Quote:
You can think that...but the truth is, before the Beatles, popular music was in an absolute SUCK phase; Elvis in the Army...Buddy, Richie, and JP in that plane...Jerry Lee hiding with his 13-y.o. Cousin/wife in shame...Little Richard headed back to the pulpit... By 1962, people were back to listening to records of "How Much Is that Doggie In the Window" that sounded like they were recorded over the phone. Not only did the Beatles change the way music was WRITTEN (taking it out if the hands of the record companies and instilling the ORIGINAL D.I.Y. Ethic) but the way it was recorded in the studio and listened to it at home. I can guarantee that if you listen to music that is not European classical or opera, American jazz or blues, or Eastern/Drone/Raga...that is, if a band you like puts out an album (CD or download for ignorant youth), and it has the lyrics printed inside, and/or a Producer credit, then it has roots that lead directly to the Beatles. Then again, I just saw that you are from Philadelphia (I can't think of a single decent band from the Philly area)...the same city that boos Santa Claus...I remember Michael Irvin getting booed after he was wheeled off the turf of the Vet...those moronic Philly fans even booed Donovan McNabb when he got drafted, and are now talking smack on him now that he's gone. People from Philly must have a genetic retardation inherent to the region... Maybe it's the water? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What's REALLY ridiculous is that I bother to discuss music with a person who obviously has a revisionist view of musical history. The Beatles DID that - you don't have to LIKE it...but it actually happened. They completely altered the landscape of what popular music was at their time, and forever after them. Period. You can TRY to argue that, but since it actually HAPPENED, the only ridiculousness will probably be what you post in response. |
Quote:
I would say, though, that a number of things about your post call your knowledge of music into question. The top two for me are the fact that you seem to think nothing worthwhile was happening with music in the early 60s and that you "can't think of a single decent band from the Philly area" despite the city's legendary place in the history of soul music, not to mention its currently thriving music scenes. |
Quote:
May I ask why? Have you ever seen Paul Stanley try to play a guitar? |
Quote:
anyone who live in Philly knows exactly what a dunghole that place is. ...so it wasn't news to you that the people there suck as well. Got it. Quote:
Read exactly what I post before you decide that I'm an idiot. Quote:
Name some. |
Quote:
Unfortunately, I've heard it, too. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As far as good music that's a little more recent goes: Genghis Tron The YMD Man-Man Need New Body An Albatross Clap Your Hands Say Yeah Kurt Vile Javelina Clockcleaner Chiddy Bang The Roots Dead Milkmen Ween And of course Relapse Records is located here. |
Quote:
Yeah, me and my sister both. I still have problems talking about it, I can't eat a cheese steak to this day, and still sometimes wet the bed at night. Quote:
My point stands unchallenged. Quote:
So we can indirectly thank Philly for Michael Bolton, Disco, and that homogenized cream cheese. as for everyone else on that list - meh. There are a couple decent artists on there, but no one that stands out and makes me go "Philly is a ROCKING town!" Quote:
Ween and the Roots are ok. The Dead Milkmen were funny for a second... But, again, nothing on THAT list makes me go "Philly is a ROCKING town!" Quote:
...and they haven't released a record worth listening to in 10 years, easy. |
Nickelback and Linkin Park are my most-hated bands. (and bands like them. Theory of a Deadman, Hinder, Limp Bizkit, etc.)
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:44 PM. |
© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.