Conquer Club

I can't decide if I love Sgt. Pepper more than I love the White Album.

(I included some of the other major albums in the poll for those of other persuasions, but honestly in my mind it's only a choice between Pepper or White.)

i think mine's rubber soul.

riskllama wrote:i think mine's rubber soul.

Inserted rubber soul into the poll. Of course, that means the poll resets, but it's only been an hour or so.

maybe u should just list them all...

Imagine

Metsfanmax wrote:Imagine

I don''t get the joke...

Metsfanmax wrote:Imagine

Ugh. Respect level dropped. Or it would if I cared what you listened to.

Metsfanmax wrote:Imagine

Lennon album

I picked White Album, but most critics would say Peppers.

dario2099 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Imagine

I don''t get the joke...

The joke is the Beatles. It is 2014 folks, stop jizzing over a half decent band from the 60s who were only popular because of a bunch of prepubescent girls who didn't know what musical talent actually is.

Where's the "None" option? When the beatles come on the radio (for the last 20 years), I change it.

So......One Direction for the two of you?

Is that a band?

KoolBak wrote:Is that a band?

Well the Kids became adults and rebranded.

Metsfanmax wrote:

dario2099 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Imagine

I don''t get the joke...

The joke is the Beatles. It is 2014 folks, stop jizzing over a half decent band from the 60s who were only popular because of a bunch of prepubescent girls who didn't know what musical talent actually is.

That comment betrays total ignorance. The teen girls may have driven the Beatlemania of 1963 to 1965, but after that it became steadily less of a factor. The later Beatles were actually less popular with the teen crowd, but they were ever more respected both as musical innovators and as social activists.

There's no way an educated person would call them innovative. They were fortuitous in that they were in the right place at the right time and had the right appeal. That's marketing, not musical innovation.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:There's no way an educated person would call them innovative. They were fortuitous in that they were in the right place at the right time and had the right appeal. That's marketing, not musical innovation.

-TG

I disagree vehemently. Sorry, did I spit on you a bit there?

The Beatles changed rock and roll far more than any other group of their era and probably since. Timing had little if anything to do with it. Lennon McCartney are probably the best song writing duo of all time.

You also probably believe there are better guitarists than Jimi Hendrix.

notyou2 wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:There's no way an educated person would call them innovative. They were fortuitous in that they were in the right place at the right time and had the right appeal. That's marketing, not musical innovation.

-TG

I disagree vehemently. Sorry, did I spit on you a bit there?

The Beatles changed rock and roll far more than any other group of their era and probably since. Timing had little if anything to do with it. Lennon McCartney are probably the best song writing duo of all time.

You also probably believe there are better guitarists than Jimi Hendrix.

Jimi is God.

What I'm saying is don't attribute the Beatles' influence on pop music as actual innovation of music. Sure, they brought the style to a wider population (as good looking, white Englishmen), but they sure didn't bring anything new. Pretty much all they did was expand on what Elvis was doing by being nice white guys playing black music.

-TG

I see the idiots r still here in force. The Beatles influence on music stands the test of time dispite what the nattering naysayers have posted here. Sheesh where do these fucking clowns come from.

Dukasaur wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

dario2099 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Imagine

I don''t get the joke...

The joke is the Beatles. It is 2014 folks, stop jizzing over a half decent band from the 60s who were only popular because of a bunch of prepubescent girls who didn't know what musical talent actually is.

That comment betrays total ignorance. The teen girls may have driven the Beatlemania of 1963 to 1965

That was the point. I am sure that One Direction now has some adult fans too, but that doesn't mean that they're popular now, or became popular, because of the over-40 crowd.

but they were ever more respected both as musical innovators and as social activists.

I know that people "respect" them as musical "innovators." That does not mean I have to respect or enjoy their music. If you take it out of its historical context, no one today would listen to it over any number of contemporary bands. They're famous because they (sort of) did it first, not because their music is particularly listenable. Contrast this with Led Zeppelin, say, who were both innovators and also have remained essentially unmatched to this day.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

dario2099 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Imagine

I don''t get the joke...

The joke is the Beatles. It is 2014 folks, stop jizzing over a half decent band from the 60s who were only popular because of a bunch of prepubescent girls who didn't know what musical talent actually is.

That comment betrays total ignorance. The teen girls may have driven the Beatlemania of 1963 to 1965

That was the point. I am sure that One Direction now has some adult fans too, but that doesn't mean that they're popular now, or became popular, because of the over-40 crowd.

but they were ever more respected both as musical innovators and as social activists.

I know that people "respect" them as musical "innovators." That does not mean I have to respect or enjoy their music. If you take it out of its historical context, no one today would listen to it over any number of contemporary bands. They're famous because they (sort of) did it first, not because their music is particularly listenable. Contrast this with Led Zeppelin, say, who were both innovators and also have remained essentially unmatched to this day.

Sshhhh, you will summon the ghost of Juan_Bottom who will show you with graphs, charts and links how Led Zeppelin stole everything they did.

notyou2 wrote:Sshhhh, you will summon the ghost of Juan_Bottom who will show you with graphs, charts and links how Led Zeppelin stole everything they did.

They did steal most of their stuff. In fact, everyone back then did. You weren't taken seriously in the rock scene back then unless you were really heavily listening to the old blues records. LZ were nevertheless innovators in terms of the sound they produced.

So many opinions posted as fact

If you're a Beetle fan, then you HAVE to respect Lenin's comment that Chuck Berry WAS Rock 'N Roll....

And based on the quick research I did (as well as my personal feeling and info I've gathered over the years from documentaries and such), Elvis was pretty much the father of modern RNR....here's one page so I can provide at least a little backup..really not interested in arguing ;o)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-gallagher/rock-n-roll_b_1379726.html

As to best gee-tar players, that's another discussion, and a great one....as I recall, there's been at least a couple of threads in years past about this....

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:There's no way an educated person would call them innovative. They were fortuitous in that they were in the right place at the right time and had the right appeal. That's marketing, not musical innovation.

-TG

I disagree vehemently. Sorry, did I spit on you a bit there?

The Beatles changed rock and roll far more than any other group of their era and probably since. Timing had little if anything to do with it. Lennon McCartney are probably the best song writing duo of all time.

You also probably believe there are better guitarists than Jimi Hendrix.

Jimi is God.

What I'm saying is don't attribute the Beatles' influence on pop music as actual innovation of music. Sure, they brought the style to a wider population (as good looking, white Englishmen), but they sure didn't bring anything new. Pretty much all they did was expand on what Elvis was doing by being nice white guys playing black music.

Again, just like metsfan's post, your criticism is valid, but only for the early (pre-1965) Beatles. Those were pretty much straight rockabilly tunes -- either explicit covers or original-but-heavily-influenced tunes taken from the (mostly black) world of 1950 rock and roll.

From 1965 on, your criticism becomes rapidly less valid. The Beatles were the first to expand beyond the basic guitar-bass-sax-drums straightjacket and start adding new instruments and new sounds. They were the first to start playing with backing by classical orchestras. They were the first to start sampling ambient noises and street sounds. They were the first to introduce the Indian instruments like sitars and swarmandels. They experimented with everything from glockenspiels to Moog synthesizers. Nevermind that all this became commonplace later; at the time the Beatles did it, it was all revolutionary.

Even in playing conventional instruments they were innovative -- such as Lennon having one of his guitars modified to sound like a bazuki. In vocal, equally so, experimenting with many different vocal styles to add to their fast-expanding range of styles. Lennon was the first to lay on his back in the studio to get that strained quality in his voice. Again, it may be commonplace now, but it was revolutionary then. Nobody had ever thought of singing in any position other than standing or sitting.

The Beatles were big innovators in recording techniques. Besides the already-mentioned sampling of ambient noise, they invented or caused the invention of backward masking, automatic double-tracking, and many other special effects. They were the first to connect DI boxes to anything other than the guitar.

The Beatles were big innovators artistically, in terms of concept albums, album graphics, costuming, and so on. They were the first to issue video singles, they were the first to put rock in movies, they were the first to have their own record label instead of just being clients of one.

Beyond all that, they were simply masters of harmony. There are very few bad Beatles songs. The worst you can say about some of them is that they are mediocre and derivative. After 1965, you can't even say that. Everything from Sgt. Pepper onwards was one amazing harmony after another. "A Day in the Life", "Piggies", "Lucy in the Sky" and so on, are just amazing packages of sound.

Metsfanmax wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Sshhhh, you will summon the ghost of Juan_Bottom who will show you with graphs, charts and links how Led Zeppelin stole everything they did.

They did steal most of their stuff. In fact, everyone back then did. You weren't taken seriously in the rock scene back then unless you were really heavily listening to the old blues records. LZ were nevertheless innovators in terms of the sound they produced.

I'd agree that Led Zep were somewhat innovative, but (and I know I'm in the minority here) I wouldn't put them in the same league as the Beatles. Really, they took what was already happening in hard rock and put a unique flavour on it, but it was like adding habanero sauce to goldfish stew. It really didn't change the underlying nature of the meal.

Adding White Album into the competition is kind of unfair when you consider it has 30 songs while most others have 13/14.

Anyway, it's a tough call, but I believe my personal favorite is Revolver.

Elvis put rock in movies.