Music Thread

[ColoREDo]

Guys, keep in mind you should take all of this with a grain of salt... I'm still the guy who prefers the Monkees to the Beatles.

80s stuff wasn't that bad.

We are often on the same page with music. Although I am not big on the Monkees or the Beatles.

 

[MyBraska]

Ray Charles was in a class of his own. And the Godfather of Soul, James Brown, was too. Not a lot of spin-offs of them, as they couldn't really be adequately duplicated.

My two cents of negativity - The Ramones and Nirvana were about as untalented as any would-be musicians I have ever heard. They did strike a chord with disaffected youth, and made names for themselves in the process. But their knowledge of music and instrumental skills seem quite low. (My wife says I sound like my dad when he criticized the Beatles)

 

[Pops]

Guys, keep in mind you should take all of this with a grain of salt... I'm still the guy who prefers the Monkees to the Beatles.

80s stuff wasn't that bad.

That's the beauty of music. There is something for everyone.

 

[joestrummer]

The Ramones and Beatles weren't the most talented musicians (Although Johnny Ramone was a metronome with downstrokes). However, Nirvana in particular could put together a melody. The Rolling Stones aren't the most talented musicians. Hell, half of their catalog is based off of Keith's 5 string open G with the two string embellishment thrown in. The Eagles, especially their early catalog, was a lot of I-IV-V and a lot of basic "cowboy chord" fingerings. The Beatles chose interesting chords but I don't think any of them were masters of their respective instruments. Virtuosity is impressive, but there's a reason only comic book nerds like Dream Theater and why there's never a line at the ladies room at Rush concerts...

Ray Charles was in a class of his own. And the Godfather of Soul, James Brown, was too. Not a lot of spin-offs of them, as they couldn't really be adequately duplicated.

My two cents of negativity - The Ramones and Nirvana were about as untalented as any would-be musicians I have ever heard. They did strike a chord with disaffected youth, and made names for themselves in the process. But their knowledge of music and instrumental skills seem quite low. (My wife says I sound like my dad when he criticized the Beatles)

 

[Red Reign]

Don't get me wrong, I'm 39 years old, I was raised on hair metal. I have a nostalgic soft spot for it as well. However, yeah, even though I'll still sing along when I hear it, it was generally crap music.

I have to agree most of it is. I have had this exact same friendly argument with my closest friend in the world over the years who loves why I call AOR hair metal.. The are some exceptions as we both know.

 

[Red Reign]

That's the beauty of music. There is something for everyone.

Truer words could not be spoken. I love music and am not a category guy as you well know. If its good and moves me I could care less what the music industry wants to call it or categorize it. Most of what I listen to it out of the mainstream and has been for a long time. However, just because its on the radio does not make it bad. There are some really godo mainstream artists as we both know. I just happen to think that musicians that control their product for the most part tend to make better music.

I am listening right now to the new Shawn Colvin-Steve Earle album and also the newest Texas Hippy Collation record and they have nothing in common musically but that is the beauty of music in that if you can open your mind there is great stuff all over the spectrum.

 

[Red Reign]

Miles Davis, Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie were and are huge influences on jazz as a whole and I would say on me too.

 

[MyBraska]

The Ramones and Beatles weren't the most talented musicians (Although Johnny Ramone was a metronome with downstrokes). However, Nirvana in particular could put together a melody. The Rolling Stones aren't the most talented musicians. Hell, half of their catalog is based off of Keith's 5 string open G with the two string embellishment thrown in. The Eagles, especially their early catalog, was a lot of I-IV-V and a lot of basic "cowboy chord" fingerings. The Beatles chose interesting chords but I don't think any of them were masters of their respective instruments. Virtuosity is impressive, but there's a reason only comic book nerds like Dream Theater and why there's never a line at the ladies room at Rush concerts...

I don't like the Stones much either (but certainly more than Nirvana or Ramones, tho). The Stones would probably never have made it without the Beatles setting the stage with the British invasion. As far as the Eagles go, I believe it was their harmonies that set them apart from many groups at the time (probably right in there with CSNY). And Henley's academic background in English was probably a major factor in the incredible lyrics he and Frey penned. The old standard I-IV-V progression (my dad called it "three-chord junk") certainly did evolve in their tunes over time. As a young man, I was in a Scottsbluff band with Randy Meisner for several years before he took off for the Coast and helped form them, so I am biased about the Eagles. The Eagles are still probably my favorite band.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

I don't like the Stones much either

What?!
who doesn't love the 'stones?

 

[BasilLongfellow]

Eric B. and Rakim

 

[Pops]

Truer words could not be spoken. I love music and am not a category guy as you well know. If its good and moves me I could care less what the music industry wants to call it or categorize it. Most of what I listen to it out of the mainstream and has been for a long time. However, just because its on the radio does not make it bad. There are some really godo mainstream artists as we both know. I just happen to think that musicians that control their product for the most part tend to make better music.

I am listening right now to the new Shawn Colvin-Steve Earle album and also the newest Texas Hippy Collation record and they have nothing in common musically but that is the beauty of music in that if you can open your mind there is great stuff all over the spectrum.

Yes sir. My tastes are so eclectic. I grew up with Motown, Beatles, jazz, blues and gospel. That alone will take me on a thousand journeys. If my heart feels it, song will fill my soul.

 

[Red Reign]

Yes sir. My tastes are so eclectic. I grew up with Motown, Beatles, jazz, blues and gospel. That alone will take me on a thousand journeys. If my heart feels it, song will fill my soul.

Mine too as you know. The joy of music has been my passion in life and has sustained me through so many good and bad times.

 

[HUSKER HOT SAUCE]

Mine too as you know. The joy of music has been my passion in life and has sustained me through so many good and bad times.

Here, Here! I think I could have said that, I maybe even did.... Music let's me know that a higher power exists..

 

[CrabHusker]

I think they were influential as well, but for different reasons. I think they ruined rock music.

I had that opinion when 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' was playing on a loop tape back in it's day. Once some time passed and I actually listened to more of Nirvana's music, I took them off that list. No, I don't think Cobain should be knighted for his songwriting, but he was an interesting lyricist. Pearl Jam was different and I always liked the lyrics and most of the melodies. IMO the music industries love affair with 'Hip Hop' destroyed Rock and Roll.

I think they saved RnR from the sad parody it was becoming with hair metal. However, I don't know how folks can throw Nirvana and PJ in the same category. They both got the "grunge" label but that's only because the dilettantes thought two things; 1. They weren't hair metal and, 2. They were both from Seattle. I can see how some folks might find Nirvana to be a little grating. They had the DIY punk thing going (although their big albums were with Albini and Vig at the helm). However, and I'm not really a PJ fan, Pearl Jam was far from a 3 chord punk band. PJ's songwriting is a throwback. Yellow Ledbetter is a Little Wing ripoff, I think McCready has said as much. Nirvana was about attitude, honesty, and melody. PJ were song craftsmen.

Both bands still have their places in my listening universe and both had shiny spots and warts. What none of us can deny is they most definitely did influence others of the time and since that time even if they both were second or in some cases third steps in a musical chain of evolution. In many cases original musical thought or concepts aren't successful or accepted.

 

[CrabHusker]

That's the beauty of music. There is something for everyone.

Mine too as you know. The joy of music has been my passion in life and has sustained me through so many good and bad times.

Here, Here! I think I could have said that, I maybe even did.... Music let's me know that a higher power exists..

I have tens of thousands of songs in digital, tape and on vinyl formats. Yes, the bulk of the music is rock or one of it's tributaries, but I've got some of just about everything and listen to everything I've got depending on my mood, what I'm doing, the time of year, etc. I learned a long time ago that music is nothing more than recorded emotion, so there is no right or wrong. I may not care for someone's interpretation of an emotion, but it's their's and if it's real, I respect it. I can't imagine what life would be like without music. Not one day. If I'm not listening, I'm humming a tune, singing a song or it's playing in my head.