SeventeenDayze said:

thedance said:

Michael Jackson is (was) brilliant, I love that guy too...

But he is still not in league with Lennon & McCartney when it come to song writing.

Michael was a great performer, dancer and singer. But........ I guess we can't agree:


No one beats the Beatles about musicianship and song writing, and never will,

so many classics from those guys, it's incredible... that's "un-beatable"... imho....

With the exception of the Sgt. Pepper's album, what was so groundbreaking about the Beatles?

Whenever you listen to an album released by a recording artist who is trying to make one

cohesive and thematic artistic statement in a pop music medium, you are beholding the ground

breaking-ness of the Beatles. They were the first pop musicians who treated pop music as if

it was just as credible a format as jazz or classical music.

So when Prince writes Parade, he is essentially doing what the Beatles did first.

SeventeenDayze said:

With the exception of the Sgt. Pepper's album, what was so groundbreaking about the Beatles?

^

Try these groundbreaking albums by The Beatles:

"Revolver",
"Rubber Soul",
"The White Album" (double album),
"Abbey Road",
"The Magical Mystery Tour",
and of course "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".

the best music ever recorded...

.

[Edited 7/21/14 20:10pm]

Len.

duccichucka said:

SeventeenDayze said:

With the exception of the Sgt. Pepper's album, what was so groundbreaking about the Beatles?

Whenever you listen to an album released by a recording artist who is trying to make one

cohesive and thematic artistic statement in a pop music medium, you are beholding the ground

breaking-ness of the Beatles. They were the first pop musicians who treated pop music as if

it was just as credible a format as jazz or classical music.

So when Prince writes Parade, he is essentially doing what the Beatles did first.

I'm having a hard time following this, especially since they were in a sea of boy bands during that era. Now, if we were having this discussion about the Rolling Stones then I would probably see that a bit clearer because the RS seemed to be (along with the pioneer Hendrix) of course, to introduce the world to kick-ass Rock music. I can't say that the Beatles had the same influence over Pop though but I could be wrong

thedance said:

SeventeenDayze said:

With the exception of the Sgt. Pepper's album, what was so groundbreaking about the Beatles?

^

Try these groundbreaking albums by The Beatles:

"Revolver",
"Rubber Soul",
"The White Album" (double album),
"Abbey Road",
"The Magical Mystery Tour",
and of course "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".

the best music ever recorded...

.

[Edited 7/21/14 20:10pm]

Not sure when I'll be able to listen to all these tracks on this album but in a nutshell can you tell me why their music was groundbreaking compared to their peers during that era?

SeventeenDayze said:

I'm having a hard time following this, especially since they were in a sea of boy bands during that era. Now, if we were having this discussion about the Rolling Stones then I would probably see that a bit clearer because the RS seemed to be (along with the pioneer Hendrix) of course, to introduce the world to kick-ass Rock music. I can't say that the Beatles had the same influence over Pop though but I could be wrong

The Stones didn't introduce anything. All they were doing was blues based music in the beginning and covers of blues songs. Their name even came from Muddy Waters. Lennon/McCartney wrote one of the Stones first hits I Wanna Be Your Man. The Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, John Mayall, and other British Invasion bands were basically like Elvis in that they popularized blues music to young white people in the US. Some British groups also either had American blues performers open for them or played on and/or produced their records. Ringo Starr played drums on a B.B. King record. This helped veterans like Lightnin' Hopkins, B.B. King, and Mississippi John Hurt rejuvenate their careers and get a wider audience instead of mostly playing the Chitlin' Circuit places. Jimi Hendrix wasn't that original either. Some of the stuff he did, Johnny "Guitar" Watson was doing in the 1950's, including playing with his teeth. Johnny didn't have any major success until the 1970's when he recorded some funk records.

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

I'm having a hard time following this, especially since they were in a sea of boy bands during that era. Now, if we were having this discussion about the Rolling Stones then I would probably see that a bit clearer because the RS seemed to be (along with the pioneer Hendrix) of course, to introduce the world to kick-ass Rock music. I can't say that the Beatles had the same influence over Pop though but I could be wrong

The Stones didn't introduce anything. All they were doing was blues based music in the beginning and covers of blues songs. Their name even came from Muddy Waters. Lennon/McCartney wrote one of the Stones first hits I Wanna Be Your Man. The Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, John Mayall, and other British Invasion bands were basically like Elvis in that they popularized blues music to young white people in the US. Some British groups also either had American blues performers open for them or played on and/or produced their records. Ringo Starr played drums on a B.B. King record. This helped veterans like Lightnin' Hopkins, B.B. King, and Mississippi John Hurt rejuvenate their careers and get a wider audience instead of mostly playing the Chitlin' Circuit places. Jimi Hendrix wasn't that original either. Some of the stuff he did, Johnny "Guitar" Watson was doing in the 1950's, including playing with his teeth. Johnny didn't have any major success until the 1970's when he recorded some funk records.

Who had a song that sounded even remotely like Purple Haze or Machine Gun before Jimi did it? Also, the things that you wrote about the Stones could easily be said about the Beatles. That's why I asked that question. I think between the two groups, the Stones were probably a lot less commercialized in their sounds which probably lends itself to the fact that many people consider them as pioneers. I think it's hard to say who is the most important artist in history but I think we can give respect to bands that changed the scene one way or the other and the Beatles did that but I don't think it was because they were innovators. You said all of this about the Stones and Beatles copying black music but was the main person arguing with me about the fact that Justin Timberlake does the same. How in the world can you say that about groups as huge as the Beatles and Stones but can't admit that about Timberlake? (please don't answer, it's a rhetorical question)

[Edited 7/21/14 23:42pm]

Okay folks, lock this thread, I have the answer here:

SeventeenDayze said:

Who had a song that sounded even remotely like Purple Haze or Machine Gun before Jimi did it? You said all of this about the Stones and Beatles copying black music but was the main person arguing with me about the fact that Justin Timberlake does the same. How in the world can you say that about groups as huge as the Beatles and Stones but can't admit that about Timberlake? (please don't answer, it's a rhetorical question)

That must have been someone else, because I did not say Justin's music was original to him, but what he was doing is no different than Marion Anderson and Robert McFerrin performing opera or Charlie Pride doing country. You can read what I posted about Justin here (reply 18, 20, 47, 51, 55, 59, 90, 94). You claim Justin is "fake" and is supposed to take pictures with ghetto kids, and donate to charity which has nothing to do with music. You also said Justin (& Elvis) "ripped off" which is different than 'copying' or 'being influenced'. Ripped off is doing something and claiming he made it up or taking credit for it, like Led Zeppelin. Justin has stated his influences in interviews and didn't hide it.

.

Here's Space Guitar from 1954 and the effects were done without wah wah pedals.

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Who had a song that sounded even remotely like Purple Haze or Machine Gun before Jimi did it? You said all of this about the Stones and Beatles copying black music but was the main person arguing with me about the fact that Justin Timberlake does the same. How in the world can you say that about groups as huge as the Beatles and Stones but can't admit that about Timberlake? (please don't answer, it's a rhetorical question)

That must have been someone else, because I did not say Justin's music was original to him, but what he was doing is no different than Marion Anderson and Robert McFerrin performing opera or Charlie Pride doing country. You can read what I posted about Justin here (reply 18, 20, 47, 51, 55, 59, 90, 94). You claim Justin is "fake" and is supposed to take pictures with ghetto kids, and donate to charity which has nothing to do with music. You also said Justin (& Elvis) "ripped off" which is different than 'copying' or 'being influenced'. Ripped off is doing something and claiming he made it up or taking credit for it, like Led Zeppelin. Justin has stated his influences in interviews and didn't hide it.

.

Here's Space Guitar from 1954 and the effects were done without wah wah pedals.

Ghetto kids??

As far as everything else goes, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I think just because someone pretends to "give credit" to a pioneer artist doesn't mean they aren't a culture vulture. Just because someone admits they rob a bank, does that mean it's better than someone who doesn't admit it? I find it shocking to say that you think Elvis, The Beatles, etc. ripped off black music but Justin didn't. I'm not an Elvis fan, but I respect the Beatles a lot, so this is really baffling. He's clearly a swagger jacker. Besides, didn't Elvis also say who his influences were? If nothing else it's a tactic to make himself seem even more authentic. JT has a PR machine, nuff said.

I won't comment any further on JT on this thread.

SeventeenDayze said:

duccichucka said:

Whenever you listen to an album released by a recording artist who is trying to make one

cohesive and thematic artistic statement in a pop music medium, you are beholding the ground

breaking-ness of the Beatles. They were the first pop musicians who treated pop music as if

it was just as credible a format as jazz or classical music.

So when Prince writes Parade, he is essentially doing what the Beatles did first.

I'm having a hard time following this, especially since they were in a sea of boy bands during that era. Now, if we were having this discussion about the Rolling Stones then I would probably see that a bit clearer because the RS seemed to be (along with the pioneer Hendrix) of course, to introduce the world to kick-ass Rock music. I can't say that the Beatles had the same influence over Pop though but I could be wrong

You're absolutely right! The Beatles started out as a boy band. But again, before the Beatles,

pop music was not considered "serious" music. But the Beatles, through Rubber Soul, Revolver,

and Sgt. Pepper treated pop music as if it was just as credible as those serious jazz albums

and classical music.

Those three aforementioned albums started the notion of a popular music recording artist

making albums as art; and not just a record of potential singles. The Beatles are the first

band who treated popular music as if it was more than ersarz art; it was something to be

reckoned with. So, when I say that Parade owes its existence to Sgt Pepper, I mean that

the Beatles were the first to say:

"Hey! Let's make a grand artistic statement with our pop music! Let's have a concept behind

the album; an artistic theme that we are trying to get across to the audience. We'll even make

the album's cover an artistic statement!"

Without the Beatles, we don't have OK Computer, Purple Rain, Band on the Run, All Eyez on

Me, Voodoo, What Were You Hoping For?, etc. As for the Stones, remember the Beatles were

writing some of their tunes when they first hit the scene.

duccichucka said:

SeventeenDayze said:

I'm having a hard time following this, especially since they were in a sea of boy bands during that era. Now, if we were having this discussion about the Rolling Stones then I would probably see that a bit clearer because the RS seemed to be (along with the pioneer Hendrix) of course, to introduce the world to kick-ass Rock music. I can't say that the Beatles had the same influence over Pop though but I could be wrong

You're absolutely right! The Beatles started out as a boy band. But again, before the Beatles,

pop music was not considered "serious" music. But the Beatles, through Rubber Soul, Revolver,

and Sgt. Pepper treated pop music as if it was just as credible as those serious jazz albums

and classical music.

Those three aforementioned albums started the notion of a popular music recording artist

making albums as art; and not just a record of potential singles. The Beatles are the first

band who treated popular music as if it was more than ersarz art; it was something to be

reckoned with. So, when I say that Parade owes its existence to Sgt Pepper, I mean that

the Beatles were the first to say:

"Hey! Let's make a grand artistic statement with our pop music! Let's have a concept behind

the album; an artistic theme that we are trying to get across to the audience. We'll even make

the album's cover an artistic statement!"

Without the Beatles, we don't have OK Computer, Purple Rain, Band on the Run, All Eyez on

Me, Voodoo, What Were You Hoping For?, etc. As for the Stones, remember the Beatles were

writing some of their tunes when they first hit the scene.

Wait, are you saying the All Eyes on Me song by Tupac or by someone else? Please tell me you are not considering that album as pop.

So who were the first black pop stars then since it seems to be agreed upon by many that the Beatles lifted their songs/sound from black artists?

Also, does all of the credit for a song lay squarely in the lap of the writer or in the performer? I think giving credit to the Beatles for an entire genre of music overlooks many others who were popular before them who were pop singers.

Does this sound like a pop song or R&B? Are you going to say R&B because they were black singers on Motown? Why didn't the Beatles call themselves an R&B act then? Even Come Together sounds like their attempt at R&B but it is labeled as a pop song. So, did they create a genre, so to speak, that allowed them to have some safe space to attempt to play R&B but knowing that they'd never be considered R&B singers? Just askin...

[Edited 7/22/14 17:38pm]

excellent point

SeventeenDayze said:

Give me a break, just because they were labeled as pop acts doesn't mean they were! They never stopped being a rap group. Just because their sound hit the suburbs it doesn't mean they became suburban. Geez. Why don't some of you all call Adele a pop artist???? Go ahead, I'll wait for the convoluted justification....

...LOL...Now I always thought Adele was a Pop Artist..I guess some do put her in the Soul category...I don't hear a whole lot of Soul when she sings but she's alright...

I have never posted here in all of these years but I must on this topic.

I'm going to have to say James Brown.

James..............Led to Bootsy

Bootsy.............Let to PFunk

PFunk..............Let to Prince

Prince..............Led to MinT Condition

SirComeSpection said:

I have never posted here in all of these years but I must on this topic.

I'm going to have to say James Brown.

James..............Led to Bootsy

Bootsy.............Let to PFunk

PFunk..............Let to Prince

Prince..............Led to MinT Condition

We can also add Toni Tone Tony to the list that you wrote

I saw something online the other day about the artist Kem (R&B singer) talking about the need to keep traditional R&B music alive (re: not Chris Brown type of music). So, if I had to cast my vote for the person who is keeping R&B alive the most these days, it would go to Maxwell. In the R&B world, Maxwell gets my vote and since so many other types of music stemmed from R&B, it is still relevant and important these days.

[Edited 7/27/14 0:14am]

None

Yin Yang Twins

MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON because his music appealed to every culture, ethnicity, age, sex, race, religion, group worldwide. That, imo, was the genius of his art... that no one else could accomplish. How can one make their art appeal to a 2 year old and a 92 simultaneously?? and of every culture?? I am forever in awe/amazement/baffled by this.

Can't just do one artist, have to do many artists; the most important artists in history:

Elvis Presley

James Brown

Brian Wilson

Aretha Franklin

Thomas A. Dorsey

Johnny Cash

Michael Jackson

Prince

Sly Stone

Marvin Gaye

The Beatles(John Lennon and Paul McCartney)

Little Richard

Marian Anderson

Ritchie Valens

Jerry Lee Lewis

Smokey Robinson

Stevie Wonder

Billie Holiday

Ella Fitzgerald

Otis Redding

B.B. King

Leontyne Price

The Rolling Stones

Dionne Warwick

Diana Ross and The Supremes

Roberta Martin

Louis Armstrong