|
||||||||
The Beatles and The Rolling Stone not did revolutionise music. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,288
|
The Beatles and The Rolling Stone not did revolutionise music.
But 90's Hip Hop did but now the chart lack diversity in doing so.
http://www.nme.com/news/the-beatles/85172#12 |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
But 90's Hip Hop did but now the chart lack diversity in doing so.
http://www.nme.com/news/the-beatles/85172#12 and that is what it is, an opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,508
|
Academics can analyse all they like. We know what we know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,325
|
Looks like the researchers have been reading a recent thread on this forum:
The idea that pop music has become less diverse is also disputed by the study, which names 1986 as the least diverse year in US chart history – which is attributed to the emergence of drum machines. The researchers state that there is no overriding trend that suggests the charts today are becoming more homogenous. - the Guardian |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 3,849
|
How can Hip Hop be blamed for a lack of diversity in the chart, there is hardly any Hip Hop in the chart!..just loads of rappers. Like ''Luke Morgan Britton" knows anything about it anyway he writes for the NME, he looks like he just left school and on his bio it says he's a fan of emo music and drake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,386
|
Seems pretty obvious about The Beatles and The Rolling Stones as its already well documented who and what their influences were (even The Beatles admit they robbed from elsewhere).
End of the day the real musical revolutionary was the first caveman/woman to hit two rocks together to produce an audible rhythm, everyone else has been copying since. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Crapville
Posts: 13,162
|
Have to call bollocks on this one
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,325
|
Quote:
How can Hip Hop be blamed for a lack of diversity in the chart, there is hardly any Hip Hop in the chart!..just loads of rappers. Like ''Luke Morgan Britton" knows anything about it anyway he writes for the NME, he looks like he just left school and on his bio it says he's a fan of emo music and drake.
So, to cut to the chase, when he said that the Beatles and the Stones didn't revolutionise music, he meant that if you analyse all the data about things like chord structures in music of the early 60s, the Beatles and Stones fit in with the general pattern rather than being hugely different. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,342
|
What a load of shite, but a way of making sure someone read their study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,501
|
Quote:
The study was written by academics at Queen Mary University of London, including one Matthias Mauch, from the school of electronic engineering and computer science. He was interviewed about it on Radio 4 yesterday and talked in some detail about how he had based his conclusions on actual musical trends, such as the use of various chords in different styles of music. For example I think he said that the diminished seventh chord used to be very common in popular music but has now disappeared. I've no idea whether that's true, but that was the kind of data his study analysed.
So, to cut to the chase, when he said that the Beatles and the Stones didn't revolutionise music, he meant that if you analyse all the data about things like chord structures in music of the early 60s, the Beatles and Stones fit in with the general pattern rather than being hugely different. unusual the chords, time signature, or other technical details are. I have not read it but glancing over it the study seems interesting nonetheless albeit it seems very much a mechanical way to judge innovation. Here is a link if anyone fancies a look... http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.o...ent/2/5/150081 |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 3,849
|
Quote:
So, to cut to the chase, when he said that the Beatles and the Stones didn't revolutionise music, he meant that if you analyse all the data about things like chord structures in music of the early 60s, the Beatles and Stones fit in with the general pattern rather than being hugely different. Melle mel, De la soul, run dmc, ll cool j, eric b and rakim, salt n pepa, tone loc etc...all had significant hits in the chart in the 80s. On the pop chart in 1991 the biggest rapper was MC Hammer whos biggest hit is based around another song. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
The study was written by academics at Queen Mary University of London, including one Matthias Mauch, from the school of electronic engineering and computer science. He was interviewed about it on Radio 4 yesterday and talked in some detail about how he had based his conclusions on actual musical trends, such as the use of various chords in different styles of music. For example I think he said that the diminished seventh chord used to be very common in popular music but has now disappeared. I've no idea whether that's true, but that was the kind of data his study analysed.
So, to cut to the chase, when he said that the Beatles and the Stones didn't revolutionise music, he meant that if you analyse all the data about things like chord structures in music of the early 60s, the Beatles and Stones fit in with the general pattern rather than being hugely different. my response is 'so what'! the facts are that the beatles and stones popularised a style of music that has dominated popular music for 50 years. rock, or guitar based pop songs have been the staple diet of music fans long before hip hop came along, and long after too. hip hop means absolutely nothing to me, and just about everyone i know. out of all the genres and styles that pop music has produced, hip hop is pretty much at the bottom of the pile for me, and the people i know. i dont think im alone here either! but i understand that hip hop to some is THE music of choice. as i see it, dance has had more of an impact on popular music then hip hop, from early 60's late 50's fads (like the twist) (oh and no dance music predates pop as we know it), through motown, disco, house, rave, and its many incarnations/styles through the 90's upto today. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Crapville
Posts: 13,162
|
Quote:
so basically hes saying that hip hop sounds were very much different from previous sounds, and the beatles and the stones just popularised structures that were already in place...
my response is 'so what'! the facts are that the beatles and stones popularised a style of music that has dominated popular music for 50 years. rock, or guitar based pop songs have been the staple diet of music fans long before hip hop came along, and long after too. hip hop means absolutely nothing to me, and just about everyone i know. out of all the genres and styles that pop music has produced, hip hop is pretty much at the bottom of the pile for me, and the people i know. i dont think im alone here either! but i understand that hip hop to some is THE music of choice. as i see it, dance has had more of an impact on popular music then hip hop, from early 60's late 50's fads (like the twist) (oh and no dance music predates pop as we know it), through motown, disco, house, rave, and its many incarnations/styles through the 90's upto today. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:00.

