Rewriting the canon of rock
I’m not posing this for the express purpose of vexing sirpaulsbuddy, although I feel certain it will have that effect. No, I think this is a real question, and over the last couple of years it has struck me as one that’s increasingly valid.
Conventional wisdom has always been that The Beatles were the greatest band in history. The reasons abound – they were brilliant songwriters, innovative performers, and exerted a profound influence on the course of popular music. It’s almost impossible to imagine what music would sound like today had John, Paul, George and Ringo not come along. In addition, there’s a wonderful old documentary out there called “It Was 20 Years Ago Today” that demonstrates just how powerful the band’s cultural influence was – the music was at the core of things, but the ripple effect was political and social.
Granted. Every word of it.
But if you’ll notice, some of the most important criteria there are things that are changeable. Say Band A and Band B exist at the same time and Band A is more influential for the next 20 years. But at that point, the latent influence of Band B begins bubbling up in significant ways, to the point where it’s clear that, 30 years on, they had a bigger impact on what came next than Band A. I wonder if this argument can’t be made about Pink Floyd. (Heck, I wonder if it can be made about Led Zeppelin, too, although I think Floyd is the better case.) The Beatles, you’ll recall, split up after less than a decade. So it was a flame that burned incredibly brightly, but not for nearly long enough. After The Fabs had packed it in, Floyd began to reach its greatest heights – in a six-year span (1973-1979) they released Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals and The Wall, and for those of you keeping score, that’s a minimum 18½ stars out of 20. Then, before they combusted in a puff of ego, they cranked out 1983’s dramatically underestimated The Final Cut.
I’d argue that this stretch, added onto the substantial innovation of their earlier work (seven records in six years, including a couple that most critics rate at 4½ stars or better) launched an artistic legacy that has surpassed that of the short-lived Beatles.
It’s certainly true that the Beatles influence remains evident if you know your music, but I also think that there’s a critical difference between the two. When I look at the bands who owe their souls to The Fabs, I tend to hear a lot of imitation. There’s a massive Power Pop underground movement out there – a zillion times bigger than anybody would imagine, I think – and while a few of these artists are producing interesting work, the vast majority of them are about a half-step from being tribute bands either for the Beatles or for one of their first-generation derivative progeny. Even when it’s fun and well-done, you just don’t get the impression that you’re listening to anything you haven’t heard a brazilian times before. (I don’t want to overstate this, of course, because one of those bands that owes its soul to The Beatles is U2, who I think have perhaps surpassed the masters, as well – but let’s save that argument for another day.)
But Floyd spawned all kinds of things that have moved music forward in compelling ways. Space Rock. Post-Rock. Dreampop. Shoegazer. Right here are four genre categories that I don’t think would exist if not for Waters and Gilmour – or at least, they’d exist in significantly different forms. Now, it’s true that none of these bands have made the commercial splash that we might have hoped, but when I look back over the rock landscape since about 1993 or so, a huge percentage of the music that I think has been most worthy has issued from a decidedly Floydish starting point. Bands like Cocteau Twins, Spacemen 3 and Slowdive expanded the possibilities of atmosphere rock, and today we see that influence in groups like Mogwai, Sigur Ros, and perhaps most significantly, Godspeed You Black Emperor! Roxy Music and a whole host of ’80s bands drew heavily on Floyd’s texture and knack for ambiance (you could probably argue that half of what we think of when hear the term “’80s music” wouldn’t exist without Waters and Gilmour). How about early Genesis and the solo career of Peter Gabriel? Marillion and Fish? Kate Bush?
But that’s just the beginning. When you look at what happened when this vein intersected the proto-punk/experimental movement ignited by the likes of Velvet Underground, things get really interesting. All of a sudden we see Pink Floyd’s expansive, languid aural landscapes being infused with massive doses of dissonance and noise. Jesus and Mary Chain and My Bloody Valentine charted a course that allowed the emergence of Catherine Wheel, Lush, Curve, The Verve, Husker Du/Bob Mould/Sugar, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club and two recipients of Lullaby Pit’s CD of the Year honors, Space Team Electra (twice) and last year’s remarkable Bridges from Jets Overhead. To top it off, let’s add in the guy I think may be the single best artist recording today, VAST (Jon Crosby).
I guess, if you wanted to reach a bit, you could also speculate on the degree to which Floyd’s legacy impacted some of our more interesting dance genres (trance, for instance – the AllMusic Guide lists Digweed as a “follower,” and it’s not hard to hear the influence in Paul Van Dyk and Paul Oakenfold’s stuff, either).
Floyd’s greatness isn’t all about musical influence, either. A hypothetical question I’ve posed to some folks lately goes this way. Say we can stage the ultimate reunion concert. We can raise dead band members and put on a live show featuring any band you like in their prime in a perfect concert environment (that is, no stupid 14 year-old girls screaming over the music). Who would you rather see – The Beatles or Pink Floyd? And before you answer, I want to know who you really want to see, not who you feel like you ought to want to see.
If you said Beatles, I can’t fault you – it’s going to be a legendary show and I know you’ll treasure the experience as long as you live. But I suspect that a greater number of people are going to say Pink Floyd. For one thing, since they continued to record for over a decade after The Beatles split, they were relevant in the lived experience of half a generation that may have missed the Beatles (people like me, for instance – and notice how I’m not even pretending to count the current Waters-less incarnation of the band). Additionally, when you think of the defining sound of the two bands, the Floyd sound is aurally huge – it’s a sound that’s more modern by far. This is no small point – Floyd was one of the bands that learned a great deal from the studio wizardry of The Beatles, Brian Wilson and Moody Blues, and they took those early steps and transformed them into the sound of recorded popular music that we still hear today.
And then there’s something else, something intangible that I can’t quite find the right word for, but we saw it at Live 8, when Waters reunited with Gilmour, Mason and Wright. If you were watching, something mystical happened. I knew it would be a big event, but I wasn’t expecting something quite so undeniably transcendent. It felt like the whole planet stopped and joined in a few moments of communion. For a few songs, there was a center to the world.
That was certainly true about The Beatles when they were together, but it’s not true today. Pink Floyd’s music provided us with a lush, beautiful, yet haunting backdrop for our shared narrative of alienation. They wrote the soundtrack for the wasteland the culture has become, where human connection can never be taken for granted, and the rare moments of solace and intimacy are to be cherished for all they’re worth. The world has changed in ways that make John, Paul, George and Ringo seem more time-bound, a band whose greatness, while unarguable, is more dependent on their specific milieu than we’d like to admit.
As the world spins in that direction, I find myself listening to The Wall, Animals, Wish You Were Here and The Final Cut and finding them as fresh and timeless as they day they were released. Maybe moreso.
As the greatest poet who ever lived once said, things fall apart, and it’s no indictment of Lennon and McCartney and Harrison and Starr that time has changed things for their legacy. Even if I’m 100% right – a point I doubt a lot of people will concede – the time comes when Floyd is surpassed, as well.
Ultimately, this discussion isn’t about music at all, is it? We live in times where our greatest art is about anomie and disconnectedness and darkness, and as long as that remains true we’ll know we’re listening to a soundtrack of the journey, not the destination.
:xpost:
lullaby pit 
There might be another side of this, too. Some bands may have influenced a lot of artists decision to go into music careers even though you don’t hear it much in their sound. I’m pretty sure Ozzy considers the Beatles as a major influence, but I bet Led Zepplin influenced his sound quite a bit more.
There might be another side of this, too. Some bands may have influenced a lot of artists decision to go into music careers even though you don’t hear it much in their sound. I’m pretty sure Ozzy considers the Beatles as a major influence, but I bet Led Zepplin influenced his sound quite a bit more.
That’s why I’m sometimes perplexed by the use of the word “influence.” There are plenty of cases where a band will say X is an influence, but the best set of ears in the world can’t hear it.
Do they LIKE that band, sure – but influence means it shaped you in ways that ought, theoretically, to be detectable.
That’s why I’m sometimes perplexed by the use of the word “influence.” There are plenty of cases where a band will say X is an influence, but the best set of ears in the world can’t hear it.
Do they LIKE that band, sure – but influence means it shaped you in ways that ought, theoretically, to be detectable.
What about how the Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds influenced The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper? They don’t sound a lot alike, but in this case I think it’s more the technical aspects that drove “influence.”
What about how the Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds influenced The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper? They don’t sound a lot alike, but in this case I think it’s more the technical aspects that drove “influence.”
There was that, and also the larger concept. Sometimes it takes seeing somebody else really thinking BIG to open doors to your own creativity.
There was that, and also the larger concept. Sometimes it takes seeing somebody else really thinking BIG to open doors to your own creativity.
I’ve seen both the Beatles( when I was in 2nd grade) and Pink Floyd live. Floyd wins hands down.
I just wish you would have included the underrated “Atom Heart Mother” and “Meddle” albums in your excellent post. Relics wasn’t bad either, and people forget that Floyd did a movie score(La Vallee) that came out on their album “Obscured by Clouds.”
VH1 did a great story on the making of “Dark Side of the Moon” I think, correct me if I’m wrong, that Dark Side holds the record for being on thye charts the longest. I think it charted from ’73-’77, and again for a year or so in the mid 80’s, when it came out on CD.
Classic post.
Aloha,
Jeff
I’ve seen both the Beatles( when I was in 2nd grade) and Pink Floyd live. Floyd wins hands down.
I just wish you would have included the underrated “Atom Heart Mother” and “Meddle” albums in your excellent post. Relics wasn’t bad either, and people forget that Floyd did a movie score(La Vallee) that came out on their album “Obscured by Clouds.”
VH1 did a great story on the making of “Dark Side of the Moon” I think, correct me if I’m wrong, that Dark Side holds the record for being on thye charts the longest. I think it charted from ’73-’77, and again for a year or so in the mid 80’s, when it came out on CD.
Classic post.
Aloha,
Jeff
I sort of pick it up with DARK SIDE because that’s when the “Pink Floyd sound” really kicked in, and really I don’t know their earlier work as well. But most of the Floydheads I know agree with you completely.
I sort of pick it up with DARK SIDE because that’s when the “Pink Floyd sound” really kicked in, and really I don’t know their earlier work as well. But most of the Floydheads I know agree with you completely.
Seriously, listen to “Echoes” on Meddle and “Atom Heart Mother Suite.” It will open up a whole new side of Floyd.
Aloha,
Jeff
Seriously, listen to “Echoes” on Meddle and “Atom Heart Mother Suite.” It will open up a whole new side of Floyd.
Aloha,
Jeff
My bro-in-law has the boxed set. I’ll get right on it.
My bro-in-law has the boxed set. I’ll get right on it.
Great post
Keep in mind I don’t think Pink Floyd as we know it would exist without The Beatles’ Rubber Soul and “Tomorrow Never Knows” — but I agree the Floyd influence is more pronounced in more genres of music than the Beatles.
Great post
Keep in mind I don’t think Pink Floyd as we know it would exist without The Beatles’ Rubber Soul and “Tomorrow Never Knows” — but I agree the Floyd influence is more pronounced in more genres of music than the Beatles.
Beatles, Floyd, longevity and influence
While I appreciate the obvious and celebrated virtues of the Beatles as well as the best efforts of Pink Floyd, I don’t know many people who hate the Beatles yet I know plenty who can’t stand Pink Floyd.
These naysayers dismiss Floyd as dense, dreary, negative and bleak. Others claim their music doesn’t have a good beat and you can’t dance to it.
Since I tend to favor conciseness and loathe self-indulgence, “Arnold Layne” appeals to me more than anything on “Dark Side Of The Moon” though I own both.
Determining the worth of a band’s artistic legacy can end up being a largely subjective affair. On the popular level, the Beatles tower above everyone else and may always. But if you talk to fans of what used to be called “album-oriented rock” Floyd fans will likely outnumber many others.
I do agree that the massive power pop underground out there has failed to generate much worth listening to or remembering but I blame weak songwriting for that. While it’s easy to reflect a Beatles influence in many ways, high quality songwriting is obviously not one of them.
Regarding U2, I always found them to be highly overrated and weak songwriters who enjoyed vastly more success than their generally low quality music deserved. A tiny pebble seems to make a much bigger splash when the pond is stagnant. If U2 came along in the vibrant 60s instead of the dying mid-80s, they probably wouldn’t have been noticed at all and certainly wouldn’t have succeeded commercially. Even George Harrison once dismissed them as “an egocentric band with no talent.”
You mention that “none of these [Floyd-influenced] bands have made the commercial splash that we might have hoped,” and I believe there’s a good reason for that. Those groups and their songs simply didn’t possess the outstanding high quality and broad spectrum appeal that captivates popular music audiences numbering in the multi-millions. That is something the Beatles did for a decade while making it look effortless. Their kind may never come our way again.
In fairness, I’m a pop music fan. I never even heard of VAST’s Jon Crosby who you feel “may be the single best artist recording today.” My gut feeling is that if he were, we’d see him on the cover of Time and Newsweek, we’d hear his songs on the radio constantly and his videos would never seem to stop appearing on MTV and VH-1 (if, of course, those stations still played music videos with any degree of regularity).
As a side observation, while no one can deny the huge influence of Led Zeppelin, almost everyone who came after them failed to offer music that was anywhere near as impressive. Again, it’s easy to reflect many Zep aspects but not their high quality songwriting. (That said, I only really enjoy about a half-dozen of their songs, finding the rest to be rather boring and self-indulgent dreck.)
Finally, I don’t think a band’s life span has any connection to the quality of their music or the magnitude of their influence. As the Rolling Stones dramatically proved, still being around doesn’t guarantee any kind of musical quality.
In conclusion, while I appreciate Floyd’s best efforts, I still think the Beatles stand taller, penetrate deeper and resonate more widely across all categories than anyone else.
— Scott in NJ
Beatles, Floyd, longevity and influence
While I appreciate the obvious and celebrated virtues of the Beatles as well as the best efforts of Pink Floyd, I don’t know many people who hate the Beatles yet I know plenty who can’t stand Pink Floyd.
These naysayers dismiss Floyd as dense, dreary, negative and bleak. Others claim their music doesn’t have a good beat and you can’t dance to it.
Since I tend to favor conciseness and loathe self-indulgence, “Arnold Layne” appeals to me more than anything on “Dark Side Of The Moon” though I own both.
Determining the worth of a band’s artistic legacy can end up being a largely subjective affair. On the popular level, the Beatles tower above everyone else and may always. But if you talk to fans of what used to be called “album-oriented rock” Floyd fans will likely outnumber many others.
I do agree that the massive power pop underground out there has failed to generate much worth listening to or remembering but I blame weak songwriting for that. While it’s easy to reflect a Beatles influence in many ways, high quality songwriting is obviously not one of them.
Regarding U2, I always found them to be highly overrated and weak songwriters who enjoyed vastly more success than their generally low quality music deserved. A tiny pebble seems to make a much bigger splash when the pond is stagnant. If U2 came along in the vibrant 60s instead of the dying mid-80s, they probably wouldn’t have been noticed at all and certainly wouldn’t have succeeded commercially. Even George Harrison once dismissed them as “an egocentric band with no talent.”
You mention that “none of these [Floyd-influenced] bands have made the commercial splash that we might have hoped,” and I believe there’s a good reason for that. Those groups and their songs simply didn’t possess the outstanding high quality and broad spectrum appeal that captivates popular music audiences numbering in the multi-millions. That is something the Beatles did for a decade while making it look effortless. Their kind may never come our way again.
In fairness, I’m a pop music fan. I never even heard of VAST’s Jon Crosby who you feel “may be the single best artist recording today.” My gut feeling is that if he were, we’d see him on the cover of Time and Newsweek, we’d hear his songs on the radio constantly and his videos would never seem to stop appearing on MTV and VH-1 (if, of course, those stations still played music videos with any degree of regularity).
As a side observation, while no one can deny the huge influence of Led Zeppelin, almost everyone who came after them failed to offer music that was anywhere near as impressive. Again, it’s easy to reflect many Zep aspects but not their high quality songwriting. (That said, I only really enjoy about a half-dozen of their songs, finding the rest to be rather boring and self-indulgent dreck.)
Finally, I don’t think a band’s life span has any connection to the quality of their music or the magnitude of their influence. As the Rolling Stones dramatically proved, still being around doesn’t guarantee any kind of musical quality.
In conclusion, while I appreciate Floyd’s best efforts, I still think the Beatles stand taller, penetrate deeper and resonate more widely across all categories than anyone else.
— Scott in NJ
Re: Beatles, Floyd, longevity and influence
Comments which tell us more about the commenter than the commentee. In an age where things tend toward the suck, music that’s not on the dark side is usually inauthentic and irrelevant. IN an age where things are great, the nihilists need to get over themselves. On the whole, I’d say there’s been every reason for dark and dreary in the last 30 years.
As I have
rantednoted before, “subjective” isn’t a bad thing, and it doesn’t mean what most people who use it to dismiss the possibility of genuinely informed analysis think it means.Of course it’s subjective. But you get a lot of smart people discussing something in good faith and subjective takes you to wonderfully revealing places. As a researcher who’s spent plenty of time doing both subjective and “objective” analysis (btw, there’s damned near no such thing as “objectivity”) I’ll take the subjective just about every time.
Actually, no. If the music and cultural landscape were anything like it ought to be, that’s what you’d see. However, as things are with the music industry today, the last place you have any hope of finding an artist with legitimate critical value is in those places.
Time and Newsweek might show you who’s selling the most records or generating the most industry hype, but popular isn’t the same as good. I mean, seriously, look at the “artists” that garner that level of media attention. Britney? Diddy? Fitty?
No thanks. The only really great band that comes close to garnering that kind of popular attention these days is Green Day, and they deserve every prop and accolade they get. I wish we lived in a world where they were the rule instead of the exception.
And do give VAST a listen. Really, remarkable stuff.
Re: Beatles, Floyd, longevity and influence
Comments which tell us more about the commenter than the commentee. In an age where things tend toward the suck, music that’s not on the dark side is usually inauthentic and irrelevant. IN an age where things are great, the nihilists need to get over themselves. On the whole, I’d say there’s been every reason for dark and dreary in the last 30 years.
As I have
rantednoted before, “subjective” isn’t a bad thing, and it doesn’t mean what most people who use it to dismiss the possibility of genuinely informed analysis think it means.Of course it’s subjective. But you get a lot of smart people discussing something in good faith and subjective takes you to wonderfully revealing places. As a researcher who’s spent plenty of time doing both subjective and “objective” analysis (btw, there’s damned near no such thing as “objectivity”) I’ll take the subjective just about every time.
Actually, no. If the music and cultural landscape were anything like it ought to be, that’s what you’d see. However, as things are with the music industry today, the last place you have any hope of finding an artist with legitimate critical value is in those places.
Time and Newsweek might show you who’s selling the most records or generating the most industry hype, but popular isn’t the same as good. I mean, seriously, look at the “artists” that garner that level of media attention. Britney? Diddy? Fitty?
No thanks. The only really great band that comes close to garnering that kind of popular attention these days is Green Day, and they deserve every prop and accolade they get. I wish we lived in a world where they were the rule instead of the exception.
And do give VAST a listen. Really, remarkable stuff.
Re: Beatles, Floyd, longevity and influence
Good point about light and dark ages with their corresponding positive and negative popular culture.
And, yes, the last 30 years have seemed like one long deterioration in many areas so music that reflects that shouldn’t come as a surprise.
That said, there’s also a feeling these days, as there was after the grunge movement ran its course, that we could use a little optimism and positive energy for a change instead of all the negative.
Just today I read that one of the most unrelentingly negative genres, rap, has taken a nosedive. Apparently sales have dropped 21% from 2005 to 2006 and no rap albums were among the top sellers last year for the first time in 12 years. That’s significant and suggests that people are weary of all the dreck and negativity. I was weary of it one minute after it arrived 30 years ago but that’s a separate rant.
<< If the music and cultural landscape were anything like it ought to be, that's what you'd see. However, as things are with the music industry today, the last place you have any hope of finding an artist with legitimate critical value is in those places.
Time and Newsweek might show you who’s selling the most records or generating the most industry hype, but popular isn’t the same as good. I mean, seriously, look at the “artists” that garner that level of media attention. Britney? Diddy? Fitty? >>
Yes, you’re right and that’s precisely the point. How did it ever get to the point where worthless rubbish like Britney, Diddy and Fitty were succeeding on a massive scale while other, vastly better and much more deserving artists and songs remain unseen, unheard and unknown?
Many people seem to agree that the Beatles represented one of the rare cases when the most popular music was also arguably the best music artistically. Those two don’t often occur at the same time but it seemed to happen a lot more back in the cultural renaissance of the 1960s.
Somewhere along the way, everything went wrong. Impressive popular music vanished from the charts, the radio and the video channels, mostly weak rubbish replaced it and it’s been like that for a couple decades now.
Some would say, “Ah, you’re just getting old” but it’s not about age — it’s about tangible quality, something that does exist and can be quantified up to a point.
For example, a song you can remember long after hearing it has done something better than a song you can’t remember at all afterward.
The big question remains: can this “world gone wrong” as Bob Dylan accurately described it back in 1993 ever correct itself? Will we ever see another popular music renaissance or will we all go to our graves raving about the 60s and early 70s while understandably bashing much of what came after?
— Scott in NJ
Re: Beatles, Floyd, longevity and influence
Good point about light and dark ages with their corresponding positive and negative popular culture.
And, yes, the last 30 years have seemed like one long deterioration in many areas so music that reflects that shouldn’t come as a surprise.
That said, there’s also a feeling these days, as there was after the grunge movement ran its course, that we could use a little optimism and positive energy for a change instead of all the negative.
Just today I read that one of the most unrelentingly negative genres, rap, has taken a nosedive. Apparently sales have dropped 21% from 2005 to 2006 and no rap albums were among the top sellers last year for the first time in 12 years. That’s significant and suggests that people are weary of all the dreck and negativity. I was weary of it one minute after it arrived 30 years ago but that’s a separate rant.
<< If the music and cultural landscape were anything like it ought to be, that's what you'd see. However, as things are with the music industry today, the last place you have any hope of finding an artist with legitimate critical value is in those places.
Time and Newsweek might show you who’s selling the most records or generating the most industry hype, but popular isn’t the same as good. I mean, seriously, look at the “artists” that garner that level of media attention. Britney? Diddy? Fitty? >>
Yes, you’re right and that’s precisely the point. How did it ever get to the point where worthless rubbish like Britney, Diddy and Fitty were succeeding on a massive scale while other, vastly better and much more deserving artists and songs remain unseen, unheard and unknown?
Many people seem to agree that the Beatles represented one of the rare cases when the most popular music was also arguably the best music artistically. Those two don’t often occur at the same time but it seemed to happen a lot more back in the cultural renaissance of the 1960s.
Somewhere along the way, everything went wrong. Impressive popular music vanished from the charts, the radio and the video channels, mostly weak rubbish replaced it and it’s been like that for a couple decades now.
Some would say, “Ah, you’re just getting old” but it’s not about age — it’s about tangible quality, something that does exist and can be quantified up to a point.
For example, a song you can remember long after hearing it has done something better than a song you can’t remember at all afterward.
The big question remains: can this “world gone wrong” as Bob Dylan accurately described it back in 1993 ever correct itself? Will we ever see another popular music renaissance or will we all go to our graves raving about the 60s and early 70s while understandably bashing much of what came after?
— Scott in NJ
Re: Beatles, Floyd, longevity and influence
<>
One last thing I neglected to mention earlier: I agree with you completely regarding Green Day.
Despite the silly guyliner and punk posturing which I could live without, Billie Joe Armstrong is the real deal. He’s perhaps the only young songwriter who seems to understand how to write a strong melody, how to craft a solid, concise song and how to write tight, substantial lyrics.
In an era when it seems like only vacuous telegenic singers are celebrated and no one plays an instrument or has a clue how to write a good song, Green Day stand out a mile as the refreshing exception.
— Scott in NJ
Re: Beatles, Floyd, longevity and influence
<>
One last thing I neglected to mention earlier: I agree with you completely regarding Green Day.
Despite the silly guyliner and punk posturing which I could live without, Billie Joe Armstrong is the real deal. He’s perhaps the only young songwriter who seems to understand how to write a strong melody, how to craft a solid, concise song and how to write tight, substantial lyrics.
In an era when it seems like only vacuous telegenic singers are celebrated and no one plays an instrument or has a clue how to write a good song, Green Day stand out a mile as the refreshing exception.
— Scott in NJ
Part 1
I’m torn on this argument because I have a love hate relationship with Floyd. I love their originality and spectrum but I get really bored easily. I do feel that Floyd get’s ripped off more because it may be considered a little less sac religious. The Beatles are at a level that is so untouchable that if you try to sound like them your career is over before it begins. Case in point, a few nights ago my band played with a band who touted themselves as a cross between the Clash and the Beatles, unfortunately for them they were too much like the Beatles and the grumblings in the crowed got a little louder as the set went on. Perfect example of a band who completely rips off Floyd is the band Wolfmother. Not only with their sound but their look, just watch the one video rips off “Live at Pompeii” it’s repulsive. Of course when Wolfmother isn’t too busy ripping off Floyd their ganking Zeppelin. However this is considered ok.
I think that the Beatles are more inspirational in their craftsmanship of songs. Their songs are tight catchy and more memorable, while Floyd is more inspirational with their use of ambiance. Floyd songs are great sonic wall paper while Beatles songs are the life of the party.
Part 1
I’m torn on this argument because I have a love hate relationship with Floyd. I love their originality and spectrum but I get really bored easily. I do feel that Floyd get’s ripped off more because it may be considered a little less sac religious. The Beatles are at a level that is so untouchable that if you try to sound like them your career is over before it begins. Case in point, a few nights ago my band played with a band who touted themselves as a cross between the Clash and the Beatles, unfortunately for them they were too much like the Beatles and the grumblings in the crowed got a little louder as the set went on. Perfect example of a band who completely rips off Floyd is the band Wolfmother. Not only with their sound but their look, just watch the one video rips off “Live at Pompeii” it’s repulsive. Of course when Wolfmother isn’t too busy ripping off Floyd their ganking Zeppelin. However this is considered ok.
I think that the Beatles are more inspirational in their craftsmanship of songs. Their songs are tight catchy and more memorable, while Floyd is more inspirational with their use of ambiance. Floyd songs are great sonic wall paper while Beatles songs are the life of the party.
Part 2
Artist: I would say that any time I get together and jam with my band we almost always go into a Floyd tune. It could be because the guitars seem more prevalent in Floyd tunes and it’s more guitar driven and easier to improv with. It’s kind of hard to explain, it just seems like you can jam to a Floyd song or mess with it a little easier, their songs seem more jam oriented anyways. Tax Man get’s boring quick. So basically I prefer to listen to the Beatles, but play Floyd. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Lyrics: Let start off by saying that I listen to music first, and if the lyrics are great it’s a double bonus. I really don’t know what either bands songs are about and I can care less. What I do love is how people use “Wish you were here” as a love/funeral song when it’s really just Floyd being sarcastic about Syd Barrett. Whether or not these bands cure aids or bring awareness to (your charity here) doesn’t matter. After all at my wedding I played “White Wedding” which is a song about cocaine, but it had “wedding” in the chorus and everyone dug it. Certain lyrics do effect people but most of the time it about relationships not social commentary. It sort of reminds me of that South Park where the hippies invaded town and all they did was just talk about the problems, but did nothing to actually stop them. If a band sings “Aids Has to Stop” it’s about as relevant as a politician saying that we must stop terrorist. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I think the popular coconscious is that songs that deal with feelings both love and loss are more personal and therefore relevant to people. I loved the song “American Idiot” thanks for singing to the choir Green Day. Although that may be their pinnacle album, the song that most people will associate with Green Day is “Time of Your Life” because it’s personal. Do you think George Bush woke up and heard Marvin Gaye’s “What’s Going On” and decided to change his mind. If you need music to be aware of a social cause you need to read more.
Relevance: I think both bands earlier work is great but dated. If you listen to “Love me do” then listen to “Strawberry fields” it’s night and day. Both bands later works are timeless and will always sound fresh. Some bands, actually most bands it’s opposite. Master of Puppets and Re-Load, need I say any more. But there are very few main stream bands who’s music evolved into something better, these two bands share that distinction. Some bands get Elton John syndrome and write a whole album of ballads and call it music.
Conclusion: One thing is for sure, when I worked at a studio the producers always would say, let’s not try and make a “Sgt. Peppers.” What they meant is that just go in the studio and make a solid album , don’t try and create a master piece. That album is the gold standard and most likely will always be, and although Dark Side of the Moon was on the charts for a million years it really isn’t in the same league as Sgt. Peppers. To me Floyd has great songs but they get old real quick. It could be because I’m high strung and I have a short attention span, but I sometimes don’t have patience for a Floyd album. Like I said before the Beatles are the life of the party and when someone puts on Floyd Buzz Killington enters the room. Yawn.
Part 2
Artist: I would say that any time I get together and jam with my band we almost always go into a Floyd tune. It could be because the guitars seem more prevalent in Floyd tunes and it’s more guitar driven and easier to improv with. It’s kind of hard to explain, it just seems like you can jam to a Floyd song or mess with it a little easier, their songs seem more jam oriented anyways. Tax Man get’s boring quick. So basically I prefer to listen to the Beatles, but play Floyd. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Lyrics: Let start off by saying that I listen to music first, and if the lyrics are great it’s a double bonus. I really don’t know what either bands songs are about and I can care less. What I do love is how people use “Wish you were here” as a love/funeral song when it’s really just Floyd being sarcastic about Syd Barrett. Whether or not these bands cure aids or bring awareness to (your charity here) doesn’t matter. After all at my wedding I played “White Wedding” which is a song about cocaine, but it had “wedding” in the chorus and everyone dug it. Certain lyrics do effect people but most of the time it about relationships not social commentary. It sort of reminds me of that South Park where the hippies invaded town and all they did was just talk about the problems, but did nothing to actually stop them. If a band sings “Aids Has to Stop” it’s about as relevant as a politician saying that we must stop terrorist. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I think the popular coconscious is that songs that deal with feelings both love and loss are more personal and therefore relevant to people. I loved the song “American Idiot” thanks for singing to the choir Green Day. Although that may be their pinnacle album, the song that most people will associate with Green Day is “Time of Your Life” because it’s personal. Do you think George Bush woke up and heard Marvin Gaye’s “What’s Going On” and decided to change his mind. If you need music to be aware of a social cause you need to read more.
Relevance: I think both bands earlier work is great but dated. If you listen to “Love me do” then listen to “Strawberry fields” it’s night and day. Both bands later works are timeless and will always sound fresh. Some bands, actually most bands it’s opposite. Master of Puppets and Re-Load, need I say any more. But there are very few main stream bands who’s music evolved into something better, these two bands share that distinction. Some bands get Elton John syndrome and write a whole album of ballads and call it music.
Conclusion: One thing is for sure, when I worked at a studio the producers always would say, let’s not try and make a “Sgt. Peppers.” What they meant is that just go in the studio and make a solid album , don’t try and create a master piece. That album is the gold standard and most likely will always be, and although Dark Side of the Moon was on the charts for a million years it really isn’t in the same league as Sgt. Peppers. To me Floyd has great songs but they get old real quick. It could be because I’m high strung and I have a short attention span, but I sometimes don’t have patience for a Floyd album. Like I said before the Beatles are the life of the party and when someone puts on Floyd Buzz Killington enters the room. Yawn.
When I was DJing we’d do a lot of receptions, and there were three tunes that I always played: “White Wedding,” “I Knew the Bride When She Used to Rock & Roll” (Nick Lowe), and “I Wanna Kiss the Bride” (Elton John). Clearly, NOBODY was paying attention to the lyrics. If they had been I’d have gotten beat up every damned time.
When I was DJing we’d do a lot of receptions, and there were three tunes that I always played: “White Wedding,” “I Knew the Bride When She Used to Rock & Roll” (Nick Lowe), and “I Wanna Kiss the Bride” (Elton John). Clearly, NOBODY was paying attention to the lyrics. If they had been I’d have gotten beat up every damned time.
I don’t know, D. There are a zillion bands out there ripping the Beatles for all they’re worth. Of course, none of them are selling any records, either.
Maybe this comes down to the influence vs imitation effect. A lot of bands are influence by the Beatles, but if those influences are too obvious, they’re in trouble.
Maybe the ideal case for how it oughta be is World Party. The Beatles influence is really evident – Karl Wallinger is John Lennon reincarnated – but unless he’s actively sending something up or covering them (his take on “Happiness is a Warm Gun” is just premium) you don’t find yourself listening and thinking that he’s trying to be The Fabs. He learned from them, and is now doing his own thing with those lessons.
I don’t know, D. There are a zillion bands out there ripping the Beatles for all they’re worth. Of course, none of them are selling any records, either.
Maybe this comes down to the influence vs imitation effect. A lot of bands are influence by the Beatles, but if those influences are too obvious, they’re in trouble.
Maybe the ideal case for how it oughta be is World Party. The Beatles influence is really evident – Karl Wallinger is John Lennon reincarnated – but unless he’s actively sending something up or covering them (his take on “Happiness is a Warm Gun” is just premium) you don’t find yourself listening and thinking that he’s trying to be The Fabs. He learned from them, and is now doing his own thing with those lessons.
Being an old school metal head I remember reading an interview with James Hetfield and he made a good point about sophomore albums and furthering your career. He said that the first Metallica album was such a rip off of their idols and although it was well received he felt that he had to grow as an artist both with lyrics and especially sound, which is evident in their following albums. It easier in their case because they were ripping off Motorhead. It’s kind of like that saying “you have your whole life to make your first album” If that first album sounds like Rubber Soul you’re in trouble. It really does come down to the Beatles being held in such high praise, and how much influence you allow to seep into your songs. I do however think that if a seasoned artist came out with an album and it sounded like the Beatles they wouldn’t receive such a harsh backlash because they have a catalog of prior work to fall back on.
One band who blatantly ripped off Beatles riffs was Oasis, but I don’t think they boosted the Beatles sound, it was more like a rap player using a sample, for some reason people cut them slack. You know that song that starts off like “Imagine.” I’m still baffled by their popularity. They took a page out or Howard Stern self promotion and called themselves the greatest, and people bought into it.
Although I don’t hold U2 in the same view as the Beatles I’m beginning to think that because of their “sound” and popularity this same unwritten “rule” may apply to artists who overindulge in U2’s sound. It may not be as big as the Beatles because I’ve only heard one person (my dad) ever say they hates the Beatles, U2 and Pink Floyd have tons of haters. We may have to wait till U2 calls it quits or dies to see how “insiders” view U2’s status. It may be quite different now a days because of blogs. My dad told me that tons of people, not just parents, but rock fans hated the Beatles back in the day, funny how you don’t hear from them now. I wonder if you say you hate the Beatles it makes you look unpatriotic? It’s like saying “I hate this war”, or “you know that JFK guy was a real douche bag” If you think about the Beatles they had the tri-fecta, they created original, timeless, music that influenced millions, they retired at their peak, and one of the members died tragically, and way too early. That’s a tough one to top. So U2 could go the stones rout and tour until they need walkers, or kind of hang out like Floyd and do other things.
It is truly amazing how people’s legacy goes up when they die. All the “what if’s” give people a false hope that the artist would have saved the world, when in reality they most likely would keep touring to afford their life style and put out crap records for the next 10 years. It’s really up in the air with U2. It’s going to be interesting to see how their legacy pans out, and how untouchable they sound will be. As of now you can’t say shit about them because you look like an asshole if you make fun of Saint Bono. Yes I predict Bono will be canonized after he dies. I’m sure I just opened a whole new can of worms but U2’s legacy is only a natural progression when talking about rock legacy.
Being an old school metal head I remember reading an interview with James Hetfield and he made a good point about sophomore albums and furthering your career. He said that the first Metallica album was such a rip off of their idols and although it was well received he felt that he had to grow as an artist both with lyrics and especially sound, which is evident in their following albums. It easier in their case because they were ripping off Motorhead. It’s kind of like that saying “you have your whole life to make your first album” If that first album sounds like Rubber Soul you’re in trouble. It really does come down to the Beatles being held in such high praise, and how much influence you allow to seep into your songs. I do however think that if a seasoned artist came out with an album and it sounded like the Beatles they wouldn’t receive such a harsh backlash because they have a catalog of prior work to fall back on.
One band who blatantly ripped off Beatles riffs was Oasis, but I don’t think they boosted the Beatles sound, it was more like a rap player using a sample, for some reason people cut them slack. You know that song that starts off like “Imagine.” I’m still baffled by their popularity. They took a page out or Howard Stern self promotion and called themselves the greatest, and people bought into it.
Although I don’t hold U2 in the same view as the Beatles I’m beginning to think that because of their “sound” and popularity this same unwritten “rule” may apply to artists who overindulge in U2’s sound. It may not be as big as the Beatles because I’ve only heard one person (my dad) ever say they hates the Beatles, U2 and Pink Floyd have tons of haters. We may have to wait till U2 calls it quits or dies to see how “insiders” view U2’s status. It may be quite different now a days because of blogs. My dad told me that tons of people, not just parents, but rock fans hated the Beatles back in the day, funny how you don’t hear from them now. I wonder if you say you hate the Beatles it makes you look unpatriotic? It’s like saying “I hate this war”, or “you know that JFK guy was a real douche bag” If you think about the Beatles they had the tri-fecta, they created original, timeless, music that influenced millions, they retired at their peak, and one of the members died tragically, and way too early. That’s a tough one to top. So U2 could go the stones rout and tour until they need walkers, or kind of hang out like Floyd and do other things.
It is truly amazing how people’s legacy goes up when they die. All the “what if’s” give people a false hope that the artist would have saved the world, when in reality they most likely would keep touring to afford their life style and put out crap records for the next 10 years. It’s really up in the air with U2. It’s going to be interesting to see how their legacy pans out, and how untouchable they sound will be. As of now you can’t say shit about them because you look like an asshole if you make fun of Saint Bono. Yes I predict Bono will be canonized after he dies. I’m sure I just opened a whole new can of worms but U2’s legacy is only a natural progression when talking about rock legacy.
I’ve been lamenting the pitiful state of fortune cookie fortunes of late.
Even adding the de rigure “…in bed” to the end doesn’t help.
What? Did their Confucius license run out or something?
I’ve been lamenting the pitiful state of fortune cookie fortunes of late.
Even adding the de rigure “…in bed” to the end doesn’t help.
What? Did their Confucius license run out or something?
Worshiproach Why Does Your Dad Hate The Beatles?
I was wondering why does your Dad hate The Beatles???? I have been a huge highly impressed Beatles fan especially a big John and Paul fan since I was 9,I got my first Beatles book for my 11th birthday and I had every Beatles album by the age of 13. I was born during the middle of their recording career too. I really don’t believe what your father said is true that tons of rock fans hated The Beatles when they were a band,they had a Godlike popularity and from record sales alone we know the majority love them just as now.
I have found over 40 people on message boards and web sites who used to hate The Beatles but now they changed their minds and they are now big Beatles fans! They said they never even had heard most of their music and they had ignorant misperceptions about them. I didn’t communicate with any of these people,I just found their posts but putting in quotes on google.com “I used to hate The Beatles”. Most rock critics,many other music artists,and millions of people still say The Beatles were the greatest band ever! Even Ozzy Osbourne has been a huge Beatles fan since he was a teenager,and he said in a 2002 online Bender Magazine interview,that Paul McCartney is a musical genuis and The Beatles Are The Greatest Band To Ever Walk The Earth! He says not loving The Beatles is like not loving oxogen!
Worshiproach Why Does Your Dad Hate The Beatles?
I was wondering why does your Dad hate The Beatles???? I have been a huge highly impressed Beatles fan especially a big John and Paul fan since I was 9,I got my first Beatles book for my 11th birthday and I had every Beatles album by the age of 13. I was born during the middle of their recording career too. I really don’t believe what your father said is true that tons of rock fans hated The Beatles when they were a band,they had a Godlike popularity and from record sales alone we know the majority love them just as now.
I have found over 40 people on message boards and web sites who used to hate The Beatles but now they changed their minds and they are now big Beatles fans! They said they never even had heard most of their music and they had ignorant misperceptions about them. I didn’t communicate with any of these people,I just found their posts but putting in quotes on google.com “I used to hate The Beatles”. Most rock critics,many other music artists,and millions of people still say The Beatles were the greatest band ever! Even Ozzy Osbourne has been a huge Beatles fan since he was a teenager,and he said in a 2002 online Bender Magazine interview,that Paul McCartney is a musical genuis and The Beatles Are The Greatest Band To Ever Walk The Earth! He says not loving The Beatles is like not loving oxogen!
Re: Worshiproach Why Does Your Dad Hate The Beatles?
Don’t know. Maybe he thought they were hippies, or maybe it was because he was a Beach Boys fan and during his time there was a rivalry. I remember him saying it once in a while when there would be a story about the Beatles on TV, he would say how he hated the Beatles and not everyone his age liked them. My pops was a typical blue collar Democrat who was drafted to go to Vietnam. Pretty simple man that really didn’t care as much about music as maybe you or I. I can respect him for saying he hated the Beatles, to some it’s sac religious. I don’t think he would argue the influence or popularity, he just didn’t like their music. If he was alive I’d ask him why he hated them. I think it comes down to he just didn’t like their music. Aren’t their things you don’t like that everyone raves about? I think the God Father is a piece of shit movie, I won’t argue it’s relevance, influence, or popularity, however I think it’s piece of shit. I also despise DMB’s music. I wont’ argue about their talent, but their music is horrid.
Re: Worshiproach Why Does Your Dad Hate The Beatles?
Don’t know. Maybe he thought they were hippies, or maybe it was because he was a Beach Boys fan and during his time there was a rivalry. I remember him saying it once in a while when there would be a story about the Beatles on TV, he would say how he hated the Beatles and not everyone his age liked them. My pops was a typical blue collar Democrat who was drafted to go to Vietnam. Pretty simple man that really didn’t care as much about music as maybe you or I. I can respect him for saying he hated the Beatles, to some it’s sac religious. I don’t think he would argue the influence or popularity, he just didn’t like their music. If he was alive I’d ask him why he hated them. I think it comes down to he just didn’t like their music. Aren’t their things you don’t like that everyone raves about? I think the God Father is a piece of shit movie, I won’t argue it’s relevance, influence, or popularity, however I think it’s piece of shit. I also despise DMB’s music. I wont’ argue about their talent, but their music is horrid.