Ursa Majoris Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 The Stones were marketed to be a "bad boy" version of the Beatles, but were basically copycats until they began to incorporate the blues into their sound in the late '60s. I have to disagree with this. The Stones certainly had a bad boy image but they were inspired by American bluesmen right from the get-go (see Little Red Rooster). If anything, they developed somewhat away from blues towards rock over time. Both the Beatles and the Stones had hugh singles success from 1963/64 onwards but that, IMO, is where the similarities end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aqualung Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I have to disagree with this. The Stones certainly had a bad boy image but they were inspired by American bluesmen right from the get-go (see Little Red Rooster). If anything, they developed somewhat away from blues towards rock over time. Both the Beatles and the Stones had hugh singles success from 1963/64 onwards but that, IMO, is where the similarities end. Â Wasn't Muddy Waters their biggest influence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Wasn't Muddy Waters their biggest influence? Waters was one of them for sure - Brian Jones was the blues fanatic. He used to get hold of US imports from all sorts of obscure bluesmen. The rest of the band was also heavily into the same stuff but Jones was in large measure the driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 If Ten had been released a year earlier or if Gish had been released on a major label, I think that either PJ or SP would've stolen their thunder. Â If Ten had been released a year earlier it would have been more likely to be the best album no one ever heard of. I bought it the week it came out, I think it entered Billboard's top 100 over a year later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I have to disagree with this. The Stones certainly had a bad boy image but they were inspired by American bluesmen right from the get-go (see Little Red Rooster). If anything, they developed somewhat away from blues towards rock over time. Both the Beatles and the Stones had hugh singles success from 1963/64 onwards but that, IMO, is where the similarities end. Â i'm with ursa on this one. the stones were never an imitation of the beatles. i also thought grunge's nirvana : beatles as PJ : stones comparison was a pretty good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 You make it sound like Kurt Cobain bumped into David Geffin in a subway. When Geffin's minions came to him and said "You should pay attention to what's going on in Seattle", he did his homework. There's a reason Nirvana got the nod. . . . Â Yeah, because "Smells Like Teen Spirit": was a kickass song and there were a half-dozen sing-a-long tunes on Nevermind that spoke volumes to milli9ons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) If Ten had been released a year earlier it would have been more likely to be the best album no one ever heard of. I bought it the week it came out, I think it entered Billboard's top 100 over a year later. Â I thought that Ten was released in early '92. My mistake. Â i'm with ursa on this one. the stones were never an imitation of the beatles. Â So, Their Satanic Majesties Request wasn't a complete rip-off of Sgt. Pepper? Â I have to disagree with this. The Stones certainly had a bad boy image but they were inspired by American bluesmen right from the get-go (see Little Red Rooster). If anything, they developed somewhat away from blues towards rock over time. Â And they returned to it big-time in the early '70s on Exile on Main Street. The shift from pop/Beatles rip-offs towards blues began back as far as Beggar's Banquet back in the late '60s. Edited July 20, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 lmfao @ some of those choices. "puddy" makes more sense than GNR. Â Other. Â Steely Dan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Everyone's talking about cultural shifts and other chit. Who freakin' cares. A great rock band is a great rock band, whether they're political/cultural or not. Obviously generations obviously affect opinions on what's great (which is why Sky nominated Fats Domino). I judge by whether I feel compelled to crank up the radio, roll down the windows (to educate those around me), and stomp on the gas pedal. When Allman Bros "Jessica" comes on, I am in danger of a major speeding ticket. Â Nirvana brought flannel shirts to the mainstream, somebody said. Great. So did lesbians. I don't know a singe song by Nirvana, and could care less. I know Kurt Cobain wasn't genius enough to figure out how to get through life. And his wife was/is a phsycho druggie. That's some righteous legacy, man. Â Add a vote for the BEE GEES for me. Didn't like them, but they represent a musical era that inspires more passion then any other even to this day. Thirty years later, we still celebrate the death of disco! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Add a vote for the BEE GEES for me. Â Â Sorry...Australia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Steely Dan. Â Â I don't know if pop-jazz stoner 70s music is really considered rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Everyone's talking about cultural shifts and other chit. Who freakin' cares. A great rock band is a great rock band, whether they're political/cultural or not. Â In the Alternative world, politics and "being different" trump quality. Didn't you get the memo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Sorry...Australia. Really? Crap! My point was brilliant up to then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) Everyone's talking about cultural shifts and other chit. Who freakin' cares. Â I tend to agree, but that simply stemmed from a discussion on how you measure whether a band is revolutionary or not. I'm sorry it initiated a stereotypical right wing tirade. Â Â Nirvana brought flannel shirts to the mainstream, somebody said. Great. So did lesbians. I don't know a singe song by Nirvana, and could care less. I know Kurt Cobain wasn't genius enough to figure out how to get through life. And his wife was/is a phsycho druggie. That's some righteous legacy, man. Â There were a plethora of great rock musicians who couldn't figure out how to get through life, but it doesn't diminish their contribution to rock. For someone who started out his post saying that good rock is good rock regardless, you ended it sounding more like a judgmental trifling little pudwhacker. Edited July 20, 2007 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameltosis Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Really? Crap! My point was brilliant up to then. Â Brilliant? So the fact that Nivana changed the culture of entire generation doesnt matter, but the fact that his wife is a drugged out whore does? FYI, I didnt vote for Nirvana. I think if Cobain missed his head Nirvana would have fizzled and the "genius" of the band would be subject to much more scrutiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSULions Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 My personal favorite band right now is Nickelback, but they haven't stood the test of time at this point, but their early stuff was very good and All the Right Reasons is just one of my favorites with great tracks from start to finish. Looking forward to seeing him in concert in about a month when they roll through Charlotte. Â For purposes of this poll... gotta say "The Eagles" is their music is still playing on the radio all these years later and multiple guys from the band went on to have great careers on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 In the Alternative world, politics and "being different" trump quality. Didn't you get the memo? Â idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 My personal favorite band right now is Nickelback, but they haven't stood the test of time at this point, but their early stuff was very good and All the Right Reasons is just one of my favorites with great tracks from start to finish. Looking forward to seeing him in concert in about a month when they roll through Charlotte. For purposes of this poll... gotta say "The Eagles" is their music is still playing on the radio all these years later and multiple guys from the band went on to have great careers on their own.   First of all, isn't Nickelback Candian? And second of all........... .   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) I tend to agree, but that simply stemmed from a discussion on how you measure whether a band is revolutionary or not. I'm sorry it initiated a stereotypical right wing tirade. There were a plethora of great rock musicians who couldn't figure out how to get through life, but it doesn't diminish their contribution to rock. For someone who started out his post saying that good rock is good rock regardless, you ended it sounding more like a judgmental trifling little pudwhacker. Lighten up dude. You're awfully personal in your attack. I thought the lesbian reference and the Bee Gee reference would kind of give a clue that I was being a smart-ass. My point was great rock is great rock, and isn't lessened by cultural significance. The rest was being a smartass. Go smoke some Josh Gordon and chill, man. Â Edit to add - Wait, you may have been a smart-ass, too. I like you again, maybe I need to go chill. Edited July 20, 2007 by Bengal Mania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Brilliant? So the fact that Nivana changed the culture of entire generation doesnt matter, but the fact that his wife is a drugged out whore does? "Brilliant" is too strong? How 'bout "lucid" or "well-crafted". This whole argument is silly because music is very personall in preference. YOu think Nirvana changed the culture of an entire generation, I think they're guys who couldn't hold a real job. Tomato, Tomahto. Â I think if Cobain missed his head Nirvana would have fizzled and the "genius" of the band would be subject to much more scrutiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSULions Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 More Cowbell   I love that skit... Just saw a SNL special going over some great moments over the years and they showed it and talked about making of that skit... At first Will Ferrell had a bigger shirt when he was playing the cowbell, but over practice he decided to put on a smaller shirt that made his part so funny. I also loved Christopher Walken's part... "I NEED MORE COWBELL" Priceless.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Brilliant? So the fact that Nivana changed the culture of entire generation doesnt matter  Not a "rock" band per se, but I find it interesting that the Dave Matthews Band hasn't been mentioned yet. I'd argue that they were a lot more "innovative" than Nirvana (how many mainstream bands featured saxophone and electric violin solos back then?). They also put on phenominal live shows back in the mid '90s before burning themselves out with constant touring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSULions Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 First of all, isn't Nickelback Candian? And second of all........... . Â Yes. You are correct, sir! Â My bad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 My point was great rock is great rock, and isn't lessened by cultural significance. Â Â I don't think anyone in here was claiming the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 My point was great rock is great rock, and isn't lessened by cultural significance. Â cultural significance? no. musical significance, yes. the problem with judging popular music, like rock, is that the line between the two isn't always so clear. 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.