Jump to content

The Worst Albums Of All Time


ffrankwhite

Recommended Posts

Elaborate.

You cant say that the Velvets were indirectly influenced by the Beatles, unless you go back in time and make the Beatles not happen.

what I am saying is that without The Beatles, guitars would have been used in a completely different way, drums would have been used differently, etc. And they influenced EVERYTHING in rock music during their time, and that have to include some of the bands that either Lou Reed, Morrison, Moe Tucker, John Cale, or any of the other future members of The Velvet Underground really, really, really enjoyed, and then influenced their type of playing.

Yes I did.

I still beg to differ.

Whats with the apparent dislike of the Beatles?

I have never understood the appeal to them. To me, their music is boring an cheesy. I don't like their music and have never been able to see what the fuss is all about. I can understand what the big deal is about Elvis, not not the Beatles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You cant say that the Velvets were indirectly influenced by the Beatles, unless you go back in time and make the Beatles not happen.

Huh? :huh:

How can something influence another thing without existing? :huh:

Nevertheless, pretty much everything after the 60s within popular and critically acclaimed music have been directly or indirectly influenced by The Beatles, you just can't deny it - it is a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cant say that the Velvets were indirectly influenced by the Beatles, unless you go back in time and make the Beatles not happen.

Huh? :huh:

How can something influence another thing without existing? :huh:

Nevertheless, pretty much everything after the 60s within popular and critically acclaimed music have been directly or indirectly influenced by The Beatles, you just can't deny it - it is a fact.

So, you think that the VU wouldnt exist without the Beatles?

Edited by metallic ko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right. At least not without the sound they had.

:blink:

I beg to differ on that.

Is it just me or are you trying to stall time or something? I've written what must be a couple of pages worth of posts explaining you my point of view - why don't you read them and write some decent replies instead of just writing "I beg to differ" all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why does everybody confuse "influencial" with "good"

:question:

not that all influencial albums are bad(just some of them)

I refuse to take you seriously until you take that tripe off your avatar and signature.

tripe to some,greatness to others

Fair enough, I just see it as music for 13 year olds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why does everybody confuse "influencial" with "good"

:question:

not that all influencial albums are bad(just some of them)

I refuse to take you seriously until you take that tripe off your avatar and signature.

tripe to some,greatness to others

Fair enough, I just see it as music for 13 year olds.

I just see it as simple music,filled with simple emotions...in this case rage,nothing complex(although even though the albums are filled with curse-words and anger/sadness,the music makes for really good party music):P

I think all the music I listen to is filled with simple emotions..including GNR.I don't look for anything more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to admit that The Beatles were innovative and progressive in every single thing they did. Using a sitar in popular music and not scaring Western listeners away by doing so? Come on, who else could have thought of that except The Beatles?

The Yardbirds. 1965. "Heart Full of Soul."

That was the alternate version, though, and it was not released as a single, which means it did not reach the public as well as The Beatles did with their sitar-songs.

You asked who could have thought of "Using a sitar in popular music and not scaring Western listeners away by doing so?" And "who else could have thought of that except The Beatles?

I answered with someone who did. And did it before the Beatles. The single version too, I think you will have to agree, is clearly attempting to replicate (and quite authentically so) the sound of an actual sitar.

I'm just being pedantic here though. I do get the general point you're making in that the Beatles were incredibly influential. And agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to admit that The Beatles were innovative and progressive in every single thing they did. Using a sitar in popular music and not scaring Western listeners away by doing so? Come on, who else could have thought of that except The Beatles?

The Yardbirds. 1965. "Heart Full of Soul."

That was the alternate version, though, and it was not released as a single, which means it did not reach the public as well as The Beatles did with their sitar-songs.

You asked who could have thought of "Using a sitar in popular music and not scaring Western listeners away by doing so?" And "who else could have thought of that except The Beatles?

I answered with someone who did. And did it before the Beatles. The single version too, I think you will have to agree, is clearly attempting to replicate (and quite authentically so) the sound of an actual sitar.

I'm just being pedantic here though. I do get the general point you're making in that the Beatles were incredibly influential. And agree with it.

By saying "popular music", I meant as a single or a part of a massively popular album worldwide, like Rubber Soul or Revolver.

I think just duplicating the sound of a sitar isn't really the same as playing an actual sitar in the studio, but yeah, I get your point. ;)

Edited by Lithium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right. At least not without the sound they had.

:blink:

I beg to differ on that.

Is it just me or are you trying to stall time or something? I've written what must be a couple of pages worth of posts explaining you my point of view - why don't you read them and write some decent replies instead of just writing "I beg to differ" all the time.

I only wrote that twice. :huh:

The VU werent influenced by them. If the Beatles didnt exist, the VU would sound exactly the way they do. Lou Reed wrote some of the songs on the first album while he was at college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the whole beatles debate about their inlfuence, well i think just about nearly every band that came after the beatles has been influenced by the beatles in some way, they might even be subconciously influenced by the beatles and not even know it or they might be influcneed by a band that was influenced by a band that were influenced by the beatles and aare thus themsleves being inlfunced by the beatles if that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the whole beatles debate about their inlfuence, well i think just about nearly every band that came after the beatles has been influenced by the beatles in some way, they might even be subconciously influenced by the beatles and not even know it or they might be influcneed by a band that was influenced by a band that were influenced by the beatles and aare thus themsleves being inlfunced by the beatles if that makes sense.

That is exactly my point - absolutely everything within rock and pop after the 60s has been influenced by The Beatles.

I only wrote that twice. :huh:

The VU werent influenced by them. If the Beatles didnt exist, the VU would sound exactly the way they do. Lou Reed wrote some of the songs on the first album while he was at college.

There's no way they could sound the same as they did without The Beatles, and if they did, their entire image and sound would seem stupid and unbearable to most people.

Yeah, I'm sure he wrote some of the lyrics in college, but I doubt he wrote the music there.

Just look at the guitar play before and after the 60s. Yeah, a lot of bands like Led Zeppelin, Cream, The Who, etc. contributed to that guitar sound and type of playing, but The Beatles did the largest part. You can't deny it, ask an expert on rock history or anyone else who know a fair share about musical history and music in general.

Edited by Lithium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only wrote that twice. :huh:

The VU werent influenced by them. If the Beatles didnt exist, the VU would sound exactly the way they do. Lou Reed wrote some of the songs on the first album while he was at college.

There's no way they could sound the same as they did without The Beatles, and if they did, their entire image and sound would seem stupid and unbearable to most people.

Yeah, I'm sure he wrote some of the lyrics in college, but I doubt he wrote the music there.

Just look at the guitar play before and after the 60s. Yeah, a lot of bands like Led Zeppelin, Cream, The Who, etc. contributed to that guitar sound and type of playing, but The Beatles did the largest part. You can't deny it, ask an expert on rock history or anyone else who know a fair share about musical history and music in general.

How do you know? Oh, thats right, you dont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...