Number 6 on your list is Horace Grant not Horace Greeen. A very underrated draft and except for number 10 all of them actually played four years of college. The days of NBA drafts that are dominated by college seniors are over.
The Stones were a great band but were a copy-cat band. They took from the blues and when they branched out they copied the Beatles time after time until they went back to being what they were good and that was creating simple three chord rock & roll.
Did you forget the Beatles recorded Revolver in which many of the tracks were already finished before the Velvet Underground? Did you forget the Beatles recorded Rubber Soul in 1965 or "Stawberry Fields Forever" in late 1966. Both of those album already experimental and psychedelic. The Velvet Undergroun used well established things in rock music like feedback, drone, some distortion and made their own sound. The Beatles were using sources hardly used or never used in rock music.
Sgt Pepper is a progression from those two albums with one major difference. Sgt. Peppers structure was different and it's concept was copied by basically everyone in rock music.The "overture","reprise" and then the finale "A Day in the Life" at the end, the connecting of songs with noises that are looped just like what Pink Floyd would do later do on "Dark Side of the Moon.. The album ending features a hidden track. It's different from the Ventures."Sgt Pepper" structure was closer to future progressive rock albums. The closest to it in structure is Frank Zappa "Absolutely Free" but the only thing it has in common is the songs are connected and that's it really
Sgt Pepper is a progression from those two albums with one major difference. Sgt. Sgt Peppers structure was different and it's concept was copied by basically everyone in rock music.The "overture","reprise" and then the finale "A Day in the Life" at the end, the connecting of songs with noises that are looped just like what Pink Floyd would do later do on "Dark Side of the Moon.. The album ending features a hidden track. It's different from the Ventures."Sgt Pepper" structure was closer to future progressive rock albums. The closest to it in structure is Frank Zappa "Absolutely Free" but the only thing it has in common is the songs are connected and that's it really.
Ok let's crush Frank Zappa because Frank Sinatra did a concept album before him also. Scaruffi is the same person who said the Beatles wrote simple three minute songs when compared to previous rock & roll and blue music it was miles more complicated.
Ian MacDonald loved the Beatles, Nick Drake and Steely Dan, while Bangs liked the Stooges, the Velvet Underground and the Clash. It does not make either right anyway.
You created a nice review but then like every Captain Beefheart fan you make another comment "Captain Beefheart the most important musician of the 60's". It’s laughably false. No one would even care about Captain Beefheart albums if certain rock musicians and you know who they are put the rock album on the map. Just let the music speak for itself.
For the most part I try not to comment on these Capatain Beefheart fan boys comments. Saying Captain Beefheart is the most important musician of the 60's" is a sweeping and broad comment that has no justification at all. Ok, you like Captain Beefheart but there literally dozens of musicians who came out of the 60's who were more important. I get you like Captain Beefheart but get some perspective he never created any sort of musical revolution and he did not change the industry either.
The album is very good but in most people lists it's not top 50 of all times. It's ranked #53 of all time on Acclaimed Music all time albums list. It’s just a very good album that’s all really.
Look was it Scaruffi's opinion that Ringo was the only Beatles that had technical ability and I responded to that. I was stating fact that many consider Paul to be one of the greatest rock bassists.
Other than that since I started Dismissing Piero Scaruffi views on the Beatles a month ago I have not gone on the Pro-Scaruffi lists and commented. Now everyone is welcome to Dismissing Piero Scaruffi views on the Beatles and comment there. Peace
Geez, I think some people hate the Beatles so much that when you point out the good things about them it sets them off. I actually like Keith Moon a lot and I consider better than Ringo but Keith Moon was a sloppy drummer.
Hey, I love the Beatles and what does it matter to you anyway? I was just pointing out some of Ringo strong points as a drummer. I know there better drummers than Ringo but hey I am giving him his due.
You can make your lists and not include the Beatles that's fine with me maybe you should open your horizons and realize not everyone thinks like Piero Scaruffi.
Considering Paul McCartney is considered by many one of the greatest rock bass players Scaruffi comments are pretty laughable.
Ringo drumming is underrated. Think For Yourself" he plays the verses in quarter-time (one drum beat to every four from the rest of the band) and really opens up for the chorus. "You Won't See Me" has big kicks - sounds like an extra large crash cymbal - with a very cool feature: an overdubbed hi-hat playing triplets against the eighth-notes of the regular pattern ".
Wait" has Ringo playing into the beat, landing each stroke just slightly ahead of the band. This has a wonderful driving feel, and the most interesting feature is the fill into the verse. Almost every drummer everywhere plays a drum fill into a cymbal crash. Ringo turns it around, with a big crash, a hi-hat sizzle and a swift tom fill into the back beat.
Here, There, and Everywhere" calls for an extremely light touch, which he approaches innovatively. Instead of brushes, he plays the full kits with sticks (throwing in some nicely timed fills on low-tuned toms to ease into each verse) but played very quietly. "She Said She Said" is a drummer's nightmare - all sorts of tempo and time signature changes, but he plows ahead with a fill-crazy verse pattern that sounds improvised (no two fills are the same) and then finesses the triple-time with a snare-kick combo on every beat, which eases back into the verse smoothly
Good Morning Good Morning" is another drummer's headache - it varies between 4/4 and 6/4 (or it's in 5/5), but he smoothes out the rhythm by sticking to a strident soul-style 4-to-the-bar pattern. When he switches to the hi-hat during the bridge it's a nice way to lighten the atmosphere.
Of course, on what is probably Ringo's most famous drumming of all, he creates an entirely new drum style. On "A Day in the Life" he breaks every convention of drumming, in that his lines serve no rhythmic purpose whatever - they're merely obbligatos designed to play against the melody. It's either insane or brilliant, but this time it works in spades. The fills themselves are quirky in their timing, leaving lots of spaces between the notes, then a flurry of tom hits. The beauty of his new calfskin heads is expressed particularly well here. Phil Collins says that Ringo's work on the song is "impossible to duplicate".
This is the one genre the Beatles are severely underrated. They basically popularized pre-recorded loops, backward looped vocal and instrumental effects, psychedelic electronic, the mellotron in popular music. They successfully incorporated the synthesizer with a strong pop structure. I know the Beatles naysayers don't like to hear this but "Tomorrow Never Knows" is about as important as anything Kraftwerk did. I am not saying the Beatles were exclusively an electronic band or the even the greatest but it seems some people who make these list are not hip to what they did.
The Beatles' ability to marry studio experimentation with a strong pop song structure is such a profound influence that it's taken for granted. I'd say it's their most important contribution. It's the very foundation of how music is still made, so I'd say their influence is very much evident today, even if not everybody knows it. I still say to this day the most prophetic record of the Sixties wasn't "Yesterday" or "Satisfaction" but "Tomorrow Never Knows," which sums up most of where music has gone. Minus the vocals, it's virtually an early hip-hop record that's as much Public Enemy as it is Philip Glass. Today's music is mostly about sound texture and the group that got us thinking about it the most is the Beatles. Some love to dismiss "Sgt. Peppers," and especially "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite," but I'll be damned if all that random splicing up of tape and punching it into a song for sound effects can't be found in Kanye West or many hip-hop crews of the last 25 years or so.
Whether we're talking Radiohead, Coldplay, U2, L.A. Reid or Raphel Saadiq, to mention a few, they still mention or show the Beatles' influence.
Miles Davis, NWA, Louis Armstrong, and Notorious Big are not Rock and Roll? But hey you got the top three right at least.
Nice list. I am glad someone is realistic rather than plugging albums maaybe a small fraction of people heard of at the time.
Number 6 on your list is Horace Grant not Horace Greeen. A very underrated draft and except for number 10 all of them actually played four years of college. The days of NBA drafts that are dominated by college seniors are over.
The Stones were a great band but were a copy-cat band. They took from the blues and when they branched out they copied the Beatles time after time until they went back to being what they were good and that was creating simple three chord rock & roll.
Did you forget the Beatles recorded Revolver in which many of the tracks were already finished before the Velvet Underground? Did you forget the Beatles recorded Rubber Soul in 1965 or "Stawberry Fields Forever" in late 1966. Both of those album already experimental and psychedelic. The Velvet Undergroun used well established things in rock music like feedback, drone, some distortion and made their own sound. The Beatles were using sources hardly used or never used in rock music.
Sgt Pepper is a progression from those two albums with one major difference. Sgt. Peppers structure was different and it's concept was copied by basically everyone in rock music.The "overture","reprise" and then the finale "A Day in the Life" at the end, the connecting of songs with noises that are looped just like what Pink Floyd would do later do on "Dark Side of the Moon.. The album ending features a hidden track. It's different from the Ventures."Sgt Pepper" structure was closer to future progressive rock albums. The closest to it in structure is Frank Zappa "Absolutely Free" but the only thing it has in common is the songs are connected and that's it really
Sgt Pepper is a progression from those two albums with one major difference. Sgt. Sgt Peppers structure was different and it's concept was copied by basically everyone in rock music.The "overture","reprise" and then the finale "A Day in the Life" at the end, the connecting of songs with noises that are looped just like what Pink Floyd would do later do on "Dark Side of the Moon.. The album ending features a hidden track. It's different from the Ventures."Sgt Pepper" structure was closer to future progressive rock albums. The closest to it in structure is Frank Zappa "Absolutely Free" but the only thing it has in common is the songs are connected and that's it really.
Ok let's crush Frank Zappa because Frank Sinatra did a concept album before him also. Scaruffi is the same person who said the Beatles wrote simple three minute songs when compared to previous rock & roll and blue music it was miles more complicated.
Ok I will.
Ian MacDonald loved the Beatles, Nick Drake and Steely Dan, while Bangs liked the Stooges, the Velvet Underground and the Clash. It does not make either right anyway.
You created a nice review but then like every Captain Beefheart fan you make another comment "Captain Beefheart the most important musician of the 60's". It’s laughably false. No one would even care about Captain Beefheart albums if certain rock musicians and you know who they are put the rock album on the map. Just let the music speak for itself.
For the most part I try not to comment on these Capatain Beefheart fan boys comments. Saying Captain Beefheart is the most important musician of the 60's" is a sweeping and broad comment that has no justification at all. Ok, you like Captain Beefheart but there literally dozens of musicians who came out of the 60's who were more important. I get you like Captain Beefheart but get some perspective he never created any sort of musical revolution and he did not change the industry either.
The album is very good but in most people lists it's not top 50 of all times. It's ranked #53 of all time on Acclaimed Music all time albums list. It’s just a very good album that’s all really.
Look was it Scaruffi's opinion that Ringo was the only Beatles that had technical ability and I responded to that. I was stating fact that many consider Paul to be one of the greatest rock bassists.
Other than that since I started Dismissing Piero Scaruffi views on the Beatles a month ago I have not gone on the Pro-Scaruffi lists and commented. Now everyone is welcome to Dismissing Piero Scaruffi views on the Beatles and comment there. Peace
Geez, I think some people hate the Beatles so much that when you point out the good things about them it sets them off. I actually like Keith Moon a lot and I consider better than Ringo but Keith Moon was a sloppy drummer.
Hey, I love the Beatles and what does it matter to you anyway? I was just pointing out some of Ringo strong points as a drummer. I know there better drummers than Ringo but hey I am giving him his due.
You can make your lists and not include the Beatles that's fine with me maybe you should open your horizons and realize not everyone thinks like Piero Scaruffi.
Considering Paul McCartney is considered by many one of the greatest rock bass players Scaruffi comments are pretty laughable.
Ringo drumming is underrated. Think For Yourself" he plays the verses in quarter-time (one drum beat to every four from the rest of the band) and really opens up for the chorus. "You Won't See Me" has big kicks - sounds like an extra large crash cymbal - with a very cool feature: an overdubbed hi-hat playing triplets against the eighth-notes of the regular pattern ".
Wait" has Ringo playing into the beat, landing each stroke just slightly ahead of the band. This has a wonderful driving feel, and the most interesting feature is the fill into the verse. Almost every drummer everywhere plays a drum fill into a cymbal crash. Ringo turns it around, with a big crash, a hi-hat sizzle and a swift tom fill into the back beat.
Here, There, and Everywhere" calls for an extremely light touch, which he approaches innovatively. Instead of brushes, he plays the full kits with sticks (throwing in some nicely timed fills on low-tuned toms to ease into each verse) but played very quietly. "She Said She Said" is a drummer's nightmare - all sorts of tempo and time signature changes, but he plows ahead with a fill-crazy verse pattern that sounds improvised (no two fills are the same) and then finesses the triple-time with a snare-kick combo on every beat, which eases back into the verse smoothly
Good Morning Good Morning" is another drummer's headache - it varies between 4/4 and 6/4 (or it's in 5/5), but he smoothes out the rhythm by sticking to a strident soul-style 4-to-the-bar pattern. When he switches to the hi-hat during the bridge it's a nice way to lighten the atmosphere.
Of course, on what is probably Ringo's most famous drumming of all, he creates an entirely new drum style. On "A Day in the Life" he breaks every convention of drumming, in that his lines serve no rhythmic purpose whatever - they're merely obbligatos designed to play against the melody. It's either insane or brilliant, but this time it works in spades. The fills themselves are quirky in their timing, leaving lots of spaces between the notes, then a flurry of tom hits. The beauty of his new calfskin heads is expressed particularly well here. Phil Collins says that Ringo's work on the song is "impossible to duplicate".
Scaruffi is overrated on a whole to be honest.
This is the one genre the Beatles are severely underrated. They basically popularized pre-recorded loops, backward looped vocal and instrumental effects, psychedelic electronic, the mellotron in popular music. They successfully incorporated the synthesizer with a strong pop structure. I know the Beatles naysayers don't like to hear this but "Tomorrow Never Knows" is about as important as anything Kraftwerk did. I am not saying the Beatles were exclusively an electronic band or the even the greatest but it seems some people who make these list are not hip to what they did.
The Beatles' ability to marry studio experimentation with a strong pop song structure is such a profound influence that it's taken for granted. I'd say it's their most important contribution. It's the very foundation of how music is still made, so I'd say their influence is very much evident today, even if not everybody knows it. I still say to this day the most prophetic record of the Sixties wasn't "Yesterday" or "Satisfaction" but "Tomorrow Never Knows," which sums up most of where music has gone. Minus the vocals, it's virtually an early hip-hop record that's as much Public Enemy as it is Philip Glass. Today's music is mostly about sound texture and the group that got us thinking about it the most is the Beatles. Some love to dismiss "Sgt. Peppers," and especially "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite," but I'll be damned if all that random splicing up of tape and punching it into a song for sound effects can't be found in Kanye West or many hip-hop crews of the last 25 years or so.
Whether we're talking Radiohead, Coldplay, U2, L.A. Reid or Raphel Saadiq, to mention a few, they still mention or show the Beatles' influence.