Dad bands

[TrickyBoy]

 

Well, the Beatles progressed a lot from their first album on following albums incredibly fast. I can understand people not liking some of their stuff, but to dismiss their vast catalog is a little strange. They had a lot of variety in their songs, and most people can find something they like. If you think songs like Ticket to Ride, And I Love Her, Daytripper, She's a Woman, She Said She Said, Tomorrow Never Knows, I'm Looking Through You etc. etc. are complete rubbish, than I would have to say your musical tastes are bizzaar. You have a good band, but I personally think the Beatles are infinitely better.

 

 

I wouldn't, IN A MILLION YEARS, even compare myself to a pimple on John Lennon's ass. I'm not saying the Beatles weren't good. I'm not saying they weren't important in the historical musical landscape. I'm saying that when I hear their music, I don't like it. End of statement. I've TRIED to force myself to listen to it, and I just don't like it at all.

 

You like it. I think Prince in infinitely better than the Beatles. You have an opinion. I have one. My point is people make these definitive statements like "The Beatles are better than anything that's come out since". That statement is as factual as Santa Claus.

[Vito Corleone]

Well, the Beatles progressed a lot from their first album on following albums incredibly fast. I can understand people not liking some of their stuff, but to dismiss their vast catalog is a little strange. They had a lot of variety in their songs, and most people can find something they like. If you think songs like Ticket to Ride, And I Love Her, Daytripper, She's a Woman, She Said She Said, Tomorrow Never Knows, I'm Looking Through You etc. etc. are complete rubbish, than I would have to say your musical tastes are bizzaar. You have a good band, but I personally think the Beatles are infinitely better.

 

 

"Ticket To Ride" is my all-time favorite Beatles song and one of my favorites period. I think it is the PERFECT pop song. I wonder how much that has to do with the fact that it was also one of the first Beatles songs I ever heard (and one of the first rock songs I ever heard) as my sister's copy of "Help" (and the first couple of Monkees albums) was the first rock album I probably ever listened to

[Vito Corleone]

I remember setting around the tube with a bunch of guys as they were drawing the numbers. They pulled that first number and one of our friends there got number one. Oh {censored}. They drafted till about 107 that year ,, i ended up with 147 ,, only lotto i ever won.

 

 

I certainly don't feel bad I missed that. I remember my mom being worried that the war would never end and would still be going on when I got to be of age. For my crowd, the biggest worry was that I turned 18 in 1979 and thus was the first "class" who had to sign up for the Selective Service when Carter put that into action. We were all certain it was a precursor for another draft or war and even more so when Reagan took office. Never happened, of course.

[wheresgrant3]

 

I wouldn't, IN A MILLION YEARS, even compare myself to a pimple on John Lennon's ass. I'm not saying the Beatles weren't good. I'm not saying they weren't important in the historical musical landscape. I'm saying that when I hear their music, I don't like it. End of statement. I've TRIED to force myself to listen to it, and I just don't like it at all. You like it. I think Prince in infinitely better than the Beatles. You have an opinion. I have one. My point is people make these definitive statements like "The Beatles are better than anything that's come out since". That statement is as factual as Santa Claus.

 

 

I'm like you... I'm not a huge Beatles fan. I didn't grow up with them and I didn't experience Beatlemania like millions of others. I do recognize the part they played in music history in changing pop and the effect and influence they had on later artists. It's a little hard to imagine music without the Beatles influence. The harmonies, inclusion of string and recording effects, their freedom as artists and their imprisonment as a band. They forever changed the way Brittish pop was composed and forever changed the way fans view bands and celebrities in the US. When I listen to their music now it's hard to grasp why it was so popular because so much since has sounded like them. I imagine if we were all growing up at that time we would have the hindsight to understand the impact.

 

It's very much like Kurt Cobain and Nirvana.... they were clearly not the best grunge band in the world and people can debate their talents (or lack their of) but their popularity caused such a polar shift in musical and compositional styles that music is still feeling the effect 20 years later. I can't stand Nirvana's music, but I can't deny the impact they had on a generation of music listeners.

[Vito Corleone]

OK I wasn't there, but Michael Jackson in the early 80's was pretty freakin intense in terms of buzz. By some reports, Thriller sold over 100 million records worldwide. Just sayin...

 

 

A lot of that sort of stuff has to do with the way media has changed. I don't think we'll ever see the buzz of The Beatles again because we'll never again be in a time where media is so confined. When all most people have is a black-and-white TV that gets MAYBE 3 channels, an AM radio, the daily newspaper and an occassional magazine, then 4 mop-tops from England can potentially dominate in a way we'll never see again. In the 80s MTV dominated the way music was delivered to kids in a way we haven't seen before or since. So it was inevitable that a Michael Jackson would eventually emerge.

 

Nowadays? Everything is so fractured and user-dominated that I'm not sure the public can ever be "fed" entertainment in the same way.

[SeniorBlues]

Guys . . .Guys . . .

 

I, for one, am not asking for your favorites (musically, sentimental, or otherwise.) I'm not asking who you think will still be touring when they're old and gray. I'm asking you to think like a historian.

 

I've been listening to music for over a half century, but even if you didn't hear all those well know acts when they first came out, that doesn't prevent you from thinking analytically about their long term influences and the overall quality of the music. I never bought a Michael Jackson record, but that doesn't keep me from recognizing that the "king of pop" title is deserved. I listen to Steely Dan all the time, but it doesn't make the all-time list.

 

Maybe this really is all a useless exercise. Just look up the numbers. . . . except that there aren't lists dedicated to popularity of songs played in bars in the NW, or dance clubs in the east . . . . . broken down by age group . . . of performers . . . . and patrons.

[Vito Corleone]

Guys . . .Guys . . . I, for one, am not asking for your favorites (musically, sentimental, or otherwise.) I'm not asking who you think will still be touring when they're old and gray. I'm asking you to think like a historian. I've been listening to music for over a half century, but even if you didn't hear all those well know acts when they first came out, that doesn't prevent you from thinking analytically about their long term influences and the overall quality of the music. I never bought a Michael Jackson record, but that doesn't keep me from recognizing that the "king of pop" title is deserved. I listen to Steely Dan all the time, but it doesn't make the all-time list. Maybe this really is all a useless exercise. Just look up the numbers. . . . except that there aren't lists dedicated to popularity of songs played in bars in the NW, or dance clubs in the east . . . . . broken down by age group . . . of performers . . . . and patrons.

 

 

Problem is, you want to apply hindsight to foresight. You say you recognize that Jackson's "king of pop" title is deserved. But did you recognize that when he was 12? Or after "Off The Wall" came out? Or even "Thriller"? Or was it only after a couple of decades later and people are STILL listening to his music that you decide the title is deserved?

 

You say you knew The Beatles and Stevie Wonder would transcend and I have no doubt you did. But maybe you're forgetting that you also thought that maybe someone like The Dave Clark Five or Billy Preston would go on to transcend as well?

 

I have no idea who will be revered as the pinnacle artists of this decade 20 or 30 years from now. But I will guarantee you there WILL be such artists. And that the (then) older fans of those artists will be sitting around somewhere bitching that music isn't as good as it used to be and how the new music out is all a bunch of crap.

[wheresgrant3]

OK I wasn't there, but Michael Jackson in the early 80's was pretty freakin intense in terms of buzz. By some reports, Thriller sold over 100 million records worldwide. Just sayin...

 

 

...And he bought the 'rights' to the entire Beatle catalog! OH SNAP!!!!

 

But I guess you had to be there...

[TrickyBoy]

 

Guys . . .Guys . . . I, for one, am not asking for your favorites (musically, sentimental, or otherwise.) I'm not asking who you think will still be touring when they're old and gray. I'm asking you to think like a historian. I've been listening to music for over a half century, but even if you didn't hear all those well know acts when they first came out, that doesn't prevent you from thinking analytically about their long term influences and the overall quality of the music. I never bought a Michael Jackson record, but that doesn't keep me from recognizing that the "king of pop" title is deserved. I listen to Steely Dan all the time, but it doesn't make the all-time list. Maybe this really is all a useless exercise. Just look up the numbers. . . . except that there aren't lists dedicated to popularity of songs played in bars in the NW, or dance clubs in the east . . . . . broken down by age group . . . of performers . . . . and patrons.

 

 

The point is that all we have is our opinions. There really is nothing else. There is no objective measure of "musical greatness", especially when discussing popular music. When you ask me who the best popular musician of my lifetime is, my answer is Prince. Everyone else get in line behind him. When I look at an era where the music was the best IMO, I say early 80's. Really no question to me. Again, my opinion. And no discussion of Stevie Wonder, The Beatles or Elvis is going to change my mind.

 

Coincidentally, My grandfather would answer that the Rat Pack era was the golden era of music and everything after that is crap.

 

And, at least in my opinion, we're all right and we're all wrong.

[SeniorBlues]

 

Problem is, you want to apply hindsight to foresight. You say you recognize that Jackson's "king of pop" title is deserved. But did you recognize that when he was 12? Or after "Off The Wall" came out? Or even "Thriller"? Or was it only after a couple of decades later and people are STILL listening to his music that you decide the title is deserved? You say you knew The Beatles and Stevie Wonder would transcend and I have no doubt you did. But maybe you're forgetting that you also thought that maybe someone like The Dave Clark Five or Billy Preston would go on to transcend as well? I have no idea who will be revered as the pinnacle artists of this decade 20 or 30 years from now. But I will guarantee you there WILL be such artists. And that the (then) older fans of those artists will be sitting around somewhere bitching that music isn't as good as it used to be and how the new music out is all a bunch of crap.

 

 

Are you serious? Dave Clark Five? Come, on man.

 

Of course you'll need to hear much of the body of work before you recognize someone's impact. If you think you need to wait 20-30 years before you are able to analyze the music, you're free do so, but during that interval, the content hasn't changed. I'm not asking for a measurement of consensus. I'm asking you to listen to the music, and note how it impacted music at the time and make a prediction now, not just in retrospect.

 

Your comment about changing media formats is interesting, but I don't think it's as fractured as you suggest. Youtube has significant market penetration. . . . enough to give the highly successful artists the exposure they need to give armchair critics like us the opportunity to form out own opinions.

[wardjames]

To add to who has Beatles-like and Stevie Wonder-like transcending ability I'd have to switch genres and suggest George Strait and Garth Brooks. Country music, love it or hate it, is almost just as popular as pop and rock nowadays, and that's a direct result of those two, kind of like modern rock and pop is a direct result of the Beatles and Stevie Wonder.

Strait has twice as many #1's as the Beatles (different genre obviously) and Garth-mania in the 90's is the only thing I can think of the approaches the Beatles, Elvis, and Michael Jackson.

[Vito Corleone]

Are you serious? Dave Clark Five? Come, on man.

Whoever. My point is I'm sure there were other 60s bands besides the Beatles that you thought would transcend who instead are pretty much forgotten by all except those who were "there".

 

 

Of course you'll need to hear much of the body of work before you recognize someone's impact. If you think you need to wait 20-30 years before you are able to analyze the music, you're free do so, but during that interval, the content hasn't changed. I'm not asking for a measurement of consensus. I'm asking you to listen to the music, and note how it impacted music at the time and make a prediction now, not just in retrospect.

But that's just it. You can't note how it impacts music "at the time" until you have the benefit of hindsight. Are there acts that have a new sound and big pop hits and consequently it seems that every record that follows sounds just like them? Sure. That happens all the time. Does that mean that act goes on to be considered legendary? Not necessarily. Sometimes it's a just a fleeting-pop thing.

 

 

Your comment about changing media formats is interesting, but I don't think it's as fractured as you suggest. Youtube has significant market penetration. . . . enough to give the highly successful artists the exposure they need to give armchair critics like us the opportunity to form out own opinions.

 

 

Youtube is big. But we don't have those big "coalese" moments anymore: The Beatles on Ed Sullivan. The debut of the "Thriller" video on MTV. Kids lined up around the block for the midnight release of "Use Your Illusion". Everything is "on demand" now. It changes, if not destroys, how artists and record companies are able to manipulate demand.

[Vito Corleone]

To add to who has Beatles-like and Stevie Wonder-like transcending ability I'd have to switch genres and suggest George Strait and Garth Brooks. Country music, love it or hate it, is almost just as popular as pop and rock nowadays, and that's a direct result of those two, kind of like modern rock and pop is a direct result of the Beatles and Stevie Wonder. Strait has twice as many #1's as the Beatles (different genre obviously) and Garth-mania in the 90's is the only thing I can think of the approaches the Beatles, Elvis, and Michael Jackson.

 

 

Garth for sure. Good call.

 

Strait is huge, but never had the rock-star status of Garth Brooks. At his peak he was every bit as big as Madonna, Guns n Roses or Michael. If not bigger.

[pickinatit]

I was 10 years old in 1971. I know probably 90-95% of those songs. My personal favorites are the R&B tunes on the list: Al Green, Gladys Knight, Stevie Wonder, Cornelius Bros & Sister Rose... What is interesting is how much dreck there is on that list though. A lot of Osmonds, "Put Your Hand In The Hand", "Chick A Boom" and bubblegum crap like that. And Andy Williams and Perry Como were still cranking out hits with schmaltzy dreck like "Love Story" and "It's Impossible". "Watching Scotty Grow" by Bobby Goldsboro??? Helen {censored}ing Reddy doing that horrible song from "Jesus Christ Superstar"?? Gag with me a shovel. But, still, a lot of good songs there--- but in 50-60-70 years time, after all the people who grew up with those songs are dead and gone, are there going to be any greater number of memorable songs from that year than there will be from 1951 or 1991? I doubt it.

1st, let me apologize for running so far behind you guys in keeping up with these threads. Seems like I'm always playing "catch-up".

I will just flat disagree with your last paragraph. I don't doubt for a minute that Beatle, Stones...etc. will still be playing long after most other music/artists are long forgotten.
Can't prove it...we'll just have to disagree.

Next, you can't pick out what you consider to be the worst examples and claim that they prove your point. As far as the Perry Como song et. al. You can dislike that kind of music, ok, I get that, but "It's Just Impossible" is a great song IMO. It's not what I would choose to listen to given most other choices but....just sayin.

I think that this post really explains a lot of the reason that you and I differ in opinion on this subject. From this post and other posts in various threads it seems as if (let me know if I'm wrong) you are much more focused in on R&B, Dance type music as your preference. That helps me to understand why you would think that the music of other decades is just as good/better then the mid 60's to mid 70s time slot. I don't even think of that stuff when I think about the music of that time period. I don't consider it to be representative of the best of that "era".

Another thing I would like to sort of clear up if I can...you made much of my choosing 1975 as the "cut off" point for my favorite music as an indication that I was focused on my own "emotional" attachment from my high school yrs....whatever. Just for the record...I picked 1975 randomly. Some of my favorite songs are from the late 70s and on into the 80s. "Power of Love", Boys of Summer, Footloose, Time After Time, Dancing In The Dark, Addicted to Love, What's Love Got To Do With It....(you can disagree as whether those songs are good or not....that seems to be a major reason for our disagreeing. I think we have pretty different ideas about what music is good and what music isn't).

Like I said, I chose 1975 randomly. If you really wanted me to nail down when I thought music appreciatively started going down hill I would have drawn a line somewhere closer to 1985 - 87 or there abouts.

I grew up listening to ragtime, show tunes, W.W.II era ballads and love songs...my Mother had her Console Magnavox cranked up all the time.... Perry Como, Al Martino & on and on.

I guess the point I want to make is that your assumption that I think the music of the 60s and 70s is the best of the half century plus because of "emotional attachments" is off base. Do you think you are the only one capable of considering the music itself objectively ? We can differ on our final opinion about it, but please recognize the fact that others can apply similar/same criteria as you and be just as objective as you and still disagree with your conclusions. That's all I'm saying.

[pickinatit]

And I'd argue that rock's golden age came in the 70s rather than the 60s despite growing up in the 90s myself. Deep Purple, Rainbow, Scorpions, Queen, Zeppelin, Van Halen, Sabbath, UFO, etc. > 60's bands >>>>>> 90s-today POPULAR bands.

 

 

I wouldn't argue with this opinion very hard.

[pickinatit]

I hate these arguments, because I'd rather listen to birds fart than the Beatles. Can't stand them, don't understand their popularity. I would say that Lady Gaga makes much better music. But hey, that's my opinion. Yours is different. Neither is right. Listen to the first Beatles album. Complete bubblegum pop. Just saying. That's why when I listen to the "music isn't as good as it used to be" crowd, I can only answer with the following. It's equally as good, it's just different. People make fun of Coldplay. I love their stuff. Muse, though not my favorite, is pretty damn compelling music. AND, I'll say that I'm finding more and more music that's BETTER today than was every produced in the past. Go get yourself an Oz Noy CD.

I don't want to go off on THIS tangent but have to chime in that yes, I understand why it might be bubble gum pop to you but it was cutting edge at the time. A new sound.

[TrickyBoy]

 

Do you think you are the only one capable of considering the music itself objectively ?

 

 

Though you weren't asking me, I want to answer. My opinion is that NO ONE is capable of considering music objectively. All we have is our opinions and experiences.

 

Let's use the Beatles as an example. They released their last album in 1720 - two years since I was born. Therefore, I have no EXPERIENCE regarding the Beatles. And while I have grown to respect them, I'll never really like them. Talk to the average 20-year old. My guess is that they wouldn't be able to name 5 songs by them. The point is that as time progresses, what the majority of people like is changing. Are the Beatles better than Justin Bieber? Probably so, but even if they were all still alive, Justin Bieber would greatly outdraw the Beatles in the 15-25 demographic. Is the younger generation wrong? NO. The simply have different experiences and opinions to base their purchasing decisions on.

 

I have no problem with someone saying that IN THEIR OPINION music from the 60's and 70's is the best music of the past generation. What I do fine laughable is the "music today is crap" crowd. I hear that and I think "old, closed-minded fart". For every 50-year old dreaming about the good old days, there's dozens of young people jammin to the new stuff.

 

I'm 39 and I still like a lot of new stuff - and believe me, I dislike a lot of it too. But I truly feel sorry for someone who's so stuck in the past they can't find new stuff that moves them.

[TrickyBoy]

 

I don't want to go off on THIS tangent but have to chime in that yes, I understand why it might be bubble gum pop to you but it was cutting edge at the time. A new sound.

 

 

So was T-Pain's use of autotuning. Just saying...

[pickinatit]

To which I and many like me owe a debt of gratitude to Gerald Ford who ended the draft. Of course that war was over by then but I still figured something would get hot in another area and I'd be marching off to a swamp somewhere for Uncle Sam.

 

 

As much as people hate to give him credit for ANYTHING you'd have to thank Richard Nixon for ending the draft. I was a freshman or maybe sophmore in college. The draft had become a lottery sytem by birth dates. I was 2 numbers away when they announced the end. I think it was 1973.

[Lee Knight]

Silly, silly, silly argument. This Beatles vs. Gaga vs. Scorpions or whatever. Is that even possible to debate? It's... a freakin' waste of time.

[BATCAT]

But that's just it. You can't note how it impacts music "at the time" until you have the benefit of hindsight.

 

 

Precisely. It's futile.

 

I think of the the late 80s and early 90's as something of a "golden age" as far as rock goes. That doesn't mean I don't think there's a lot of terrific stuff from the 70s, 60s and 50s. It also does not mean I think everything new is crap- in fact I feel like there's so much good stuff out there it's hard to process.

 

As long as there is human civilization, good music has always been being made and it will continue to be made. It will also contine to change. Everyone should enjoy what they enjoy but somehow thinking one particular decade- or handful of decades- of one genre of music is somehow uber-important or special in the grand scheme is myopic in the EXTREME.

[pickinatit]

Though you weren't asking me, I want to answer. My opinion is that NO ONE is capable of considering music objectively. All we have is our opinions and experiences. Let's use the Beatles as an example. They released their last album in 1720 - two years since I was born. Therefore, I have no EXPERIENCE regarding the Beatles. And while I have grown to respect them, I'll never really like them. Talk to the average 20-year old. My guess is that they wouldn't be able to name 5 songs by them. The point is that as time progresses, what the majority of people like is changing. Are the Beatles better than Justin Bieber? Probably so, but even if they were all still alive, Justin Bieber would greatly outdraw the Beatles in the 15-25 demographic. Is the younger generation wrong? NO. The simply have different experiences and opinions to base their purchasing decisions on. I have no problem with someone saying that IN THEIR OPINION music from the 60's and 70's is the best music of the past generation. What I do fine laughable is the "music today is crap" crowd. I hear that and I think "old, closed-minded fart". For every 50-year old dreaming about the good old days, there's dozens of young people jammin to the new stuff. I'm 39 and I still like a lot of new stuff - and believe me, I dislike a lot of it too. But I truly feel sorry for someone who's so stuck in the past they can't find new stuff that moves them.

]

 

Your assumption that someone has to be "stuck in the past" if they don't like today's music is ludicruous.

The fact that we are expressing opinions here, well, I really thought that was a given that was understood by everyone on the board. I don't feel the need to type IMO after every sentence. I guess you take that to mean they are declaritive statements if you want to but I think 99.9% of us know that this is all just opinion without someone having to state the obvious.

 

My truck radio pre-selects include "90's on 9", a hip-hop / R&B station, an "alternative rock station"

I make a conscious effort to TRY to find current music that I like. I want to introduce current stuff to my band. Sorry, but, yes, I dare to say it, IMO 99% of what I'm listening to is crap. You can think that means I'm stuck in the past if you want to, but that's just YOUR opinion and is no more valid then my statement.

[TrickyBoy]

The point is that all we have is our opinions. There really is nothing else. There is no objective measure of "musical greatness", especially when discussing popular music. When you ask me who the best popular musician of my lifetime is, my answer is Prince. Everyone else get in line behind him. When I look at an era where the music was the best IMO, I say early 80's. Really no question to me. Again, my opinion. And no discussion of Stevie Wonder, The Beatles or Elvis is going to change my mind. Coincidentally, My grandfather would answer that the Rat Pack era was the golden era of music and everything after that is crap. And, at least in my opinion, we're all right and we're all wrong.

 

 

You don't find much current music to be good. I don't understand the fascination with the Beatles. Neither of us are more right or more wrong.

[BATCAT]

My truck radio pre-selects include "90's on 9", a hip-hop / R&B station, an "alternative rock station" I make a conscious effort to TRY to find current music that I like. I want to introduce current stuff to my band. Sorry, but, yes, I dare to say it, IMO 99% of what I'm listening to is crap. You can think that means I'm stuck in the past if you want to, but that's just YOUR opinion and is no more valid then my statement.

It's my opinion too that, yes, that's tantamount to being "stuck in the past". But just about all of us over 30 are, in at least a few ways "stuck in the past". I know I am; probably very much so in some ways. Speaking universally, not just about music: It's not always a bad thing, because there is valuable stuff that is not current but is worth carrying a torch for. But I also think you need to be self-aware of how you might be stuck in the past, that it can be limiting... and that occasionally one should go against their inclination and try being more modern, just to keep perspective.

I'd also say if you're looking for great newer stuff FM radio is the last place I'd look, at least given my taste.

[Yer Blues]

Once you get to the top level like me you realize everyone else has bad taste and are just thankful that is their taste and not your own.

Can a father who doesn't have any children still play in a "dad band"?