That's no point. If anything, that only shows that capitalism doesn't work well. Don't confuse art with business. I play a lot of wedding gigs just for the money but I wouldn't call that art, neither does it make me a better artist. At best it helps me pay the bills in order to get my head free for creating some true art. (Or at least die trying...)
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
- Thread starter J_Funk_77
- Start date
Semantics. We are aware who wrote it. It is a Beatles song if the Beatles did a version. They covered it. And it's pretty...average.
First off, I didn't say "a second". You're talking about my "non-solid arguments" whilst you butcher my words.
Neil Young
Jagger/Richards
Townshend
Gordon Lightfoot
Jim Croce
Bob Dylan
Joni Mitchell
Brian Wilson
Elton John
Paul Simon
Bono/The Edge
Plant/Page/Jones
And that's not even looking at modern songwriters. All those bands and artists could run circles around The Beatles. If you want, I can present some physical evidence of the lyrical qualities of many Beatles songs.
These are the words Hendrix used for everyone: "yeah, man. That's groovy." "Groovy, man." Hendrix was a walking contact high. He was the smoothest cat around. I wouldn't expect him to have any low words for The Beatles. He wouldn't have any low words for anyone on Talkbass. Now, speaking of "solid" arguments...?
Townshend was also quoted in a documentary making fun of what he perceived to be The Beatles ability to not sing well. I also enjoy the fact you quoted Townshend implying that The Beatles weren't "a band" for a significant portion of their career. Which sort of gives credence to my argument they are not the greatest band by any stretch.
Ps - since your username is a Beatles' album, I'm guessing your infatuation with The Beatles is more than "digging alot". My guess is you will continue to put up "solid arguments" until you're halfway in a coffin. You do realize that most people agree with you? Does it hurt that much to hear criticism of The Beatles?
Muse.
I'm not surprised they made it, just surprised they made it to the US.
I first saw the video for "Time is Running Out" in Iceland back in 2003. Then "Hysteria" came out,
and I was blown away... still one of my favorite bass lines. But still, I didn't think US radio would embrace them like they did.
I'm not surprised they made it, just surprised they made it to the US.
I first saw the video for "Time is Running Out" in Iceland back in 2003. Then "Hysteria" came out,
and I was blown away... still one of my favorite bass lines. But still, I didn't think US radio would embrace them like they did.
The Beatles. If you listen to the early stuff it's amazing that a record company was willing to give them their shot at getting out of the clubs of Hamburg. Brian Epstein must have been a genius of a great salesman.
Semantics. We are aware who wrote it. It is a Beatles song if the Beatles did a version. They covered it. And it's pretty...average.
First off, I didn't say "a second". You're talking about my "non-solid arguments" whilst you butcher my words.
Neil Young
Jagger/Richards
Townshend
Gordon Lightfoot
Jim Croce
Bob Dylan
Joni Mitchell
Brian Wilson
Elton John
Paul Simon
Bono/The Edge
Plant/Page/Jones
And that's not even looking at modern songwriters. All those bands and artists could run circles around The Beatles. If you want, I can present some physical evidence of the lyrical qualities of many Beatles songs.
These are the words Hendrix used for everyone: "yeah, man. That's groovy." "Groovy, man." Hendrix was a walking contact high. He was the smoothest cat around. I wouldn't expect him to have any low words for The Beatles. He wouldn't have any low words for anyone on Talkbass. Now, speaking of "solid" arguments...?
Townshend was also quoted in a documentary making fun of what he perceived to be The Beatles ability to not sing well. I also enjoy the fact you quoted Townshend implying that The Beatles weren't "a band" for a significant portion of their career. Which sort of gives credence to my argument they are not the greatest band by any stretch.
Ps - since your username is a Beatles' album, I'm guessing your infatuation with The Beatles is more than "digging alot". My guess is you will continue to put up "solid arguments" until you're halfway in a coffin. You do realize that most people agree with you? Does it hurt that much to hear criticism of The Beatles?
Well, although my user name is the same as a Beatles album, you have all the right to think I'm a blind Beatles freak, but actually I am not. They are my first musical influence, without a doubt, but I could tell you quite a few songs of theirs which I think are crap (I've always said, that if you are a true fan, you must be objective and not praise everything your favorite artists do . . . something a lot of Radiohead fans can't seem to do).
As for the list of songwriters, it is a very solid one and a few are among my favorites as well (with the exception of Neil Young, meh),
but here's the kicker . . .
More than half of those you mention have covered McCartney/Lennon songs at some point or another. Doesn't that tell you something very important?
As for semantics. Nope, it is not a Beatles song. It is a cover of a Chuck Berry song done by the Beatles.
Regarding Hendrix . . . one thing is to be the hottest guitar player around and be nice to other fellow musicians, another is to cover a band's song a day or two after their record is released because you thinks it's great. Big difference . . .
Again, I don't mind debating and you have all the right in the world to think they are not really your cup of tea. But! when you say that the Beatles are rather average and then bring up a bunch of artists that have been influenced, praise and cover them [The Beatles], well . . .
I am a huge Beatles fan. But I'm still surprised they made it, although I'm very glad they did.
Yes. Have you heard any Croce or Lightfoot? They didn't call 'em 'singer/songwriters' for nothing.
Same here. I enjoy their stuff but I look back and I see, IMHO, most of their fame stemming from their teeny-bopper years. If they didn't have those they would be in the realm of Zappa or Yes. Famous, world-class, influential...but not first on the brain.
Seems to be your 'game, set, match!' rhetoric has died down.
Nope, didn't say the Beatles were 'average'. I said their live skills, chops, and songwriting are average to above average...but as a whole they were very innovative and did things nobody had ever done before. But there were 20 other bands at that time doing things nobody had ever done before.
The Beatles are a media machine. That's why they have a mythic status. They were a media machine as well - they were the first media machine in popular music. Besides, perhaps, Elvis (another legend who definitely sees critics as well) who existed simultaneously and slightly predates The Beatles (if I remember correctly).
Your whole argument apparently pivots on the belief that if someone covers you, it means you're better than them or somehow they are bowing to the other artist. That's silly. The Beatles covered many artists in the first few years - does that mean all those artists are better than The Beatles? Many bands cover other bands and do a more successful song (Manfred Mann's 'Blinded by the Light' comes to mind). Who is better then? Manfred Mann over Springsteen?
I've covered many bands. It doesn't mean I was paying some sort of homage. Sometimes, it was bringing people in the door or I had good ideas. For example, I did a Matchbox Twenty cover once and a Killers cover. Doesn't mean I'd bow and worship either of them. In fact, I find both bands to be average. If someone interviewed me I would think up good points - but I probably wouldn't criticize them. Yet, off the record I'd probably express more criticism.
It's a point but to crux your argument on that - that's a weird thing for a Beatles defender to do. You could use one of a dozen other more fruitful arguments.
First I'll give my definition of "making it". "Making it" means the whole band makes a comfortable living at the least. That being said, I'm surprised any band that plays inaccessible music can make it, without much help from radio or music channels. Dream Theater's a prime example: one of my favorite bands who have managed to do very well without relying on hit singles etc.
ELP: I've only just started listening to them. How the hell did they become successful? I like the music but it's not exactly filled with short radio singles. Was Prog Rock more of a fad during that time?
Now that we've had 13 pages of people listing bands they don't like (with a few exceptions) how about listing bands you do like yet still surprised they made it. How can people not understand a band like Nickleback making it? Super accessible rock with just the correct amount of heaviness with a good singer? Sounds like a money-maker to Herrick. Same with The Foo Fighters. And LoL at the people who get offended when someone doesn't like "their" band.
ELP: I've only just started listening to them. How the hell did they become successful? I like the music but it's not exactly filled with short radio singles. Was Prog Rock more of a fad during that time?
Now that we've had 13 pages of people listing bands they don't like (with a few exceptions) how about listing bands you do like yet still surprised they made it. How can people not understand a band like Nickleback making it? Super accessible rock with just the correct amount of heaviness with a good singer? Sounds like a money-maker to Herrick. Same with The Foo Fighters. And LoL at the people who get offended when someone doesn't like "their" band.
You might want to say all you want about their (playing) chops . . . but their songwriting?!?! I'd say (conservatively) most of the songwriting community would disagree with you . . . just go ask them as well as producers.
If a bunch of tremendously gifted and equally succesful artists (from every conceivable genre, old and new) cover your band over and over and over again, it does mean something! If their songwriting was really "average/above average" they would certainly not get covered over and over and over and over and over again . . . The music speaks for itself . . . Your opinion is just that (and so is mine and everyone else's), but facts are facts and you can't deny that.
BTW, no rhetoric whatsoever. The match did end a long time ago. I'm just doing the post-game press conference
As otherworldly and phenomenal and amazing as Rush is and as much as they will always be my favourite band, (well, pre-PW anyway) I am surprised they made it, especially under the circumstances. 2112 was the final straw, their last chance at becoming something, and of course they tried to go down in a blaze of glory and at least be remembered for that. Most of the hate towards Caress Of Steel was towards Fountain, so what do they do? They slap 2112 on the next album, and it sells BIG.......
Bands I like that I'm surprised made it:
-Type o Negative (soooooooo dark and depressing and yet sold platinum and gold records with no radio play besides headbangers ball)
-Deftones (still selling oodles of records but never have/had a "hit")
-Dillinger Escape Plan (not huge but sell out every show and appear to be living well)
-Opeth (same as DEP)
-Isis (cult like status for post metal fans)
-Type o Negative (soooooooo dark and depressing and yet sold platinum and gold records with no radio play besides headbangers ball)
-Deftones (still selling oodles of records but never have/had a "hit")
-Dillinger Escape Plan (not huge but sell out every show and appear to be living well)
-Opeth (same as DEP)
-Isis (cult like status for post metal fans)
Not at all. I mentioned Zep because I saw them, first hand, on a number of occasions (yes, that makes me old) and I was NOT impressed. Sorry, but I am not one of those guys who lives by reputation. I have always loved Zep, but "live" didn't do it for me.
Hell, I saw Gentle Giant 2 or 3 times during the same time period and they (literally) blew me away with their talent. Same thing with Steppenwolf, 3 Dog Night and the Turtles. Unfortunately, none of those groups hold the "reputation" that Zep does........
I saw the Who on a number of occasions as well. I'll take their live show any day and 3 times on Sunday.
I have to agree about Deftones, there are so good but you never hear about them doing anything big.
Opeth were (are? they still around?) fantastic musicians and had several huge albums...but I don't think they are filling stadiums.
Saw RHCP and Smashing Pumpkins at Lollapalloza that same year I believe and had the same impression.
My vote is for 'Fall Out Boy'...
What I haven't read here in this thread yet is the connections some of these band members have in the industry and how that could explain their 'success'. The members of Fall Out Boy were born of rich and connected parents who could fund their music making and make connections for them. This is a buisness and connections make the difference between being Bill Gates and the average smoo.
