Most overrated bands ever?

[baphomet4all]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

I brought up the vocal harmonies thing merely as another example of The Beatles not pioneering, but rather drawing inspiration from a great idea that was pioneered elsewhere (i.e. by the Beach Boys).

.

the beach boys formed in '61 and were a blatant rip off of Jan and Dean who's first album was in '58!!!!!!

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by baphomet4all

the beach boys formed in '61 and were a blatant rip off of Jan and Dean who's first album was in '58!!!!!!

J&D's first album was in 1960, and they sounded COMPLETELY different on it. It was r&b/doowop/vocal music. Before that album, they had about 5 minor songs. They only really got heavily into surf music in 1963. Aside from that, they were close friends with the Beach Boys. It is likely that J&D were more inspired by the Beach Boys than vice versa. Wilson even wrote songs for them. Do yer homework first.

[baphomet4all]

wow format worth listening to? thats pretty harsh against jan and dean isnt it? personally i think jan and dean were way kooler than the beach boys... not as produced but still way kooler

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by baphomet4all

wow format worth listening to? thats pretty harsh against jan and dean isnt it? personally i think jan and dean were way kooler than the beach boys... not as produced but still way kooler

But their surf music probs wouldn't even have existed if it wasn't for the Beach boys!

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

Why an ignorance? An ignorance of what? Demonstrate where the ignorance is, don't just claim that there is one. That is bad discussion. There are but a few simple points here:

1: Wilson was influenced by the unity and flow of Rubber Soul (not the Sound). Wilson was led to make Pet Sounds.

Nope, he was also influenced by concepts of that album, both lyrically and use of unconventional instrumentation on songs like Norwegian Wood.

Read what I said first. I said that the Beach Boys basically started the fire of merging the multi-part harmonies of earlier vocal groups like The Four Freshmen with the Rock'N'Roll rhythms of the late 50s, like Chuck Berry. The Beatles and other Merseybeat bands were influenced by the complex harmonies+rock'n'roll of the Beach Boys.

So now every band with multiple harmonies is copying The Beach Boys?

Its like you think a band should own the rights to a basic music technique.

Anywho, about your prog question, there are many albums I think are fundamental to progs development. Here are some of them.

Freak Out - Mothers of Invention - 1966
Days of Future Past - The Moody Blues - 1967
Procol Harum - Procol Harum - 1967
Vanilla Fudge - Vanilla Fudge - 1967
Piper at the Gates of Dawn - Pink Floyd - 1967
Surrealistic Pillow - Jefferson Airplane - 1967
The Doors - The Doors - 1967
Crazy World of Arthur Brown - Arthur Brown - 1968
Saucerful of Secrets - Pink Floyd - 1968
Tommy - The Who - 1969

I'm not saying The Beatles singlehandedly created progressive rock, they were among various other influences and yes as I pointed out there were other bands who were making progressive music in 1967, but The Beatles were not imitating these bands by any means or even influenced by them. And they influence on prog is much broader than these other artists.

Sgt Pepper and MMT are albums I consider to be vital to the birth of the genre.

To call Sgt Pepper and MTT psychedelic immitations is foolish, they are hardly even psychedelic at all.

Sgt Peppers marked a big change for The Beatles, where their songs used to focus mostly on relationships lyrically, on Sgt Peppers marked the point where their lyrics focused more on stream of conciousness, a big theme in prog. Nearly every song on SP and MTT featured unique use of instruments, innovative production techniues and odd structures. Regardless of other people who influenced prog, The Beatles still deserve credit for being a big part of it, so in that sense they were certainly innovators.

I also think you understate The Beatles innovations as individual musicians, Ringo as a drummer and Paul as a bassist.

[Laughing Boy]

Yeah I don't see how you could listen to Pet Sounds and say there was no Beatles influence at all except for the flow of the tracks. Pet Sounds took me a long time to appreciate or even like because I thought it was nothing more than a pop album the Rolling Stone had placed at number two for no reason but like the Beatles its completely unconventional pop, but the oddness is subtle and more in Brian Wilson's producing and arrangement as opposed to 5 minute plus sitar songs. Which isn't a knock at George Harrison or anything.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Nope, he was also influenced by concepts of that album, both lyrically and use of unconventional instrumentation on songs like Norwegian Wood.

I find that unlikely, seeming as I've seen nothing to that effect in any Wilson interview on the topic, and the point that use of Indian instrumentation in folk rock had been done elsewhere (hence why the Beatles predictably thought to do it in the first place!).

You may be correct that Wilson was also influenced not just by the apparent flow and unity of the tracks but by the use of sitar on that one song - though you ought to give a source if you make the claim, to give it some credence.

With regard to the rest of what you wrote, I think it suffices in showing that you don't really claim that prog wouldn't have existed without the Beatles. Clearly prog was going to happen and you know it, bro, Beatles or no Beatles. And with regard to the more diverse lyricism including stream-of-consciousness, again Lennon and McCartney were drawn towards that by other artists of the time, including of course Bob Dylan (who was a direct influence upon I Am The Walrus).

By the way, boo boo, what are you actually referring to by Magical Mystery Tour? The MMJ double EP had six songs on it - Magical Mysery Tour (half-arsed attempt at re-creating the opener to Sgt Pepper), Fool On The Hill (a truly good song with great lyrics), the relatively uninteresting instrumental Flying, Harrison's derivative Blue Jay Way, I Am The Walrus, and a standard McCartney 50s musical hall piece, Your Mother Should Know. The only particularly great offerings on it are Walrus and FotH. And the latter, while a great song in its own right, was unlikely to have much influence on the development of prog.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by Laughing Boy

Yeah I don't see how you could listen to Pet Sounds and say there was no Beatles influence at all except for the flow of the tracks.

Well the two albums are in completely different musical styles. Rubber Soul is the Beatles' take on the folk rock of the time as pioneered by The Byrds and so forth. Pet Sounds is Wilson's foray into Baroque Pop and orchestral music. The albums are entirely dissimilar.

Pet Sounds took me a long time to appreciate or even like because I thought it was nothing more than a pop album the Rolling Stone had placed at number two for no reason but like the Beatles its completely unconventional pop, but the oddness is subtle and more in Brian Wilson's producing and arrangement as opposed to 5 minute plus sitar songs. Which isn't a knock at George Harrison or anything.

I agree that the subtle greatness of the album is in Wilson's production and arrangement. This album is way better than many people today give it credit for. That guy running the Pitchfork site blatantly disrespected the album and gave it like 7.4 or something. The idiots in this world...

[Laughing Boy]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

Well the two albums are in completely different musical styles. Rubber Soul is the Beatles' take on the folk rock of the time as pioneered by The Byrds and so forth. Pet Sounds is Wilson's foray into Baroque Pop and orchestral music. The albums are entirely dissimilar.

I didn't say they were stylistically similar, just idealistically similar.

I agree that the subtle greatness of the album is in Wilson's production and arrangement. This album is way better than many people today give it credit for. That guy running the Pitchfork site blatantly disrespected the album and gave it like 7.4 or something. The idiots in this world...

Yeah according to them it "just wasn't made for these times" then they turn around and hype artists like M. Ward who do nothing but rip off 60s folk artists and make the most unoriginal music ever. The irony eh?

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by Laughing Boy

I didn't say they were stylistically similar, just idealistically similar.

Why idealistically?