Bands you'd wipe from history
Discussion
One of these beery conversations that might make for a lively and interesting thread.
The thesis is you have a time machine and can go back and eradicate one of two comparative bands / acts from history. This cannot be on the basis that you simply prefer one over the other. There must be a reasoned argument.
Our start point was Iron Maiden or Metallica. I like both but on the basis I cannot recall a single act that has been inspired by Maiden since or see how they pushed the genre forward, I'd have to bin them.
Others discussed included the obvious: Blur/Oasis, Spandau Ballet/Duran Duran, Beatles/Rolling Stones (lively one that!
).... and some left filed ones (Spice Girls/Sugarbabes, Nik Kershaw/Howard Jones).
So, off you go...
The thesis is you have a time machine and can go back and eradicate one of two comparative bands / acts from history. This cannot be on the basis that you simply prefer one over the other. There must be a reasoned argument.
Our start point was Iron Maiden or Metallica. I like both but on the basis I cannot recall a single act that has been inspired by Maiden since or see how they pushed the genre forward, I'd have to bin them.
Others discussed included the obvious: Blur/Oasis, Spandau Ballet/Duran Duran, Beatles/Rolling Stones (lively one that!
).... and some left filed ones (Spice Girls/Sugarbabes, Nik Kershaw/Howard Jones).So, off you go...
I should have said, answers need reason!
miniman said:
The Beatles.
Sorry.
No apology needed from me. I concluded the same. My argument was that from The Beatles we got 'pop' whereas The Rolling Stones advanced the 'rock' genre which I consider to be a more compelling and important genre.Sorry.
StevieBee said:
My argument was that from The Beatles we got 'pop' whereas The Rolling Stones advanced the 'rock' genre which I consider to be a more compelling and important genre.
And better for Dad's Christmas CDs of driving tracks. The ones with Dire Straits and a picture of some sort of chrome American wheel on the cover.StevieBee said:
I should have said, answers need reason!
If there'd been no Beatles a significant proportion of what came afterwards wouldn't have happened. To this day, many influential bands and writers cite the Beatles as the whole reason they went into showbiz. miniman said:
The Beatles.
Sorry.
No apology needed from me. I concluded the same. My argument was that from The Beatles we got 'pop' whereas The Rolling Stones advanced the 'rock' genre which I consider to be a more compelling and important genre.Sorry.
To see the Stones as having 'advanced' anything in a similar way is surreal.
paulguitar said:
To see the Stones as having 'advanced' anything in a similar way is surreal.
Oh I don't know about that. Keith Richards proved that's it's possible to build a globe spanning career out of a minor 7th chord shape played in open tuning.As for the Beatles, no one lives in a counterfactual universe, however, had they never happened, something would have come to the fore & left a mark in their place. Probably.
Left to me, I would do away with nothing. All music, however glib or bland or profound & towering has a place. It all feeds into the future.
StevieBee said:
I should have said, answers need reason!
My rationale is simply that I find them ludicrously overrated considering the sappy durge they put out. Also they had stupid haircuts. miniman said:
The Beatles.
Sorry.
No apology needed from me. I concluded the same. My argument was that from The Beatles we got 'pop' whereas The Rolling Stones advanced the 'rock' genre which I consider to be a more compelling and important genre.Sorry.
miniman said:
StevieBee said:
I should have said, answers need reason!
My rationale is simply that I find them ludicrously overrated considering the sappy durge they put out. Also they had stupid haircuts. miniman said:
The Beatles.
Sorry.
No apology needed from me. I concluded the same. My argument was that from The Beatles we got 'pop' whereas The Rolling Stones advanced the 'rock' genre which I consider to be a more compelling and important genre.Sorry.
President Merkin said:
Oh I don't know about that. Keith Richards proved that's it's possible to build a globe spanning career out of a minor 7th chord shape played in open tuning.
As for the Beatles, no one lives in a counterfactual universe, however, had they never happened, something would have come to the fore & left a mark in their place. Probably.
Left to me, I would do away with nothing. All music, however glib or bland or profound & towering has a place. It all feeds into the future.
Yeah, I agree, I wouldn't want anything removed. As for the Beatles, no one lives in a counterfactual universe, however, had they never happened, something would have come to the fore & left a mark in their place. Probably.
Left to me, I would do away with nothing. All music, however glib or bland or profound & towering has a place. It all feeds into the future.
As a professional musician, the anti-Beatles people are a curiosity to me. I encounter them from time to time at gigs. I appreciate that it would be boring if we all liked the same thing, but there is a kind of pride in their ignorance they have about them which they seem to have in common.
paulguitar said:
StevieBee said:
I should have said, answers need reason!
If there'd been no Beatles a significant proportion of what came afterwards wouldn't have happened. To this day, many influential bands and writers cite the Beatles as the whole reason they went into showbiz. miniman said:
The Beatles.
Sorry.
No apology needed from me. I concluded the same. My argument was that from The Beatles we got 'pop' whereas The Rolling Stones advanced the 'rock' genre which I consider to be a more compelling and important genre.Sorry.
To see the Stones as having 'advanced' anything in a similar way is surreal.
What would The Rolling Stones looked like without The Beatles?
For what it's worth I love them both
There's quite a lot of s
t that was shat out post Cobains death that I'd eradicate...Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff