "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" to Red Crayola or The Stooges.
I view the Beatles as a great rock but I view them as the greatest experimental pop band. Musically in sound and in form musically though both really go hand in hand they were much more original than the Stones who at the outset were just covering other artists.
This from Roger McGuinn on the Beatles the Beatles they were using folk music chord patterns with modal forth and fifth harmonies, and combining it with elements of jazz, blues, Bossa Nova and rock 'n' roll. He was amazed at their innovative approach to music and decided to incorporate their “Beatle Beat” Roger McGuinn
Dylan also had the same opinion of them also. You don't even have to be a musician to hear the Beatles sounded nothing like anyone at the time. So lets move on to something else.
I said my peace but I recommend that you listen to what musicians say. Here is a site that describes every Beatles song along with many of their innovations in form and structure.
John Cale recently noted the Beatles use of distortion on Revolver had an influence on him and Reed during the VU days. Lonesome Cowboy Bill could have came from the White Album.
Many people have noted that the "experimental" part of VU left with Cale and I tend to agree. Loaded seams very Beatlesque. I will note that Lou Reed was not a fan of the Beatles but liked some of Lennon solo work
No music is done without influence or something from the past and that includes the Beatles or the Velvet Underground. John Cale said while he liked the Rolling Stones over the Beatles. He thought the Beatles more brilliant and when "She Said She Said" came out he liked the tricky meter and he told Lou Reed he thought the Beatles were zeroing in something in music that he wanted to do. Its one of his favorite songs ever.
He also liked that the Beatles were adding an Indian Influence on songs like "Norwegian Wood" and that influenced him also.
I admit the Beatles did their share of pop-filler but its their real edgy stuff that influenced much of the underground artists like Pink Floyd and others.
They were many different sides to the Beatles than just pop music.
"Mode and time signature stuff is meaningless" It was because of this why songs like "She Said She Said" or "Blue Jay Way' sound different than your average rock song.
Maybe to you but for future progressive rock musicians like Robert Fripp, Phil Collins, it was influential in them going prog rock. Can, Donovan and even John Cale have cited the Beatles mixing time signature with modal music was a influence or inspiration on them. What group did John Cale belong to oh yeah Velvet Underground. Go read Lennon Uncut on his opinion of "She Said She Said" or his love for "Norwegian Wood". Then comeback to me and tell me the Beatles were not innovative or influential. The Byrds, The Kinks and the Yardbirds dabbled in this type of music but the Beatles did this a lot thanks to George Harrison. I think you and your Scaruffites are a bunch of revisonists. Or when the Beatles did something unique or out of the box it is casually tossed away.
I think you mean the Beatles version of "Words Of Love" has the jangle sound. Buddy Holly guitar sound is twangy.
Songs like "A Hard Days Night", "Twist and Shout" or even "Ticket To Ride" not power pop. The Beatles were the prototypical power pop band. Go listen to "A Hard Days Night' or "Any Time At All" which the latter two is basically the blueprint of the Who agressive, clanging 12 string sound and pounding drumbeat. The Dave Clark Five is another band who dabbled in power-pop go listen to "Glad All Over".
The Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, The Zombies were basically blues rock. The Beatles who rocked just as hard were more pop orientated. I don't understand why you don't understand the concept. There are legions of power-pop bands influenced by the Beatles namely Cheap Trick, Badfinger, Big Star to name a few.
Buddy Holly did not have a jangle sound. His sound twangy. Yes it is important that the Byrds derived their sound listening to the Beatles. Because without them the Byrds would not have went electric. Again revisionist history is at the core in your arguments.
"I'll Be On My Way" is a folk rock song recorded before the Searchers and way before the Byrds went electric.
"1964 NYC folk club scene had already crossed over into a full blown 12-string folk rock hybrid before A Hard Day's Night, which wasn't a breakthrough."
Again what are you on about. Those bands including the Byrds were using acoustic 12 string guitars it was after the Beatles were heard using the 12 string guitar is when the Byrd purchased the 12 string guitar.
If All Music Guide is a logical fallacy then what does that make Pierro Scaruffi. Songs like "She Loves You" and "A Hard Day Night" are now classed as power pop. The latter a big influence on the Who.
You could not get anything more differnet in rock music than songs like "Love You Too","Tomorrow Never Knows" or structurally than "Strawberry Fields Forever".
"I Don't Want To Spoil The Party" is certainly a country rock song. Predating the Byrds, Dylan and the Band. Steve Earle and Gram Parsons attest to this.
Again "Tomorrow Never Knows" with it's sampling over repetitive drum and base line, one or two chords is common in today music scene. As is droning sound over repetitive drum and bass line is also common on modern rock.
All I am saying the Beatles were very influential, very early, innovative and they were able to merge with this with pop music is what set them apart to someone like the Velvet Underground. Get over your obssesion Sean.
I am not a huge fan of acts like Captain Beefhart or the Velvet Underground. To be quite frank yeh its not music for the masses but even with that in my opinion its hard to class them as music.
To Darktremor you were commenting on the Beatles structure. The Beatles in every song has at least one unconventional chord progression "I Want To Hold Your Hand" being a great example.
The Beatles though not completely deviod of blues influence were much more modal then acts like The Rolling Stones or anyone else in rock music at the time. Their use of modality was close to folk music rather than blues which is why the Byrds went electric. Add the fact they had a strong backbeat. You have the makings of folk rock.
Here are some example of unusual structures.
"Don't Bother Me" Uses the Dorian Mode in a non blues context.
"Things We Said Today" A very strong folk rock influenced song with exotic Phrygian mode. Very modal sounding song
"I'm A Loser" a country-folk rock song that uses the Mixolydian Mode related to folk music
"Ticket To Ride" a slow very droning dissonant song with heavy broken drum pattern.
"Norwegian Wood" a song thats in 3/4 and is a true example Mixolydian Indian Song
"Tomorrow Never Knows" based really on one chord, using both Dorian and Mixolydian mode
"Eleanor Rigby" Dorian Mode
"She Said She Said" unusual time signatures,
Mixoldian Mode.
" Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" One of many songs where the Beatles are messing with time. Slow quiet verse in 3/4 switching to 4/4 on the loud chorus.
"Good Morning Good Morning" You would have to be technically brilliant drummer to negotiate all the differnent time changes on this song.
"A Day in the Life" The Avant-Rock Mini Suite The song has many psychedelic and majestic sections (with soaring violins and Lennon vocals), and it changes in tempo and mood when McCartney takes the lead, but then it reverts to the old theme from the beginning of the song. The ending note (a simple pound of an E chord on the piano and the backing orchestra) lasts around 30 seconds and really ends the song on an epic note (which it is). Finally, if you wait around long enough you'll hear a vocal experiment at the end that has more psychedelic tinges to it, and while it's creative, it's really unsettling after the masterpiece track A Day in the Life
" Blue Jay Way uses the almost forogtten Lydian Mode maybe the first example in Rock Music to create Indian music without the use of a sitar or a guitar
Thats just a small sample of the Beatles using unconventionl structes in Rock Music.
Sean your last sentence "but even those take a back seat in the innovation realm to earlier works by other artists". I would have to say after listening to what the Beatles peers were doing the Beatles were way more innovative. Just because the Beatles were able to fuse this pop music does not make it less innovative. I think you need to know music before you make the comments you make. You could not be more rudimentary than what the Stones or the Velvet Underground were doing compared to the Beatles.
Kahutz, I have had the strangest debates with Sean. Sean won't accept anything unless it's comes from the Scarziod himself. The so called rock concept albums of 1968 most of them had some influence from Sgt Pepper itself. He refuses to accept that their is guitar drone on Ticket To Ride or jangle on songs like "A Hard Days Night" "You Can't Do That" or "What You're Doing" or their is phasing on "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds". That’s just the start.
Here is my advice to you Sean go read Songwriting Secrets on the Beatles. Go get the vinyl version of Sgt Pepper and hear Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds with phasing. In fact, go get Anthology I and listen to the demo versions "A Hard Days Night" or "I'll Be Back" you notice how the 12 string jangle sound and folk rock was already there. The chords are the same they just fastened the pace that all. Now if you where a musician you would notice. Now Peace
I apologize to Sean. I have debated with Sean many times and I have been cordial and Sean has been the same way. This time I think Sean thought process was way out of line. Not that it's an excuse. Brillian post Kahutz again. Peace dude.
Honestly Sean get a life and give it a rest. I thought Kahutz put you in your place. You have some nerve to put down an artist if they come up with something new. If it influences others thats what matters. If it it's not creative by your standards then its deem not an innovation.
Recording/playing techniques are important just because your bands did not come up with any. If others used that Recording/playing technique its important. I don't mean to dump on you but if someone comes up with a new recording/playing technique they should be applauded. Honestly being a musician you have some nerve.
Future developments- Please if someone music influences a future development it’s important. Something that should not be casually thrown away. Like the Beatles with Byrds or the Beatles with Can and ELO
INFLUENCE- anyone influencing a musician or a group is important. Whether its Rush who was influenced by the Who or the Beach Boys influenced by Phil Spector.
Innovation- First if someone innovates something who the hell are you to say its uncreative when the innovation is from the musician itself. The only thing I agree with is your last statement. No music starts from scratch and you could innovate or make variations of music.
Ok someone from the other side. Buddy Holly is rock and roll more than he was pop. Chuck Berry, Little Richard were also that.
Classic Rock fall under a huge umbrella from 1965-1980 the Beatles Pop/rock, The Doors, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Yes, Hendrix etc. You forgot Dylan I am surprised at you Sean.
Velvet Undergrounds lyrics are too radical for classic rock. Classic Rock is more convetional and it's sound has more of a pop influence. "Stairway To Heaven" and "Hey Jude" are the great example of this. There is a book on Classic Rock called All Music Guide to Classic Rock.
By the way you should have added for Musical Personalities the Beatles or Beatleheads. The Beach Boys fall under the umbrella of Pop.
Honestly Sean get a life and give it a rest. I thought Kahutz put you in your place. You have some nerve to put down an artist if they come up with something new and if it's not creative for you it's not deem worthy. If it influences others that’s what matters. If it it's not creative by your standards then it’s deem not an innovation. I know the Scarzoids will side with you Sean. Sort of double talk when you Scarzoids champion the unheard but God forbid if someone popular comes up with something only a handful use it or it. Would you guys come to their defense? Look in the mirror Sean.
Recording/playing techniques are important just because your bands did not come up with any. If others used that Recording/playing technique it’s important. I don't mean to dump on you but if someone comes up with a new recording/playing technique they should be applauded. Honestly being a musician you have some nerve.
Future developments- Please if someone music influences a future development it’s important. Something that should not be casually thrown away. Like the Beatles with Byrd’s or the Beatles with Can and ELO
INFLUENCE- anyone influencing a musician or a group is important. Whether its Rush who was influenced by the Who or the Beach Boys influenced by Phil Spector.
Innovation- First if someone innovates something who the hell are you to say its uncreative when the innovation is from the musician itself. The only thing I agree with is your last statement. No music starts from scratch and you could innovate or make variations of music
Sorry for my tone.
Frank Zappa was combining free jazz with rock before VU. I don't think intense feedback and droning is a actual innovation rather a extension of what others have done before. As for avant garde minimalism others were doing the two chord-avant approach in music. I think using Indian drone in its original context with rock is more innovative than something that had been done already. You know who I mean Sean right.
As for Beefhart I think he was more original in his approach but in no way does that make him very influential or good.
Like I said before everyone uses something from the past to make something new whether its The Velvet Underground or Captain Beefhart. Though having listen to one album by Beefhart and four by the Velvets.
I give the edge to Beefhart in originality, and his use odd time signatures influenctial on Prog Rock and Math Rock, and odd song form. Does originality equal innovation? When you use the term pioneered do you mean proto or full blown?
Question what recording techniques or harmonic and song form did the Velvet Underground and Captain Beefhart innovate?
Wow thanks for this new term MFEAOYCCIEGNOM. Is this a way to devalue someones music or a way to justify Captain Beefhart or the Velvet Underground obvious shortcomings. I judge music whether it sounds good not how emotional it is. If thats what you deem as good music then who am I to argue though I think you are off your rocker to be blunt. Its the differnece for someone who likes "Eleanor Rigby" or "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" to Red Crayola or The Stooges.
I view the Beatles as a great rock but I view them as the greatest experimental pop band. Musically in sound and in form musically though both really go hand in hand they were much more original than the Stones who at the outset were just covering other artists.
This from Roger McGuinn on the Beatles the Beatles they were using folk music chord patterns with modal forth and fifth harmonies, and combining it with elements of jazz, blues, Bossa Nova and rock 'n' roll. He was amazed at their innovative approach to music and decided to incorporate their “Beatle Beat” Roger McGuinn
Dylan also had the same opinion of them also. You don't even have to be a musician to hear the Beatles sounded nothing like anyone at the time. So lets move on to something else.
I said my peace but I recommend that you listen to what musicians say. Here is a site that describes every Beatles song along with many of their innovations in form and structure.
standard.www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml
John Cale recently noted the Beatles use of distortion on Revolver had an influence on him and Reed during the VU days. Lonesome Cowboy Bill could have came from the White Album.
Many people have noted that the "experimental" part of VU left with Cale and I tend to agree. Loaded seams very Beatlesque. I will note that Lou Reed was not a fan of the Beatles but liked some of Lennon solo work
No music is done without influence or something from the past and that includes the Beatles or the Velvet Underground. John Cale said while he liked the Rolling Stones over the Beatles. He thought the Beatles more brilliant and when "She Said She Said" came out he liked the tricky meter and he told Lou Reed he thought the Beatles were zeroing in something in music that he wanted to do. Its one of his favorite songs ever.
He also liked that the Beatles were adding an Indian Influence on songs like "Norwegian Wood" and that influenced him also.
I admit the Beatles did their share of pop-filler but its their real edgy stuff that influenced much of the underground artists like Pink Floyd and others.
They were many different sides to the Beatles than just pop music.
"Mode and time signature stuff is meaningless" It was because of this why songs like "She Said She Said" or "Blue Jay Way' sound different than your average rock song.
Maybe to you but for future progressive rock musicians like Robert Fripp, Phil Collins, it was influential in them going prog rock. Can, Donovan and even John Cale have cited the Beatles mixing time signature with modal music was a influence or inspiration on them. What group did John Cale belong to oh yeah Velvet Underground. Go read Lennon Uncut on his opinion of "She Said She Said" or his love for "Norwegian Wood". Then comeback to me and tell me the Beatles were not innovative or influential. The Byrds, The Kinks and the Yardbirds dabbled in this type of music but the Beatles did this a lot thanks to George Harrison. I think you and your Scaruffites are a bunch of revisonists. Or when the Beatles did something unique or out of the box it is casually tossed away.
I think you mean the Beatles version of "Words Of Love" has the jangle sound. Buddy Holly guitar sound is twangy.
Songs like "A Hard Days Night", "Twist and Shout" or even "Ticket To Ride" not power pop. The Beatles were the prototypical power pop band. Go listen to "A Hard Days Night' or "Any Time At All" which the latter two is basically the blueprint of the Who agressive, clanging 12 string sound and pounding drumbeat. The Dave Clark Five is another band who dabbled in power-pop go listen to "Glad All Over".
The Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, The Zombies were basically blues rock. The Beatles who rocked just as hard were more pop orientated. I don't understand why you don't understand the concept. There are legions of power-pop bands influenced by the Beatles namely Cheap Trick, Badfinger, Big Star to name a few.
Buddy Holly did not have a jangle sound. His sound twangy. Yes it is important that the Byrds derived their sound listening to the Beatles. Because without them the Byrds would not have went electric. Again revisionist history is at the core in your arguments.
"I'll Be On My Way" is a folk rock song recorded before the Searchers and way before the Byrds went electric.
"1964 NYC folk club scene had already crossed over into a full blown 12-string folk rock hybrid before A Hard Day's Night, which wasn't a breakthrough."
Again what are you on about. Those bands including the Byrds were using acoustic 12 string guitars it was after the Beatles were heard using the 12 string guitar is when the Byrd purchased the 12 string guitar.
If All Music Guide is a logical fallacy then what does that make Pierro Scaruffi. Songs like "She Loves You" and "A Hard Day Night" are now classed as power pop. The latter a big influence on the Who.
You could not get anything more differnet in rock music than songs like "Love You Too","Tomorrow Never Knows" or structurally than "Strawberry Fields Forever".
"I Don't Want To Spoil The Party" is certainly a country rock song. Predating the Byrds, Dylan and the Band. Steve Earle and Gram Parsons attest to this.
Again "Tomorrow Never Knows" with it's sampling over repetitive drum and base line, one or two chords is common in today music scene. As is droning sound over repetitive drum and bass line is also common on modern rock.
All I am saying the Beatles were very influential, very early, innovative and they were able to merge with this with pop music is what set them apart to someone like the Velvet Underground. Get over your obssesion Sean.
I am not a huge fan of acts like Captain Beefhart or the Velvet Underground. To be quite frank yeh its not music for the masses but even with that in my opinion its hard to class them as music.
To Darktremor you were commenting on the Beatles structure. The Beatles in every song has at least one unconventional chord progression "I Want To Hold Your Hand" being a great example.
The Beatles though not completely deviod of blues influence were much more modal then acts like The Rolling Stones or anyone else in rock music at the time. Their use of modality was close to folk music rather than blues which is why the Byrds went electric. Add the fact they had a strong backbeat. You have the makings of folk rock.
Here are some example of unusual structures.
"Don't Bother Me" Uses the Dorian Mode in a non blues context.
"Things We Said Today" A very strong folk rock influenced song with exotic Phrygian mode. Very modal sounding song
"I'm A Loser" a country-folk rock song that uses the Mixolydian Mode related to folk music
"Ticket To Ride" a slow very droning dissonant song with heavy broken drum pattern.
"Norwegian Wood" a song thats in 3/4 and is a true example Mixolydian Indian Song
"Tomorrow Never Knows" based really on one chord, using both Dorian and Mixolydian mode
"Eleanor Rigby" Dorian Mode
"She Said She Said" unusual time signatures,
Mixoldian Mode.
" Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" One of many songs where the Beatles are messing with time. Slow quiet verse in 3/4 switching to 4/4 on the loud chorus.
"Good Morning Good Morning" You would have to be technically brilliant drummer to negotiate all the differnent time changes on this song.
"A Day in the Life" The Avant-Rock Mini Suite The song has many psychedelic and majestic sections (with soaring violins and Lennon vocals), and it changes in tempo and mood when McCartney takes the lead, but then it reverts to the old theme from the beginning of the song. The ending note (a simple pound of an E chord on the piano and the backing orchestra) lasts around 30 seconds and really ends the song on an epic note (which it is). Finally, if you wait around long enough you'll hear a vocal experiment at the end that has more psychedelic tinges to it, and while it's creative, it's really unsettling after the masterpiece track A Day in the Life
" Blue Jay Way uses the almost forogtten Lydian Mode maybe the first example in Rock Music to create Indian music without the use of a sitar or a guitar
Thats just a small sample of the Beatles using unconventionl structes in Rock Music.
Sean your last sentence "but even those take a back seat in the innovation realm to earlier works by other artists". I would have to say after listening to what the Beatles peers were doing the Beatles were way more innovative. Just because the Beatles were able to fuse this pop music does not make it less innovative. I think you need to know music before you make the comments you make. You could not be more rudimentary than what the Stones or the Velvet Underground were doing compared to the Beatles.