|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Feb 13, 2014 14:01:12 GMT -5
That said, any list that doesn't even mention either The Kinks or Creedence Clearwater (both hugely successful and hugely influential) should be dismissed out of hand. And of all the British Invasion bands, The Who consistently produced the most interesting music. Agree, that the Kinks were very influential, with that heavy barre chord sound. I wouldn't call them hugely successful, though. More respected than liked, I'd say. Agree, that Creedence was hugely successful. They probably sold more records than anyone else for a few years in the early 70's. But influential? Why do you say that? I can't think of any later group whose sound seems derived from Creedence. Who do you have in mind? And agree the Who did a lot of interesting stuff and a lot of varied stuff: pop hits, great live recordings, the conceit of a rock opera, the rock anthems of Who's Next . . . That's a lot of creativity on display for one band. But are you saying that the Who produced interesting music more consistently than those innovators par excellence, the Beatles? Ok. To each his own, I guess. The Kinks sold 50 million-plus albums, but that of course is significantly less than other Brit groups of the era (Beatles, Stones, The Who, Led Zep later on). I would downgrade them from hugely successful to very successful. They did kill their momentum (in terms of sales) by releasing two beautiful albums (Village Green Preservation Society and Arthur) that were considered "unhip" at the time with their strong elements of folk and English traditional music. It took, of all things, a disco-tinged record (Low Budget) in 1979 to get The Kinks back in the charts. Fascinating band. Creedence has had a major impact on such genre's as southern rock, country (J. Fogerty is a deity in Nashville), roots rock and more. People who have specifically mentioned Creedence as a significant influence include Springsteen, Petty, Bob Seger, Skynryd, Mellencamp, and even Chris Cornell and Dave Grohl. As far as The Who is concerned, it is indeed a "to each his own." I've always been drawn to the more raw and in some ways sloppier earlier sound of The Who (driven by Keith Moon's singular style), from My Generation to the incendiary Live At Leeds,followed by the insanely ambitious Tommy, Who's Next (which was originally written as another rock opera, "Lifehouse"), and the equally ambitious Quadrophenia. I liked, but never really loved, The Beatles' beautifully crafted and polished pop, particularly the albums after Sgt. Pepper, when self-indulgence began to creep in, not mention increasing amounts of filler.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Feb 13, 2014 14:28:22 GMT -5
White Album > Abbey Road > Rubber Soul > Revolver > Let it Be > Sgt. Pepper
I'm not a Sgt. Pepper fan. I like the energy of the early Beatles but, for the life of me, I can't really distinguish any of the pre-Rubber Soul albums: Meet the Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Help!
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Feb 13, 2014 14:54:32 GMT -5
White Album > Abbey Road > Rubber Soul > Revolver > Let it Be > Sgt. Pepper I'm not a Sgt. Pepper fan. I like the energy of the early Beatles but, for the life of me, I can't really distinguish any of the pre-Rubber Soul albums: Meet the Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Help! Good list. Let's not forget Sgt Pepper should have included Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane. Imagine those 2 on the album if they had not been released early as a double single. For me, Sgt. Pepper > Abbey Road > White Album > Magical Mystery Tour > Rubber Soul > Revolver > Hard Days Night > Help > Let it Be
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Feb 13, 2014 14:56:12 GMT -5
I get your point that the pre-Rubber Soul albums sound similar---which, to me, is a very good thing, because those albums are pop music at its best. But one reason why they do sound alike is they were released within a fairly short time span. Back then, there was no coddling of artists, waiting 5 years between albums. The record companies had the whip hand, and they demanded product, product, and more product, no rest for the weary, keep writing--as long as the fans were willing to buy it. Meet the Beatles, the Beatles Second Album, A Hard Days Night, Beatles 65, Help, Beatles VI, and Rubber Soul all were released in America in 1964 or 1965. 7 albums in 2 years time! Some of the early songs were copyrighted in '62 and '63, and the early albums had some non-original material, but still, that's a heck of a lot of stuff done in the same general time frame. Other groups in the mid-60's also produced albums much more rapidly than artists do today, though I don't know of any that produced so many hit albums in a 2 year period as the Beatles did in 64-65.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Feb 13, 2014 17:20:14 GMT -5
Not sure what metric folks are using to compare albums. For example, one album might have a few songs I like a whole lot versus another album that has more songs I like, but not as much as the songs on the first. Double albums also seem problematic. The whole concept of an album seems less important these days, at least on my playlists.
Also, it is hard for me to think about A Hard Day's Night as just an album because the film was so good (IMO) and influential. I like the music a lot too, but it is not easy for me to separate the music from what I remember about the movie.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 13, 2014 18:25:36 GMT -5
Not sure what metric folks are using to compare albums. For example, one album might have a few songs I like a whole lot versus another album that has more songs I like, but not as much as the songs on the first. Double albums also seem problematic. The whole concept of an album seems less important these days, at least on my playlists. In a way, that's limiting. There have been some really interesting thematic albums. But that mostly doesn't happen anymore, because the artists know the songs are going to be stripped out and randomly mixed into somebody's ipod. On the other hand, They Might Be Giants did a whole album that was essentially intended to be randomly played amongst other stuff. Lots of 10 and 20 second riffs without any song attached to them.
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Feb 13, 2014 19:16:39 GMT -5
Agree, that the Kinks were very influential, with that heavy barre chord sound. I wouldn't call them hugely successful, though. More respected than liked, I'd say. Agree, that Creedence was hugely successful. They probably sold more records than anyone else for a few years in the early 70's. But influential? Why do you say that? I can't think of any later group whose sound seems derived from Creedence. Who do you have in mind? And agree the Who did a lot of interesting stuff and a lot of varied stuff: pop hits, great live recordings, the conceit of a rock opera, the rock anthems of Who's Next . . . That's a lot of creativity on display for one band. But are you saying that the Who produced interesting music more consistently than those innovators par excellence, the Beatles? Ok. To each his own, I guess. The Kinks sold 50 million-plus albums, but that of course is significantly less than other Brit groups of the era (Beatles, Stones, The Who, Led Zep later on). I would downgrade them from hugely successful to very successful. They did kill their momentum (in terms of sales) by releasing two beautiful albums (Village Green Preservation Society and Arthur) that were considered "unhip" at the time with their strong elements of folk and English traditional music. It took, of all things, a disco-tinged record (Low Budget) in 1979 to get The Kinks back in the charts. Fascinating band. Creedence has had a major impact on such genre's as southern rock, country (J. Fogerty is a deity in Nashville), roots rock and more. People who have specifically mentioned Creedence as a significant influence include Springsteen, Petty, Bob Seger, Skynryd, Mellencamp, and even Chris Cornell and Dave Grohl. As far as The Who is concerned, it is indeed a "to each his own." I've always been drawn to the more raw and in some ways sloppier earlier sound of The Who (driven by Keith Moon's singular style), from My Generation to the incendiary Live At Leeds,followed by the insanely ambitious Tommy, Who's Next (which was originally written as another rock opera, "Lifehouse"), and the equally ambitious Quadrophenia. I liked, but never really loved, The Beatles' beautifully crafted and polished pop, particularly the albums after Sgt. Pepper, when self-indulgence began to creep in, not mention increasing amounts of filler. Loved the Kinks and CCR.
For me, it's the Who after the Beatles.
Coincidentally, I read today that the Who's Tommy will be in town at one of our local art's Theatre later this summer. I think I will attend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 14:40:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on May 19, 2019 18:57:27 GMT -5
I enjoyed this but does Pete Townsend's toy guitar even make any noise?
|
|
|
Post by hammer on May 19, 2019 19:12:42 GMT -5
I feel like this song has always been underrated ...
|
|