• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Bands That Your Amazed That Made It.

#201
dustinfennessey said:
I truly dont feel that any of zeps members were in even the same league talent wise as king crimson, yes, captain beefhearts magic band, cream, the experience, etc.
Click to expand...

Which King Crimson? They've had like 17 members pass through, tons of different lineups, all with varying classes of skill. There was only ever one Led Zep, and that's partially why I have so much respect for them. Same thing with Rush (almost) although I love them more. :D
 
#205
Definitely said:
Which Kjng Crimson? They've had like 17 members pass through, tons of different lineups, all with varying classes of skill. There was only ever one Led Zep, and that's partially why I have so much respect for them. Same thing with Rush (almost) although I love them more. :D
Click to expand...

Every era and every lineup lol
 
#210
michael_atw said:
That's how I feel about The Beatles being called the best band ever. Boy band turned studio band - live they would have been l-a-m-e. They couldn't even pull of the most of their last albums live. And some of their lyrics are outright terrible.
Click to expand...

Funny . . . because most of their earlier stuff was recorded as a live act . . . and in a veeeeeeery short perido of time (how many bands cut a record in a day these days (and with such recording technology)? Do some research. A lot of their live recordings are very good, especially considering the gear at the time.

As for not being able to pull-off most of their last albums live, two things:

1) Not all you do in a studio recording has to translate well into a live situation. Some songs are just meant to push the limits of creativity and studio production. And, even if they wanted to do some of their live back then, it would have been impossible because of the tech limits of the era . . . unlike today, where a lot of people plug their little mac and let the sucker do A LOT for them . . .

2) Let it Be roof concert anyone?
 
#211
dustinfennessey said:
Every era and every lineup lol
Click to expand...

King Crimson was the end all and be all of popular music....a little bit rock, a little bit jazz, a dash of Greg Lake, a pinch of Robert Fripp.

if God himself came down and said i could only listen to one group for the rest of my life, but i could have all the group's albums, my pick would be King Crimson!!

oh, did I mention that they had Bill Bruford as a drummer for much of their existence.

davesignatureII-1.png


ps- edit -- second, of course, would be the Beatles...:D
 
#215
ozzyismetal said:
There is a craze sweeping Australia of all these generic indie bands dominating the radio and charts. I mean, I like indie music but when it becomes as cookie-cutter as this:
San Cisco - Awkward - YouTube
we have a problem.
Click to expand...

obviously not the best, but not a bad song either...i just sit and think "where is the guitar solo". that song crys out for a burning guitar solo. that was a pretty sweet rick that the guitarist was playing, but i have to agree...without musicianship, all these indie bands just leave me unsatisfied.

davesignatureII-1.png
 
#219
Revolver said:
Funny . . . because most of their earlier stuff was recorded as a live act . . . and in a veeeeeeery short perido of time (how many bands cut a record in a day these days (and with such recording technology)? Do some research. A lot of their live recordings are very good, especially considering the gear at the time.

As for not being able to pull-off most of their last albums live, two things:

1) Not all you do in a studio recording has to translate well into a live situation. Some songs are just meant to push the limits of creativity and studio production. And, even if they wanted to do some of their live back then, it would have been impossible because of the tech limits of the era . . . unlike today, where a lot of people plug their little mac and let the sucker do A LOT for them . . .

2) Let it Be roof concert anyone?
Click to expand...


Yeah, I can tell when I hear "Roll Over Beethoven". :eyebrow: What a gross Beatles song.

My point was their later stuff. What, they played one show in the last 4 years of their career? How does a band get so much respect for that?


I respect the Beatles, but their talent was above average, their songwriting is above average (I can name a dozen songwriters in twelve seconds who pound them into the ground) and their accolades as that live act are very suspect, if you even fail to recognize the fact it was largely non-existent for almost half their career.


They were innovative pioneers of studio work - but so were many other artists from the period and since. They also invented the marketable 'boy band'...but Justin Beiber is in that group. Eew.

You must also realize you're talking about a time where live bands like The Who, The Hendrix Experience, The Rolling Stones, etc. were innovating live music. Saying that The Beatles couldn't play live because the technology wasn't there is silly. They were plain and simple making studio albums. Which is cool. But if I'm gonna rate an all-around band and the category "live rating" came up they'd get the fattest F around.


I like talking about the Beatles in a negative light because the flames come from everywhere from the Beatles worshipers ;)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back