The Beatles: The highest point in History of Rock?
IMHO
Yes! Any other opinions? Well? theflaco |
The highest point in the history of British rock. They spawned a huge number of other British groups and individuals to a lesser extent.
I don't know about the highest point ever when you look at the likes of The Backstreet Boys, 'nsync, and Britney....:D |
I would say 1967 was the highlight of R&R. Its was fresh and pure.
Beatles - Sgt Peppers Hendrix (debut) - Are you Experienced (like a greatest hits) Doors (debut) - Doors Pink Floyd (Debut) - Piper at the Gates of Dawn Jefferson Airplane(debut) - Surrealistic Pillow Kesey and Leary made the whole experience even better ;) Monterrey Pop Festival was happenng! |
..I gotta agree with Freudian Slip...1967..is probably the high water mark for rock-n-roll.
In another post( on search tips)..... I mentioned you can search by year in most programs... 1967 .... yields some interesting results....try other years too. Its fun to see just what people were listening to in various years. |
I think it's purely subjective. Maybe people who were listening to rock music in 1967 can remember only the good music from that year while they can remember all the good and bad music from the past couple of years. I myself don't remember anything before 1983 when I was two years old. But in twenty years will I come across a thread titled "The Smashing Pumpkins: The hightest point in the History of Rock?" Maybe not, but at least then I'll have something to say about it, and I doubt I'll remember the Backstreet Boys or Britney Spears two decades from now.
|
I'll take "72-74, The Golden Age" for 800 Alex.
|
Lot's of other bands have had big impacts on the Rock world - and many have proclaimed themselves to be bigger, better, and badder than the Beatles.
I'll believe it when people stop using the Beatles as the measuring stick. |
God I hate the Beatles. I can't say they are or are not as influential as the music party line says as that would make me as knee-jerk as those that have the opinion. I'm not a recording artist and am unfamiliar with studio techniques before and after the Beatles, something I've heard they had great influence on.
I am familiar with pop culture and pop culture history however, and feel the Beatles spawned in that area trends that did far more damage then good. In my opinion they single handedly hijacked the late sixties into being an apolitical acid fest instead of being about any meaningful policital change. Lennon spawned a generation of shallow, insipid lead singers who feel that stating moronic, generalist statements like "All you need is love" and "Give peace a chance" is somehow "political" (Bono, anyone?). Their massive popularity in and of itself may have made them "most influential." Then again, Elvis was pretty fucking influential as well. Can you honestly say that there would be no Radiohead, no Nirvana, no Sex Pistols if not for the Beatles? I don't think so; it's too many bands and acts removed from the Beatles to make that assumption now. If you do, I would shoot back that the same could be said for Elvis then, simply for breaking rock clearly into the mainstream homes of white america. Oh well, only 2 more to go until they are finally wiped out. Now if only rock critics could clear them from their superlative lists when describing new acts. |
Quote:
Credit where credit is due - he is doing more than being just a singer at least. |
Quote:
|
The Beatles were revolutionary. They were, along with Jimi Hendrix and the Beach Boys, the first to use the studio-as-instrument. A lot of break-throughs they made we take for granted now. What I do hate about the Beatles is that baby-boomer critics state that "The Beatles were the high point of pop music, it will never be as good as this again". A load of crap from a bunch of insecure has-beens. As for the Beatles, I like 'em but can we just move on and stop being so relevant to the past the whole time. There isnt anything interesting to be said about the Beatles that people havent heard before.
I dont agree with assorted's statement that Lennon just wrote a bunch of namby-pamby crap like "All you need is love". What about "Working class hero" or "Revolution"? |
Ummmmm...
...ok....In my view
...the Golden age of Rock-n-Roll was 1952-1962. .. the Platinium age of Rock-n-Roll was 1963 - 1973 .. the Silver age of Rock-n-Roll 1974-1984. Since then... most everything has been lame...weak , or has been done before....(except Nirvana..and a few other rare exceptions)..IMHO:S: :S: :S: |
Re: Ummmmm...
Quote:
as for the beatles...as the only person here from liverpool i can quite safely say... the beatles are/were shit :ND: |
ahem..
..my liverpoolian friend...
...I also happen think the late 1700's and early 1800's was the golden age for classical music as well... That dosn't mean I (or anyone else for that matter) want to go back and live in those times. :loud: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
not that what Bono's doing is bad or anything, but why does he have to act like such a prick ?
|
Quote:
One of the most jarring aspects of the whole Napster controversey was the contrast between musicians like Metallica and Jon Bon Jovi, multimillionaire rock stars who were spending their time and energy moaning about the few dollars they might have lost in cd sales...and people like the members of U2 and Peter Gabriel, who spend their non-performing time working for causes like Amnesty International and Third World debt relief. Seems to me that being a great artist or performer is only part of it - the question is, what do you do with the incredible wealth, fame, fortune, and power that you accumulate along the way? :tu: |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)