Exhibit "A":-



Exhibit "B":-


i certainly know whose lyrics I prefer

Thing
 

Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands>Every Beatles song combined

too much mumbling inaudible lyrics

music meanders

UInderstand
 

I heard fine half-asleep with $5 headphones the first time I heard it.

if you want to put Dylan on a pedestal, i'd go for:-

I Want You > any Beatles song

that one I can abide with, not the tuneless Sad-Eyed Lady

lyrical
 

This is about lyrics.

Sad-Eyed Lady's lyrics, like most of Blonde on Blonde are pretty much gibberish-like profound-sounding nonsense that is open to all kinds of interpretations

better examples of Dylan's lyricism can be found on Blood on the Tracks

Giberrish
 

No song has ever made me visualize the way Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands did. Throughout the whole album I was half-asleep. Once the song started it felt as if I was dreaming but at the same time conscious (like a lucid dream). The amount of emotion that song can cause someone to experience far surpasses any song I ever heard. There is not one song the Beatles have that is anything like that.

you might get more out of it if you smoke some weed as well while listening to it

Weed
 

I was half-asleep and dreaming. I doubt weed would make much of difference unless I was awake.

Lets put this into the proper perspective, probably the largest group of people that mostly followed these British invasion groups, were largely the same people that followed them here in the UK and that was screaming teenage girls and as for how you think that could possibly be detrimental to a culture is actually beyond me!

Do you really believe Frank Zappa could`ve been marketed to same level as the British invasion bands? I doubt that you do deep down especially if you`re familiar with Zappa. Just taking a few Zappa titles from the Absolutely Free album: The Duke of Prunes, The Duke Regains His Chops, Invocation and Ritual Dance of the Young Pumpkin and Son of Suzy Creamcheese I can really see those song titles going down a treat with those looking to market him:laughing: and anybody into Zappa will know that the lyrics in those songs are equally whacked out.

You go on about these bands giving out a false sense of security, what are you on? This is music we`re talking about here and the lyrics are largely irrelevant, they`re hardly offensive lyrics. You need to get off your high horse about British invasion band lyrics being crap, lyrics as said before are subjective to the listener and as song writers Lennon, McCartney, Davies, Dylan and Zappa are pretty much legendary for their era and as for who wrote the best lyrics, its an individual choice and nothing more.

:wave:

thread/

Elaboration doesn`t seem to be your strong point either.

I've never read such a large amount of bullshit in one thread.

Firstly, Ska is right, the Invasion bands were and still are hyped to high heaven. But they had such a profound impact on the youth culture both in the UK and USA, whilst internationalising rock'n'roll. They gave the rock format mass appeal; a palatable identity, and consequently had a huge influence on scores upon scores of musicians worldwide. It was suddenly being fed through mainstream media outlets throughout Europe and elsewhere. Fucking hell, various Krautrock musicians have even stated that the Beatles performances in Hamburg were as influential to them as the imported Beefheart, Zappa and Velvet Underground records.

As for the bleating over Dylan and Zappa's enforced obscurity, laughable. Dylan is one of the most renowned musicians of all time, do you live under a rock? Zappa's music was acutely counter-cultural, he was never going to achieve mainstream success - nor did he want to. The invasion bands, on the other hand, played pop music - so what do you expect?? It was a shame that the likes of Fats Domino became marginalised as a result of the influx, but R&B just wasn't the in-flavour I guess, mainstream music history is defined by phases.

People also seem to forget that a lot of the Invasion bands went on to achieve great, creative quality in their music. The Beatles, Who and Stones are so revered because of the ability their music had in appealing to such widespread demographics. And they didn't simply just sit on their thumbs either, these bands actively sought to push boundaries and challenge convention, to varying degrees of success granted, as their careers progressed.

And The Hollies aren't as mentioned as The Beatles mainly due to the fact that they weren't as good. ;)

Explain
 

This wasn't a good thing.

The point is that Bob Dylan and Frank Zappa should have been as famous as the Beatles. This was already stated.

The Beatles made popular music whilst Dylan and Zappa chose not to, that was their choice and nothing to do with a British invasion, popular music existed in the USA long before the British invasion.

Do you really think that Dylan and especially Zappa would`ve conformed to making popular music?

I understand what you are saying.

The British invasion ruined music? Haha thats absurd. At what point do ya'll stop being so sure of your own opinion? People liked the British bands, so what? Agree to disagree. It's true that people like Dylan were far better lyricists than the Beatles. But that's not to say they didnt have some good lyrics, I think the lyrics to Tomorrow Never Knows are great.

Just because a band is more experimental than another doesn't make them better. Some bands like to have a more traditional sound, there's nothing wrong with that. Traditions do not appear out of thin air, they reflect certain natural tendencies in people's minds, and totally discarding traditional forms in favor of something previously unheard before is like somebody discarding the traditional way of walking down the street in favor of, say, crawling on all fours - just because this makes him different from the regular "sheep herd".

hmm...
 

:cool:

Well the British invasion certainly didn't do any any favors for the burgeoning Lenape and Cherokee music scenes, that's for sure.

Oh... you mean that other British invasion. ;)

I really don't understand this Dylan and Zappa combination. If anything, they're clear opposites.

Dylan wrote accessible melodies that were very simple, and primitive. He leaned them to often very intelligent lyrics.

Zappa wrote melodies that were very complicated, and intelligent. He then slapped on what literally sounded like the stupidest lyrics he could. Or shock value songs with lyrics about men dipping their 13 year old daughters in chocolate syrup, and ****ing them on the whitehouse lawn. Obviously he was INTENTIONALLY avoiding mainstream appeal.

Zappa could never be mainstream because his entire point was to PROTEST the mainstream. He hated the way that his music was treated. He hated the hippy trend, and made fun of the hippies. He loved dissonance, complexity, and inaccessibility. He hated lyrical profoundness, and purposely assassinated any popularity to himself for 'lyrics people'.

Not only that, but he blatantly makes fun of Bob Dylan, and his approach:



My I also mention that Zappa was proudly self managed. Nobody could be blamed for his popularity, or lack of popularity but him. He did a PHENOMENAL job of it. Ask 20 random 30 somethings if they know who Zappa is, and I doubt you'll find many that don't know who he was.

Now, listen to the fullest extensions of dissonances he reaches. If anything, if you listen to 'Son of Monster Magnet' you realize Zappa is a lot more popular than he ever intended himself to be.

Then, further, Who the **** thinks Dylan is an obscure figure? ****ING look at ANY major publication's "best 100 albums of all time". Not only will you probably find Zappa on there MULTIPLE times. But, Dylan probably appears at least 5-6 times, and most likely in the top 5-10 once. You have Martin Scorsesee doing ****ing biopics on him. He's by far one of the most popular, and well known figures of all time.

Please, if you are going to mention bands that get the shaft don't mention the two of the most popular bands/acts of all time that constantly make their way onto top 100 lists.

This is a good point. I'm not saying the movement wasn't important, mind you. It's just, Krauts in particular are obviously the children of Karlheinz Stockhausen, really. Their usage of electronics is the only big thing to separate them from straight psychedelic rock. Apart from maybe, Faust. My point more stands, if you do a random survey of say 50 people, very few will probably even known who Stockhausen is(albeit, even in his own right he's a bit over-accredited).

Plus, I think the Beatles do deserve a ****load more credit than they do for having the balls to integrate what little avant-garde, and world music they did into their music. British invasion apart from the Beatles set the foundation also to the psychedelic which is also helpful.

The reason why I find a lot of Beatles bashing as **** is because they didn't have to do that, they could have written "girl take my hand, to the land, of love, my dove" type ballads for the rest of their career, and done fine.

As for the rest of he invasion bands. I don't know what technically classifies. The Who, as mentioned in another thread, did worlds for popularizing feedback, and destructiveness into their live shows. There were some positive effects. I just don't like the fact it overshadows a lot of equally important things in music history. Even if their influence is more obscure, and subtle.

Dylan could **** better lyrics than Zappa could conceive. He hated lyrical profoundness? I guess he hates poetry too. "Zappa is such a genius because he tried so hard to be different".

Zappa disliked the fact that lyrics took presence over musical content. Dylan may be able to **** lyrics better than Zappa, but I highly doubt he's capable of arranging, writing, and performing composition's of Zappa's complexity. He wasn't 'trying to hard to be different' he was 'trying to expose people to elements of music that are different, and they're normally deprived of with most commercial acts'.

Zappa could **** music better than Dylan could ever conceive:

Ya, you're right, he was way more technical than Dylan. Zappa was a talented SOB. ^That's a great song. However, people underestimate Dylans ability as a musician. I'm sure you will disagree and say he was terrible, haha, but thats fine.

Yeah
 

The point was that they didn't receive the recognition they deserved.

Zappa mappa
 

:bowdown:

fixed

You keep brining up this same point! Recognition exactly from who? The public, the media, music critics, their fellow artists etc?

^^I still think he/she's better off championing the Hollies

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

I said many posts ago that they didn't receive the recognition they deserved from the general public.

All you're saying is "I personally like Bob Dylan and Frank Zappa better than the Beatles, so I'm butthurt that they're not as famous". Which is frustrating because there's obviously going to be people less famous than the most famous band of all time.

Zappa and Dylan get plenty of recognition, it has nothing to do with the British invasion, get off it.

eet
 

I listen to the Beatles far more than I do Bob Dylan or Frank Zappa. Dylan and Zappa are nowhere near my favorite artists.

We`ve been over this several times now......but its just not sinking in is it!!! Which in all honesty do you actually think the general public are going to dig more from the following three categories. 1) The Beatles and the Beach Boys or 2) Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart or 3) Bob Dylan and Country Joe Mcdonald and the Fish? I`ve purposely categorized these bands like so as they fit together a lot better, because as Sun Ra said Zappa and Dylan do not go together.

For me its plainly obvious that option (1) Features two bands that played popular music that people could easily relate to and enjoy. Option (2) Highly experimental artists and an acquired taste only. Option (3) Protest artists who most definitely appealed to a certain sector (hippy anti-war and music festival/Woodstock types) and were both extremely relevant in the 1960s.

None of this has anything to do with the British invasion bands at all, if the British invasion bands hadn`t come to the US, popular music would`ve still existed anyway, I mean the Beach Boys and Creedence Clearwater Revival sold stack loads of albums. Because as sure as the sun rises every day, the general public wouldn`t have dug Zappa etc as he was just too way out of it for them.

Just accept the fact, that Dylan and Zappa didn`t reach the same level of music sales as the Beatles, because they chose not to and stayed faithful to the music they believed in.

I doubt this will sink in and I guess you`ll come back with some other angle to prop up your argument.

no
 

Look at the music people listen to nowadays and compare it to the music they listened to in the 60s. They sound nothing alike (in sound or lyrics). People listen to what is marketed. I'll use a better example. If the Velvet Underground was as marketed as the Beatles their debut album would have been considered the greatest album of all time. Marketing influences the way people think about music and what music they listen to.

Zappa wrote lyrics that were considered weird. So does Eminem. In fact Eminem writes lyrics harder on the ears than Zappa. Eminem is marketed much better than Zappa though.

Marketing=success. This generation proves it.

Your point loses all weight in the light of the fact that Zappa pretty much marketed himself.

What I'm saying is pretty obvious. Whoever is marketed the best will sell the most. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that.

I can agree with it. But aren't some more marketable than others?

hey jude
 

Look at some of the popular artists today. Their music is almost unbearable. The average person will admit that most music nowadays does not satisfy them. Yet that same unbearable music is popular. Why? Marketing.

If you compare music from today and music from the 60s they sound nothing alike yet they both have/had popular artists. Marketing is the cause of this.

No offense, but you two have a knack for straying miles away from the topic.

eek
 

Beatles=marketing genius=popular=overrated