Bands And Albums.

I know, Mike... I enjoyed that. By the way, I'll finally be posting a song on this website in about a week, so get ready to critique!

Glad to hear it davis. I figure you almost have to have two sets of standards for critique... pro and semi-pro. I try hard not to compare stuff I hear from amateurs equally to stuff I hear on the radio... cause you have to keep in mind that the semi-pro stuff doesn't have access to the big money tools and talent... I'll listen to you and give the same thoughtfull comments I would give to anybody (but samick -he's a special case -mostly because he takes suck to a whole new pinnacle).

NOW, I must inquire... my joke RE "wicked witch of the west" seemed to go unnoticed - and I'm certain that even macleod would have to admit how much his avatar looks like the original "wicked witch" (in color of course). Was this joke lost on you all? Not even a "hehe".
Is this thing on?

Anywho, my experience has been that this guy is a hit and run artist... and not worth any effort running.
PhrAiLGuitarist, on the other hand... is quite worthy of your time. Quite wise and he makes a great point. I love the beatles... tho not nearly as much as you... and I don't place them as highly either. Most of the beatles stuff boils down to silly love songs like "I wanna hold your hand". We also differ in that I think there are a ton of musicians today that are easily equals (of the fab four) on one level or another. The most musically inclined stuff the beatles did was all owed to their producer. The most lyrically inspiring belonged mostly to john lennons solo work.
I'm sure there is even some truth in macleods comments that they were hyped up (it certainly was bob dylans opinion of the time allbeit a biased one - having endured being constantly compared to them lyrically).
Whatever the beatles were or weren't they wrote a crapload of songs that were very popular(and are still)... and they had some unbelievable talent working for them... one of the greatest musical endeavors ever.

Musical hype? Could it be that, for the only time in pop music history, a band really did live up to the 'hype' as bold innovators and leaders?

Could be but it isn't

If it's music writers and critics, not to mention musicians, that came to the conclusion that Sgt. Pepper is the most influential album then the answer to your question is yes. Who else should analyze the history of music?
Paleontologists?

Why should it be analyzed at all. I analyze what i like and what I don't. if you want to read the crap written by critics (who are generally full of garbage) and believe it then thats up to you. I think its all crap and that Sgt Peppers is crap too

Pretty much everything post 1966 can be traced back to Sgt. Pepper and Revolver -

What utter crap. The rock musicians of the late 60s and early seventies right into the 80s were influenced by Chuck berry, Little Richard and Buddy Holly plus a wide range of blues artists. Certainly not the Beatles! Most of the bands that influenced me are roughly the same age as the beatles.

that's why they are considered so influential. I don't spend my time analyzing current music so I can trace it back to the Beatles but I do know that they led almost every innovation in pop music in the '60s.

another crap statement, The Stones, Dylan, The Shadows had much more influence on rock musicians. The beatles influenced most of the crap pop music that was around in the 70s and 80s.

I'm a songwriter and I find the Beatles' work, especially on Sgt. Pepper, to be quite genius. Their music may sound simple to your ears

I never said it sounds simple, just crap, which of course "it is"

But a lot went into writing such difficult songs. If you don't like the record then that's your opinion,

A lot goes into writing lots of songs but it doen't mean they are any good


And your damn right its my opinion.

but simply because you don't like something doesn't mean that it's 'crap'.

Yes it does

Do you have any music of your own to back up such an outrageous statement? I suppose I shouldn't expect you to get the album or the songwriting involved since you're only in a cover band.

Yeah I have wrote hundreds of songs. And I'm 45 years old. Just because I play in a covers band now doesn't mean that I always have. And before you spout off about how popular they were and why am I not famous don't wast your energy. Popularity means nothing to me. The Wombles had several top 10 hits but they were crap as well. Personally I think my own songs are crap too but that doesn't mean I have to consider theirs to be great either.

Crap songs, crap band, crap album !

LMAO! This guy is seriously making me laugh my butt off now. Beneath his brash demeanor, I am inclined to agree with MacLeod. I, too, have always thought of the "critics" as a tool for people to leverage who look for validation of their opinion(s) through those labeled as "professionals."

I'll give you a prime example: Rush STILL HAS NOT been inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame. What are the "critics" missing there!? YOU may think the critics aren't missing much at all but there's an incredible demographic of people who would beg to differ with said "critics," of whom, many individuals may look to for guidance as to what or who is influential or not. As MacLeod so eloquently put it, that is "crap."

SDavis: I can think of an astronomical number of musicians who are as great and genius as you consider Lennon and McCartney to be; why? Because, as I've stated numerous times throughout a myriad of posts, genius and greatness differ from person to person. Yes, there are a plethora of artists out there these days but to compare the state of the world today as it was in the days of Lennon and McCartney by asking where the same genius is is fairly unrealistic. Your stating as such leads me to believe even furthermore that there are many people out there who could greatly benefit from expanding their musical vocabulary. This world is chock-full of musicians considered "genius" and influential.

The question essentially becomes that of WHY is this person considered a genius and HOW are they influential? Well, it depends on what people are looking for in their lives. If the general populous of the world is looking for peace and along comes this group of guys who happen to write songs in the correct key to fit the mood for whatever they're singing about (not coincidentially, the very thing said general populous is looking for), of course they're going to be considered genius and amazing songwriters. They're singing for a cause shared by however many MILLIONS of people and the music fits the mood and is generally considered enjoyable.

The aforementioned is solely a broad generalization not meant to encompass any one band or genre of music under.

That being said, let's imagine that along comes a bassist named Jean Baudin who writes an instrumental piece titled "Transcend." The person who is into Mr. Baudin has someone close to him or her who dies. The feel of the music speaks incredible volumes to that person and helps them through perhaps one of the most trying times of their life. What it boils down to is, yes, this is just ONE person but they are profoundly affected and impacted by this one person's instrumental song. In my book, that's EQUALLY as genius as any heralded musician in any limelight.

Again, I agree with MacLeod when it comes to what is popular or heralded by any general concensus. Music is music. With music comes genius and while there's a clear and actual definition for genius, if you're able to pinpoint any one musician or band and say that they single-handedly influenced everyone after them, well, as I've stated in this very post, your scope of the musical spectrum is grossly limited.

Now, note my usage of both "genius" and "greatness." They are to be used interchangeably with what you stated to be "musical equivalent." I'm sorry but the day of comparing musical equivalents to The Beatles has come and gone, my friend. Greatness has emerged on many, many different levels that make the music of The Beatles only that of a memory. Music progresses with time and the standard of "musical equivalent" changes with it. I can't say this enough but if your standard for musical genius is "The Beatles," then you're ignorantly living in a day long gone. I'm not saying you are ignorant and I don't mean it insultingly! I mean it in the context of "ignorance is bliss." Truly, you are happy with that which has become the extent of your musical tolerance and vocabulary.

I do find it comical how people seem to think that music seemed to magically come to be in the 1900's, lol. I mean, if you want to get down to the knitty-gritty of it, it's just plain stupid to sit down and figure out that you can map out and link music like death metal to The Beatles, I mean... seriously. A band such as The Beatles has enough notariety. Do they need anymore justification? I mean, do people think their music is SO great that they have to be the end all, be all or the alpha and the omega of ALL modern music!? No. I seriously think it's just ridiculous to do such comparisons and raising of an individual musician or band to a God-like status.

I mean, take Neo-Classical for instance. Where do you get ANY impression of The Beatles in Yngwie Malmsteen's or George Bellas' playing? Nowhere. No, when I hear them, I think straight back to music predating The Beatles by 200+ YEARS!!! I'm sorry but from MY stance of being an avid listener of as many musicians as I can cram into my brain from ALL genres of ALL ages, The Beatles get way more credit than I personally think they deserve to have. I know the overtone of this post has suddenly gone in a much more MacLeod-type of direction (lol) but I'm sorry; The Beatles?

I give them all the credit in the world for what they did in their day and age, the creativity encapsulated within each individual musican in the band and their ability to write what were great songs back in their day and remain timeless pieces in this day and age but the fact of the matter is there are countless other bands who hold the exact same stature when compared against said points. So, why is it that you think The Beatles are as insurmountable as you say they are, SDavis? Personal preference. That's it. That's what it all boils down to. Just because "critics" seem to agree with your perspective and the perspectives of countless other individuals doesn't mean they're right or what they're saying is the end all, be all of any particular band or album. ONE album, the most influential EVER? Houston, we have a problem.

I'll close this with reiterating that I don't think The Beatles are a terrible band by any stretch of the imagination. Their music speaks for itself but instead of being for any one influential band or album, I'm a fan of music as a whole.

SDavis: To answer your question about there being a musical equivalent to John Lennon and Paul McCartney, I can't give you one. Your ceiling has been set and there's nothing that anyone like me can say or do to convince you otherwise. Why? Because not only do you feel the way you do and admire two great musicians but it just so happens that your opinion is shared by many, many others, therefore, your opinion is validated thus making you feel you are not only content in how you feel but that you are "right."

And on that note, I'm off to listen to Chopin...

-PhrAiLGuitarist

Macleod,

Why should it be analyzed at all. I analyze what i like and what I don't. if you want to read the crap written by critics (who are generally full of garbage) and believe it then thats up to you. I think its all crap and that Sgt Peppers is crap too

Why shouldn't it be analyzed? Some people enjoy analyzing... You analyze what you like and dislike? Your brain must be working overtime! Like I said, just because you don't like Sgt. Pepper that doesn't mean it's crap.

What utter crap. The rock musicians of the late 60s and early seventies right into the 80s were influenced by Chuck berry, Little Richard and Buddy Holly plus a wide range of blues artists. Certainly not the Beatles!

That's half true and half speculation.

The Stones, Dylan, The Shadows had much more influence on rock musicians. The beatles influenced most of the crap pop music that was around in the 70s and 80s.

Then you agree they were influential.

I never said it sounds simple, just crap, which of course "it is"
A lot goes into writing lots of songs but it doen't mean they are any good
And your damn right its my opinion.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't agree with you. Saying 'it is' crap is in itself wonderfully stupid and I hope you know that. Just calm down, Maccy!

Yeah I have wrote hundreds of songs. And I'm 45 years old. Just because I play in a covers band now doesn't mean that I always have. And before you spout off about how popular they were and why am I not famous don't wast your energy. Popularity means nothing to me. The Wombles had several top 10 hits but they were crap as well. Personally I think my own songs are crap too but that doesn't mean I have to consider theirs to be great either.

You have 'written' hundreds of songs... I've 'written' hundreds of songs as well and I'm 22 - do you want a prize? And it's apparent popularity means nothing to you. We're agreed regarding the Wombles. You should be more confident - it's possible you've written decent songs...

On to the next gentleman...

Phrailguitarist,

Though you are a bit self-righteous in your prose, I agree with many things you say. This can only mean that you've gotten way ahead of yourself in assuming things about my words rather than asking. The very fact that you agree with a moron like Macleod already makes your opinions questionable in my mind. Below are your statements that I disagree with... Have fun!

Oh yes, before I begin: I personally don't think Rush is that great. They are good musicians but I don't care for their music. If I were Macleod, I would say they are 'crap' but I'm not into those kinds of generalizations. I do think they have many songs that would be worth a greatest hits album. And please don't emphasize your words - it's annoying. We get what you're saying without the literary inflections of your written voice.

Now,

SDavis: I can think of an astronomical number of musicians who are as great and genius as you consider Lennon and McCartney to be; why? Because, as I've stated numerous times throughout a myriad of posts, genius and greatness differ from person to person. Yes, there are a plethora of artists out there these days but to compare the state of the world today as it was in the days of Lennon and McCartney by asking where the same genius is is fairly unrealistic. Your stating as such leads me to believe even furthermore that there are many people out there who could greatly benefit from expanding their musical vocabulary. This world is chock-full of musicians considered "genius" and influential.

I can think of many great/genius musicians/songwriters as well. You didn't understand my statement. I meant the Lennon/McCartney force - the songwriting, the musicianship, the bold innovations, the creativity, the influence, the cultural phenomenon, the group that dominated the top 5 positions of pop charts concurrently, the group that had their entire new record played continuously on popular stations, the group that shocked its audience with every subsequent release, the group that was simultaneously famous for and the best at what they did. That hasn't happened again - and, listen closely, Phrail, we're talking about Pop and Rock and Roll here, not the entire history of music dating back to the dawn of man.

And your statement corroborates that there are people out there who could benefit from knowing and asking before assuming and wrongfully concluding. I say this because you don't know me or what music I listen to. I have a hunch I'm more well-rounded then you but I won't state that as a fact. This post is regarding what critics say is the most influential album of all time and I agreed much, much earlier that it's impossible to tell. You've assumed by my creating this thread that I agree with the critics, which is untrue.

Again, I agree with MacLeod when it comes to what is popular or heralded by any general concensus. Music is music. With music comes genius and while there's a clear and actual definition for genius, if you're able to pinpoint any one musician or band and say that they single-handedly influenced everyone after them, well, as I've stated in this very post, your scope of the musical spectrum is grossly limited.

You shouldn't agree with Macleod because it is possible for a band to actually live up to the 'hype', which the Beatles did. And, no, there isn't a clear definition for 'genius' but if you'd like to try then go ahead. I didn't say the Beatles influenced absolutely everything that came after them - I said they influenced much of the popular music that succeeded them. Remember, Phrail, we're talking about Pop and Rock and Roll, not all music.

Now, note my usage of both "genius" and "greatness." They are to be used interchangeably with what you stated to be "musical equivalent." I'm sorry but the day of comparing musical equivalents to The Beatles has come and gone, my friend. Greatness has emerged on many, many different levels that make the music of The Beatles only that of a memory. Music progresses with time and the standard of "musical equivalent" changes with it. I can't say this enough but if your standard for musical genius is "The Beatles," then you're ignorantly living in a day long gone. I'm not saying you are ignorant and I don't mean it insultingly! I mean it in the context of "ignorance is bliss." Truly, you are happy with that which has become the extent of your musical tolerance and vocabulary.

'Genius' and 'greatness' in what relative context? We can separate 'musician' and 'songwriter' as well - being that there are musicians who cannot write. I'm sorry, amigo, but Pop and Rock and Roll bands are still compared to groups like the Beatles. If you think Rock and Roll has progressed for the better since the '60s then ignorance truly is bliss. Seriously, you like stuff like Sevendust, POD, Meshuggah... Again, you don't know the extent of my 'musical tolerance and vocabulary' - don't try to use information you don't have (those assumptions are killer, aren't they?)

I mean, if you want to get down to the knitty-gritty of it, it's just plain stupid to sit down and figure out that you can map out and link music like death metal to The Beatles, I mean... seriously. A band such as The Beatles has enough notariety. Do they need anymore justification? I mean, do people think their music is SO great that they have to be the end all, be all or the alpha and the omega of ALL modern music!? No. I seriously think it's just ridiculous to do such comparisons and raising of an individual musician or band to a God-like status.

Who figured out they can map and link the Beatles to Death Metal? End all, be all? Alpha and Omega? I hate those cliches! Anyway... I don't think Death Metal would qualify as 'Popular', Phrail...

I mean, take Neo-Classical for instance. Where do you get ANY impression of The Beatles in Yngwie Malmsteen's or George Bellas' playing? Nowhere. No, when I hear them, I think straight back to music predating The Beatles by 200+ YEARS!!! I'm sorry but from MY stance of being an avid listener of as many musicians as I can cram into my brain from ALL genres of ALL ages, The Beatles get way more credit than I personally think they deserve to have. I know the overtone of this post has suddenly gone in a much more MacLeod-type of direction (lol) but I'm sorry; The Beatles?

I don't get an impression of the Beatles in Neo-Classical - can you quote me as saying such? And what are you so excited about (referring to your haphazard use of exclamation points). Anyway, I know you didn't mean to imply that I actually tried to connect Neo-Classical and the Beatles together (I hope you didn't), but some of our slower users might have been confused! I listen to a lot of music as well (except for sub-par groups like POD and Sevendust). I don't think the Beatles get more credit than they deserve - in what way do you personally think they get more credit than deserved?

Apology accepted, and yes, the Beatles.

So, why is it that you think The Beatles are as insurmountable as you say they are, SDavis? Personal preference. That's it. That's what it all boils down to. Just because "critics" seem to agree with your perspective and the perspectives of countless other individuals doesn't mean they're right or what they're saying is the end all, be all of any particular band or album. ONE album, the most influential EVER? Houston, we have a problem.

Houston, we do have a problem, and it's that Phraily misinterpreted Davis. I never said the Beatles are the best band/musicans of all time. I said they pioneered most of the innovations to Pop and Rock and Roll during the Rock era. It's impossible to tell who is the greatest band or what is the greatest and most influential album of all time - that was a conclusion made in my first post. Many critics agree that the Beatles are the best and most influential band in popular culture. I do not embody what the 'critics' have to say - not that they all agree with each other anyway (like you've alluded to).

SDavis: To answer your question about there being a musical equivalent to John Lennon and Paul McCartney, I can't give you one. Your ceiling has been set and there's nothing that anyone like me can say or do to convince you otherwise. Why? Because not only do you feel the way you do and admire two great musicians but it just so happens that your opinion is shared by many, many others, therefore, your opinion is validated thus making you feel you are not only content in how you feel but that you are "right."

You can't give me an equivalent to Lennon/McCartney as a force in popular music because there hardly are any (not to mention you misinterpreted my original statement - dig a little deeper...). Again, you don't know me so you can't speculate on where my 'musical ceiling' has been set. I don't look for or need validation from anybody to enjoy the music I like. I hope your next post isn't as 'phrail' (which should be spelled with an 'f', by the way). Or is that PhrAIL as in KoRn?

Have a nice day!

first I just want to thank you all for this enlightening debate.
If only more people were willing to put in this kind of effort...

Just wanna take back what I said about macleod... I'm impressed... there is a light on in there after all... good for you... you still look like the wicked witch of the west... but there is admittedly at least a dim light.

"What utter crap. The rock musicians of the late 60s and early seventies right into the 80s were influenced by Chuck berry, Little Richard and Buddy Holly plus a wide range of blues artists. Certainly not the Beatles!"

I'm sure davis loses very few points... but I'm gonna give this one to macleod... he does demonstrate a more developed understanding of the instrumentation (specifically the gtr - AKA THE R&R instrument) - sort of a gtr tempered historical perspective - but one certainly more in touch with experienced guitar players in that it acknowleges the specific sources of specific well known (and cli she by now) gtr riffs. I say this all in the face of the fact that he mentions 2 gtr players who litterally shaped the sound of gtr... and then Little Richard... anyone know why anyone would lump little richard in as a gtr hero? Apparently macleod does?
(now don't you go google it...)

I am a completely impartial (tho self appointed) referee... and feel macleod disqualifies himself with his often crude responses... but then he makes admirable statements like: "Popularity means nothing to me. "

I know I said I was impartial but it could be that davis really hurt me when he stole my famous "Have a nice day!" exit... damn you davis...(jk)
Anywho, that's all I saw that was interesting.
mv

One could argue that the popularity of the music written by Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, not to mention Carl Perkins, Bo Diddley and the music played by Elvis Presley (and others) were made more popular than ever when digested by a larger audience via the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Rock and Roll was considered dead until these groups from the British invasion popularized the music again.

Mike, I'm borderline offended that you don't believe I know my stuff here!

Have an enjoyable evening! (Better?)

"Mike, I'm borderline offended that you don't believe I know my stuff here! "

davis: I didn't say game point match... I'm just pointing out that jimi hendrix (does everyone get it now? JH + LR) chuck berry buddy holley and yes bo diddley carl perkins and elvis's gtr player(buck owens?) brought more to the gtr aspect of randr, while the beatles' paul and john just weren't on the same level of mastery with the instrument - although I'd admit they were on a equally high level with their song writing and singing/playing ability.
not sure the beatles were more popular than Elvis Presley... maybe at the time... but over time - that's a dif storie. I think the Stones are easily as popular as the beatles too.... I digress - popularity certainly counts for something... but it's not everything. If you base things soely on that you eventually face the fact that "twenty years from now there will be more people to be popular with so any music that comes out will ultimately be MORE POPULAR in one way or another"... but admittedly even crappy music that has come before influences future music in the sense that it forces people to look in other directions... do we really want to give credit there? I think the beatles are great. I can't get enough of blackbird and think it's not a bad gtr riff at all.... same with revolution. Love "mischele my bell... these are words that go together well".
I also think that the evolution of musical adaptation is not so frail that the omittion of the beatles -or any other single phenomena... would have changed the innevitable progression towards more complex music... so I guess afa music I believe in evolution(hehe).
I love the beatles... they didn't invent randr... it was an evolution that included lots of people. Are they the single biggest leap in terms of the music itself? Maybe in pop music... certainly not jazz - (I'd say miles... but I'm no jazz officianado). So what did the beatles add to the pot? Unbelievable song writing ability. Ability to tapp into the masses. Many other things...
did they influence people - undoubtedly. does that earn them credit for all music that came thereafter - absolutely not.

AFA the enjoyable evening - who said: imitation is the first form of flatery?

cheers.

And please don't emphasize your words - it's annoying. We get what you're saying without the literary inflections of your written voice.

I believe everyone gets what you're saying without you directly saying it as well, sir.

You didn't understand my statement. I meant the Lennon/McCartney force - the songwriting, the musicianship, the bold innovations, the creativity, the influence, the cultural phenomenon, the group that dominated the top 5 positions of pop charts concurrently, the group that had their entire new record played continuously on popular stations, the group that shocked its audience with every subsequent release, the group that was simultaneously famous for and the best at what they did.

I apologize for misinterpreting your apparent unique usage of "or" in the following excerpt from a previous post of yours:

With as many people being recorded as there are, where are the musical equivalents to John Lennon or Paul McCartney? I haven't heard them yet...

Again, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I'm happy to know that with or without annoying literary inflections, what I have to say to you is crystal clear. Perhaps you should attempt them sometime?

That hasn't happened again - and, listen closely, Phrail, we're talking about Pop and Rock and Roll here, not the entire history of music dating back to the dawn of man.

Oops, I take that back; maybe you didn't correctly interpret what I said. Shame.

And your statement corroborates that there are people out there who could benefit from knowing and asking before assuming and wrongfully concluding. I say this because you don't know me or what music I listen to. I have a hunch I'm more well-rounded then you but I won't state that as a fact. This post is regarding what critics say is the most influential album of all time and I agreed much, much earlier that it's impossible to tell. You've assumed by my creating this thread that I agree with the critics, which is untrue.

Actually, I assumed by your statement from a previous post as shown:

Could it be that, for the only time in pop music history, a band really did live up to the 'hype' as bold innovators and leaders? If it's music writers and critics, not to mention musicians, that came to the conclusion that Sgt. Pepper is the most influential album then the answer to your question is yes. Who else should analyze the history of music? Paleontologists? Pretty much everything post 1966 can be traced back to Sgt. Pepper and Revolver - that's why they are considered so influential. I don't spend my time analyzing current music so I can trace it back to the Beatles but I do know that they led almost every innovation in pop music in the '60s.

If that isn't agreeing with critics, then I'm not quite sure what is. Wow, so far, you're a real winner when it comes to saying something that APPEARS to be quite clear and concise yet, when you're challenged, all of a sudden, there was some sort of hidden meaning someone such as me failed to catch. Again, I apologize if I took that whole paragraph out of context but I pretty much thought it spoke for itself.

You shouldn't agree with Macleod because it is possible for a band to actually live up to the 'hype', which the Beatles did. And, no, there isn't a clear definition for 'genius' but if you'd like to try then go ahead. I didn't say the Beatles influenced absolutely everything that came after them - I said they influenced much of the popular music that succeeded them. Remember, Phrail, we're talking about Pop and Rock and Roll, not all music.

I stated:

With music comes genius and while there's a clear and actual definition for genius...

Reference: http://www.dictionary.com/
Genius:
1. an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius of Mozart.

Yes, whether you'd like to believe it or not, I meant 'genius' quite literally when I said there was a definition for it. I suppose that since your posts are littered with hidden meanings where one should "look deeper," you in turn searched for the very same in mine. I apologize for being literal, my friend.

Lastly, I gave you my personal perspective on 'genius' as follows:

Because, as I've stated numerous times throughout a myriad of posts, genius and greatness differ from person to person.

Do I really need to define for you what I meant by that? You seemed so frightening and intellectually superior in your amazing display of fluff you so eloquently typed! I simply meant that my definition of 'genius', or who I would personally consider to be a genius, mind you, differs from yours. I ranted on such a topic due to your following statement:

I'm a songwriter and I find the Beatles' work, especially on Sgt. Pepper, to be quite genius.

Kinda funny how the clear and concise points of what I wrote about actually make a little sense, there, huh? No deeper meanings to sift through, no useless jargon, sans the usage of literal inflections, I'll give you that one.

'Genius' and 'greatness' in what relative context? We can separate 'musician' and 'songwriter' as well - being that there are musicians who cannot write. I'm sorry, amigo, but Pop and Rock and Roll bands are still compared to groups like the Beatles. If you think Rock and Roll has progressed for the better since the '60s then ignorance truly is bliss. Seriously, you like stuff like Sevendust, POD, Meshuggah... Again, you don't know the extent of my 'musical tolerance and vocabulary' - don't try to use information you don't have (those assumptions are killer, aren't they?)

In a second, I'll demonstrate once more how I made statements based off of your very own words; not assumptions. I'll get to your comment on the music I listen to in a second as well, Mr. Well-Rounded Musician!

Who figured out they can map and link the Beatles to Death Metal? End all, be all? Alpha and Omega? I hate those cliches! Anyway... I don't think Death Metal would qualify as 'Popular', Phrail...

Please, SDavis22, call me Stephen! Phrail doesn't offend me, though, if you've been attempting to use it in some sort of witty manner thus far. You wouldn't do that though, would you? Naaaaaah. Between die-hard fans and critics alike stating how the Beatles have influenced all music to date in some sort of way, I figured I would display exactly what such a statement would reflect by exaggerating two extremely opposite genres. Well... I guess the music that one considers to "suck" is the exception to the rule of influence, huh? Brilliant! See, these debates always clarify so much for me! Double-standards and hypocrites, oh my! (There, I figured you'd enjoy yet another cliche courtesy of yours truly)

I don't get an impression of the Beatles in Neo-Classical - can you quote me as saying such? And what are you so excited about (referring to your haphazard use of exclamation points). Anyway, I know you didn't mean to imply that I actually tried to connect Neo-Classical and the Beatles together (I hope you didn't), but some of our slower users might have been confused! I listen to a lot of music as well (except for sub-par groups like POD and Sevendust). I don't think the Beatles get more credit than they deserve - in what way do you personally think they get more credit than deserved?

Apology accepted, and yes, the Beatles.

I apologize for not clarifying where I was generalizing critics and die-hard fans as opposed to where I was speaking directly to you. Geez, I really need to work on making more sense, don't I!?

Now, to address what I stated I would above, there's true irony in the FACT that I acknowledge this band you're so enthralled with as being pioneers in their day and time as well as their influence on the progression of music - not to mention my acknowledgement of the songwriting skills and individual genius while you have nothing but TRULY ignorant and intolerant things to say about some of the music I listen to which I enjoy. Would you like to see how ignorant your statement truly appears? Here, let me show you:

I listen to a lot of music as well (except for sub-par groups like The Beatles). I don't think Sevendust or POD get more credit than they deserve - in what way do you personally think they get more credit than deserved?

Apology accepted, and yes, Sevendust or POD.

Wow, for someone such as myself who's supposedly so self-righteous in their prose, I'd say you're well beyond taking the cake on that one! Truly, your opinion is that which matters the most here! You are laughable, SDavis22.

Let me copy for everyone my short and brief encompassment of influences from my bandmix profile so as to not be classifed as the type of listener SDavis22 is trying to steer you into believing:

Music as a whole influences me. I find myself wishing I could do everything from write with Seal or Sting to write polymetric material like Textures or Meshuggah. I find inspiration from all ends of the musical spectrum. (It's worth mentioning that there is plenty of terrible music out there as well that influences me to NOT want to sound like it, lol) In no particular order and certainly nowhere near the full extent of my influeces: TesseracT, The Chronicles of Israfel (Dominic Cifarelli), Textures, Seal, Yanni, Sting, Steve Vai, Bumblefoot, Fabrizio Leo, Scott Mishoe, DJ Noumenon, Meshuggah, POD, Ra, Nobuo Uematsu, Periphery (Bulb), Symphony X, Dream Theater, Rush, all musicians who are proficient with their instrument - regardless of what instrument they play, Sikth, Ankla, Puya, Dark New Day, Sevendust (before Clint left to form DND), Divine Heresy, Silverchair (Daniel Johns is a genius), the list just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and you get the picture...

Houston, we do have a problem, and it's that Phraily misinterpreted Davis. I never said the Beatles are the best band/musicans of all time. I said they pioneered most of the innovations to Pop and Rock and Roll during the Rock era. It's impossible to tell who is the greatest band or what is the greatest and most influential album of all time - that was a conclusion made in my first post. Many critics agree that the Beatles are the best and most influential band in popular culture. I do not embody what the 'critics' have to say - not that they all agree with each other anyway (like you've alluded to).

Again, this is the product of my lack of clarification. I meant to generalize instead of 'speak' directly to you. Also, I was referencing "critics" as in, the very same "critics" you defined in your opening post and later referenced generally. I was under the impression that you would understand your own terminology but here again, I've grossly misinterpreted you. For your convenient reference:

...is considered by most rock critics and pop historians...

If it's music writers and critics...

If you haven't read deep enough into my response thus far, I'm essentially making this as ridiculous as you made your response. I suppose you had to up your usage of English vocabulary to better defend your musical vocabulary which I've so wrongfully assumed otherwise of, huh? I suppose you're expecting someone to gather the fact that you're 22 years of age, you have this faux cleverness that only seems to come out when you deem necessary and that you're to be somehow acknowledged for your defiance against music of your generation! Well, here's to you, sir! I think we should all recognize this wonderful chap for his capacity to outwit, overachieve and turn his back to all he was FORCED to grow up with! (Erm, in regards to music, that is)

You can't give me an equivalent to Lennon/McCartney as a force in popular music because there hardly are any (not to mention you misinterpreted my original statement - dig a little deeper...). Again, you don't know me so you can't speculate on where my 'musical ceiling' has been set. I don't look for or need validation from anybody to enjoy the music I like.

Once more, I apologize for not understanding you meant 'and' when you said 'or'. You sure are a tricky one with making us read a little deeper into what you have to say! WOWZERS! Anyway, I don't know you enough to speculate on where your 'musical ceiling' has been set? Why do I have to know you much more than the posts I've read from you, collectively, across this whole forum to SPECULATE? Oh, oh, I get it... this must be another one of those 'or'/'and' deeper-meaning deals, right?

You DO have a profile on bandmix, don't you? And on that profile, you have a brief list of what listed under your influences? (Of which I enjoy a number of the musicians you listed) Speculation on my behalf, HA! "Amigo," you sure hit the nail on the head with that one!

I hope your next post isn't as 'phrail' (which should be spelled with an 'f', by the way). Or is that PhrAIL as in KoRn?

Your attempt at being witty was overwhelmed by your success in being an ass.

Apology accepted, and yes, 'PhrAiL' as in 'KoRn'. Mr. Obvious, everyone - he'll be here all night! Thanks for clarifying even furthermore my "speculations" of your 'musical ceiling' by presenting to me everything you have thus far that you DON'T listen to. Boy, what was speculation before sure does seem to be clearing right up, now!

And thanks; I will absolutely have a nice day despite your best efforts to bring me down. I enjoy the intellectual banter you offer and I encourage you to continue giving me the ammunition I need to speak volumes of your character where it may not be so blatantly obvious to others. Regardless of what I think about you as a person, I still feel exactly as I felt pre- this post where the Beatles are concerned. I find value in the music you say you enjoy but I don't find direct influence. I'm sorry to see that you don't feel similar in any way, shape or form regarding a select few bands you listed but we can't all have the extensive 'musical ceiling' you allude to having. You're right, I don't know you one bit and everything I've said is based on solely assumption instead of what I thought was a clear understanding of every word you've said thus far.

Until next time, señior...

-Stephen aka PhrAiLGuitarist

I hope your next post isn't as 'phrail' (which should be spelled with an 'f', by the way). Or is that PhrAIL as in KoRn?

Oh, then in that case:

-Stephen aka PhrAiLGuitarist (I mean, FrAiLGuitarist. I mean, FraAilGuitarist. I mean, FrailGuitarist. I mean, Frail Guitarist. I mean, Frail guitarist. I mean, frail guitarist. There!)

PS - If you really want to do this with me, SDavis22, you go right ahead. I tried to keep it relatively non-personal and professional in my opinions. I may have rubbed you the wrong way thus far but it was not my intention to say something that was to be misconstrued by you and taken personally to then start insulting me and being a little smartass. I'm all for debate but your last reply shows you can't eloquently handle it without taking cheap shots and becoming demeaning. It's not above me to play your game and you seem to be assuming a hell of a lot more about me than I EVER did of you up until now, so by all means... The ball's in your court now. (Yet another fantastic cliche for you)

EDIT:

Wait. It just occured to me that I may have misinterpreted the demeanor of your previous message. If so, please start clarifying your exact intentions. Beating around the bush tends to lead to these types of conclusions. The internet can lack personality but you knew that, right? I hope I've not confused you at all in this post of mine. I've done the best I can with the tools at my disposal to ensure my words aren't lost in translation for you.

MrMikeV: I really dig the song 'Riverboat' on your MySpace. Nice progression, man. =) I hope you don't mind that I added you.

-Stephen

Why shouldn't it be analyzed? Some people enjoy analyzing... You analyze what you like and dislike? Your brain must be working overtime! Like I said, just because you don't like Sgt. Pepper that doesn't mean it's crap.

Your brain must be extremely small if you can't analyze music and decide whether you like it when listening to it. Its crap to me and you can't change that.

That's half true and half speculation.

No this is information I have heard from interviews with the people who influenced me. No speculation involved

Then you agree they were influential.

Certainly they were. But not to the bands and musicians that influenced me. And they certainly were not responsible for influencing all post 1966 music as you suggested

You'll have to excuse me if I don't agree with you. Saying 'it is' crap is in itself wonderfully stupid and I hope you know that. Just calm down, Maccy!

Nothing stupid about it, although I could see why a young man like you might think so. but that is more about your young brash ignorance which will change as you maure. As for calming down, I'm not wound up although Its obvious from your postings that's what you attempt to do to people on here. I am way too experienced in life to allow myself to become agitated through a forum exchange with a boy who has hardly experienced anything of the world. So don't worry about me getting wound up "Seanny"

You have 'written' hundreds of songs... I've 'written' hundreds of songs as well and I'm 22 - do you want a prize?

No I don't want a prize, I was merely responding your suggestion that I didn't know anything about songwriting because I play in a covers band. I am beginning to wonder whether you really are 22 or still going though puberty!

And it's apparent popularity means nothing to you. We're agreed regarding the Wombles. You should be more confident - it's possible you've written decent songs...

No my songs are crap. Well I think so anyway. And as you will know if you are a songwriter no matter what other people think of your songs, if you are not happy with them yourself then you never will be.

MrMikeV: I really dig the song 'Riverboat' on your MySpace. Nice progression, man. =) I hope you don't mind that I added you.

-Stephen

thank you sir... that means a lot to me. I like the fretless bass in that one.... it really turned out nice... I'd like to rerecord it a bit faster cause the acou part isn't that impressive at that tempo... but I'll never be able to do that fretless bit again - I was in rare form that day.

Not sure what you mean by adding me - myspace friend?

I did check out your gtr vid... you got some chops.

ya know I was thinkin last night... about the beatles and their influence on RandR... and on the one hand the beatles were the most influential group in terms of sheer numbers (more populare than religion?), but these numbers consisted largely of the 'general public'. I would argue that in order to be the domineering influence on music they'd have had to have influenced musicians... and while I"m sure they did influence many a musician... I don't think they can claim randr- here's why...
all the rest of randr is gtr based. All that came after the beatles was gtr based... and demonstrates a greater mastery of the instrument... examples like the stones to the who to black sabbath to zep to boston to van halen - they all demonstrate a familiarity with the gtr that the beatles lacked... so how did all of randr come out sounding so gtr influenced if the beatles where the dominant influence over that music? It's just not logical. I think the beatles have some great stuff... but I don't think they influenced the musicians as much as they influenced the general public.

anywho, just an observation.

mv

MrMikeV: I really dig the song 'Riverboat' on your MySpace. Nice progression, man. =) I hope you don't mind that I added you.

-Stephen

thank you sir... that means a lot to me. I like the fretless bass in that one.... it really turned out nice... I'd like to rerecord it a bit faster cause the acou part isn't that impressive at that tempo... but I'll never be able to do that fretless bit again - I was in rare form that day.

Not sure what you mean by adding me - myspace friend?

I did check out your gtr vid... you got some chops.

ya know I was thinkin last night... about the beatles and their influence on RandR... and on the one hand the beatles were the most influential group in terms of sheer numbers (more populare than religion?), but these numbers consisted largely of the 'general public'. I would argue that in order to be the domineering influence on music they'd have had to have influenced musicians... and while I"m sure they did influence many a musician... I don't think they can claim randr- here's why...
all the rest of randr is gtr based. All that came after the beatles was gtr based... and demonstrates a greater mastery of the instrument... examples like the stones to the who to black sabbath to zep to boston to van halen - they all demonstrate a familiarity with the gtr that the beatles lacked... so how did all of randr come out sounding so gtr influenced if the beatles where the dominant influence over that music? It's just not logical. I think the beatles have some great stuff... but I don't think they influenced the musicians as much as they influenced the general public.

anywho, just an observation.

mv

Yessir, I added you on MySpace. Thanks for the compliment regarding my video! I appreciate that! Also, excellent point with the influencing of general public vs. musicians. Many a musician is influential and as I've stated consistently throughout this debate, I acknowledge that the Beatles have had their fair share of influence. I certainly can't tell you to what degree, hell, I can only think of a handful of musicians who were influenced by the Beatles but I do think history has shown they were a major influence regardless.

Preface: I've been made aware that I appear to be self-righteous in my replies. This is undoubtably due to the fact that my personality type is that of an INFJ. I don't mean to come across as self-righteous; I just over-analyze everything in life, including myself. Enough of explaining myself in those regards, though.

That being said, I've worked very hard to be the musician that I am today. It's taken time to be open-minded to everything and not just classify something as garbage purely off of assumption and dislike of genre. I'm not the greatest musician in the world - far from it - but as a musician, I've not once been influenced by the Beatles one iota aside from liking what I hear on the radio and even then, it has never directly influenced my musicianship.

In my opinion, here's where it should end but it doesn't for so many of these die-hard fans and critics. I don't care about who influenced the bands I'm into aside from perhaps wanting to hear the music they liked as individuals. From there, if I choose to feel influenced by any said band or musician, then that's my choice. The Beatles aren't influential to me solely because they are a band that one member in X band enjoyed listening to as a kid. As I said before, if people have to dig THAT MUCH to try to magically convince people that they're musical roots have music from the Beatles tied into them somewhere, then how credible is the music of the Beatles, really? I mean, if a "timeless masterpiece" speaks for itself, then let it do as such, you know? Quit trying to convice people that X album is "arguably" the most influential album of ANY genre. That's just how I feel in general; I'm not saying that to anyone directly.

SDavis22: I forgot to mention that your lumping together of Sevendust, POD and Meshuggah shows your ignorance and yes, 'musical ceiling'. It's like me lumping together the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Van Halen. My, my, my, how well-rounded you certainly are!

-Stephen

"Yessir, I added you on MySpace."
I'll go aprove you asap.


"Preface: I've been made aware that I appear to be self-righteous in my replies. This is undoubtably due to the fact that my personality type is that of an INFJ. I don't mean to come across as self-righteous; I just over-analyze everything in life, including myself. Enough of explaining myself in those regards, though."
Don't ever apologize for the way you are... I wouldn't ask it of davis either. U r both quite unique and two of the more interesting encounters I've come across on this site.


"I've not once been influenced by the Beatles one iota aside from liking what I hear on the radio and even then, it has never directly influenced my musicianship."
I'm not sure I'd go that far... you may not even know when you're influenced by them (subconscience)... I'd stick to the argument that they aren't the single most influential group in RandR.

AFA musical ceiling... we all have one... and we all have our specialties... davis does offer a respectable understanding of music history (unmatched as of yet)... tho his achilles heal is in his knowlege of the instrument itself...(no offence davis - just callin' it like I see it) and your and my perspective on music history is somewhat degraded by our enthusiasm for our own instrument (demonstrated time and again)... but we bring other things to the table like an admirable amount of open-mindedness and a more developed musical understanding.
Always be willing to learn... and you will be rewarded with knowlege... regaurdless of the anguish that comes with it sometimes.

PS... don't take your encounter with davis so seriously that you end up disliking him over it... I'm all for a little biotchslappin' from time to time but...
you both have so much to offer each other... it would be a shame not to allow yourself to benefit from future encounters.
(and davis likewise)

This is second nature to us all now, isn't it?!

First, to my main man across the pond:

Macleod:

Your brain must be extremely small if you can't analyze music and decide whether you like it when listening to it. Its crap to me and you can't change that.

Maccy, you know I can analyze just as well as the next chap... I try to understand music though; that's why I wouldn't call a musical excursion like Sgt. Pepper crap even if I disliked it. Remember: it's not crap simply because you don't like it!

No this is information I have heard from interviews with the people who influenced me. No speculation involved

Then you do listen to critics! How lovely!

Certainly they were. But not to the bands and musicians that influenced me. And they certainly were not responsible for influencing all post 1966 music as you suggested

Critics trace much of pop music post mid-60s back to the Beatles' work. As I said before, I don't spend my time tracing modern music back to the Beatles but I do know that they were responsible for most of the innovations made to pop during the Rock era.

There is a difference between saying you dislike something and calling it crap. Would you feel more comfortable telling Paul McCartney you never got into the Beatles or that you think his work with them is crap? He might expect you to show him up if you chose the latter.

That's all this is about, really...

No my songs are crap. Well I think so anyway. And as you will know if you are a songwriter no matter what other people think of your songs, if you are not happy with them yourself then you never will be.

I concur!