• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Grindcore

That doesn’t mean I am not going to challenge people that post *&^& and they don’t know what there talking about.

Example; When jive got taken to task with his remarks about the Beatles not being a live act. He probably read that after their final full concert at Candlestick Park in 66 they stopped performing live as the Beatles (for good reason) and focused more on recording.

But that was a small part of the picture. jive did not do his home work. He can stick with his position but he’s dead wrong and others did agree with me.

My Dad took me to The Shea Stadium Show in 65 after The Beatles had completed the filming of “Help” in the Bahamas. They were very live and very good and they didn’t have *&^& as far as sound technology was concerned.

BTW way Jung, that was one of the reasons John didn’t like performing live, we just didn’t have the technology to do it right in large festival venues. The technology while primitive started get better by 68-69. But you weren’t around then, were you? 

You're just confirming what I wrote. They stopped playing out in 66, and whether its because of technology or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that they only toured for 3 years with Ringo Starr. They may have been awesome to watch live, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of their body of work was in the recording studio compared to the stage. Please point me to a live recording of a song from the White Album, Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, Abbey Road by the Beatles. All arguably their most groundbreaking recordings.

Your personal experiences aren't going to change facts. Yes, I wasn't around back then, but it doesn't change the you still don't know crap (which has been verified in many threads, and confirmed by your own words). And like all old guys who can't deal with the facts, they pull out the old man card "You weren't there". Sorry, dude I'm not that old. Nothing I can do about it.
 
Lets be realistic....his quote was right. In comparison to pop, modern rock, and rap, metal has a small following then all of those three.

Its really not pallet-able to the average person and we need to be realistic about that.

Again though....why should anyone care what someones opinion is on music they like.


Just deal with it and move on =/

I disagree. Metal is pretty much the biggest genre among young people right now. The radio and television aren't really a trustworthy source of what's popular among the 14-25 crowd. I live across the street from a high school (and just out of high school about 4 years ago), and the "core" genres have by far had the biggest impact lately on the music that young people listen to and how they dress. It is palatable, it's just that different generations look for different qualities in popular music I suppose.
 
You're just confirming what I wrote...Sorry, dude I'm not that old. Nothing I can do about it.

Oh man you're wasting your life. I've seen this thread grow over the past few weeks while mugging my ass off for finals in uni, and finally checked the last few pages out.

Your effort is commendable, jive1, but you'll never win over this old man, not when the thread is 25 pages long. No one's gonna remember all his logical fallacies a few pages back, and no one's keeping score for you. Give it up dude. More time to woodshed :bassist:
 
Oh man you're wasting your life. I've seen this thread grow over the past few weeks while mugging my ass off for finals in uni, and finally checked the last few pages out.

Your effort is commendable, jive1, but you'll never win over this old man, not when the thread is 25 pages long. No one's gonna remember all his logical fallacies a few pages back, and no one's keeping score for you. Give it up dude. More time to woodshed :bassist:

Thank you.

I must remember this sage advice. "Never argue with idiots, they only bring you down to their level and beat you at what they do best." Or as I told a friend in elementary school, "Don't beat up the kids on the short bus, it just makes you look dumb".

I used to work with developmentally disabled folks for many years. I took a group to a baseball game, it was the Rockies vs the Cubs, and the Cubs won 9-3. One of my clients was talking smack about how his team, the Rockies won 4-6, even though that wasn't what the scoreboard reflected. But, the guy didn't understand the game much, and couldn't read numbers, so I played along. I'll have to look at this situation that way.
 
Since blue is discussing the beatles popularity.... I must ask a question that perhaps my age prohibits me from knowing for myself.
Of all of those beatles fans back in the day... how many were just pop sheep?
Its a legit question... i seriously wonder this.. I know with all super huge artists there is a great percentage of the "fans" that are sheep and will abandon the artist as soon as something else comes along.
Take Korn for instance coming up in the mid 90's... they had a VERY underground sound on their first album... and for whatever reason the record companies, radio and mtv decided they should be superstars. That is when the craze for Korn started... however.. after a number of years more than half of those fans abandoned their korn T shirts and started going nuts for Linkin Park and other bands.
Pretty much all super huge bands deal with this... a % of the initial fans are simply sheep.
I remember in high school there were those retro-hippy-stinky chicks that all wore beatles and pink floyd t-shirts.... two years later they were all into something else.
 
Since blue is discussing the beatles popularity.... I must ask a question that perhaps my age prohibits me from knowing for myself.
Of all of those beatles fans back in the day... how many were just pop sheep?
Its a legit question... i seriously wonder this.. I know with all super huge artists there is a great percentage of the "fans" that are sheep and will abandon the artist as soon as something else comes along.
Take Korn for instance coming up in the mid 90's... they had a VERY underground sound on their first album... and for whatever reason the record companies, radio and mtv decided they should be superstars. That is when the craze for Korn started... however.. after a number of years more than half of those fans abandoned their korn T shirts and started going nuts for Linkin Park and other bands.
Pretty much all super huge bands deal with this... a % of the initial fans are simply sheep.
I remember in high school there were those retro-hippy-stinky chicks that all wore beatles and pink floyd t-shirts.... two years later they were all into something else.

My thoughts exactly!
 
My thoughts exactly!


Like seriously.... I know that this sort of thing exists and I cant help but wonder how much worse it was back in the day.
No internet to let people search out new bands... nothing like the "customers also bought" section on itunes to help you find new artists.... no pandora radio.... you werent able to stack a couple thousands albums on an ipod for your car...

I just think that this might have been a much larger impact on bands from the beatles era.
They didnt even have MTV. When a band was made as popular as the Beatles it spread like a disease and the whole world was exposed in no time.
Dont get me wrong, Im not saying that the beatles suck and im certainly not saying that they didnt have any true fans but the amount of bandwagon sheep must have been epic to say the least.
 
and NO I do not think that album sales has anything to do with a band being good... bluewine however has basically said in multiple threads that commercial success is a major defining factor of if a band is any good so I figured why not see what y'all think about the "pop sheep factor"
 
I disagree. Metal is pretty much the biggest genre among young people right now. The radio and television aren't really a trustworthy source of what's popular among the 14-25 crowd. I live across the street from a high school (and just out of high school about 4 years ago), and the "core" genres have by far had the biggest impact lately on the music that young people listen to and how they dress. It is palatable, it's just that different generations look for different qualities in popular music I suppose.

I disagree, to a point. Metal is definitely the biggest genre among the musically inclined (or those that consider themselves musically inclined) among that age group, but overall, not even close. Those that identify strongly with music, and consider it a big part of their image/lifestyle/identity/chick-getting strategy/attitude tend to be metal fans (or emo) but overall, pop, rap, R&B, even classic rock I'd say have a larger fanbase among the casual listeners of that (my) age group.
 
You're just confirming what I wrote. They stopped playing out in 66, and whether its because of technology or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that they only toured for 3 years with Ringo Starr. They may have been awesome to watch live, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of their body of work was in the recording studio compared to the stage. Please point me to a live recording of a song from the White Album, Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, Abbey Road by the Beatles. All arguably their most groundbreaking recordings.

Does this or this count? I'm guessing no, but they're interesting anyway. :hiding:

Let us know what you think.
 
Does this count? :hiding:

Let us know what you think.

It's Lennon, but it's not the Beatles. It's Harrison, but it's not the Beatles. There's tons of live performances of Beatles tunes by Wings and McCartney, but it's still not the Beatles. You can probably find a Ringo and Friends video that has some Beatles tunes, but it's still not the Beatles.

But, I'm impressed that Lennon got Jesus to play guitar for him in that video.
 
Since blue is discussing the beatles popularity.... I must ask a question that perhaps my age prohibits me from knowing for myself.
Of all of those beatles fans back in the day... how many were just pop sheep?
Its a legit question... i seriously wonder this.. I know with all super huge artists there is a great percentage of the "fans" that are sheep and will abandon the artist as soon as something else comes along.
Take Korn for instance coming up in the mid 90's... they had a VERY underground sound on their first album... and for whatever reason the record companies, radio and mtv decided they should be superstars. That is when the craze for Korn started... however.. after a number of years more than half of those fans abandoned their korn T shirts and started going nuts for Linkin Park and other bands.
Pretty much all super huge bands deal with this... a % of the initial fans are simply sheep.
I remember in high school there were those retro-hippy-stinky chicks that all wore beatles and pink floyd t-shirts.... two years later they were all into something else.

Sure, there were a *ton* of "pop sheep" following the Beatles back then... but the fact that their song writing has had the influence that it has really sets them apart. You don't hear folks gush about the Rolling Stones in the same terms, yet many folks still like the 'Stones... So really, one could make a good and reasonable case that the Beatles were/are "Important" and 99.99% of metal bands are "not". Sure, I think I heard a Metallica song on Muzak at the store one day, but that's not quite the same thing...

HOWEVER - BW shot himself directly in the foot (more than once, actually) when he posted that youtube link to last weekend's performance on SNL. By posting this as some sort of example of beatles "Greatness", he made the metal-heads case for them - - Paul looked like nosferatu, his voice was creaky and his toupe was... Donald Trump-like - - not to mention that the overall performance was listless. Everything that would make any young musician say "dude - you are OLD!".
 
It's Lennon, but it's not the Beatles. It's Harrison, but it's not the Beatles. There's tons of live performances of Beatles tunes by Wings and McCartney, but it's still not the Beatles. You can probably find a Ringo and Friends video that has some Beatles tunes, but it's still not the Beatles.

But, I'm impressed that Lennon got Jesus to play guitar for him in that video.

Not a problem. Here's the final shot.

BTW, don't take any offence by this. I just like the Beatles and love an opportunity to post their work. ;):D
 
Given bluewine's penchant for fallacies and overgeneralisations and how older is better, I'm not sure if LaklandBass' question is addressed to the correct person. But BigOldHarry thanks for chiming in it really is interesting. So have pop sheep evolved over the years, from what you can see?
 
Honestly, being the seventh-best selling death metal band in the United States is kind of like being the seventh-highest mountain in Nebraska.

I am still shocked and stunned to have seen a straight-face Beatles vs. Cannibal Corpse debate. Even for the interwebs, that's just wow. And it's gone on for pages and pages. I reiterate, wow.

Here's the point I think is missing, to put that whole discussion into the proper context:

Art is about communication. The craft of musicianship can be employed in the furtherance of art, but ultimately art succeeds or fails based on how well it communicates the idea, message, feeling, etc. of the artist to the audience.

Now, obviously there are people out there who are quite skilled at their craft but don't reach a huge audience. There are a number of reasons that might be, but, a big one is that in many cases, I think the point of the communication being made through the art is akin to a secret handshake: while there may be subsidiary messages, the primary message is, "Do you think like us? Do you share our viewpoint and values?" I think that is absolutely a huge part of metal from the last couple decades at least. It's whole point is to filter the listening public to identify the small number of people who are on a philosophical wavelength with the artists---and each other, so it builds community.

If that's the goal---and I think it is---you can't compare that to the Beatles or any mainstream pop group, because intentions are so different. The genius of the Beatles was precisely their ability to communicate through their art with a HUGE number of people. They were able to find common elements that almost everybody (of their generation, anyway) could relate to. But if metal bands (who probably feel like outsiders before they pick up their first pointy guitars) are using their art to try to find other outsiders who share their point of view, it's hardly surprising that they are not embraced by the middle-of-the-road majority. That is not, I think, how success should be measured for them.

If for some reason there are metal artists who have a goal of conveying some message to the wide world at large---well, fail. As even the metal fans in this thread should recognize and acknowledge, when you play metal (especially in its more recent manifestations) you start out with aesthetic choices that will alienate most people. But I don't recall anyone taking the position that everybody who likes the Beatles should like Cannibal Corpse because they're just as good. The most I think you can say is that the players are skilled at their respective crafts, and they are effective and delivering the message they want to deliver to the audience they are trying to reach.

In other news, apples are different from oranges, too.


THIS^^

I posted something earlier in this thread along these lines, but it got lost somewhere and I haven't cared to keep up with all the bickering going on here. But I can definitely agree with the secret handshake aspect of underground music. I don't want to make music for someones stupid ass ditzy girlfriend to dance to while she's texting all her friends. I want to make music for people to smoke weed, and headbang to. I want shows that smell like sweat, beer, and reefer before they even start. I want ears to ring for days after we play. I want to make music that makes the "sheep" of the world uncomfortable. I've always had this sort of attitude pretty much since I started playing in bands. It's the reason grind, doom, hardcore, punk and all things underground attract me. I'm not pleased by the same mediocre BS most "mainstream" people seem to be. I don't share their attitudes on life, or their values or any of it so why would I ever want to make music for them?

The idea that commercial success = talent is one of those mainstream attitudes that I've never agreed with. Can't count how many times I've had something negative to say about a band only to have someone come back with "well they're on TV so they must be doing something right". So what? From my point of view, all that means is that a large enough majority are stupid enough to fall for the same boring garbage that constantly gets put out on the radio and on MTV.

But it's all opinion, so no one is right and no one is wrong. Blah blah blah.
 
THIS^^

I posted something earlier in this thread along these lines, but it got lost somewhere and I haven't cared to keep up with all the bickering going on here. But I can definitely agree with the secret handshake aspect of underground music. I don't want to make music for someones stupid ass ditzy girlfriend to dance to while she's texting all her friends. I want to make music for people to smoke weed, and headbang to. I want shows that smell like sweat, beer, and reefer before they even start. I want ears to ring for days after we play. I want to make music that makes the "sheep" of the world uncomfortable. I've always had this sort of attitude pretty much since I started playing in bands. It's the reason grind, doom, hardcore, punk and all things underground attract me. I'm not pleased by the same mediocre BS most "mainstream" people seem to be. I don't share their attitudes on life, or their values or any of it so why would I ever want to make music for them?

The idea that commercial success = talent is one of those mainstream attitudes that I've never agreed with. Can't count how many times I've had something negative to say about a band only to have someone come back with "well they're on TV so they must be doing something right". So what? From my point of view, all that means is that a large enough majority are stupid enough to fall for the same boring garbage that constantly gets put out on the radio and on MTV.

But it's all opinion, so no one is right and no one is wrong. Blah blah blah.

This is an awesome post. Precisely what metal is all about. Its about playing what you want... not playing for the sake of hoping more people will like it.
I think thats the exact same reason that I have always loved metal. They make it on their own terms. It is what it is.

Its a lot like painters that create what they feel inside compared to a company that makes prints of general picutres that would fit into the largest amount of homes.

I mean sure.... some of those prints look great and im sure they compliment many homes very well... but when I want to look at art I want to look at an unedited canvas of someones creation.
I personally think that metal is the best representation of this. And Ill admit that it is probably because the record labels know how little potential there is for sales in the first place.
But thats not what its about. Its about the music.

I saw Vital Remains last year at a show near chicago.. these dudes are really getting up there in age and have been playing for MANY years... and they love it. The singer was hanging out with people after the show and he had a smile on his face. He knew when he started that band so many years ago that he would never be wealthy and he was totally okay with that. To me thats what makes metal so great.