Ursa Majoris Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Nirvana? There goes your cred (what little you had left). The Beatles and Stones do not even qualify as rock .... they are just mainstream 50's rock influenced pretty hippy boys whose only competition was FOLK MUSIC get outta here and bring me some metal. This conversation is about ROCK BANDS, not folk music with violin and just order the fish for goodness sake. This is the most ill-informed post in a music thread I have ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 This is the most ill-informed post in a music thread I have ever seen. I am sorry but 'Under my Thumb' and '19th Nervous Breakdown' is not Rock. Sgt. Pepper's and Yellow Submarine is not rock. I call it more like weak rock on the tails of folk and blues music. Didn't you ever see the Ed Sullivan Show? These guys were lame. They ain't rockers. I know the Beatles and the Stones as good as anyone, so bring it on. Apples to Oranges. Now you can compare the Beatles to the Monkeys or the Beach Boys if you want to. But that is not in the rock category. We are talking rock here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Seriously, you cannot compare the Beatles to VH. Apples to oranges. One is a tamborine and a 'gently weeping guitar' and the other is an 'Eruption' get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 When Oates shaved his mustache was the day the music died. Forever. Are you sure it wasn't when Freddie Mercury came out of the closet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Seriously, you cannot compare the Beatles to VH. Apples to oranges. One is a tamborine and a 'gently weeping guitar' and the other is an 'Eruption' get it? I am a hugh Van Halen fan. There are different forms of Rock N Roll. Some are heavier than others but to say you dont consider The Stones and The Beatles Rock n Roll is like saying you dont consider Babe Ruth a baseball player Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 please, let's just end the Van Halen bashing. there is no way in hell Eddie is not considered top 5 guitarists of all time (Rolling Stone magazine is out of their minds). I only ever paid for the DLRoth years so considering only the first 15 years, Van Halen was one of the most powerful bands of the mid 70's and early 80's. Eddie Van Halen was revolutionary to the guitar world. Very few metal bands at the time compared to them. Van Halen I ranks among the best 20 albums of all time in any rock n roller's opinions. And if you narrow that down to real heavy metal from the same era, very few bands equaled VH, very few. My advise would be to go put in VH I and jam the morning away. I agree with some of this but you are also classifying Van Halen as Metal which they arent. Metal was Judas Priest, Iron Maiden , Black Sabbath etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 I agree with some of this but you are also classifying Van Halen as Metal which they arent. Metal was Judas Priest, Iron Maiden , Black Sabbath etc Now those guys are heavy metal. I will not compare VH to the likes of Sabbath or Motorhead. Not their style. I will say that Eddie VH is a much better guitarist than Tommy Iomi. Michael Anthony is not a better bassist than Geezer Butler. VH is the kind of rock that you can listen to by the pool with the men and women. Sabbath is a litle rough around the edges for the ladies at the pool. Too much drug influence from Sabbath. Hole in the Sky, Killing Yourself To Live, The Writ, Snowblind, Sweetleaf, that is heavy drug influenced metal. Much heavier than VH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 It kinda goes like this... Just a few samples of groups that I believe fall into these categories Folk - Bob Dylan, CSN, Joan Baez Mainstream beat 60's (and the girls all scream) - Beach Boys, Beatles, Stones Blues Rock/Mainstream - Led Zepplin, Stones Southern Rock - Lynard Skynard Country Soft Rock - Eagles 70's Mainstream ,Radio Rock - KISS, Foreigner, Styx, Boston, Blue Oyster Cult, Steve Miller Band, Foghat Rock N Roll 70s - AC/DC , Van Halen, Queen, Aerosmith, Rush, Heart Piano Radio - Elton John, Billy Joel 70's Heavy Metal - Sabbath, Motorhead, Priest Punk - Ramones, Sex Pistols 80's Rock Mainstream - Def Lep, AC/DC, Aerosmith, Motley Crue 80's Heavy Metal - Metallica Hair Bands - Poison, Motley Crue 90's Stoner Rock - Kyuss 90's Grunge Rock - Alice In Chains, Nirvana, Soundgarden Notably left out is Mod, Techno, Disco, 80's Mainstream radio and Pink Floyd (I don't even know how to explain Pink Floyd in a category). It is too hard to compare any of these categories with one another. And I am certainly not saying that VH is a better band than the Beatles or the Stones, but maybe VH rocks harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 9, 2010 Author Share Posted August 9, 2010 This is the most ill-informed post in a music thread I have ever seen. No kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Nirvana? There goes your cred (what little you had left). The Beatles and Stones do not even qualify as rock .... they are just mainstream 50's rock influenced pretty hippy boys whose only competition was FOLK MUSIC get outta here and bring me some metal. This conversation is about ROCK BANDS, not folk music with violin and just order the fish for goodness sake. ok. so, when exactly did ROCK music start? who was the first ROCK band? led zeppelin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 VH is the kind of rock that you can listen to by the pool with the men and women. Sabbath is a litle rough around the edges for the ladies at the pool. nothing like hanging out at the pool, kicking back a few schmitts gays Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Just please nobody say they take Bon Jovi seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 (edited) I will say that Eddie VH is a much better guitarist than Tommy Iomi. Tony Iommi. Worth pointing out that Iommi lost the tips of two fingers of his right hand when he was 17. Not too shabby a guitarist. Edited August 9, 2010 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 It kinda goes like this... Just a few samples of groups that I believe fall into these categories Folk - Bob Dylan, CSN, Joan Baez Mainstream beat 60's (and the girls all scream) - Beach Boys, Beatles, Stones Blues Rock/Mainstream - Led Zepplin, Stones Southern Rock - Lynard Skynard Country Soft Rock - Eagles 70's Mainstream ,Radio Rock - KISS, Foreigner, Styx, Boston, Blue Oyster Cult, Steve Miller Band, Foghat Rock N Roll 70s - AC/DC , Van Halen, Queen, Aerosmith, Rush, Heart Piano Radio - Elton John, Billy Joel 70's Heavy Metal - Sabbath, Motorhead, Priest Punk - Ramones, Sex Pistols 80's Rock Mainstream - Def Lep, AC/DC, Aerosmith, Motley Crue 80's Heavy Metal - Metallica Hair Bands - Poison, Motley Crue 90's Stoner Rock - Kyuss 90's Grunge Rock - Alice In Chains, Nirvana, Soundgarden Notably left out is Mod, Techno, Disco, 80's Mainstream radio and Pink Floyd (I don't even know how to explain Pink Floyd in a category). It is too hard to compare any of these categories with one another. And I am certainly not saying that VH is a better band than the Beatles or the Stones, but maybe VH rocks harder. I hate to burst your "all the rest of you are stupid when it comes to music" bubble..... but Rock 'n Roll was a late 40s'-50's genre and was pretty much finished as a viable genre by 62-63. None of of the ones you mention played R'n'R. Including Kiss as a mainstream/radio rock band is so wrong. Everyone knows they were heavy metal/hard rock. Same goes for BOC: Hard rock, psychedelic rock, heavy metal. AC/DC.... another heavy metal/hard rock band. And speaking of "cred". What makes you think you have any, or ever did have any? Lemme see your curriculum vitae please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 (edited) Nirvana? There goes your cred (what little you had left). The Beatles and Stones do not even qualify as rock .... they are just mainstream 50's rock influenced pretty hippy boys whose only competition was FOLK MUSIC get outta here and bring me some metal. This conversation is about ROCK BANDS, not folk music with violin and just order the fish for goodness sake. No, actually my post had nothing to do with categorizing the music as rock or whatever. It was pointing out that VH is pretty blah musically compared to the Beatles, Stones, and yes even Nirvana. If you can't appreciate the raw emotion that Nirvana played with, the sonic intensity, then I don't know what to tell you. Well, given that you groove to the brilliance of "ice cream man" I guess that explains it. Edited August 9, 2010 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 No, actually my post had nothing to do with categorizing the music as rock or whatever. It was pointing out that VH is pretty blah musically compared to the Beatles, Stones, and yes even Nirvana. If you can't appreciate the raw emotion that Nirvana played with, the sonic intensity, then I don't know what to tell you. Well, given that you groove to the brilliance of "ice cream man" I guess that explains it. Oh come on. Like we said. Van Halen was fun . The lyrics werent meant to have very reedeming quality. as far as musically blah. Eddie alone makes that a statement. VH was electric and alive . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 (edited) Oh come on. Like we said. Van Halen was fun . The lyrics werent meant to have very reedeming quality. as far as musically blah. Eddie alone makes that a statement. VH was electric and alive . Seriously. I know a lot of people drool over Eddie and his guitar playing. But what is really so special about it? Edited August 9, 2010 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Seriously. I know a lot of people drool over Eddie and his guitar playing. But what is really so special about it? I agree, Mike is far superior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 No, actually my post had nothing to do with categorizing the music as rock or whatever. It was pointing out that VH is pretty blah musically compared to the Beatles, Stones, and yes even Nirvana. If you can't appreciate the raw emotion that Nirvana played with, the sonic intensity, then I don't know what to tell you. Well, given that you groove to the brilliance of "ice cream man" I guess that explains it. hey, i love nirvana, but van halen pretty much invented sonic intensity ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Comparing grunge music to Van Halen is like comparing the Vikings to the Cowboys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Seriously. I know a lot of people drool over Eddie and his guitar playing. But what is really so special about it? for starters, noone can play his notes at his speed, meaning he is definately one of a kind. Add the fact that he writes all his music, then he is an original. Now, I do appreaciate the rawness of Nirvana, but they weren't even the best from Seattle (Alice in Chains then Soundgarden, then Nirvana/Pearl Jam). And please do not think that I am saying VH is better than the Stones or whoever, what I am saying is that VH's is a real rock band in one time phrame, not like the Stones who were a kiddie mainstream band in the 60's turned Blues band in the early 70's turned disco band in the late 70s turned whatever the 80's was for them. The pattern of the Stones is $$$ $$$ $$$ and they play their music to suit the theme for the time period (i. e. somewhat of a sellout). Most Stones fans only really like one era of the Stones. Some like their disco emotional rescue stuff, some like Exile on Main Street. Neither of those albums are alike in any way. That is the thing, they suit their music for what people are buying, not that I blame them. Add that they were once publically traded and they really were sell outs. LoLuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 I hate to burst your "all the rest of you are stupid when it comes to music" bubble..... but Rock 'n Roll was a late 40s'-50's genre and was pretty much finished as a viable genre by 62-63. None of of the ones you mention played R'n'R. Including Kiss as a mainstream/radio rock band is so wrong. Everyone knows they were heavy metal/hard rock. Same goes for BOC: Hard rock, psychedelic rock, heavy metal. AC/DC.... another heavy metal/hard rock band. And speaking of "cred". What makes you think you have any, or ever did have any? Lemme see your curriculum vitae please. I guess you want your Bill Haley and the Comets 45 back? That might be rocking around the clock but it aint rock. It may be rockabilly, but it aint rock. Next thing you are gonna tell me the Beach Boys is rock. Please, pet shop sounds may be a great album, but it aint rock. Sorry to exclude yur Richie Valens. La La La Bamba. Please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 not like the Stones who were a kiddie mainstream band in the 60's turned Blues band in the early 70's turned disco band in the late 70s turned whatever the 80's was for them. The pattern of the Stones is $$$ $$$ $$$ and they play their music to suit the theme for the time period (i. e. somewhat of a sellout). Most Stones fans only really like one era of the Stones. Some like their disco emotional rescue stuff, some like Exile on Main Street. Neither of those albums are alike in any way. That is the thing, they suit their music for what people are buying, not that I blame them. Add that they were once publically traded and they really were sell outs. LoLuck Drivel. The Stones were originally rooted in obscure American blues (see Little red Rooster), which Brian Jones had imported on singles. As for the rest of this post, the Stones have demonstrated the talent to play many different kinds of music, as have, notably, Led Zeppelin among others. It is what great bands do - they are able to write and play many kinds of music, the antithesis of being formulaic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 (edited) I hate to burst your "all the rest of you are stupid when it comes to music" bubble..... but Rock 'n Roll was a late 40s'-50's genre and was pretty much finished as a viable genre by 62-63. None of of the ones you mention played R'n'R. Including Kiss as a mainstream/radio rock band is so wrong. Everyone knows they were heavy metal/hard rock. Same goes for BOC: Hard rock, psychedelic rock, heavy metal. AC/DC.... another heavy metal/hard rock band. And speaking of "cred". What makes you think you have any, or ever did have any? Lemme see your curriculum vitae please. Aw, you can't burst my bubble, come see my album collection, you would be so suprised... Yes, I call it Rock, which is not the same as Rock n' Roll (oldies) or Rockabilly (oldies), which is what you are speaking of. KISS was the first band to go major mainstream they had dolls, movies, cartoons, they even had their own brand of popcorn. They admit they only played for money and to promote other crap. Good guys, but they were not metal, dude. AC/DC is not heavy metal either. I have a very extensive library and my metal is much harder. AC/DC doesn't even make the fringe of heavy metal in my collection. But as you mentioned the golden oldies I assume you may be older and probably are not hip to the Megadeaths and Metallicas of the world. Even if you made it there, did you make it to the 90's with Pantera? Not to even mention today's music. Edited August 9, 2010 by Scooby's Hubby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 I guess you want your Bill Haley and the Comets 45 back? That might be rocking around the clock but it aint rock. It may be rockabilly, but it aint rock. Next thing you are gonna tell me the Beach Boys is rock. Please, pet shop sounds may be a great album, but it aint rock. Sorry to exclude yur Richie Valens. La La La Bamba. Please. Never could stand Bill Haley. Valens died in '59.... and was rock n roll. Haley was rock n roll and rockabilly. Beach Boys were surf rock. At no time did I say any of those were rock. Like I said earlier...... rock n roll was pretty much gone by 62-63..... there was no rock n roll in the 70s. So this is completely wrong: Rock N Roll 70s - AC/DC , Van Halen, Queen, Aerosmith, Rush, Heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.