The Official "Music Was So Much Better in the Glorious Days of Yore" Thread

**Janszoon** · 10-25-2011, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

A computer is not an instrument. It's a computer. And no, the beatles entire career wasn't pop. Just because something is popular doesn't make it pop. The beatles had very innovative and creative albums like revolver.
They made r&b type music, early pop rock that was influenced by buddy holly, they had songs that rocked like "yer blues" and physchedelic songs like "tomorrow never knows." they aren't pop, the many bands who mimicked their sound were pop. They were a very original band who inspired so many others. I'm sure some of the bands you listen to were inspired by them.

Sorry, I missed this until just now. They were a pop band from beginning to end.

blastingas10 · 10-26-2011, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Sorry, I missed this until just now. They were a pop band from beginning to end.

Absolutely wrong. Yes they were popular from start to finish, but they started as nobodies and they worked their way to the top, because they were good. Just because something is popular doesnt make it pop. Albums like revolver and sgt pepper were pretty innovative. To quote music critic George Graham, art rock "was inspired by the classically-influenced arrangements and the elaborate production of The Beatles Sgt. Peppers."

Allmusic cites Sgt. Peppers as "one of the earliest rumblings of progressive and art rock." The Beatles were also one of the first bands to bring harpsichords, wind and string sections to rock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Well, the problem is the concept of generalization, though. Electronic music is very unlimited, to be honest. It can't be pigeonholed. There's no reason why somebody should 'just not like it'.

Youre telling me theres no reason I shouldnt like it? I dont like it, thats enough reason. Not everyone likes the same things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

I feel what he's saying. Some people just have more of an appreciation for music that is made by more conventional instruments. Non-electronic music tends to be a bit more tangible for some, especially from the perspective of performance.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Howard the Duck · 10-26-2011, 04:55 AM

i think black music as a whole isn't as good as it used to be

funk, soul in the 70s was good, i even liked some disco

most of the stuff these days are pretty bad rap and generic faceless r n' b

blastingas10 · 10-26-2011, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

i think black music as a whole isn't as good as it used to be

funk, soul in the 70s was good, i even liked some disco

most of the stuff these days are pretty bad rap and generic faceless r n' b

I completely agree. What about the blues? The majority of the black youth today doesn't know a damn thing about the blues, or jazz.

Howard the Duck · 10-26-2011, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

I completely agree. What about the blues? The majority of the black youth today doesn't know a damn thing about the blues, or jazz.

only whites play jazz and blues these days, I surmise

**Janszoon** · 10-26-2011, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Absolutely wrong. Yes they were popular from start to finish, but they started as nobodies and they worked their way to the top, because they were good. Just because something is popular doesnt make it pop. Albums like revolver and sgt pepper were pretty innovative. To quote music critic George Graham, art rock "was inspired by the classically-influenced arrangements and the elaborate production of The Beatles Sgt. Peppers."

Allmusic cites Sgt. Peppers as "one of the earliest rumblings of progressive and art rock." The Beatles were also one of the first bands to bring harpsichords, wind and string sections to rock.

How does any of that make it "absolutely wrong" to describe The Beatles as pop? "Classically-influenced arrangements" were a part of pop music long before The Beatles. Phil Spector was using them many years before and was, without a doubt, producing pop music. Hell, people like Tommy Dorsey were making pop music with a string section back in the 40s.

blastingas10 · 10-26-2011, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

How does any of that make it "absolutely wrong" to describe The Beatles as pop? "Classically-influenced arrangements" were a part of pop music long before The Beatles. Phil Spector was using them many years before and was, without a doubt, producing pop music. Hell, people like Tommy Dorsey were making pop music with a string section back in the 40s.

Seems like you were using it as a derogatory remark. Yes, they were popular. I guess that makes them pop. Clearly people used those kinds of instruments before the beatles. I said the beatles were one of the first to bring them to rock n roll.

**Janszoon** · 10-26-2011, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Seems like you were using it as a derogatory remark. Yes, they were popular. I guess that makes them pop.

I'm referring to the style of music they played, which was pop. It's neither derogatory nor complimentary, it's simply the name for the type band they were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Clearly people used those kinds of instruments before the beatles. I said the beatles were one of the first to bring them to rock n roll.

They weren't though, not by a long shot.

blastingas10 · 10-26-2011, 05:58 PM

Albums like revolver and sgt peppers were pretty innovative albums. I dont see how those are pop albums. I disagree. They werent just going along with the pop music at the time, they were setting the bar for popular music. And on albums like the ones I just mentioned, they were doing somethig new, they were doing their own thing. Give me some examples of people who used those types of instruments in rock n roll before the beatles.

**Janszoon** · 10-26-2011, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Albums like revolver and sgt peppers were pretty innovative albums. I dont see how those are pop albums. I disagree. They werent just going along with the pop music at the time, they were setting the bar for popular music.

They were pop albums because they had all the attributes of pop. Here's wikipedia's description of pop music, I'd say it's a pretty good fit for the music made by the Beatles:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Pop music (a term that originally derives from an abbreviation of "popular") is usually understood to be commercially recorded music, often oriented toward a youth market, usually consisting of relatively short, simple songs utilizing technological innovations to produce new variations on existing themes. Pop music has absorbed influences from most other forms of popular music, but as a genre is particularly associated with the rock and roll and later rock style.

---------

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

And on albums like the ones I just mentioned, they were doing somethig new, they were doing their own thing. Give me some examples of people who used those types of instruments in rock n roll before the beatles.

Off the top of my head: Buddy Holly. That was in the 50s.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, Phil Spector.

10-26-2011, 05:58 PM	#369 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	Albums like revolver and sgt peppers were pretty innovative albums. I dont see how those are pop albums. I disagree. They werent just going along with the pop music at the time, they were setting the bar for popular music. And on albums like the ones I just mentioned, they were doing somethig new, they were doing their own thing. Give me some examples of people who used those types of instruments in rock n roll before the beatles.