Best decade for music

[thomasowen]

Yes.

They weren't trying to immitate The Beatles though.

[worm]

But most of the acts that are given are stage are ones that imitate the alternative, usually replicating a previous style. The alternative does still exist, it just won't be able to form a cohesive scene, because then that scene will be propelled to the fore of our culture, until it is assimilated and broken.

Edited May 17, 2009 by worm

[worm]

They don't and I never said they did. They certainly were inspired by them though (at least two tracks on OK Computor owe a big debt to the White Album)

[worm]

Look, The Beatles are the most commonly cited band. That makes them popular and iconic. That doesn't make them the most influential band of all time. There is not one stream of music, there is a vast glittering delta comprising of many violent undercurrents.

[thomasowen]

So what has it to do with The Beatles? Your whole point was that bands tried to sound like The Beatles. Now you're saying that it doesn't matter and only a direct relation to the technical sound is important in terms of influence. In that case, The Beatles nicked their sound from Buddy Holly and so on and so forth. Russian Doll syndrome.

[worm]

If you'll look back I said I had used the wrong choice of words when I said bands wanted to be The Beatles, I meant they were inspired to create music after listening to The Beatles.

[thomasowen]

Indeed, the most popular band then. The band with the greatest exposure. Says nothing about influence though. Says nothing of the sway of culture, genres and music.

Soundgarden.

Welcome to subjectivity.

[tylerdurden]

For arguments sake if The Beatles aren't the most important band in the history of Pop music who are?

Edited May 18, 2009 by tylerdurden

[worm]

Each to their own. Entirely subjective I agree, they must've really affected you, but christ, Soundgarden!? The most important band in the history of Pop music

[worm]

I don't think Soundgarden were important at all beyond their own scene and thats where the difference is. In fact I find them boring, Chris Cornell's new album is the most exciting, intresting thing he's ever done even if it is rubbish.

[thomasowen]

Many bands that I like use post-structural and impressionist techniques

[Explosions_In_The_Sky]

I agree about your war point (I remember when the iraq invasion was anounced there was a vote in my school as to who was pro or against it - easily 3/4 were pro, including myself.) I do think this had changed by 2004 although my memory of exact details isn't great but there was definatley a huge anti Bush feeling by 05/05 and I cant think of a album that better represents that in a good album.

Very very few of the 60's great albums were debuts. Of the top of my head The Stooges, Led Zep and The Doors. Same in the 70s and to a lesser extent 80's.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Explosions_In_The_Sky

[thomasowen]

The 13th Floor Elevators - The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators

The United States Of America - The United States Of America

The Velvet Underground - The Velvet Underground And Nico

The Stooges - The Stooges

MC5 - Kick Out The Jams

Pink Floyd - Piper At The Gates of Dawn

The Sonics - Here Are The Sonics

Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin I

King Crimson - In The Court Of The Crimson King

The Doors - The Doors

Captain beefheart - Safe As Milk

The Flying burritto brothers - The Gilded Palace Of Sin

The byrds - Mr Tambourine Man

The Jimi Hendrix Experience- Are You Experienced?

Need I go on?...

[worm]

What bands apply post structurist technueques, and how? And in what way are The Beatles structualist?

Edited May 18, 2009 by worm

[thomasowen]

They used conosant sounds and expanded them through developing instrumentation and studio techniques based upon a structure of music. That makes them modernist, as most pop music was until the 80s. They also incorporated an iconic image, making them pop art. In the 80s, the iconic image was divorced from the sound making it an age of post-modern music from which the alternative was spawned.

Post structuralist music uses the structure to reinterpret the meaning. As an analogy, think of soft drinks as the structure. Then think of The Beatles as being a can of Coke. Think of the fans as consumers of Coke. Then think of the post-structuralist band as a vagrant on the fringes of society finding an old and battered empty Coke can and using it as something else, such as a belt buckle or candle holder or whatever.

That's what post-structural music is in relation to structural music. Further, it is what post-structural culture is in relation to structural culture.

[Explosions_In_The_Sky]

I agree that the 60's produced a lot of great debuts - my argument is that most of those bands, with a few notable exceptions, all bettered those albums within a decade of releasing the debut. For the last Ten years, to me, bands haven't been bettering their debuts, and there hasn't been an effort to develop as there was in the sixtees and seventies.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Explosions_In_The_Sky

[thomasowen]

Perhaps I'm not being clear.

I am not arguing that debuts are the 'best' albums. This is completely subjective.

I am arguing that they are the most pure work of the band. Whether the band stick with the same style for the rest of their career, or at some time begin to shift there's nothing like the intensity of a debut album. Even if musically one finds it unlikeable.

Cultural theory can be enlightening, but also incredibly banal. I won't be sorry if I never have to consider Saussure, Althusser or Lacan ever again after the last few years...

[tylerdurden]

Yes. Soundgarden are the most important band because importance is subjective just as music is. They shaped what I refer to and deem important music: that being grunge music and alternative culture.

33.

I get that a lot. It's not pretentiousness. They are valid critical points. I studied culture. Hell, I still do. The idea that one band is a seminal influence over all others is ironically pretentious. That's the point I'm getting at. It's like saying that Shakespeare is the most important/influential writer. It's silly.

The Beatles were pop art. Many bands that I like use post-structural and impressionist techniques. The Beatles had nothing to do with that kind of music. They are pop music and nothing else really.

[worm]

Fair enough, you clearly know your stuff when it comes to culture and critical theory so I won't argue, I still think there are holes in your theory though that will probably become a little clearer to me when I start doing all this kind of stuff at uni next year.

[worm]

Well fair enough, we might as well end this thread here then, and any other thread, if the final conclusion shall always be "Its entirely subjective"... which it is

I personally think, the importance of a band relies heavily on the time of their inception, The Beatles are considered to be so influental because of the time they came about. Same thing can be said for any other band who are considered important in terms of the history of popular music.

Alternative culture doesnt make sense either. Any "Alternative Culture" or "Subculture" is usually based around rebelling from the popular values held by anyone who has free reign over the persons lives, employers, politicians, even parents. Yet, the people who are a part of these "Subcultures" are still following an unwritten set of values of how to Rebel. Very strange. It all seems rather silly to me, very much like the Goths in South Park.

Pearl Jam are better than Soundgarden as well.

Edited May 18, 2009 by worm

[worm]

Cultural theory can be enlightening, but also incredibly banal. I won't be sorry if I never have to consider Saussure, Althusser or Lacan ever again after the last few years...

[tylerdurden]

Bits of that imaginary whole that you are calling popular culture therefore ends up in different places across the globe and are subject (hence 'subjectivity') to different interpretations by artists and consumers in that place. Essentially, there is no mainstream, just a delta with many undercurrents. What we call mainstream is different to each person. This applies to The Beatles too.

[worm]

Agreed.

Surely it can be defined in terms of numbers, e.g what is the difference between a 'Cult' and a 'Religion'? Surely a religion is just a Cult with more people who subscribe to its values,

Similar with a 'Culture' and a 'Subculture' surely.

Edited May 18, 2009 by worm

[thomasowen]

Back on topic I feel a bit sorry for the 1950's not getting any love. There is a lot going on besides rock n roll that has kind of been forgotten, a shame.

[worm]

Back on topic I feel a bit sorry for the 1950's not getting any love.