Cerebus: As a fan of power metal, your talk of Skyclad intrigues me. Gimmie some good song titles (or even albums) to listen to.

I am so glad that you are "sure" what direction I would like to see this thread go.

I'm glad that you are glad.

But fuck it, I'll bite...

 

Probably the most asinine statement I have ever heard, just edging out Barry Bonds ("I don't know what cheating is").

Which is bullshit since your wife has made more asinine statements in general chat than me or Barry Bonds combined.

 

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.

No. You missed the point of the entire fucking argument. When Dylan's first albums were released they were singles oriented. They were greta labums but Dylan's "filler" was superior to most artists' filler. The album became a vehicle unto itself after the Batles made the long-playing record (lp) a piece of art to stand on its own. The music companies started looking for stronger albums rather than stronger singles after the Beatles demonstrated that the LP could be popular and financially feasible. They were willing to invest more money into them rather than slap a half-ass effort out to promote the single.

 

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.

Once again, you read into it what you want to read into it. Read what I fucking said.

Goodhelmet...

According to Lennon, they were stoned out of their minds this entire album nd were heavily influenced by Bob Dylan.

So, yep, I admitted that the Beatles were influenced by Dylan. Never denied it. But to deny that Dylan was not influenced by the Beatles is idiotic. He didn't go electric out of the blue. He has even admitted as much that the Beatles made him rethink the way he approached music. Read a Beatles or Dylan biography. It's in there.

 

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

Once again, read what I fucking said.

Goodhelmet...

In other forms of music, jazz in particular, it had a little more weight, but even that was a singles based genre.

I already admitted as much.

 

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?

They arrived in '64. No big thing there. They were a band that actually spent more time focusing on their British releases because the record company in the states would butcher the fucking albums... all the way up to Revolver. IT wasn't until Sgt. Pepper that the record company stopped fucking with their albums. It also isn't coincidence that the British releases are the definitive releases because they were released as the Beatles intended them to be. However, even in the singles format, no other oartist was doing what they were doing, No other artist amassed 20 #1 singles in 7 years. Elvis came close. Madonna came close but it took them much longer to achieve it.

 

And yeah... the Beatles were average. That says more about your ability to listen than anything about their music.

 

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.

I'm sure you don't but if you want it, it is there. Hell, I probably have more emotional connection to Alice Cooper songs or Elvis Costello songs than any Beatles song but I still know where to turn to when I want that.

 

Personally, I believe you're oversimplifying everything down to one band, which is narrow-minded and ridiculous.

No, I am saying tha tthe music landscape was shaped, to this day, was shaped by the Beatles. Maybe I dealt too much in absolutes. Fair enough. The fact remains that the Beatles remain the most influential rock band of all-time. You can deny it because it isn't your cup of tea but that doesn't make it not true.

 

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?

And I already mentioned the influence of other artists multiple times that came before the Beatles.

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.

 

It also is an album that revisits its rock n' roll roots with more covers than any Beatles album before it.

 

According to Lennon, they were stoned out of their minds this entire album nd were heavily influenced by Bob Dylan.

 

Rubber Soul was a veritable tribute to folk rock.

 

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 read what you want to read. I never said the Beatles weren't influence dby anyone. Never said that they came first. I said that they made everyone around them raise their game. Artists were getting left behind in the wake of the Beatles. All those guys you or I mentioned (Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins) were doing oldies circuits already, less than adecade after their hits. I am sure evryone of them would thank the Beatles for helping people rediscover their music.

 

 

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?

Didn't know Goffin & King were members of the Shirelles but point taken.

 

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.

 

Please, they were part of the Wall of Sound. Without it, they had nothing. How many hits without Spector? Really, I have no clue. I only know the ones with Spector. How many hits has Spector had without them? Too many to mention.

 

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

 

Thanks Beatles.

I think Bruiser covered this one. If you are open-minded to crpa, that is a knock against you. Not me.

 

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?

Any metal band that says they weren't influenced by black Sabbath is full of shit. Please, give me a list of this plethora of metal bands that has gone on record as saing they were not influnced by Sabbath.

 

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

rap- Wouldn't you know, just last year, your good firend Cj sent me the entire Grey Album, an album that mixed the Beatles White Album with Jay Z's Black Album. And nope, no Beatles song has ever been sampled in a rap song, not one.

 

punk- Punk is a direct statement against bands like the Beatles. Of course they were influenced by the Beatles. The Pistols took everything the Stones, Who and Beatles meant and did the complete opposite although they were also great promoters using some of the same tactics that Brian Epstein used to promote the Beatles. Listen to the Ramones. Nope, no Beatles influnce whatsoever. The Clash? No way man. Give me a fucking break. Those were souped up pop bands.

 

R&B, Blues, real Country - Please. You do realize that "Yesterday" and "Something" are the two most-covered songs of all-time. And wouldn't you just know it, a large portion of those covers are from R&B and country artists.

 

 

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.

OK, maybe I didn't make this clear. When the Beatles hit, everyone had a choice to make. They could be buried under the wave or they could raise their game. Elvis chose to hide in Hollywood and make shitty movies. His career was never the same. In fat, a man with 17 #1 records had only one #1 the entire time the Beatles had infiltrated American shores. "Suspicious Minds" in 1969.

 

More people list Elvis as their influence than the Beatles.

Where did you read this?

 

Elvis is credited for creating "rock"...not the Beatles.

Um no.

 

They are credited for the Brit movement in music

Do you mean the British Invasion? Of course. They opened the way for the Stones, The Who, Herman's fucking Hermits, the Kinks, Dave Clark 5, and countless other Brotosh bands... none of which had dented American music charts until the Beatles paved the way. How many bands influneced by the Stones would have had the chance if the Beatles didn;t clear the way to allow British musicians to impact America? Without them, would the following have been as successful or even been heard on these shores...

 

The Stones, the Who? the Kinks? Led Zeppelin? Black Sabbath? Elton John? Rod Stewart and the Faces? David Bowie? The clash? Elvis Costello?

 

Fuck no. That is my point. The reason you have probably heard of any of these guys is because the Beatles opened the path.

 

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.

Yes you did. Count the artists in your posts... 6. You said "6 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.

I already gave you that point. We also agreed that the Beatles popularized it.

 

I know the Beatles influenced some of the bands out there.

Now who is being narrowminded and shortsighted?

 

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.

Millions? And yep, just like your husband, conviently ignore the several posts where I admitted that the Beatles had influences and paid tribute to those influences.

 

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.

Nope, none of those guys before the Beatles are in the rock n' roll hall of fame. Nope, the Beatles never gave them credit in nearly every fucking interview they ever did. Nope, we'll just pretend that the Beatles were four nerds who never impacted pop culture more than any band before or after. We'll just live in a happy utopia where the Beatles fans know their place and don't step out of bounds for insinuating that their impact is more relavent than *gasp* Alison Krause *barf*.

 

For chrissakes, this isn't rocket science. Write the editors of Rolling Stone and have them explain the impact of the Beatles, musically and culturally. Read any history book or pop biography or book written about music culture sonce the 60s. It is right fucking there.

 

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

And listening to someone trying to minimize the Beatles' impact is like listening to one of those fucking idiots who claims the Holocaust never happened. It is nice you try and challenge people's notions and shift the paradigms, but the reality is what it is. Eventually, you just resign yourself to the fact it happened and that you were wrong.

 

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.

And I made it clear that you didn't read my entire posts or conveniently ignored half of the fucking things I wrote. That is why I wanted to avoid this whole conversation. It is pretty funny when a couple of the mods mention the tag-team effect you and your wife had and how ridiculous you come off... like this homely couple from the Midwest fighting over the computer.

 

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.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of negative and sarcastic remarks directed my way that would make my rebuttals more han appropriate, negative or not.

 

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?

Come on, you aren't this fucking dense. Of course it can be personal. You challenge people's paradigms and perceptions and it becomes personal regardless of the topic... politics, music, religion.

 

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?

And you shouldn;t because you and your wife would be on opposite ends of the argument.

 

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?

Good. And to claim the Beatles impact is minimal could label you certifiably insane in 2/3 of the states in the Union.

 

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

Not with the lackluster state of music these days. Mid-South is definitely more appealing.

 

That is all.

Now, that is all.

made the long-playing record (lp)

I know this is gonna sound dumb, but...is that what LP stands for? Long Playing? I cannot believe I never even guessed that.

 

What's EP then?

 

Any metal band that says they weren't influenced by black Sabbath is full of shit. Please, give me a list of this plethora of metal bands that has gone on record as saing they were not influnced by Sabbath.

A jillion dollars says that any metal band which does not claim Sabbath as an influence, claims at least one band as an influence which was influenced by Sabbath. (Did that sentence make sense?)

Yes, LP stands for Long Playing. EP stands for Exended Play. Extended meaning it is longer than the single format.'

 

Explanation of LP, 45s, and 78s

That's absolutely true, the point that even if certain bands or groups don't specifically cite Beatles or Sabbath or whoever else as an influence, that doesn't mean they weren't an influence. I argued a similar point with Will recently and I'm willing to concede to him now on it -- while the Beatles will probably never be my absolute favorite band, I'd be hard pressed to not refer to them as the most influential band ever in pop/rock music.

 

Where I was wrong before was that I blamed the Beatles for some taking some of the promoting tactics and using them on bad music. That's not their fault, so my argument that they had a negative influence in that case is incorrect, because the problem in that case isn't the promoting, it's the music.

 

As for Allison Krauss, listen to "Because" by the Beatles and then listen to "You Will be My Ain True Love" by Krauss. The influence is definitely there, be it directly or indirectly.

goodhelmet, you can sling shit at me (or about me) all you like. That is your chip, not mine. I wasn't trying to start some flame war, or any other shit like that. You are the one who took it personally, and decided to lower the thread by flaming.

 

I wasn't challenging *you* personally. I was challenging your use of words. In your original post(s) you made it sound as if the Beatles are to thank for every damn thing in the music world, which is false. But I am not going to sit here and try to state the reasons why over and over. Yes, the Beatles HELPED. But they aren't the creaters of music and all that is heard...like you tried to make it sound. Yes, they popularized things. I am not denying that. And yes, they influenced some, but not all. Yes, SOME. I'm sorry that you disagree with that, but that is your opinion. Not mine.

 

EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT.

 

If everyone thought the same way, the world would be a BORING place. And everything would sound the same remanufactured garbage.

 

I apologize for not conforming myself to the Beatles Mania. I will promptly lock myself in the closet with only Beatles albums to listen to, and I will not come out until I realize that "Paul is dead" and that the Beatles are God.

 

I'm simply not worthy.

Can you all stop baiting one another please? I don't want to have to lock the thread.

I have already said my piece... er... peace?

Cerebus: As a fan of power metal, your talk of Skyclad intrigues me. Gimmie some good song titles (or even albums) to listen to.

Album-wise, A Burnt Offering For The Bone Idol, Prince Of The Poverty Line, and The Answer Machine? are my 3 favourites. Single track-wise, here's a listing of some really good ones (obviously, IMO):

 

"The Sky Beneath My Feet"

"A Broken Promise Land"

"Salt On The Earth (Another Man's Poison)"

"Alone In Death's Shadow"

"Schadenfreude"

"Earth Mother, The Sun, And The Furious Host"

"Land Of The Rising Slum"

"Bellyful Of Emptiness"

"The Truth Famine"

"Penny Dreadful"

"Building A Ruin"

"Helium"

"Single Phial"

"Catherine At The Wheel"

"Vintage Whine"

"Bury Me"

"Polkageist"

"The Disenchanted Forest"

 

They also did good covers of "Come On Eileen" and Judas Priest's "Dreamer Deceiver".

Ugh, my head hurts just reading all of this stuff.

 

Instead of quoting everything, or whatever, I am just going to make a few statements.

 

1. At no point did I personally attack you. As I said previously, I made some snide comments, but they were more towards the Beatles than you, actually. I will reiterate: if you become unhinged enough to attack someone personally because they dislike a band you like, you need therapy. It's music, ok? Religion, yes, it gets intense, but with music? Maybe I am just too detached, but I am not going to be upset if someone disagrees with me (to any degree) on something musically.

 

2. As far as "cohesive, stand-alone albums", I still consider Freewheelin' Bob Dylan to be a good example of a pre-Beatles (well, sort of) example of one. None of the songs are filler...they're all there for one reason or another, and flow well with the entire album.

 

3. This kinda goes with #1, but I'll stick it here. There was no "tag-team" attempt on the part of Crystal and I. My statements were my own, and hers were her own, made at separate times in separate places. Some of our arguments overlapped, but hers was mostly in the direction of Elvis, Motown, etc., while mine were in another direction. "Tag-team" implies flaming, which was never done. Of course, if you want to flame and call us a "homely couple from the Midwest fighting over the computer", that's your decision; or rather the decision of Dec (and Alex and/or maybe Chuck?). There was never the discussion of "hey, let's get that goodhelmet guy good!", or anything of the sort. Oh, and as for not starting Fun Vs. Content just because Crystal and I would be on opposite sides...how is that relevant? Married couples can and do disagree, and she disagreed with me on a lot of things the last time we had that discussion at WDI.

 

4. I didn't ignore anything you wrote. I read every word. The problem, in my view, is that you tried to oversimplify a lot of things, which made some of your arguments come off differently than you might have intended. We could quibble about semantics all day long, but maybe we both need to learn to be less critical and more specific in our discussions, because we were being unclear and occasionally contradictory.

 

5. There is one thing you said specifically that I have to mention. You do realize that you were comparing someone dismissing the Beatles' importance with the Holocaust, right? Did 16 million people die because someone disagreed with you? Just saying that it's a really shitty comparison. For the record, I disagreed with Crystal's Southern Baptist comment also; but your comparison was way off kilter.

 

As for Dec...OMG ABSUE FO POWRE~!

I have already said my piece... er... peace?

It can be either one, actually.

 

And me too.

I won't argue anything you said but I will clarify one point.

 

I did NOT compare the Beatles' importance to the Holocaust. I compared people who minimalize the Beatles' accomplishments to people who denied the Holocaust ever happened. BIG BIG BIG Difference.

 

At no point in any post or any phrase did I ever say the Beatles' were more important than the Holocaust.

Penny Dreadful?

 

Like..

 

Forgive me if I'm out of order -

This new music has no soul

It may be good for making money,

Sadly that is not my goal

Integrity and honesty are words

That you don't understand,

But you're the best - it says so

In the penny dreadful in your hand

 

Like that song? I've heard Elvenking play it, but never thought it was a cover. Interesting.

Penny Dreadful?

 

Like..

 

Forgive me if I'm out of order -

This new music has no soul

It may be good for making money,

Sadly that is not my goal

Integrity and honesty are words

That you don't understand,

But you're the best - it says so

In the penny dreadful in your hand

 

Like that song? I've heard Elvenking play it, but never thought it was a cover. Interesting.

That is indeed the song. There is also a pseudo-remix called the Full Shilling Mix...not much of a difference between that and the other.

 

Definitely check them out...they get the highest marks I can give out.

Up until a year or two ago I'd have said Nirvana was my favorite, hands down. They're still up there, but my favorite artist now is Johnny Cash. The sheer number of great songs over such a lengthy period of time astounds me. His music has physically affected me before and will continue to do so.