blackwasp said:
1962 might be a good starting point, but it could be argued that The Beatles came to be even earlier. I think The Beatles achieved alot in their early days. "She Loves You" was pretty progressive, and it was released in 1963.
How was it progressive, in your opinion?
Rubber Soul and "Ticket to Ride" were released in 1965.
"Ticket to Ride" is a nice little single; I like it. Rubber Soul has a few standout tracks, but I could take it or leave it for the most part. But either way, I don't see anything especially "important" or "revolutionary" in this music.
I think that Revolver is one of the most impressive albums of all time, released in 1966.
Bah, well you know I disagree with you on this one. Aside from "Tomorrow Never Knows," which I would admit is a pretty neat slice of psychedelia, and maybe even ahead of its time, the rest of it is sometimes good (Eleanor Rigby), sometimes bad (Doctor Robert), and sometimes ugly (Yellow Submarine
). Impressive? Not from my perspective.
Normally I think it is trivial to argue over a few months, but I can't think of any great music that stretches back that early in the '60s (with the exception of Dylan, of course, but his sound was much different).
Well, this whole thing is trivial
We still have fun with it, though. Ultimately the problem that we inevitably run into is that, whatever the reason, you think the Beatles' music is great and I don't.
My favorite Beatles songs are normally from the late '60s, when I agree that there were plenty of bands making great music. IIRC, The Velvet Underground didn't hit the scene until 1967, although the songs may have been in place earlier (I think The Doors released their first album around the same time).
Yeah, 1967 is really the pivotal year; The Doors, The Velvets, Captain Beefheart, Jefferson Airplane, and a lot of others had their first albums in '67.
If I'm missing anyone else who made a difference (with the exception of The Who, The Stones, The Beach Boys, etc., who I think were impacted by and came after The Beatles) let me know. I could very well be mistaken.
Well, it depends on what we're defining rock and what we're leaving out. You could mention Woody Guthrie, or surf music a la the Trashmen and others, or girl groups. The early 60s are the time of transition; rock has just been created, and it doesn't have a specific identity yet. That's why this is so tough to talk about.
Most definitely. Although it could very well be argued that the melodies of other grunge bands were as good, if not better.
Could be. I think the main thing is that Nirvana's melodies were more generally
accessible.
Most of it is probably a difference in tastes, but in The Beatles defense, they did bring alot of new sounds to pop and rock (the sitar is the first that comes to mind).
I don't know; most of the Beatles "experiments" with guitar feedback, trumpet sections, noise collage, and Eastern music always come off to me like gimmicks, like they just throw them in there to show they can. Rarely do the experiments sound as natural for them as when they are in their milieu -- the pure pop.
Although early Beatles tunes can get old, I find it easier to dismiss it as growth. I think it is better for a band to end climactically (as The Beatles did with their later albums, and Nirvana did with "In Utero") than for a band to fizzle as The VU somewhat did with their last two albums. This isn't meant to be a stab at The VU, since I do like alot of their songs more than The Beatles best numbers, but a simple comparison.
I don't care either way, to be honest. Growing is not inherently better than fading away, to me. *shrugs*