So, who is it? What band or singer or lip-syncher do you worship at the feet of? Who is head and shoulders above everyone else out there... from all time eras?

 

I'll go first... The Beatles

I was going to see if anyone else would generate the discussion but I'll go ahead and do write-up on the merits of the Beatles and their albums.

 

Cultural Impact:

 

--Anytime you listen to an album that is cohesive and you enjoy listening to from front to back, thank the Beatles.

 

--Anytime you listen to any band post-1966, thank the Beatles.

 

--Anytime you want to find the meaning of life in a song, the Beatles will have it somewhere for you.

 

--You like rock? Beatles. You like pop music? Beatles? You like rap? Sorry.

 

--They rejuvenated interest in early American rock n' roll inc. artists like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins and Elvis when that genre was considered ancient. They made America rediscover its rocking roots.

 

--While some of the music sounds dated, most of the catalog consists of well--crafted pop songs that more than hold up over time.

 

 

Albums:

Please Please Me - The very first album they released. This sounds the most like the Beatles label as a boy band but most of the songs on here are head and shoulders above any other record released in 1963. The version of "Twist and Shout" has become a the definitive version as they sing with more fire and ...sare I say it... soul than the Isley Brothers version. Key tracks: "Twist and Shout"; "Do You Want to Know A Secret"; "Please Please Me"; "I Saw Her Standing There"; "Love Me Do".

 

With the Beatles

This is probably one of the most famous album covers of all-time as the mop-tops are photographed in silhouette. This is also one of the weaker Beatles albums from any era. Once again, a dated sound but some fun stuff. Key Tracks: "Til There Was You"; "All My Loving"; "Not A Second Time"; "Don't Bother Me"

 

Hard Day's Night

This is a unique album to listen to. It has some of my favorite and least favorite Beatles songs on there. "I Should Have Known Better" is the pinnacle of the early Beatles sound. Lennon's harmonica, the harmonizing vocals, uplifting tempo... this song defines the Beatles in the early years. Some tracks like "Hard Days Night" and "Can't Buy Me Love" have been played to death and I don;t really care to here them again. Then there are the B-Side songs. On the British release, the songs on Side 1 were used in the film while the Side 2 songs were leftovers. HOwever, many of the leftover tracks were better than the film songs. As a whole, this is one of my favorite Beatles albums even if it was just a boy band I was listening to. Key Tracks: "I Should Have Known Better"; "If I Fell"; "Things We Said Today"; "You Can't Do That"; "I'll Be Back"

 

Beatles For Sale

The Beatles softenedup their sound here. John Lennon said that they were starting to get more into folk and this was the first album to feel that influence. It also is an album that revisits its rock n' roll roots with more covers than any Beatles album before it. Personally, I only like half of this album. The songs covered aren't strong enough to begin wih in some cases and others sound like filler to top off the album. However, many of the originals are beautiful songs that capture melancholy emotions better than any other album. Key Tracks: "I'll Follow the Sun"; "No Reply"; "I'm A Loser"; "Eight Days A Week"; Every Little Thing"

 

Help!

According to Lennon, they were stoned out of their minds this entire album nd were heavily influenced by Bob Dylan. This caused them to become more introspective and use personal experiences and feelings as the basis for their songs. When John Lennon was crying 'Help!", he really wanted help. This is another soundtrack where Side 1 was used in the film and Side 2 were either American B-Sides or used to fill out the album... except for "Yesterday", Paul McCartney's song that became the most covered song of all-time...ever. Another favorite!

Key Tracks: "Help!"; "I've Just Seen A Face"; "Ticket to Ride"; "Dizzy Miss Lizzy"; "You're Going to lOse That Girl"; "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away"

 

I'll continue with the later albums in a bit.

I really wish you wouldn't have made that follow up post. You have intimidated me.

 

Currently, I've been listening to a lot of The Cars. So, I'm going with that for the time being.

 

Before I got on the Cars, I was listening to a lot of Heart & Bruce Springsteen.

Nothing to be intimidated about. I have been listening to the Beatles longer than half the members of this board have been out of diapers. Most of that stuff, I have read and knew off the top of my head. Alot of it is also common knowledge amongst Beatles fanatics. The key tracks are my personal favorites from each album.

I'm not really a big "music guy" if you know what I mean. It's mostly just pleasant background noise for me. ;-)

 

Anyway, Metallica is my favorite.

The Beatles were my primary religious body of work through high school and college (one of the night classes I took was actually called "Music of the Beatles"), but my love for them has kind of died down over time, paving the way for Radiohead or Nirvana to rear their head, depending on my mood. It has nothing to do with the Beatles' music getting old - I still enjoy the songs - but that my tastes have expanded and moved to different areas.

You can thank the Beatles for allowingyou to expand your musical horizons since they were trendsetters in musical experimentation and concept music.

Continuing with the Beatles albums, we now pick up with the Masterpieces.

 

Rubber Soul

If Help! was the Beatles flirting with folk, Rubber Soul was a veritable tribute to folk rock. The whole album just sounds... mellow and laid back, even the rockers. Nearly every song is listenable or is unique in some form. At this time, the Beatles were caught between two worlds... the lovable mop-top and the serious artist. Even then, it produced some of the best songs I have ever heard. Oddly enough, while Paul McCartney had more great songs on this album than Lennon, Lennon had the best song with "In My Life".

Key Tracks: "In My Life"; "You Won't See Me"; "If I Needed Someone"; "I'm Looking Through You"; "Run For Your Life"

 

 

Revolver

Revolver was a complete rejection of the Beatles past. They had stopped touring because they reasoned that the sounds they were creating in the studio could no longer be reproduced live. Plus, they could never hear themselves play in concert anyway since all of the girls were screaming nonstop. The album was full-blown psychedelia as nearly evry song had a trick or distortion or different instrument that made it sound slightly off-kilter. It was also released around the same time as Pt Sounds which makes 1966 one of the strongest years for influential albums. Talk about blowing your mind. For those who keep up with lists, this was VH1's #1 album of all-time and I don't know if I would argue with that... unless I was talking about another Beatles album.

Key Tracks: "Tomorrow never Knows"; "Got to Get You Into My Life"; "here There and Everywhere"; "She Said, She Said"; "I'm Only Sleeping"

 

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Even if it sounds incredibly dated today, Sgt. Pepper is the most inluential album in rock history. If you read lyric sheets in your CD covers, thank the Beatles. Any song you hear that connects with another song into a mini-suite was first done by the Beatles. Do you like to look at album cover art? Thank the Beatles. Ever recieved a special edition or gift in an album (stickers, cutouts, whatever), thank the Beatles. This album changed the way that people recorded and approached the album as art. Prior to Pepper, the album was used as a vehicle to support the singles. After Pepper, the singles were used to support the albums. Hell, nowadays, you don't have to even release a single to have a successful album. In fact, not one song from Sgt. Pepper was released as a single in its initial release. While this is clearly a psychedelic timepiece, Pepper still has some really strong tracks. "A Day in the Life" is an epic that compares with any other musical mindf**k you have ever heard.

Key Tracks: "Sgt. Pepper reprise and A Day in the Life"; Sgt Pepper and With A Little Help From My Friends"; "Lucy In the Sky wih Diamonds"; Getting Better"; "Lovely Rita"

 

Magical Mystery Tour

The Magical Mystery Tour was originally released as an EP as support for the horrible art-film that accompanied it. If you ever watch the film, ignore the entire thing except for the music sequences. Watch them individually, and you have som ground-breaking music videos. It is also important to recognize that this was the Beatles most psychedelic album. Also, several of the music tracks from the film are strong Beatles songs but the real gem is the 2nd side, which consists of a collection of the Beatles 1967 singles and B-sides. They released some great music that year and the Beatles turned a good EP into a great album.

Key Tracks: "I Am the Walrus"; "Baby You're A Rich Man"; "Strawberry Fields Forever"; "Fool On the Hill"; "Hello Goodbye"; "Penny Lane"; "Your Mother Should Know"; "Magical Mystery Tour"

--Anytime you listen to any band post-1966, thank the Beatles.

 

--You like rock? Beatles. You like pop music? Beatles? You like rap? Sorry.

 

So, I have to thank the Beatles for...

 

...Skyclad?

 

...The Village People?

 

...Kiss?

 

...the Cure?

 

...Alison Kraus & The Union Station?

 

 

I don't think so.

 

Granted, I am sure that the Beatles influenced a lot of music, but I don't think I have to thank them for EVERY band since 1966. Now, don't get me wrong, I like the Beatles. My favourite songs by them are "I Should Have Known Better" and "In My Life". But they are not the sole reason that damn near everything musically exists today. They helped, yes. There are other influences: Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash, Loretta Lynn, Replacements, the Cure, Nirvana, etc. The list goes on and on.

 

 

And what about County music? Blue Grass? Disco? Grunge/Alternative?

 

 

 

Now, my favourite band varies between 3...the Replacements, the Cure, or the Afghan Whigs. But if I *had* to pick one, it would probably be the Replacements. I will have to dig up this post I wrote about them a while back for a WDI thread. It pretty much chronicles their entire "lifespan".

OK, let me rephrase that to any RELAVENT band.

 

And yes, Kiss, the Cure and the Village People were all influenced by the Beatles in one sense or another. In fact, in the Gene Simmons autobio even menions that Kiss was trying to become the American Beatles. Not from a musical standpoint, but from a marketing standpoint.

 

the Village People, as sad as it sounds are also influenced by the Beatles. Having a uniform or particular style for an entire group began with the Beatles, exaggerated by the Sgt. Pepper uniforms, and hence you had a huge amount of groups that used an image (like the Beatles) to have the fans identify themselves with.

 

For chrissakes, if you don't think the Cure was influneced by the Beatles pop mentality, you need to really go back and listen to the music.

 

 

County music? Blue Grass?

Possibly although this music has ceased to be relevant or meaningful. In other words, it is crap.

 

Disco?

Unfortunately, yes

 

Grunge/Alternative?

Without a doubt! This isn't even debatable.

Having a uniform or particular style for an entire group began with the Beatles, exaggerated by the Sgt. Pepper uniforms, and hence you had a huge amount of groups that used an image (like the Beatles) to have the fans identify themselves with.

Well, the Beach Boys came out before 1966, and they dressed in the same uniform/clothes. As did Ike and Tina. The Crystals. The Shirelles. Etc. Etc. Etc. So, the Beatles didn't start it. They just perfected it. Hell, look at the SUPREMES! (Look at damn near every singing group before the Beatles. They were all dressed the same. That was the thing back then. They looked more uniform...more together. They even had the same haircuts.)

 

Possibly although this music has ceased to be relevant or meaningful. In other words, it is crap.

It's not crap. You just don't like it. And it is relevant/meaningful....just not to you. It's huge. Alison Kraus is huge. And the sound wasn't influenced by the beatles. You can definitely hear that.

 

 

I am waiting for someone to come out and say the revolutionized music by being British. (Only a few people will probably catch the reference.)

Well, the Beach Boys came out before 1966, and they dressed in the same uniform/clothes. As did Ike and Tina. The Crystals. The Shirelles. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Not quite what we were going for. The Beatles arrived on our shores in 1964 so lets get that straight.

 

Ike and Tina were nobodies before 1964.

 

The Beach Boys, Crystals and Shirelles were not uniformed like the Beatles. Hell, most of America probably couldn't have recogninzed a member of the Shirelles, Crystals, or even the Beach Boys before the advent of Pet Sounds. The Beatles captured the image-conscious appeal of popualr music and for that, yo ucan thank their manager Brian Epstein.

 

Hell, look at the SUPREMES!

The Supremes also had their biggest success after the Beatles arrived and were a non-factor until 1964 when they finally had a string of consecutive #1s. Again, AFTER the Beatles. OH! forgot to mention this but just so you know... Brian Wilson was sitting around, smoking dope, listening to Rubber Soul. This great album inspired him so much that he turned around and wrote Pet Sounds which turned around and influenced Paul McCartney to write the ideas for Sgt. Pepper.

 

It's not crap. You just don't like it. And it is relevant/meaningful....just not to you. It's huge. Alison Kraus is huge. And the sound wasn't influenced by the beatles. You can definitely hear that.

No, it's crap. And if I could stomach the sound for five minutes or read her bio or something, I am sure she was influenced by the Beatles as well.

 

I am waiting for someone to come out and say the revolutionized music by being British. (Only a few people will probably catch the reference.)

It can probably mean two things and neither one is very funny or witty or original.

 

But seriously, if you like the Beatles, cool. If you are trying to deny them their influence, you are nuts. Almost any band post 1964 is a response to the Beatles, inc. punk, disco, psychedelia, grunge, and to some degree...country.

 

Also, if you want to use band names to strengthen your argument, get your historical facts straight as I just illustrated how the Supremes success came AFTER the Beatles arrived and how the Beach Boys were directly affected by the Beatles music. Do your research then come back and talk to me.

My point was this...the Beatles didn't START the matching outfits thing. It was around long before them, and their success. They popularized it. Not started it

 

Historical Facts:

 

The Beach Boys first hit came out in 1961..."Surfin'" Beach Boys

 

Ike and Tina recorded "A Fool In Love" in 1959. By the autumn of 1960, it was a NUMBER 2 R&B hit for Sun Records. Fact Checker #1

 

The Supremes had the hits "Where Did Our Love Go?" and "Baby Love" in 1964. Kinda big hits for them, I guess. Fact Checker #2

 

The Shirelles

 

The Crystals

 

I do my fact checking, thanks.

 

No, it's crap. And if I could stomach the sound for five minutes or read her bio or something, I am sure she was influenced by the Beatles as well.

It's not crap. You just don't like it. Elitists say things like that. "Oh, I hate it so it's carp. Blah, blah, blah. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's crap. For every person who hates something, there are just as many who love it. It's called musical tastes....everyones' is different.

 

But seriously, if you like the Beatles, cool. If you are trying to deny them their influence, you are nuts. Almost any band post 1964 is a response to the Beatles, inc. punk, disco, psychedelia, grunge, and to some degree...country.

 

I like the Beatles, but I don't think they are responsible for every thing in music today. Yes, they were an influence, but not to everybody and everything. No one is.

 

 

****EDIT****

 

Pulled directly from time.com's site about the beatles: "In 1963 ? the year before the Beatles broke Stateside ? the charts were filled with great records by the Drifters, the Beach Boys, Roy Orbison, Sam Cooke, Motown's Miracles and Martha and the Vandellas, and celebrated Phil Spector girl groups such as the Crystals and the Ronettes."

 

6 bands right there that influenced a lot of bands today, AND wore the same damn outfits. 1963.

Iron Maiden, by far. They've been my favourite band since I gave up on Metallica back in high school.

 

Why? Because they're Iron FUCKING Maiden. No other reason needed.

My point was this...the Beatles didn't START the matching outfits thing. It was around long before them, and their success. They popularized it. Not started it

Agreed, they popularized it. And without them, it would be meaningless.

 

The Beach Boys first hit came out in 1961..."Surfin'" Beach Boys

 

I never said the Beach Boys weren't around before the Beatles. I said the Beatles influenced the Beach Boys. It was the Beatles who caused the Beach Boys to elevate their game. In fact, any rtist pre-1964 who wanted to stay the game had to alter what they were doing in order to stick around. The Beatles changed the rules.

 

Ike and Tina recorded "A Fool In Love" in 1959. By the autumn of 1960, it was a NUMBER 2 R&B hit for Sun Records.

Maybe nobodies was too strong a term. They certainly hadn't even smelled success. And please tell me, where did that song place on the Billboard POP chart.. you know, the one that matters?

 

The Supremes had the hits "Where Did Our Love Go?" and "Baby Love" in 1964. Kinda big hits for them, I guess. Fact Checker #2

 

Oops, let me quote and bold my post in big black letters so you can see the error in your ways. I'll even capitalize...

 

The Supremes also had their biggest success AFTER the Beatles arrived and were a non-factor UNTIL 1964 when they finally had a string of consecutive #1s.

The Shirelles

 

The Crystals

You got me on the matching outfits. But lets look closely at the two...

 

The Shirelles- Didn't write their own music, had some great hits (written by real songwriters), and were still faceless.

 

The Crystals- a product of Phil Spector's Wall of Sound. Phil Spector was the star here, not the Crystals.

 

It's not crap. You just don't like it. Elitists say things like that. "Oh, I hate it so it's carp. Blah, blah, blah. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's crap. For every person who hates something, there are just as many who love it. It's called musical tastes....everyones' is different.

It is what it is. Some music is good. Some is crap.

 

I like the Beatles, but I don't think they are responsible for every thing in music today. Yes, they were an influence, but not to everybody and everything. No one is.

Ok, lets clarify this... A band starts out in a garage and they play Black Sabbath covers. Never heard a song from the Beatles. They are still influenced by the Beatles. Black Sabbath, and Ozzy in particular, has gone on record saying the Beatles were why they entered music.

 

A band releases an album that is hailed as a masterpiece. Prior to the Beatles, the album was an irrelevant medium in the music industry. It was all about the hit singles. In other forms of music, jazz in particular, it had a little more weight, but even that was a singles based genre. Any album that is looked upon as genius pre-1964 was reflected upon after the Beatles made the album relevant.

 

I am not saying every band has heard a Beatles song, but if they were a good band, they should have. But I guarantee you, they are influenced by them in some form or fashion.

 

Pulled directly from time.com's site about the beatles: "In 1963 ? the year before the Beatles broke Stateside ? the charts were filled with great records by the Drifters, the Beach Boys, Roy Orbison, Sam Cooke, Motown's Miracles and Martha and the Vandellas, and celebrated Phil Spector girl groups such as the Crystals and the Ronettes."

 

6 bands right there that influenced a lot of bands today, AND wore the same damn outfits. 1963.

Yep, that Roy Orbison BAND sure did rock. Never heard of the BAND Sam Cooke but he must be good. Those are fucking vocal artists. The bands are the ones who actually, you know, play instruments!!!

 

For chrissakes, we can even go further back and say that Ray Charles influenced every artist ever post 1954 since he virtually invented R&B and rock n' roll is essentially sped up R&B. You missed the fucking point completely. If you wanna harp on the outfits, fine. You win. The Beatles did not influence The Village people. Good thing too. They suck.

Anytime you listen to an album that is cohesive and you enjoy listening to from front to back, thank the Beatles.

Probably the most asinine statement I have ever heard, just edging out Barry Bonds ("I don't know what cheating is"). You're saying that those of us who enjoy our Freewheelin' Bob Dylan from start to finish can thank the Beatles, although it was recorded simultaneously with the Beatles' first album? Dylan's sound was just that: Dylan's sound. If you think that Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde On Blonde, or even John Wesley Harding or Blood On The Tracks, were "thanks to the Beatles", then you should listen to the material again, perhaps...without Help! in the background. Remember...it's all about vice versa sometimes.

 

I'm also glad to know that the Beatles, and not Miles, were responsible for Bitches Brew. Thanks.

 

Anytime you listen to any band post-1966, thank the Beatles.

The Beatles arrived on our shores in 1964 so lets get that straight.

Uh huh, real interesting. So, which is it? Or did they sit on their asses during that time? Or were they tuning up their average ability to mail in another album before inspiration came along in the form of Rubber Soul?

 

Anytime you want to find the meaning of life in a song, the Beatles will have it somewhere for you.

I can always find the meaning of life in a song without the Beatles. I know there are plenty who agree with you, but I don't need the Beatles to do that.

 

Personally, I believe you're oversimplifying everything down to one band, which is narrow-minded and ridiculous. If you get right down to it, the Beatles were very much influenced early on by Carl Perkins, Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, and later on by Bob Dylan, who were in turn influenced by artists such as Joe Turner, Nat King Cole, Fats Domino, Hank Williams, and Big Mama Thornton. So don't give me any of this shit about how everything comes from the Beatles. If you want, I'll show you how it all goes back to Hobart Smith. But then, that would sort of defeat the point, wouldn't it?

 

That is all.

Dream Theater

 

Just awesome progressive metal/rock. They're pretty much a hit wonder ("Pull Me Under"), but they have PLENTY of great songs. John Petrucci is my favorite guitarist, Mike Portnoy is an awesome drummer, John Myung is an incredible bass player, and the keyboard playing is out of this world. Plus, their singer, Jame LaBrie, can sing as different characters very well. Great technical songs with plenty of emotion=winner for me.

 

Full Studio Albums:

 

When Day and Dream Unite ***1/2

 

 

Images and Words ****1/2

 

Awake *****

 

Falling Into Infinity ***1/2

 

Scenes From a Memory ****3/4

 

Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence ****1/4

 

Train of Thought ****

 

Octavarium-it hasn't come out yet, but it'll be mine on the 6th of June.

 

Explanations will be edited into this post later, but I have an exam at 7:30 tomorrow. :ph43r:

Ike and Tina recorded "A Fool In Love" in 1959. By the autumn of 1960, it was a NUMBER 2 R&B hit for Sun Records.

Maybe nobodies was too strong a term. They certainly hadn't even smelled success. And please tell me, where did that song place on the Billboard POP chart.. you know, the one that matters?

#27 in the top 100.

 

The Shirelles- Didn't write their own music, had some great hits (written by real songwriters), and were still faceless.

 

The Crystals- a product of Phil Spector's Wall of Sound. Phil Spector was the star here, not the Crystals.

Perhaps YOU need to read closer.

 

Pulled directly from their bio: "One of the first of the late Fifties and early Sixties girl groups and among the few to write their own hits, the Shirelles were also one of the longest lasting."

 

That means, they wrote their own hits. Wow. Impressive, huh?

 

As for the Crystals, even though Spector invested his time in them, they still were the ones doing the work. Singing. Preforming for audiences. Being a producer only goes so far. It's the talent that takes them the rest of the way.

 

 

You can thank the Beatles for allowingyou to expand your musical horizons since they were trendsetters in musical experimentation and concept music.

And then...

It is what it is. Some music is good. Some is crap.

Shall I thank the Beatles for your being so closeminded as well?

 

Thanks Beatles.

 

 

Ok, lets clarify this... A band starts out in a garage and they play Black Sabbath covers. Never heard a song from the Beatles. They are still influenced by the Beatles. Black Sabbath, and Ozzy in particular, has gone on record saying the Beatles were why they entered music.

Ok, what about the bands that don't list Ozzy, Sabbath, or the Beatles as an influence?

 

What about the plethora of metal bands out there that aren't influenced by any of them?

 

I am not saying that the Beatles aren't an influence on some of the music. But they are not the ones to thank for everything in music today.

 

I don't see their influence on Rap, R&B, Blues, real Country (not the pop stuff), or Punk.

 

I don't think they influenced Elvis to be better. He was the original trend setter. He is what made the teeny boppers that later attatched themselves to the Beatles. More people list Elvis as their influence than the Beatles. Elvis is credited for creating "rock"...not the Beatles. They are credited for the Brit movement in music.

 

Pulled directly from time.com's site about the beatles: "In 1963 ? the year before the Beatles broke Stateside ? the charts were filled with great records by the Drifters, the Beach Boys, Roy Orbison, Sam Cooke, Motown's Miracles and Martha and the Vandellas, and celebrated Phil Spector girl groups such as the Crystals and the Ronettes."

 

6 bands right there that influenced a lot of bands today, AND wore the same damn outfits. 1963.

Yep, that Roy Orbison BAND sure did rock. Never heard of the BAND Sam Cooke but he must be good. Those are fucking vocal artists. The bands are the ones who actually, you know, play instruments!!!

Actually, if you looked closely, you would have noticed that they were popular before. And I never counted Sam Cooke or Roy Orbison as bands. My point was that I was trying to show that the whole matching outfit thing that you said the Beatles created had been in effect BEFORE they were popular. That they never started it like you said they did. The matching outfits thing was made popular by MOTOWN doing it first. Others followed...like the Beatles.

 

 

And I didn't miss your point. I know the Beatles influenced some of the bands out there. But had the likes of Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, and a MILLION others out there never existed, neither would have the Beatles. The real influences are the ones that came before them, but get NO credit because some teenage girls screamed and cried like morons over four geeky guys from Liverpool....because they were poppy and "cute/sexy". That is what started their popularity.

 

 

Talking to a Beatles fan is like talking to a Southern Baptist. You get nowhere.

Alex, on When Day And Dream Unite, didn't the band have a different singer than LaBrie? I seem to recall one of my friends buying the first album *ages* ago, and we were turned off by the vocals...and when Images & Words was released, we figured it had to be a different vocalist. Just wondering.

It's not crap. You just don't like it. Elitists say things like that. "Oh, I hate it so it's carp. Blah, blah, blah. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's crap. For every person who hates something, there are just as many who love it. It's called musical tastes....everyones' is different.

I disagree. In most cases this is true, but there's some stuff that's just crap, plain and simple. Aqua wasn't crap? Even fans of them can't tell me shit like Barbie Girl was quality music. Everyone has different musical tastes, but the fact is, some people like crap.

Alex, on When Day And Dream Unite, didn't the band have a different singer than LaBrie? I seem to recall one of my friends buying the first album *ages* ago, and we were turned off by the vocals...and when Images & Words was released, we figured it had to be a different vocalist. Just wondering.

Yep. His name is Charlie Dominici and he sucks. Actually, he's coming out with his first solo album soon. Charlie was an annoying guy (well I think he was annoying from the Majesty video) and sounded like Geddy Lee. I thank God that Charlie isn't in the band anymore.

I am filled with extreme disappointment that goodhelmet never deigned to reply. Obviously, it's because I simply don't understand the significance of The Beatles. Uh huh, yeah.

 

Anyway, to actually answer the question from the first post, the artist I admire most would be Skyclad. Combining intelligent, and often clever, lyrics with great songwriting and excellent musicians, they released 10 albums of what I call Renaissance metal, with violins/violas, mandolins, flutes, etc. being very prominent after the first album. Just brilliant, brilliant stuff.

 

That is all.

I am filled with extreme disappointment that goodhelmet never deigned to reply. Obviously, it's because I simply don't understand the significance of The Beatles. Uh huh, yeah.

 

Anyway, to actually answer the question from the first post, the artist I admire most would be Skyclad. Combining intelligent, and often clever, lyrics with great songwriting and excellent musicians, they released 10 albums of what I call Renaissance metal, with violins/violas, mandolins, flutes, etc. being very prominent after the first album. Just brilliant, brilliant stuff.

 

That is all.

I chose not to reply for two reasons...

 

1. It will inevitably turn into a flamewar. It has already ceased to be about the music and become some argumentative posturing. I'm sure you would prefer it was personal and it would be all too easy for me take it personally so I step back.

 

2. I picked up about 32 hours of Mid-South that I have been focusing my attention on.

He makes a good point. No offense, but Mid South >>> arguing in the music folder. Hell, Mid South >>>> me.

I am filled with extreme disappointment that goodhelmet never deigned to reply. Obviously, it's because I simply don't understand the significance of The Beatles. Uh huh, yeah.

 

Anyway, to actually answer the question from the first post, the artist I admire most would be Skyclad. Combining intelligent, and often clever, lyrics with great songwriting and excellent musicians, they released 10 albums of what I call Renaissance metal, with violins/violas, mandolins, flutes, etc. being very prominent after the first album. Just brilliant, brilliant stuff.

 

That is all.

I chose not to reply for two reasons...

 

1. It will inevitably turn into a flamewar. It has already ceased to be about the music and become some argumentative posturing. I'm sure you would prefer it was personal and it would be all too easy for me take it personally so I step back.

 

2. I picked up about 32 hours of Mid-South that I have been focusing my attention on.

I am so glad that you are "sure" what direction I would like to see this thread go. Personal attacks never factored into it at all. You presented an argument, with your point of view; I responded with my thoughts that your argument was ridiculous, with my point of view. This is called discussion. Nothing personal was ever uttered, nor was there flaming of any kind. I simply felt you made some very ridiculous statements, and let my viewpoint be known.

 

That said, anyone who would be willing to get involved in a negatively personal way with others while discussing music needs many, many years of therapy. Unless you're in the band, you cannot be effectively attacked in any meaningful way, so how the fuck does the concept of "getting personal" in a discussion like this even come into play? You worship the Beatles; I spit on their graves. So fucking what? If you take that sort of thing personally, maybe you should just take a deep breath and reprioritize things. There is no sense in getting worked up to the Nth degree over something someone posted on a message board.

 

I do not want to start the dreaded Fun Vs. Content shit all over again, but aren't message boards created for discussion of various things? I visit and post on boards because of the discussion and interaction; I like debating/arguing opposing viewpoints, even when I think everyone else is off their fucking meds. Am I alone here?

 

And everyone, remember the mantra we were taught years ago (slightly altered to fit more recent times): IT'S JUST A FUCKING MESSAGE BOARD!!

 

Oh, and Chuck, anything involving music >>>> anything involving wrestling at this point, Mid-South or no.

 

That is all.