what song are you listening to?.... thread...

[Jack Sawyer]

[Jack Sawyer]

[aubreymcfate]

[aubreymcfate]

fascist baby

[OngBonga]

this one's for ong

Nice!

You can have my favourite song...

[Poopadoop]

You young whippersnappers don't know what good music is, consarn it.

[Poopadoop]

Also, get off my lawn.

[OngBonga]

pfft Zepp

I hope it annoys that that not only do I find them medicore, I live about three miles away from Robert Plant. He drinks in a pub that is a short walk down the canal out of town and into the next village.

[Poopadoop]

pfft Zepp

I hope it annoys that that not only do I find them medicore...

Nah, don't really mind whether anyone shares my taste or not. And Plant may have been a great musician but that doesn't mean I'd want to drink with him.

[Savy]

I've never really got what people get out of Led Zeppelin, then again I tend to gravitate away from that whole aesthetic.

[Poopadoop]

They're unique for one thing. Innovative (for their time). And very talented; arguably two of the best guitarists in rock history and one of the top three drummers.

[OngBonga]

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Zepp, but I do think they're overrated.

[Savy]

They're unique for one thing. Innovative (for their time). And very talented; arguably two of the best guitarists in rock history and one of the top three drummers.

Are they unique? They may have been at the time but at any point in the past 25 years? It's like when you watch a really old film that people rave about because it did so many new hugely influential things but when you watch it you've already seen it done hundreds of times and some of those times better.

Rating guitarists and drummers is a bit childish and just takes things off topic. They're considered great because people like them to me who doesn't really like them it's pretty irrelevant. Innovation is also very of it's time. How influential a band/album is isn't really all that relevant to how much I like them.

I dunno a lot of bands that you hear people rave about ultimately aren't going to do that much for you but when you do find stuff it's great. Especially because there has been enough time for that music to sew its seed into other bands around and it gives you a whole trail of new shit you might be into.

The first time I heard this comes to mind.

[Poopadoop]

Of course no-one will ever be able to touch Paco on the guitar.

[Poopadoop]

Are they unique?

Well I don't know any band that sounds like them. A lot were influenced by them though afterwards but it's not really the genre I'm into (more of a hard rock than heavy metal guy myself). Some of the innovations were using weird time signatures like 5/4 time and whatever that almost no-one ever even would try.

[Savy]

Well I don't know any band that sounds like them. A lot were influenced by them though afterwards but it's not really the genre I'm into (more of a hard rock than heavy metal guy myself). Some of the innovations were using weird time signatures like 5/4 time and whatever that almost no-one ever even would try.

Then listen to all the hard rock and blues bands influenced by them rather than the metal ones?

[Poopadoop]

Rating guitarists and drummers is a bit childish and just takes things off topic. They're considered great because people like them

When a bunch of people agree someone is great at an instrument, it's usually because they are.

I mean here's a song I don't particularly like, but no-one can deny both the bass and drum playing is from another planet.

[Poopadoop]

Then listen to all the hard rock and blues bands influenced by them rather than the metal ones?

I think it was mostly metal bands that tried to take after them, and most of those sound a bit shit to me. Blues is kinda dead in rock since the 70s, apart from bands like the Stones who were more R&B than straight blues.

[Savy]

I think it was mostly metal bands that tried to take after them, and most of those sound a bit shit to me. Blues is kinda dead in rock since the 70s, apart from bands like the Stones who were more R&B than straight blues.

Ain't my style of music so I can't really suggest anything (all that comes to mind is wolfmother) but if you're interested I can guarantee thousands of websites that will have great suggestions on exactly this.

[Poopadoop]

Ain't my style of music so I can't really suggest anything (all that comes to mind is wolfmother) but if you're interested I can guarantee thousands of websites that will have great suggestions on exactly this.

Thanks I will check that out.

Tbf, it's kinda hard for a band to directly influence other bands much beyond their own decade. For example, no-one today would try to write a Beatles type song because it would just sound weird, even though they were insanely popular in their day.

The types of bands LedZep influenced for the good were AC/DC or Van Halen because they had songs that were melodic but with an edge. A lot of the bands just mimicked the edge part (metal bands) and that rarely worked imo.

[OngBonga]

The Who are fucking great, so much better than Zepp.

The Real Me is a great song, too.

[OngBonga]

For example, no-one today would try to write a Beatles type song because it would just sound weird, even though they were insanely popular in their day.

Forgive me for being like 20 years behind the times, but the Beatles had a HUGE influence certainly as late as the 90's, with bands from Oasis (who blatantly ripped them off) to the Chemical Brothers (they nicked their drum loops) to the Beta Band (fucking fantastic). They are still, to the best of my knowledge, insanely popular, and insanely influencial. But I don't really listen to much new music, so maybe time has finally caught up with them.

[Savy]

Tbf, it's kinda hard for a band to directly influence other bands much beyond their own decade. For example, no-one today would try to write a Beatles type song because it would just sound weird, even though they were insanely popular in their day.

Nah it's not. To be fair I'd say 10 years after a band is big is probably like the peak time to hear the influence of that music from kids who were young teenagers to being in their mid twenties.

Also you have to remember that parents music is pretty influential on kids, people of my generation will have had parents who grew up at the time of Led Zeppelin and are still really into them.

[OngBonga]

Arguably, lots of boy bands are influenced by the Beatles. I say arguably, because it's their songwriters and management that are influenced, and not in an artistic sense.

[OngBonga]

Robert Plant knows my Stepdad by name, although he is a former journalist and current producer for ITV so it's not quite so unlikely.

He was recently asked who's the most famous person he's interviewed. After some thought, he went for Plant, but he's also interviewed Keith Moon and Keith Richards. After recanting a few anecdotes about those interviews, he goes "oh yeah, and Mandella". Says a lot about how much he likes these bands.

[Poopadoop]

Forgive me for being like 20 years behind the times, but the Beatles had a HUGE influence certainly as late as the 90's, with bands from Oasis (who blatantly ripped them off) to the Chemical Brothers (they nicked their drum loops) to the Beta Band (fucking fantastic). They are still, to the best of my knowledge, insanely popular, and insanely influencial. But I don't really listen to much new music, so maybe time has finally caught up with them.

Well today isn't the 1990s, that was twenty years ago. Are there any bands making music today that sound like the Beatles?

Also, I was referring more to the overall sound. And I was thinking mostly of the early Beatles, who were noteworthy for being very pop, with complex vocal harmonies, great guitar riffs, and pretty minimalistic everything else. No-one beyond 1975 was making music with that sound. The later Beatles had Phil Spector and so began the so-called Wall of Sound, which is pretty much standard nowadays.

Can't really speak to their comparison to Oasis as I only really know the 3 Oasis songs that I have on my ipod (Champagne Supernova, Don't Look back in Anger, and Wonderwall).

This is probably the closest that the Beatles got to the future Oasis (and an awesome song):



p.s. Stealing licks and sampling someone isn't exactly the same as being influenced, at least not in my mind. Being influenced is a more general type of thing. Also, if your drummer can't top Ringo, you need a new drummer imo.

[Poopadoop]

Arguably, lots of boy bands are influenced by the Beatles. I say arguably, because it's their songwriters and management that are influenced, and not in an artistic sense.

They're absolutely being marketed as modern-day versions of the Beatles, just without the songwriting talent, which tbf was pretty hard to match.

[Poopadoop]

Nah it's not. To be fair I'd say 10 years after a band is big is probably like the peak time to hear the influence of that music from kids who were young teenagers to being in their mid twenties.

Also you have to remember that parents music is pretty influential on kids, people of my generation will have had parents who grew up at the time of Led Zeppelin and are still really into them.

Mostly I'm referring to the overall sound. A band that sounded like LedZep or the Beatles today wouldn't sell. Of course they can be influenced by them, but they're not going to copy their sound like bands in their own day tried to. E.g., the Beach Boys were pretty much the Beatles writing songs about surfing.

[Poopadoop]

The Who are fucking great, so much better than Zepp.

I like them better than Zep overall as well. Townshend is literally a genius, if he had someone like Lennon or McCartney to collaborate with he would be put in their class as songwriters (if that makes sense).

The Real Me is a great song, too.

I think stylistically it's just too 'different' for my ears. But the musicianship is outstanding.

Who's Next is their best album imo.

[OngBonga]

Also, if your drummer can't top Ringo, you need a new drummer imo.

Ringo, most underrated drummer of all time imo. All Chemical Brothers did was filter and loop Ringo's drumming, so basically Ringo was writing drum loops for leading electronic artists 30 odd years before electronica was a genre. And people think he's shit.

He was a really shit singer, though. That I won't dispute.

[OngBonga]

I like them better than Zep overall as well. Townshend is literally a genius, if he had someone like Lennon or McCartney to collaborate with he would be put in their class as songwriters (if that makes sense).

He had Daltrey's voice to compliment him. Daltrey has (well, had) the best male voice I've heard, imo. The Who absolutely shit all over the Beatles. And I like the Beatles, especially their later stuff.

[OngBonga]

The Who are up there with the Stooges as contenders for greatest band of all time.

[OngBonga]

I think Ringo is appreciated more by those of us who appreciate electronic music. Ringo's drumming wasn't on the same level as Keith Moon (that's your GDOAT), but it was WAY ahead of its time in terms of its artistic merit. It wasn't rock and roll, and that's why a lot of people think it's not very good.

[OngBonga]

Beta Band are awesome.

[aubreymcfate]

One of the absolute best and most obscure albums from the 70s is McDonald and Giles, from King Crimson. They went off did their own thing, and it is sublime perfection, truly a gem. It's like King Crimson but much softer... like if the Beatles went prog. I recommend just listening to the whole thing.




I've been convinced of The Who's place in the pantheon of rock and roll genius ever sine I saw Tommy.

[aubreymcfate]

also been really digging CAN lately, 70s German krautrock band

[aubreymcfate]

[MadMojoMonkey]

Dinosaur Jr.

Wow. This takes me back to high school.

Their cover of The Cure's "Just Like Heaven" still stands out as brilliant, yet trashy.

J Mascis is fairly amazing to witness, or he was 20 years ago. I haven't kept up.
His vocal styling has subdued melodies, or is just straight-up punk, depending on the song.
His guitar work underneath it all is mind-blowing, though. It took me a few listens to realize just how much he's doing behind those vocals.
If I hadn't bridged the gap between the vocalist and guitarist being the same guy, I probably never would have turned on to Dinosaur Jr.
(That cover I mention doesn't really highlight his guitar skills)

[OngBonga]

I've been convinced of The Who's place in the pantheon of rock and roll genius ever sine I saw Tommy.

Quadrophenia was what did it for me.

also, pfft those CAN vids are blocked in the UK. God damn I need a VPN.

*found it* yes this is excellent, listening to Vitamin C

[MadMojoMonkey]

Mostly I'm referring to the overall sound. A band that sounded like LedZep or the Beatles today wouldn't sell. Of course they can be influenced by them, but they're not going to copy their sound like bands in their own day tried to. E.g., the Beach Boys were pretty much the Beatles writing songs about surfing.

I'm not sure you fully appreciate where pop/rock music was before the Beatles and after the Beatles.
The popularization of the 4-piece touring guitar band is almost wholly attributable to their success using this format.
There were 4-piece bands around prior to the Beatles, but they weren't the norm.

Look at the proliferation of {2 guitars, 1 bass, 1 drum set} bands out there for the past 60 years.

There's an argument to be made that this is nothing to do with the Beatles directly. The Beatles merely happened to be doing the whole band thing during the era of the rise of electronic music, and somebody was bound to stumble upon the whole "We're 4 guys w/ guitars and a drum set" thing. They happened to be the most popular during that era, and their popularizing the format is coincidental.

IDK. We'll never be able to go back and take away their electricity and see if the genre still grew to be as popular. We can't go back and take the Beatles out of the picture and see if the genre is still popularized by some other group. So we're left with these 2 facts: Before the Beatles, the 4-piece guitar band wasn't really a thing, and in the wake of the Beatles, it's dominating the music entertainment industry on a world-wide scale.

[aubreymcfate]

Quadrophenia was what did it for me.

also, pfft those CAN vids are blocked in the UK. God damn I need a VPN.

*found it* yes this is excellent, listening to Vitamin C

yeah I figured you'd like that one

"she brings the rain" by them is good too, it's the just the right kind of slow & sexy. i'm still getting to know them, each song is like a whole new experience (that's the fun thing about experimental eclectic bands)


All hail Galt MacDermot

[Poopadoop]

I'm not sure you fully appreciate where pop/rock music was before the Beatles and after the Beatles.
The popularization of the 4-piece touring guitar band is almost wholly attributable to their success using this format.
There were 4-piece bands around prior to the Beatles, but they weren't the norm.

Look at the proliferation of {2 guitars, 1 bass, 1 drum set} bands out there for the past 60 years.

There's an argument to be made that this is nothing to do with the Beatles directly. The Beatles merely happened to be doing the whole band thing during the era of the rise of electronic music, and somebody was bound to stumble upon the whole "We're 4 guys w/ guitars and a drum set" thing. They happened to be the most popular during that era, and their popularizing the format is coincidental.

IDK. We'll never be able to go back and take away their electricity and see if the genre still grew to be as popular. We can't go back and take the Beatles out of the picture and see if the genre is still popularized by some other group. So we're left with these 2 facts: Before the Beatles, the 4-piece guitar band wasn't really a thing, and in the wake of the Beatles, it's dominating the music entertainment industry on a world-wide scale.

You're speaking to a somewhat different point; whereas my point was about the music you seem to be saying their biggest influence was that there were four of them who toured as a band, using guitars, bass and drums.

If your argument was that one big innovation of the Beatles was that they were self-contained in the sense that they wrote their own songs, and they were excellent songs, I would agree (though this still doesn't imply the music itself is going to innovative). Musically the biggest in terms of 'sound' was their use of multilayered vocal harmonies, which was a step beyond what others had done before them, and was the part imitated by other bands like the Beach Boys. This refers to their early work mostly as later on they developed much more complex instrumentation and relied less on vocals.

The big innovation of the Beatles (musically) was definitely NOT that they were using guitar, bass and drums almost exclusively. You might as well say they invented the three-chord song or verse/chorus/verse structure. Having guitar, bass drums was pretty much true from the beginning of rock n' roll, regardless of how many of each you had (which basically boils down to how many guitars you used since everyone had a bass and drums. Some focused more on keyboards but guitar/bass/drums was not a new thing at all.

But anyways, back to the point of mine you quoted. If you go back and listen to an early Beatles song, and try to imagine someone reproducing that 'sound' today and thinking it will sell records, it won't be happening (imo). For one, no-one uses the twangy guitar sound these days. For another, the orchestration is very minimalistic compared to today's music which is much more developed in terms of layering. Which is to say, bands today are not trying to copy a sound from a band from 50 years ago. They might nick things here and there but the overall sound is going to be different.

[OngBonga]

yeah I figured you'd like that one

Love Reign O'er Me, that song alone defines Quadrophenia. Possibly the greatest song ever written, certainly a contender.

And the film is fucking awesome too. It's just a masterpiece, both from a music and film pov.

Tommy is too, of course, but it's not so easy to watch or listen to. It's an acquired taste.

All hail Amon Tobin...

[Poopadoop]

Love Reign O'er Me, that song alone defines Quadrophenia. Possibly the greatest song ever written, certainly a contender.

And the film is fucking awesome too. It's just a masterpiece, both from a music and film pov.

Tommy is too, of course, but it's not so easy to watch or listen to. It's an acquired taste.

Quadrophrenia is miles ahead of Tommy imo. Tommy has some great songs but a fair chunk of it sounds pretty meh imo. In Q there isn't a single song I would say is 'bad' but also very few I think are amazingly good (Punk and the Godfather, Cut My Hair, LROM stand out to me). Most of the problem I always had with Q was not knowing wtf a mod was apart from it was some guy who lived in England and spent all his wages on clothes and uppers lol. So a lot of the lyrics were pretty unrelatable.

Fun fact: The Who tried to mix Q in quadrophonic sound (four distinct sound sources rather than two as per stereophonic sound) but the technical challenges proved insurmountable, so they ended up saying 'fuck it' and went with stereo.

[MadMojoMonkey]

re. Beatles

Your argument sounds like you're trying to convince me that there's great variety in the Taco Bell menu.
You can mash them together however you like, but ultimately, it's all the same ingredients.

Layered harmonies were a staple of barbershop n-tet music, which predates the Beatles in the pop music scene.

My argument isn't that a 4-piece guitar-based pop/rock band was the reason they're great.

My argument is that prior to them being great, this wasn't really a thing. In the aftermath of them being great, they've been copied endlessly.
The entire setup of a 4-piece guitar-based pop/rock band MAY have become popularized w/o the Beatles' success. The fact is that whatever else their impact on pop/rock music, the setup of a 4-piece guitar-based band was copied by thousands of people even while the Beatles were still gaining success. Some of those bands were quite popular, too.

The whole cementing into our culture that 4 guys with guitars and a drum set can be a world class performance group is due to the Beatles' unprecidented success and the success of extremely similar bands which followed the Beatles' professional choices.

[Poopadoop]

....

If you want to argue that what I say is wrong because of something completely unrelated to my point, then I can't respond effectively to that. All I can do is repeat what I said and elaborate on it and hope you understand the difference between what I said and what you're talking about.

My argument was about the music they produced and how it was constructed musically, and not how many people were in the band or how they dressed or whether they made long hair popular or anything else unrelated to the music. I completely agree with you when you say they had a large part to do with a four-pieced rock 'n' roll band being a thing. That still has nothing to do with my point about how they sounded.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That still has nothing to do with my point about how they sounded.

How can this possibly be true?

I'm not sure you understand your point. If you're telling me that the number of band members and what musical instruments they are playing doesn't effect the sound of the band, then we're truly at an impasse.

[Poopadoop]

How can this possibly be true?

Because you didn't actually understand what I said is my guess.

If you're telling me that the number of band members and what musical instruments they are playing doesn't effect the sound of the band, then we're truly at an impasse.

Broadly, of course the instruments affect the sound. But only broadly. I don't think anyone would try to argue that a band like Metallica has a 'sound' resembling the Beatles.

Your argument really relates not to 'sound' in that sense, but to how bands were conceived of. The guitar/bass/drums/voice ensemble in rock was pretty much standard by the time the Beatles came around. It's true that when you turned on your radio at the diner in the 50s and heard Bill Haley or Elvis or Buddy Holly or Chuck Berry, that you couldn't name everyone who played on those songs and what instrument they played. But that doesn't mean they didn't have the same basic ensemble of instruments; it was just that the 'band' was whoever was out front, and the other guys were essentially faceless musicians. The Beatles may have changed that, but they didn't in any way create the drum/bass/guitar ensemble.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Broadly, of course the instruments affect the sound. But only broadly. I don't think anyone would try to argue that a band like Metallica has a 'sound' resembling the Beatles.

I'd argue that you're comparing the vast array of guitar-based rock of today to the premier popularizers of the genre and pointing out that there are differences 60 years later.
That seems a trivial point, and not really giving credit where it's due.

Of course there are differences 60 years of innovation later. Look at the Beatles' contemporaries and tell me where this vast array of styles within the genre are.
It was mostly copy/paste of the Beatles in form AND content for a while, and then the successes of those experiments were further experimented upon.

My point is that Metallica isn't nearly as viable a band if not for the history of 4-piece guitar pop/rock bands which preceded them. Again... there is an argument that if not the Beatles, then someone would've stumbled upon this formula... but that argument isn't backed up with evidence.

The Beatles didn't revolutionize the human expression of emotion. They showed a rags to riches story that thousands upon thousands have tried to reproduce. Whether or not the reproducers realize they're still riding on the coattails of the Beatles these 6 decades later doesn't change the history.

[Poopadoop]

I'd argue that you're comparing the vast array of guitar-based rock of today to the premier popularizers of the genre and pointing out that there are differences 60 years later.
That seems a trivial point, and not really giving credit where it's due.

You might find it trivial, but that was my point.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Of course their influence looks washed out if all you look at is then and now and not the paths that lead from there to here. It's easy to say bands today are so different than the Beatles, so the Beatles influence is lost. It's just a point that is easy to shoot holes in, since it has only 2 data points.

Look at what pop/rock music was prior to the Beatles and look at what it's been since. Look at the path of bands that is in-between the Beatles and Metallica, not just the end points.
I doubt Metallica could be Metallica in the 50's or 60's. Our culture went ballistic when John Lennon compared the Beatles' popularity to that of Jesus. I think that, and the subsequent cultural cool down, was a necessary precursor to Metallica... but totally talking out my ass, there.


You say there's a huge variety among 4 person guitar-based pop/rock bands, but I suggest the following:
The sound produced by 4 people in a group, 3 with guitars and 1 with a drum set, is totally distinct from all other sounds produced by any group of 4 people w/o any guitars or drum sets (allowing for recordings and synthesizers).

[OngBonga]

You guys are talking too much without music links.

[Savy]

Wow. This takes me back to high school.

Their cover of The Cure's "Just Like Heaven" still stands out as brilliant, yet trashy.

J Mascis is fairly amazing to witness, or he was 20 years ago. I haven't kept up.
His vocal styling has subdued melodies, or is just straight-up punk, depending on the song.
His guitar work underneath it all is mind-blowing, though. It took me a few listens to realize just how much he's doing behind those vocals.
If I hadn't bridged the gap between the vocalist and guitarist being the same guy, I probably never would have turned on to Dinosaur Jr.
(That cover I mention doesn't really highlight his guitar skills)

Check this out, one of his solo albums. I really like it, he has a more recent album out but I've never listened to it.

[oskar]

nsfw

[oskar]

[Savy]

More slash your wrists stuff.

[VanDam]

This thread needs more Drake.

[aubreymcfate]

This thread needs more Drake.

ok

[oskar]

[aubreymcfate]

I didn't know I gave two shits about Childish Gambino till someone put this on at a party

[OngBonga]

That's party music? I can't dance to that. Mong out, sure, but dance? That's what I wanna do at parties.

*snatches laptop off aubrey*



Who's that wonderful female singer?

Spoiler: Show

wtf it's Cher?

[aubreymcfate]

nah not that kind of party, just a small gathering at a house upstate, doing a lot of what i assume you mean by "monging" lol


mmmmPH

[OngBonga]

Well, monging is what happens late at parties when everyone is spannered and can't think of anything sensible to say, so someone puts some soothing music on, and people either say nothing or talk shit, usually while smoking weed. Some superstar might make a round of tea. That's monging.

[MadMojoMonkey]

... when everyone is spannered...

Isn't a spanner the British word for wrench?

Brit euphemisms are the best.

Oh, since music thread:

5 peeps, 1 guitar, version 2.0


I know my music taste sticks out like a sore thumb, here, but this is so stuck in my head lately.

[OngBonga]

Yeah basically imagine if you went round a party and hit everyone with a spanner, suddenly the average IQ goes down somewhat. Spannered is a term we use to mean wasted beyond rational thought.

[aubreymcfate]

... when everyone is spannered...

Isn't a spanner the British word for wrench?

Brit euphemisms are the best.

Oh, since music thread:

5 peeps, 1 guitar, version 2.0


I know my music taste sticks out like a sore thumb, here, but this is so stuck in my head lately.

Something about this video is so pornographic to me... it's kind of creepy

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah basically imagine if you went round a party and hit everyone with a spanner, suddenly the average IQ goes down somewhat. Spannered is a term we use to mean wasted beyond rational thought.

I was thinking if some stoner-type told me he was torqued, I'd know what he meant.

Something about this video is so pornographic to me... it's kind of creepy

Sorry... I think?

[aubreymcfate]

I'm not the one you should be concerned about -- that poor, defenseless guitar is.

But to be fair, I would probably take perverse delight in it if it was something like John Williams & co. playing Villa-Lobos, so I guess whether a guitar gangbang is consensual or not is in the ear of the listener.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oh c'mon. Did you see the strap-on that guitar sports ~midway through?
It's clearly consenting. It put on it's best gangbang shells, and everything.

[VanDam]

Has anyone here ever heard of the band Civil Twilight?

[STILL_mkd]

[Poopadoop]

If we're going ethnic then...



A lousy video (who sings sitting in a chair?) but oh man, that voice...

[Poopadoop]

Cheesy latin pop, but so catchy.

[Savy]

Nailing it? I think so.

[Savy]

I love this song.