McCartney, Ringo, Jagger & Johnny Rotten supergroup?!?!

[moreblack]

Punk may has had an impact, but there's way more to Punk than John Lydon or Sex Pistols.

By that rationale you could attribute a lot of what is considered The Beatleses influence to the 60s and not being specifically about them. Like their guiding hand in psychedelia and their effect on fashion, a lot of which was just mod stuff. Some of the stuff in which they were considered pioneers in music involved a lot of cue taking from different bands and avenues of popular culture.

A fair argument can be made that the beatles were more influencED than influential.

Thing is, everybody was watching and listening to their every move, and were not necessarily aware of where they were getting it from. I'm sure if one asked around back then, "where did you first hear a sitar?" people aren't gonna say a Ravi Shankar record, they'd probably tell you Norwegian Wood.

But every band ultimately is just a reflection of what they listened to.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Thing is, everybody was watching and listening to their every move, and were not necessarily aware of where they were getting it from. I'm sure if one asked around back then, "where did you first hear a sitar?" people aren't gonna say a Ravi Shankar record, they'd probably tell you Norwegian Wood.

Or Paint it Black (geekboy, i know ). But yeah, my point still stands, thats kinda what i was getting at.

But every band ultimately is just a reflection of what they listened to

This i strongly disagree with. In fact i think its every bands duty to not. And i don't think the best bands/artists do. The Pistols certainly didn't. There's a difference between influence and mimicry.

Edited April 28, 2011 by sugaraylen

[moreblack]

I don't think they can help it. You can try to plug the gaps but a lot of what you've heard still leaks thru in your playing/composing

Edited April 28, 2011 by moreblack

[wasted]

Pistols was just Chuck Berry played very badly. not that that's a bad idea.

Ringo on drums

Maccabee bass

Jagger guitar

Lydon vocals

They could be called The Very Influences.

[LesPaul_Player_91]

That sounds obscene. They should just let PiL play.

Now THAT would be awsome!

Can't see it happening though. Hell if PiL played I may actually get excited about the Olympics.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I don't think they can help it. You can try to plug the gaps but a lot of what you've heard still leaks thru in your playing/composing

That much i can agree with but at the same time wholesale copying is just lazy and cheap. I mean like...you can be influenced by say...i dunno, the pace and the space of reggae and incorporate that into your music without actually reproducing reggae...or say...i dunno, prominence of drums as a result of listening to a lot of dance music without making some kind of faux techno. But yeah, i suppose somewhere somehow your influences become apparent.

[moreblack]

And in the end we're all playing the same chords, there can't be any more than what's already there...

[Guest Len B'stard]

And in the end we're all playing the same chords, there can't be any more than what's already there...

It's exactly that kinda lazy attitude that proliferates stagnation (is that a word? ) in music. Y'think if people'd've had that attitude we'd have like...all the different rhythmic variations that are around, i mean i'm not Mr Music so i can only talk within the bounds of the few types of music i have a limited knowledge of but say reggae rhythms for example, that staccato upstrokey shit, it was literally a happy accident that made it so someone stumbled upon that.

I think musicians follow formats cuz they're afraid of what comes out of them naturally, afraid that people'll think it sounds shit...or maybe they just lack ideas. Again, i ain't Jimi Hendrix or nothing, far from it, i'd struggle to play the simplest of songs on guitar but i find that, even with the simplest of chords, when you just fuck around with em, fuck around with the basic rhythm patterns etc you come up with some really interesting sounding shit or just like...when you strum aimlessly you stumble upon some really cool sounding shit. I think a lot of musicians spend a lot of time perfecting other peoples work because they don't trust their ears. Shame.

[moreblack]

I don't believe in stagnation, there's always somebody somewhere trying something. But all the notes are the same, sure there's subtle differences in approach, but nobody's gonna invent an "R sharp diminished" chord or anything. Everyone's free to use them notes as they please, but I really hope nobody's walking around thinking they reinvented the wheel, or even that it can be reinvented.

The only solution to that, is to make anti-music. Like the intro to this song:

But once the song gets going, it's just same old same old.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I don't believe in stagnation, there's always somebody somewhere trying something. But all the notes are the same, sure there's subtle differences in approach, but nobody's gonna invent an "R sharp diminished" chord or anything. Everyone's free to use them notes as they please, but I really hope nobody's walking around thinking they reinvented the wheel, or even that it can be reinvented.

The only solution to that, is to make anti-music. Like the intro to this song:

But once the song gets going, it's just same old same old.

Y'know...that was pretty fuckin cool :)

Yeah, i suppose you're right though, with all that but i think, at the same time, it's not healthy to look at instruments that way. 72 notes per fretboard shouldn't been seen as a limitation though, it just seems to me to be looking at it with the wrong eyes, i strongly believe that there's like...TONS more shit that can be done but the folks that are trying seem to push towards more and more technical approaches y'know, R sharp diminished sydrome if you like, but i think its there on the bottom end of the scale, with the simpler stuff. The broadest of innovations in terms of scope always seem to be grounded in simplicity.

I do think it can be reinvented though man, i mean who saw Reggae coming, who saw the Chuck Berry riff coming (certain bluesmiths i suppose). And like...what in approach might be a subtle change can, in practical application result in a drastically different end result, like reggae (sorry, keep going on about reggae), it's really simple shit, its the same fuckin chords and there's often less of em than 3 chord rock but just that style of strumming creates a resultant product thats seriously out there...and when you throw some embellishments into the pot you're really somewhere.

Also, i think, everybody that has a desire to play an instrument hears certain shit. Y'know how they say "you just ain't a musical person" or "you just ain't got a musical ear" or whatever? I think thats bullshit, if music draws you in there's usually like a specfic compound component of it that you dig, that propels you if you like, whether its the bass or the drums or a certain kind of accenting that clicks with you...and everybodys bare bones perception of it is different and if you follow that and try and somehow wring that out of an instrument you can be original, wildly original. I didn't explain that well at all, did i?

There's more out there to music man, there's more than can be done and with the same old instruments too, you just gotta fuckin think about it...the way people like Frank Zappa or Lee Perry hear fucking rhythms coming out of food blenders and steam trains and...i can't really explain what i'm trying to say here but i know what i mean

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwgRFWsZZmA

Work some of that into shit, see? The wheel can be reinvented man or whats life for?

[moreblack]

I've been to a few Pow Wows, A native friend took me. That music is incredibly passionate. I've seen the First Nations imagery used in modern music, but not the sounds themselves. That'd be an interesting trip. Once people got over the initial novelty though, they'd have no problem tracing it back to its roots.

As much as one may defer to their influences when approaching an instrument, there's a chunk of it that is strictly you. That's why people very rarely sound exactly like those who inspired them. You really gotta go the extra mile to lose your individuality and be able to copy exactly the person you are after.

But a mind like Zappa, that's from some other planet altogether... I do believe some of these people are just born with it.

[Dean]

MACCA!

[Guest Len B'stard]

I've been to a few Pow Wows, A native friend took me. That music is incredibly passionate.

Wow...you're so lucky :) I'd give an arm..

As much as one may defer to their influences when approaching an instrument, there's a chunk of it that is strictly you. That's why people very rarely sound exactly like those who inspired them. You really gotta go the extra mile to lose your individuality and be able to copy exactly the person you are after.

Yeah man, that much is true, its why the british blues boom didn't really sound like blues and rather british people doing the blues.

But a mind like Zappa, that's from some other planet altogether... I do believe some of these people are just born with it.

I think it's in us all, you just gotta be willing to go there man.

[Zint]

Nothing wrong with influences,it's what you do with them that can make a difference.

Sure the same notes can be traced back to the dawn of discovery.

But to claim nothing was original or new or groundbreaking because you can trace all notes back to here and here and here is errant.

[wasted]

It's going to be Jimmy Page and Charlotte Church making out on a double decker instead.

[JeanGenie]

That he refused just shows that hes a useless piece of shit. John Lydon siimply is a nobody compared to Macca. An insignificant shitty little bugger.

Lydon is one of VERY few people in the sphere of post war popular music that can claim to've had as much impact as McCartney did in The Beatles. Ever been to a McCartney gig? Never seen such a congregation of slack cocks in all my life..

You know thats simply not true. Lydon had in literally no aspect as much impact as macca. the ultimate destiny of subgenre heroes.

[Guest Len B'stard]

That he refused just shows that hes a useless piece of shit. John Lydon siimply is a nobody compared to Macca. An insignificant shitty little bugger.

Lydon is one of VERY few people in the sphere of post war popular music that can claim to've had as much impact as McCartney did in The Beatles. Ever been to a McCartney gig? Never seen such a congregation of slack cocks in all my life..

You know thats simply not true. Lydon had in literally no aspect as much impact as macca. the ultimate destiny of subgenre heroes.

Is it a subgenre though? Or is it in fact a cultural chapter in modern history, one whoose effects and indeed one whoose tenets are still relevant today, without punk, rock n roll would never have made it out of the 70s, as stated previously the reach of punk far exceeds music, Lydon/The Pistols/Punk and the breadth of their cultural impact effected more than just popular music, as i've said previously in this thread, it's in art, in cinema, in journalism, in music, it touched everything.

McCartney and Lydon could well be cited as being at the forefront of the two pivotal moments in the history of rock n roll where it was redefined and saved by virtue of being redefined. Rock n roll would've died a death if The Beatles and The British Invasion hadn't come along and done what it did. Same goes for The Sex Pistols in 76.

Now if you like you can cling to blind reverence and elevate people like The Beatles to an untouchable pedestal but the fact is their cultural impact WAS very similar to the Pistols with, if anything, the scope of the influence and effect of The Pistols being broader because as mentioned earlier, it goes beyond music, which The Beatleses does too but not quite so much as punk because it wasn't as well defined, they were just four boys playing rock n roll, The Pistols was an entire package, a sound, a stance, an attitude, a declaration of intent, it was a true revolution.

It's worth noting that post Beatles, where there was a ton of Beatle influenced music around but all the other strains all were doing in their own direction too. But post-punk it's like almost every band afterwards is somehow marked by the trauma of those days, like they say in that Ramones doc, nowadays ALL guitars sound like Ramones guitars...and we're talking about over 30 years after the fact whereas The Beatles even by the late 60s and early 70s there was a fair cross-section of the rock genre that were like "OK, enough already".

[wasted]

true it's easy to favor bands from the past over current bands. but seeing bands like GNR, Nirvana, Oasis become legends has demystified it. cynicism has become justified jaded cynicism. here and there a band comes along where the music transcends anything written about it.

[JeanGenie]

Now if you like you can cling to blind reverence and elevate people like The Beatles to an untouchable pedestal but the fact is their cultural impact WAS very similar to the Pistols with, if anything, the scope of the influence and effect of The Pistols being broader because as mentioned earlier, it goes beyond music, which The Beatleses does too but not quite so much as punk because it wasn't as well defined, they were just four boys playing rock n roll, The Pistols was an entire package, a sound, a stance, an attitude, a declaration of intent, it was a true revolution.

I think the only one putting someone on a pedestal here is you. The beatles had a stance, a declaration of intent and so on. And more so they had more then one message. Not as limitied as the Sex Pistols. Fact is that the beatles changes the world and had an influence on the whole society in the entire western world where as the Sex Pistols had influence in their scene. Therefore claiming that John Lydon had as much impact as Maccartney is just pure nonsense. The Beatles sure were lucky that they happend at the time where this pop rock circus started but that doesnt change the fact that these 4 guys are nearly unmatched when it comes to social impact.

[Guest Len B'stard]

The beatles had a stance, a declaration of intent and so on. And more so they had more then one message.

And what was that?

Fact is that the beatles changes the world and had an influence on the whole society

Can you explain that for me? As in outline the influence, the changes etc Or some of them...to be the best of your ability if you will.

[moreblack]

The Beatles killed Communism for one...

[GivenToFly]

^ wat

[Guest Len B'stard]

The Beatles killed Communism for one...

By going to live in a commune in India (or Ashram) for 2 months

[moreblack]

^ wat

Not literally of course, but their impact on culture behind the iron curtain was massive, and helped start something...

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/editors-choice/2009/08/27/revealed-how-the-beatles-brought-down-communism-86908-21627401/

http://beatles.ncf.ca/guardian.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8232235.stm

By going to live in a commune in India (or Ashram) for 2 months

That's just what they did on their time off, but owning the albums was a punishable offense in USSR

Edited April 29, 2011 by moreblack

[Guest Len B'stard]