Most Influential Rock Artist Ever - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Rock N Roll, Classic Rock & 60s Rock
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: The Most Influential Rock Artist
The Rolling Stones 12 3.74%
The Beatles 152 47.35%
The Who 12 3.74%
Led Zeppelin 28 8.72%
The Kinks 4 1.25%
Bob Dylan 41 12.77%
Jim Hendrix 37 11.53%
The Velvet Underground 35 10.90%
Voters: 321. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-25-2008, 06:47 AM   #171 (permalink)
____
 
FaSho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 5,279
Default

There was, but you said
Quote:
Before Elvis, there was nothing
Which is very wrong.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
What? No. No. No. No no no.
FaSho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 06:52 AM   #172 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Mystique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FaSho View Post
There was, but you said
Which is very wrong.

I was just quoting John Lennon
Mystique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 08:34 AM   #173 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen View Post
When ever was the Beatles' chord progressions stated as a reason for Dylan (or the Byrds for that matter) going electric? Folk rock was never the Beatles' idea.

And for the last time, the Beatles weren't doing anything particularly unique or groundbreaking with chord progressions in 62-65. It was just more interesting than the useless Merseybeat and other rock'n'roll/r&b acts of the same early 60s era.
The Beatles started out as a skiffle group. So yeah there is a strong folk influence. Compared to everybody in Rock Music their chord progressions were quirky. No one was using folk chord changes with a power-pop sound like the Beatles in 1963-1964. They are the reason the Byrds went electric. Sorry give credit where it belongs.

Here are some actual quotes.
Roger McGuinn

At about the same time, McGuinn discovered the electric 12-string, also the result of his admiration of the Beatles.

“We saw `A Hard Day’s Night’ and took note of the instruments. And (the Rickenbacker) was one of them. (George Harrison played it on the song `If I Fell.’) I loved the sound of it. I had been playing an acoustic Gibson 12-string that had a pickup on it, but it was too fat-sounding. It didn’t have that jingle-jangle sound. So we went shopping for one in L.A. It wasn’t the exact model George had played, but it was a Rickenbacker 12-string.”

“It was something that kind of evolved from working with Bobby Darin and then hearing the Beatles and the folk music chord changes they were using,” McGuinn says. “I was really inspired by the Beatles, so I started taking old folk songs and putting a Beatle beat on them - rocking them up.”

Bob Dylan on the Beatles

In an interview taken in 1971, Dylan recalls being impressed by their music. "We were driving through Colorado, we had the radio on, and eight of the Top 10 songs were Beatles songs...'I Wanna Hold Your Hand,' all those early ones. They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid...I knew they were pointing the direction of where music had to go."

The Rolling Stones on the Beatles

Keith liked the Beatles because he was quite interested in their chord sequences. He also liked their harmonies, which were always a slight problem to the Rolling Stones. Keith always tried to get the harmonies off the ground but they always seemed messy. What we never really got together were Keith and Brian singing backup vocals. It didn't work, because Keith was a better singer and had to keep going, oooh, ooh ooh (laughs). Brian liked all those oohs, which Keith had to put up with. Keith was always capable of much stronger vocals than ooh ooh ooh.

- Mick Jagger

Last edited by jazzrocks; 11-25-2008 at 08:53 AM.
jazzrocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 03:23 PM   #174 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzrocks View Post
The Beatles started out as a skiffle group. So yeah there is a strong folk influence. Compared to everybody in Rock Music their chord progressions were quirky. No one was using folk chord changes with a power-pop sound like the Beatles in 1963-1964. They are the reason the Byrds went electric. Sorry give credit where it belongs.

Here are some actual quotes.
Roger McGuinn

At about the same time, McGuinn discovered the electric 12-string, also the result of his admiration of the Beatles.

“We saw `A Hard Day’s Night’ and took note of the instruments. And (the Rickenbacker) was one of them. (George Harrison played it on the song `If I Fell.’) I loved the sound of it. I had been playing an acoustic Gibson 12-string that had a pickup on it, but it was too fat-sounding. It didn’t have that jingle-jangle sound. So we went shopping for one in L.A. It wasn’t the exact model George had played, but it was a Rickenbacker 12-string.”

“It was something that kind of evolved from working with Bobby Darin and then hearing the Beatles and the folk music chord changes they were using,” McGuinn says. “I was really inspired by the Beatles, so I started taking old folk songs and putting a Beatle beat on them - rocking them up.”

Bob Dylan on the Beatles

In an interview taken in 1971, Dylan recalls being impressed by their music. "We were driving through Colorado, we had the radio on, and eight of the Top 10 songs were Beatles songs...'I Wanna Hold Your Hand,' all those early ones. They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid...I knew they were pointing the direction of where music had to go."

The Rolling Stones on the Beatles

Keith liked the Beatles because he was quite interested in their chord sequences. He also liked their harmonies, which were always a slight problem to the Rolling Stones. Keith always tried to get the harmonies off the ground but they always seemed messy. What we never really got together were Keith and Brian singing backup vocals. It didn't work, because Keith was a better singer and had to keep going, oooh, ooh ooh (laughs). Brian liked all those oohs, which Keith had to put up with. Keith was always capable of much stronger vocals than ooh ooh ooh.

- Mick Jagger
Since the Byrds recorded anything, they were an electric band. Their first album was Mr Tambourine Man, 1965. An electric album. It is purely irrelevant that the Beatles were an influence for them. They were never (in their recording days) a non-electric band to begin with. The point then is completely moot. As for Dylan, he went electric in 1965, well into the Beatlemania period. The quote you brought gives no indication at all that the Beatles were his main thinking behind going electric. It merely shows that he was impressed with them.

Like I said, I agreed that the Beatles were doing things that the extremely poor competition of early 60s rock'n'roll were not doing. There was no argument there at all.
Rainard Jalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 04:38 PM   #175 (permalink)
Unrepentant Ass-Mod
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Monkey View Post
What the hell is your problem?
Naivety and inconceivability are not conducive traits to a welcoming atmosphere.
__________________
first.am
lucifer_sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 07:03 PM   #176 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen View Post
Since the Byrds recorded anything, they were an electric band. Their first album was Mr Tambourine Man, 1965. An electric album. It is purely irrelevant that the Beatles were an influence for them. They were never (in their recording days) a non-electric band to begin with. The point then is completely moot. As for Dylan, he went electric in 1965, well into the Beatlemania period. The quote you brought gives no indication at all that the Beatles were his main thinking behind going electric. It merely shows that he was impressed with them.

Like I said, I agreed that the Beatles were doing things that the extremely poor competition of early 60s rock'n'roll were not doing. There was no argument there at all.
Again since this came from McGuinn mouth you have no defense. The Byrds were not an electric band until the Beatles influenced them to go electric. Everything from the Beatles folk chord changes, their beat and their use of electric 12 string sound influenced the Byrds to go electric. Again give credit where credit is due

The Byrds

I still didn't know what an electric 12-string was, but when the Beatles released 'A Hard Day's Night,' I had to find out how they were getting that sound. So we made a reconnaissance run to a movie theater that was showing A Hard Day's Night and took notes. Ringo had Ludwig drums and John had that little Rickenbacker 325. George played a Gretsch most of the time, but he also had a Rickenbacker 360, which looked like a 6-string until he turned sideways and you could see six extra tuning pegs emerging from behind the headstock, like a classical guitar. Once I realized what it was, I traded in my Gibson acoustic 12 and bought a Rickenbacker 360/12.

Bob Weir of the Grateful Dead

The Beatles were why we turned from a jug band into a rock 'n' roll band," said Bob Weir. "What we saw them doing was impossibly attractive. ...

Bob Dylan has stated the Beatles were the band that was pointing the direction where music going.

Last edited by jazzrocks; 11-25-2008 at 07:10 PM.
jazzrocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2008, 11:51 PM   #177 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzrocks View Post
Again since this came from McGuinn mouth you have no defense. The Byrds were not an electric band until the Beatles influenced them to go electric. Everything from the Beatles folk chord changes, their beat and their use of electric 12 string sound influenced the Byrds to go electric. Again give credit where credit is due

The Byrds

I still didn't know what an electric 12-string was, but when the Beatles released 'A Hard Day's Night,' I had to find out how they were getting that sound. So we made a reconnaissance run to a movie theater that was showing A Hard Day's Night and took notes. Ringo had Ludwig drums and John had that little Rickenbacker 325. George played a Gretsch most of the time, but he also had a Rickenbacker 360, which looked like a 6-string until he turned sideways and you could see six extra tuning pegs emerging from behind the headstock, like a classical guitar. Once I realized what it was, I traded in my Gibson acoustic 12 and bought a Rickenbacker 360/12.
Dude, the point is not complicated. The Byrds, in their recording days, were never NOT an electric band. Do you get that? They never recorded and released anything that wasn't electric. Their first album and their first single were all totally electric. Whatever they were before they started releasing music is totally irrelevant to the general public. So you can say that the Beatles were the reason they decided to be an electric band in the first instance. You cannot say that they went electric, however, because there was nothing that wasn't electric in their discrography. When we talk about a band changing from one thing into another, we are generally talking about a great shift evidenced in their discography (e.g. Prince's 180 degree shift from light disco artist into new wave with Dirty Mind). We don't care what somebody was before they even started recording.

Quote:
Bob Weir of the Grateful Dead
We weren't discussing the Grateful Dead.

Quote:
Bob Dylan has stated the Beatles were the band that was pointing the direction where music going.
Yes. And for a large part, they were. This however does not indicate that it was the Beatles that convinced Dylan to go electric. Like I said, he went electric in 1965, LONG after the onset of Beatlemania.
Rainard Jalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2008, 12:13 AM   #178 (permalink)
Reformed Jackass
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FaSho View Post
All those suck though except my man Billy Joel, and I voted based off of influence on good music.
That's ****ing ridiculous.
ProggyMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2008, 08:05 AM   #179 (permalink)
____
 
FaSho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 5,279
Default

It's ridiculous to have a different taste in music then you?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
What? No. No. No. No no no.
FaSho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2008, 08:47 AM   #180 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
Guybrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen View Post
We don't care what somebody was before they even started recording
Well, dur .. We're talking about influence here. It's your point which is lacking.

They themselves say that without The Beatles, they would sound different. I mean, is that not a beatles influence on another famous band? Looking at this, you would think that if there were no beatles, the Byrds recordings would sound different. Does it matter if it's the first or the second or the third recording? It's still Beatles influence on other musicians ..

.. Darwin.
__________________
Something Completely Different
Guybrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.