Pixies

million dollar basher · 10-20-2009, 02:16 PM

[QUOTE=loveissucide;755093]Actually that's bollocks.REM's influence in the 1980's was defining how what became known as "college rock" would sound by reinventing classic pop songcraft for the post-punk era and by establishing a touring circuit which would form the backbone of the indie scene.
Firstly,I fail to see how Oasis' music fits into "alternative rock" at all.Lyrically and sonically it has nothing in common whatsoever with the post-punk from which alternative rock stems, and if anything they're a traditionalist rock band.The template for contemporary pop balladeers was set by Jeff Buckley on Grace and Radiohead on The Bends...QUOTE]

Point taken. But you don't think that "The Bends" was more in the same vein of what you called "Traditionalist"? Really, it is a far cry from "OK Computer" and "Kid A". The song structure on that album is very Oasis-esque.

loveissucide · 10-20-2009, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Point taken. But you don't think that "The Bends" was more in the same vein of what you called "Traditionalist"? Really, it is a far cry from "OK Computer" and "Kid A". The song structure on that album is very Oasis-esque.

As in using a traditionalist song structure that's been in use since The Beatles and Dylan at the very earliest?The Bends' melodic songwriting has as much in common with Beatles as anything else.

million dollar basher · 10-20-2009, 02:33 PM

Really? I disagree with that on so many levels. If anything, Oasis followed in the same tradition as the Beatles in my opinion, more so than Radiohead anyway. I'm not a huge Oasis fan. If anything, I've been a vehement Radiohead addict for years. But I fail to see the similarity. And Dylan was anything but Traditionalist. If anything, he ignored convention on several ocassions. In my opinion, he's become more traditional with age.

loveissucide · 10-20-2009, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by million dollar basher

Really? I disagree with that on so many levels. If anything, Oasis followed in the same tradition as the Beatles in my opinion, more so than Radiohead anyway. I'm not a huge Oasis fan. If anything, I've been a vehement Radiohead addict for years. But I fail to see the similarity. And Dylan was anything but Traditionalist. If anything, he ignored convention on several ocassions. In my opinion, he's become more traditional with age.

Oasis blatantly plagarised The Beatles throughout and regurgitated this influence(and that of The Stone Roses,The Kinks,The Sex Pistols,The Smiths and Sugar),whereas Radiohead are far superior heirs to the Beatles' tradition of innovation and experimentation by constantly reiinventing their sound and image with each new release,much as the Beatles went from "I Want To Hold Your Hand" to "Tomorrow Never Knows" to "A Day In The Life" to " I Am The Walrus" to "Happiness Is A Warm Gun", much as Radiohead went from the straightforward alt-rock of "Creep" to the emotive and influential "The Bends", the groundbreaking "OK Computer" to the full on experimentalism of Kid A/Amnesiac.Radiohead make infinitely better heirs to the Beatles' legacy of experimentalism and forward thinking than Oasis' simplistic regurgiatation of pre-existing songs.

million dollar basher · 10-20-2009, 05:44 PM

I'm not disputing their superiority. It almost doesn't need saying. But to compare radiohead to the beatles simply because they exhibit change with each album is a bit inappropriate and inaccurate. Look at Wilcos transformation from "A.M." to now. Each album marks a huge changeup in style and direction, but that doesnt mean they even remotely resemble the beatles either sonically or stylistically. Musical growth did not start with the beatles. As far as style and sound go, Oasis was definitely influenced by the beatles. I wouldn't call an influence a blatant rip off. Elliott smith (who is also one of my favorites) would be easier to accuse of ripping off the beatles.

loveissucide · 10-21-2009, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by million dollar basher

I'm not disputing their superiority. It almost doesn't need saying. But to compare radiohead to the beatles simply because they exhibit change with each album is a bit inappropriate and inaccurate. Look at Wilcos transformation from "A.M." to now. Each album marks a huge changeup in style and direction, but that doesnt mean they even remotely resemble the beatles either sonically or stylistically. Musical growth did not start with the beatles. As far as style and sound go, Oasis was definitely influenced by the beatles. I wouldn't call an influence a blatant rip off. Elliott smith (who is also one of my favorites) would be easier to accuse of ripping off the beatles.

Sonic influence has nothing to do with it,it's the willingness to reinvent themselves and explore new territory that makes Wilco and Radiohead such outstanding heirs to the good aspects of the Beatles,not the simplistic sonic similiarities Elliot Smith and Oasis see as channeling The Beatles.

million dollar basher · 10-21-2009, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loveissucide

Sonic influence has nothing to do with it,it's the willingness to reinvent themselves and explore new territory that makes Wilco and Radiohead such outstanding heirs to the good aspects of the Beatles,not the simplistic sonic similiarities Elliot Smith and Oasis see as channeling The Beatles.

Sonic influence has an immense role in this discussion. Remember, we were talking about the Pixies' influence on the decade of music that followed (and you brought up the soft, loud, soft, loud set of dynamics--that sounds like an aspect of their sonic influence). I will not dispute that Radiohead, Wilco, and groups who are in a constant state of flux are far more fluent in artistic exploration--it goes without saying. But to say that this constant change in direction warrants a comparison to the Beatles, other than their inclination toward reinvention (and I understand that THIS is what you're saying) still misses the boat.

I mean, Hank Williams (I) strove to reinvent himself and released a few albums under the name Luke the Drifter. Dylan certainly carried on in this tradition with all the different persona's he created (and certainly with Jack Frost), but Dylan's music (the sonic components that make it up--accompaniment, vocal melodies, etc.) is really a far cry from Williams', although Dylan may have carried some of Williams' ideas to new, exciting places. And I would say the same thing for Radiohead. They took ideas that the Beatles brought to the table, and they expanded on them, whereas groups like Oasis just kind of spit out more of the same (and I definitely agree with you on that aspect now that I've had a chance to really think about it). But when I listen to Elliott Smith, sometimes I think "Damn, that was very Lennon," or "Damn, that was very McCartney", so on and so forth. You can't deny the importance of style when it comes to sonic influence....

I might say, in passing, that the difference between "A.M." and "Being There" is like the difference between "Aftermath" and "Exile on Main Street", but that doesn't mean that Wilco is carrying on with any real, startling similarity to the Rolling Stones, does it? Maybe in the manner in which they progress musically, but not in the music itself....

million dollar basher · 10-21-2009, 02:30 PM

By the way, Loveissuicide, I want to thank you for engaging in an actual discussion. I get tired of the sycophantic garbage in some of these forums ("I love Muse cuz they're awesome, etc). and I am certainly tired of some of the ad hominem attacks that people shoot off when their point is being criticized ("You're wrong, the Who is the greatest rock 'n' roll group of all time, you dumb ***got", etc). So, thank you for the discussion.

Engine · 10-21-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by million dollar basher

By the way, Loveissuicide, I want to thank you for engaging in an actual discussion. I get tired of the sycophantic garbage in some of these forums ("I love Muse cuz they're awesome, etc). and I am certainly tired of some of the ad hominem attacks that people shoot off when their point is being criticized ("You're wrong, the Who is the greatest rock 'n' roll group of all time, you dumb ***got", etc). So, thank you for the discussion.

Good point - but it would be nice if I could read some o' that good discussion about the Pixies here on the Pixies thread.

debaserr · 10-21-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engine

Good point - but it would be nice if I could read some o' that good discussion about the Pixies here on the Pixies thread.

.

10-20-2009, 02:16 PM	#361 (permalink)
million dollar basher Music Addict Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: trapped in a basement Posts: 184	[QUOTE=loveissucide;755093]Actually that's bollocks.REM's influence in the 1980's was defining how what became known as "college rock" would sound by reinventing classic pop songcraft for the post-punk era and by establishing a touring circuit which would form the backbone of the indie scene. Firstly,I fail to see how Oasis' music fits into "alternative rock" at all.Lyrically and sonically it has nothing in common whatsoever with the post-punk from which alternative rock stems, and if anything they're a traditionalist rock band.The template for contemporary pop balladeers was set by Jeff Buckley on Grace and Radiohead on The Bends...QUOTE] Point taken. But you don't think that "The Bends" was more in the same vein of what you called "Traditionalist"? Really, it is a far cry from "OK Computer" and "Kid A". The song structure on that album is very Oasis-esque.

10-20-2009, 02:33 PM	#363 (permalink)
million dollar basher Music Addict Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: trapped in a basement Posts: 184	Really? I disagree with that on so many levels. If anything, Oasis followed in the same tradition as the Beatles in my opinion, more so than Radiohead anyway. I'm not a huge Oasis fan. If anything, I've been a vehement Radiohead addict for years. But I fail to see the similarity. And Dylan was anything but Traditionalist. If anything, he ignored convention on several ocassions. In my opinion, he's become more traditional with age.

10-20-2009, 05:44 PM	#365 (permalink)
million dollar basher Music Addict Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: trapped in a basement Posts: 184	I'm not disputing their superiority. It almost doesn't need saying. But to compare radiohead to the beatles simply because they exhibit change with each album is a bit inappropriate and inaccurate. Look at Wilcos transformation from "A.M." to now. Each album marks a huge changeup in style and direction, but that doesnt mean they even remotely resemble the beatles either sonically or stylistically. Musical growth did not start with the beatles. As far as style and sound go, Oasis was definitely influenced by the beatles. I wouldn't call an influence a blatant rip off. Elliott smith (who is also one of my favorites) would be easier to accuse of ripping off the beatles.

10-21-2009, 02:30 PM	#368 (permalink)
million dollar basher Music Addict Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: trapped in a basement Posts: 184	By the way, Loveissuicide, I want to thank you for engaging in an actual discussion. I get tired of the sycophantic garbage in some of these forums ("I love Muse cuz they're awesome, etc). and I am certainly tired of some of the ad hominem attacks that people shoot off when their point is being criticized ("You're wrong, the Who is the greatest rock 'n' roll group of all time, you dumb ***got", etc). So, thank you for the discussion.