It shouldn't matter what people listen to (for the most part) as long as THEY enjoy what they listen too. Admittedly The Beatles are my favourite band but people will discover them in there own time. I'm 19 and i've just brought a copy of With The Beatles on original Mono vinyl. (I already have it on CD) There's something about them that was so enchanting that even the filler sounds brilliant on the albums. I would suggest newcomers to the Beatles start off with Abbey Road and Rubber Soul. Although there all excellent, even Let it Be.
It might seem daft, but because I was born so long after The Beatles break-up + the death of John Lennon, its nice to know my favourite member Paul is still out there touring and making music.
It shouldn't matter what people listen to (for the most part) as long as THEY enjoy what they listen too. Admittedly The Beatles are my favourite band but people will discover them in there own time. I'm 19 and i've just brought a copy of With The Beatles on original Mono vinyl. (I already have it on CD) There's something about them that was so enchanting that even the filler sounds brilliant on the albums. I would suggest newcomers to the Beatles start off with Abbey Road and Rubber Soul. Although there all excellent, even Let it Be.
It might seem daft, but because I was born so long after The Beatles break-up + the death of John Lennon, its nice to know my favourite member Paul is still out there touring and making music.
His new song 'New' is a bloody good. Looking forward to Paul's new album.
His new song 'New' is a bloody good. Looking forward to Paul's new album.
Thanks for telling me that mate, I was just looking for upcoming McCartney info this morning but didn't hear about the song being available to hear. I'm going to check this out now.
I genuinely cannot stand The Beatles and hate the insinuation that nothing since could or has ever come close. There is a wealth of modern music that is more than equal to or good as you just gotta look for it.
If you can't stand them, why say there is stuff that is only equal to them? To me, there is modern stuff that is way better than them. I know people will turn up to lecture me and try to persuade me that they somehow influenced all the music I like. Even if true, I find this argument ridiculous.
It'd be like me saying my favourite film is (just an example), Inception, and that I'd never seen a film as good, then some monumental bore showing up to tell me how this silent film from the 1800's influenced all the modern films I like. So? Does that mean that is the best, or can things evolve to be more than the sum of their parts? Can't we respect someone for starting something but still think the modern stuff is better?
Mila Kunis wouldn't be here without her grandmother, but that doesn't mean I have to fancy her too
If you can't stand them, why say there is stuff that is only equal to them? To me, there is modern stuff that is way better than them. I know people will turn up to lecture me and try to persuade me that they somehow influenced all the music I like. Even if true, I find this argument ridiculous.
It'd be like me saying my favourite film is (just an example), Inception, and that I'd never seen a film as good, then some monumental bore showing up to tell me how this silent film from the 1800's influenced all the modern films I like. So? Does that mean that is the best, or can things evolve to be more than the sum of their parts? Can't we respect someone for starting something but still think the modern stuff is better?
Mila Kunis wouldn't be here without her grandmother, but that doesn't mean I have to fancy her too
ha ha.. true, but you might have done if you were there when grandma kunis was young! ... same thing.
If you can't stand them, why say there is stuff that is only equal to them? To me, there is modern stuff that is way better than them. I know people will turn up to lecture me and try to persuade me that they somehow influenced all the music I like. Even if true, I find this argument ridiculous.
It'd be like me saying my favourite film is (just an example), Inception, and that I'd never seen a film as good, then some monumental bore showing up to tell me how this silent film from the 1800's influenced all the modern films I like. So? Does that mean that is the best, or can things evolve to be more than the sum of their parts? Can't we respect someone for starting something but still think the modern stuff is better?
Mila Kunis wouldn't be here without her grandmother, but that doesn't mean I have to fancy her too
I said equal or as good as. i don't like their muusic but can apreciate the impact they had on popular culture and music to this day. And whilst i feel there has been music since that either equals or is bettr than it. In terms of impact and longevity i would concede defeat and say that no one since The Beatles has ever done what they did to the same degree. but it doesn't mean that good music began and ended int he 60's.
I'm not a 60s snob at all but two things about that list and I like most of those artists (not Joss Stone).
One, good artists yes but all a bit retro (not necessarily a bad thing but not innovators and surprised you didn't mention Amy Winehouse or Adele). Two, really could any of them touch the garments of Dusty Springfield, Aretha Franklin or Tina Turner?
Well the newer artists are innovators not in the sense of style but that most of those mentioned write their own material (Adele, Lianne and Amy). Dusty and Aretha did not. It's difficult to write anything today that doesn't borrow from some style or other in the recent or distant past, so you could say that just about every artist is retro to an extent.
Dusty and Aretha threw down the gauntlet for future white and black female soul singers. Aretha was inspired by gospel artists like Etta James. Dusty was inspired by anything Motown. Had the modern soul artists been around the same time as Dusty, Aretha etc, maybe they'd have had as big an impact.It's impossible to know really. Can't agree about Joss Stone. She's fantastic
Well the newer artists are innovators not in the sense of style but that most of those mentioned write their own material (Adele, Lianne and Amy). Dusty and Aretha did not. It's difficult to write anything today that doesn't borrow from some style or other in the recent or distant past, so you could say that just about every artist is retro to an extent.
Dusty and Aretha threw down the gauntlet for future white and black female soul singers. Aretha was inspired by gospel artists like Etta James. Dusty was inspired by anything Motown. Had the modern soul artists been around the same time as Dusty, Aretha etc, maybe they'd have had as big an impact.It's impossible to know really. Can't agree about Joss Stone. She's fantastic
you make good points about aretha and dusty... but i too cant agree about joss stone, true she has the sound, the tone, but it lacks passion, understanding, believability, and its those qualities, and qualities like them that made dusty and aretha great.
Well the newer artists are innovators not in the sense of style but that most of those mentioned write their own material (Adele, Lianne and Amy). Dusty and Aretha did not. It's difficult to write anything today that doesn't borrow from some style or other in the recent or distant past, so you could say that just about every artist is retro to an extent.
Dusty and Aretha threw down the gauntlet for future white and black female soul singers. Aretha was inspired by gospel artists like Etta James. Dusty was inspired by anything Motown. Had the modern soul artists been around the same time as Dusty, Aretha etc, maybe they'd have had as big an impact.It's impossible to know really. Can't agree about Joss Stone. She's fantastic
I agree with you that it is more difficult and all art borrows/builds on its antecedents. Amy tried to put her own stamp on things more than Adele or Joss Stone but she still borrows.
I was thinking more that there are artists who might not have fitted in as well with the 60s music culture but who have innovated and are not as obviously retro e.g. Kate Bush, Bjork, Gaga, Rihanna (surprise, surprise), Azealia Banks, Ellie Goulding even.
Young people of today should be made to lsten to old Beatles LP's like Please please Me , Help, Revolver, rubber soul and my favourite Beatles for sale and Abbey Road.
No they really shouldn't. For the ones who only listen to what is out right now, it wouldn't do any harm to investigate other sounds from before but enforced Beatles listening sounds like my idea of hell.
Anybody else out there a bit like me or are all good music lovers destined to listen to Rap crap for the rest of or lives.
Surely any music lovers, good or otherwise will listen to whatever they want? We all have choice. No one has to listen to 'rap crap' as there is plenty of excellent Hip Hop to choose from.
Trouble is that good ad new artists may be we never get to hear of them due to radio playing the same pap over and over and we don't even get to see their CD's because the music shops have shut. Undoubtedly there is some great talent out there but it's all but invisible.
Trouble is that good ad new artists may be we never get to hear of them due to radio playing the same pap over and over and we don't even get to see their CD's because the music shops have shut. Undoubtedly there is some great talent out there but it's all but invisible.
.. but do radio stations play 'the same old pap'? radio 1 plays rudimental, plan b, rizzle kicks, naughty boy, aluna george, etc... they arent bad!
(yes maybe im revising my opinion on modern music....a little at least! :cool: )
If i want 80's i go absolute 80's, if i want todays rubbish i go radio 1.
heart? gem? they just play old crap... just cheesy mor wedding fodder, ie old crap as opposed to new crap.
...but i dont WANT to listen to 80's music, i did that in the 80's... when i think of 2013, and the things i did with the associated memories, i want music from 2013 to remind me of 2013, not the 80's... 80's music has its own place in my life, so when i hear a track from 81, it has associated memories from 81.
Radio 1 is completely unlistenable thesedays, awful chav music, juvenile presenters and an obsession with celeb culture.
oh its not just me then... i agree the dj's are juvenile, with their benal banter.. ever heard 'inuendo bingo'? jeez thats the stuff of the playground, utterly moronic, tittering at double entendres that arent actually ammusing except to a child.
seriously though, theres nothing wrong with rudemental, plan b, and a couple of others... not that im a fan...far from it, but tbh i cannot say their material and some others is bad. they are trying to create something 'better' then the usual manufactured dross.
Comments
It might seem daft, but because I was born so long after The Beatles break-up + the death of John Lennon, its nice to know my favourite member Paul is still out there touring and making music.
His new song 'New' is a bloody good. Looking forward to Paul's new album.
Thanks for telling me that mate, I was just looking for upcoming McCartney info this morning but didn't hear about the song being available to hear. I'm going to check this out now.
If you can't stand them, why say there is stuff that is only equal to them? To me, there is modern stuff that is way better than them. I know people will turn up to lecture me and try to persuade me that they somehow influenced all the music I like. Even if true, I find this argument ridiculous.
It'd be like me saying my favourite film is (just an example), Inception, and that I'd never seen a film as good, then some monumental bore showing up to tell me how this silent film from the 1800's influenced all the modern films I like. So? Does that mean that is the best, or can things evolve to be more than the sum of their parts? Can't we respect someone for starting something but still think the modern stuff is better?
Mila Kunis wouldn't be here without her grandmother, but that doesn't mean I have to fancy her too
ha ha.. true, but you might have done if you were there when grandma kunis was young! ... same thing.
Ah, like it. Good point
Though she could have been dog ugly...
I reckon I'd have been more of a Captain Beefheart fan, musically that is
It would take One direction a long time to think up something like these two tracks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuNrlecJCNA
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuNrlecJCNA
I said equal or as good as. i don't like their muusic but can apreciate the impact they had on popular culture and music to this day. And whilst i feel there has been music since that either equals or is bettr than it. In terms of impact and longevity i would concede defeat and say that no one since The Beatles has ever done what they did to the same degree. but it doesn't mean that good music began and ended int he 60's.
Dusty and Aretha threw down the gauntlet for future white and black female soul singers. Aretha was inspired by gospel artists like Etta James. Dusty was inspired by anything Motown. Had the modern soul artists been around the same time as Dusty, Aretha etc, maybe they'd have had as big an impact.It's impossible to know really. Can't agree about Joss Stone. She's fantastic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os2Wch10W3k
Now come on, you are giving to much credit to One Direction, as if they are allowed of thinking up anything.
you make good points about aretha and dusty... but i too cant agree about joss stone, true she has the sound, the tone, but it lacks passion, understanding, believability, and its those qualities, and qualities like them that made dusty and aretha great.
I agree with you that it is more difficult and all art borrows/builds on its antecedents. Amy tried to put her own stamp on things more than Adele or Joss Stone but she still borrows.
I was thinking more that there are artists who might not have fitted in as well with the 60s music culture but who have innovated and are not as obviously retro e.g. Kate Bush, Bjork, Gaga, Rihanna (surprise, surprise), Azealia Banks, Ellie Goulding even.
Maybe things are not that bad?
Surely any music lovers, good or otherwise will listen to whatever they want? We all have choice. No one has to listen to 'rap crap' as there is plenty of excellent Hip Hop to choose from.
We still have 60s music due to the wonders of recording.
.. but do radio stations play 'the same old pap'? radio 1 plays rudimental, plan b, rizzle kicks, naughty boy, aluna george, etc... they arent bad!
(yes maybe im revising my opinion on modern music....a little at least!
Now check out heart fm or gem.
If i want 80's i go absolute 80's, if i want todays rubbish i go radio 1.
Oh but they are
heart? gem? they just play old crap... just cheesy mor wedding fodder, ie old crap as opposed to new crap.
...but i dont WANT to listen to 80's music, i did that in the 80's... when i think of 2013, and the things i did with the associated memories, i want music from 2013 to remind me of 2013, not the 80's... 80's music has its own place in my life, so when i hear a track from 81, it has associated memories from 81.
oh its not just me then... i agree the dj's are juvenile, with their benal banter.. ever heard 'inuendo bingo'? jeez thats the stuff of the playground, utterly moronic, tittering at double entendres that arent actually ammusing except to a child.
shut it!
seriously though, theres nothing wrong with rudemental, plan b, and a couple of others... not that im a fan...far from it, but tbh i cannot say their material and some others is bad. they are trying to create something 'better' then the usual manufactured dross.