Most Innovative Artist of the 20th Century

YorkeDaddy · 01-21-2014, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Those are all genres of music. If you haven't even heard of them, why would you deliberately choose to never even give them a chance?

Because I know what I like, and those genres are not it.

Quote:

Considering that jazz and classical encompass a very large percentage of "the notable music of that time" I think maybe you like more from back then than you think you do.

whenever i go through something like this, i don't find any enjoyment whatsoever out of any of the music. the singing, though, is generally quite nice, but the written music itself is pretty bland.

Quote:

No, not as much initially. Initially they were really only imitating people like Chuck Berry. Later in their career is when they starting mining a variety of pre-rock music.

And they also used recording and songwriting techniques that no one had ever thought of. They basically created prog, metal with Helter Skelter, psychedelic with basically the entire second half of their career... Anything even remotely avant-garde in rock music did not exist until they came along.

**Janszoon** · 01-21-2014, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YorkeDaddy

Because I know what I like, and those genres are not it.

How do you know if you've never listened to them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by YorkeDaddy

whenever i go through something like this, i don't find any enjoyment whatsoever out of any of the music. the singing, though, is generally quite nice, but the written music itself is pretty bland.

Dismissing some mighty significant people there, but regardless I don't see you how your apparent dislike of American pop from the 50s applies to entirety of music created in the world from 1900 to 1965.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YorkeDaddy

And they also used recording and songwriting techniques that no one had ever thought of. They basically created prog, metal with Helter Skelter, psychedelic with basically the entire second half of their career... Anything even remotely avant-garde in rock music did not exist until they came along.

I'm not actually arguing against the Beatles here (though I think you're incorrect on a lot of the points you're making), I'm just saying, if pre-1965 music was good enough for the "most innovative band of the 20th century" why isn't it good enough for you?

~~Soulflower~~ · 01-21-2014, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dca

I don't know why but whenever I see someone who's clearly into their music say they don't like the Beatles, I don't actually believe them and I think they're saying it for effect, or vaguely trolling. They're the only band that this applies to, I can just about get my head around someone not liking any other given artist in existence, but somehow not the Beatles.

or Lawnmower Deth.

They are legends and all but they are okay to me.

I think their hype puts people off sometimes because the Beatles fans make it seem like they are the end all be all of music and they are not.

Lisnaholic · 01-21-2014, 09:46 AM

Frownland has posed a great question here, because it sounds like it should be easy to answer, but it requires an extensive knowledge of music to come up with any serious contenders.

Musical history has been built up by thousands of small innovations, and if you are up too close, a small innovation can seem disproportionate. For instance, Mike Ratledge was the first person to connect a guitar "fuzz-box" to an organ, and he discovered a sound that´d never been heard before. However wonderful it seemed at the time, in terms of musical history, it was just a minor blip. I think that´s why Yorkedaddy has fallen so flat on his face with his claims for the Beatles: for reasons of his own he´s wilfully dismissing the big picture.

Mike Ratledge´s eurika! moment happened in about 1965 I suspect, and to be thorough, every serious claim to innovation really should carry a date stamp too. That´s why I´m a bit lost with Klaus Nomi; that clip might´ve been innovative, but it all depends on when he did it.

From my little patch of musical knowledge, these people seem innovative to me.(Sorry too lazy to put dates!!):-
Terry Riley´s minimalism and Brian Eno´s ambient music were both pioneers in inviting us to re-examine the minutae of sounds that constitute music.
Bob Dylan is generally credited with inventing folk-rock, and did more than most in promoting the significance of lyrics in pop/rock.
And among the already mentioned, I particularly agree with John Cage, Kraftwerk, The Beatles, Chuck Berry .

Finally I´d like to endorse what Christian Benteke says about Black Sabbath: influential, definitely; innovative, perhaps not so much. Others who belong in that category are Queen and Michael Jackson imo.

YorkeDaddy · 01-21-2014, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

How do you know if you've never listened to them?

I guess I'm judging a book by it's cover, but I've just never enjoyed music that seems as...foreign I guess I'd say as that. Am I shallow? Probably, but when it comes to music I couldn't give two ****s.

Quote:

I'm not actually arguing against the Beatles here (though I think you're incorrect on a lot of the points you're making), I'm just saying, if pre-1965 music was good enough for the "most innovative band of the 20th century" why isn't it good enough for you?

It clearly wasn't good enough for the Beatles, considering at about the halfway point of their career they started to dramatically change their direction. Please Please Me sounds a lot like early 60's pop. Nothing in the world from pre 1965 sounds very much like some of the Beatles' more innovative songs.

djchameleon · 01-21-2014, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YorkeDaddy

I guess I'm judging a book by it's cover, but I've just never enjoyed music that seems as...foreign I guess I'd say as that. Am I shallow? Probably, but when it comes to music I couldn't give two ****s.

Just because you have never enjoyed that music doesn't mean that it's influence should be just tossed aside because it didn't please your ears.

YorkeDaddy · 01-21-2014, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

I think that´s why Yorkedaddy has fallen so flat on his face with his claims for the Beatles: for reasons of his own he´s wilfully dismissing the big picture.

The only people falling flat on their face here are the people that are trying too hard to come up with ridiculous answers to a question to make them sound smart when there's only one real objective answer to the question.

djchameleon · 01-21-2014, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YorkeDaddy

The only people falling flat on their face here are the people that are trying too hard to come up with ridiculous answers to a question to make them sound smart when there's only one real objective answer to the question.

**Janszoon** · 01-21-2014, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YorkeDaddy

I guess I'm judging a book by it's cover, but I've just never enjoyed music that seems as...foreign I guess I'd say as that. Am I shallow? Probably, but when it comes to music I couldn't give two ****s.

Well okay then. I guess just can't relate to this complete lack of curiosity about music. When I stumble across some style of music I've never heard of before the first thing I want to do is give some of it a listen to find out what it sounds like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YorkeDaddy

It clearly wasn't good enough for the Beatles, considering at about the halfway point of their career they started to dramatically change their direction. Please Please Me sounds a lot like early 60's pop. Nothing in the world from pre 1965 sounds very much like some of the Beatles' more innovative songs.

Er... did you not even read my previous comment? I'm talking about how, during the change in direction that you're talking about, they began mining further back, past early rock, into the heart of the 1900-1965 era you dislike so much.

~~Soulflower~~ · 01-21-2014, 10:09 AM

MJ innovated as well as enhanced the music video medium. He made it into an art form by incorporating a story plot and choreography.

NONE of that was being done before his time.

The Beatles did not do that

Elvis did not do that

MJ definitely deserves to be called innovative

So does Queen more specifically Freddie Mercury... Bohemian Rhapsody, Mercury wrote and composed the whole thing by himself and the different meters and layers that was done in the song was something that had not been done before in a pop song.

I actually think some of the other ones like The Beatles, Elvis are actually a tad overhyped in that department but thats me...

01-21-2014, 09:46 AM	#34 (permalink)
Lisnaholic ...here to hear... Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: He lives on Love Street Posts: 4,444	Frownland has posed a great question here, because it sounds like it should be easy to answer, but it requires an extensive knowledge of music to come up with any serious contenders. Musical history has been built up by thousands of small innovations, and if you are up too close, a small innovation can seem disproportionate. For instance, Mike Ratledge was the first person to connect a guitar "fuzz-box" to an organ, and he discovered a sound that´d never been heard before. However wonderful it seemed at the time, in terms of musical history, it was just a minor blip. I think that´s why Yorkedaddy has fallen so flat on his face with his claims for the Beatles: for reasons of his own he´s wilfully dismissing the big picture. Mike Ratledge´s eurika! moment happened in about 1965 I suspect, and to be thorough, every serious claim to innovation really should carry a date stamp too. That´s why I´m a bit lost with Klaus Nomi; that clip might´ve been innovative, but it all depends on when he did it. From my little patch of musical knowledge, these people seem innovative to me.(Sorry too lazy to put dates!!):- Terry Riley´s minimalism and Brian Eno´s ambient music were both pioneers in inviting us to re-examine the minutae of sounds that constitute music. Bob Dylan is generally credited with inventing folk-rock, and did more than most in promoting the significance of lyrics in pop/rock. And among the already mentioned, I particularly agree with John Cage, Kraftwerk, The Beatles, Chuck Berry . Finally I´d like to endorse what Christian Benteke says about Black Sabbath: influential, definitely; innovative, perhaps not so much. Others who belong in that category are Queen and Michael Jackson imo. __________________ "Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953

01-21-2014, 10:09 AM	#40 (permalink)
~~Soulflower~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,304	MJ innovated as well as enhanced the music video medium. He made it into an art form by incorporating a story plot and choreography. NONE of that was being done before his time. The Beatles did not do that Elvis did not do that MJ definitely deserves to be called innovative So does Queen more specifically Freddie Mercury... Bohemian Rhapsody, Mercury wrote and composed the whole thing by himself and the different meters and layers that was done in the song was something that had not been done before in a pop song. I actually think some of the other ones like The Beatles, Elvis are actually a tad overhyped in that department but thats me... Last edited by Soulflower; 01-21-2014 at 10:14 AM.