The thread where you talk about non-metal music you like.

Both the Beatles and the Stones are yawn worthy. Yeah yeah blah blah they were major influences. My brother is a huge classic rock fan and Led Zeppelin is the only band out of that group he listens to that doesn't consistantly make me want to figuratively commit suicide when he has had his stuff playing.
 
The Beatles were hardly original, especially if we're talking about their early material, which was all ripped-off from 50s rockabilly.

You're actually retarded if you seriously don't recognize the influence that the harmonies and organization of their early material had on almost all music after it, and those things were clearly different from the music of the 1950's.

I'd suggest that you also read about their pioneering of the way certain instruments were recorded, and other things such as sampling, artificial double-tracking and the countless other innovations they came up with in the studio.

Mother Love Bone were an 80s hair band who just happened to be from Seattle. not grunge at all.

:lol:

You love proving how ignorant you are. Alice in Chains' first album must also be hair metal if you think that they are.
 
You're actually retarded if you seriously don't recognize the influence that the harmonies and organization of their early material had on almost all music after it, and those things were clearly different from the music of the 1950's.

I'd suggest that you also read about their pioneering of the way certain instruments were recorded, and other things such as sampling, artificial double-tracking and the countless other innovations they came up with in the studio.

it still doesn't make them good. I cringe everytime I hear a Beatles song.
 
The difference between Nirvana and The Beatles is that The Beatles were extremely original, especially on the way things are recorded, although they're very overrated as musicians and songwriters if you ask me. Even though almost every rock band after them copies certain elements of their musical style to some degree, their biggest fans tend to place them on too high a pedestal from other music.

I agree with that.
 
it still doesn't make them good. I cringe everytime I hear a Beatles song.

It doesn't make them good, but I don't remember saying that I thought they were a good band. It does make them original, which is what I was talking about.
 
The Beatles were hardly original, especially if we're talking about their early material, which was all ripped-off from 50s rockabilly.

How are they hardly original? Sure, they ripped off a ton of rockabilly but they did so in a manner that was pleasing to the whole fucking planet. Bands rip-off other bands all the time and you should know that by now. After that phase when they became a more psychedelic band, they were arguably the first band to take a Eastern music influence and blast it into pop music. Name one band that mixed a sitar into their sound and still did it in a pop music context. On later albums, they wrote the rule book for the for the forefathers of punk, hard rock, and everything else we listen to today. Ask Penny Rimbaud. Sure, they were not the only people do leave a lasting influence but they left a pretty heavy one. Besides influence, they could write an unstoppable pop songs that was not cookiecutter or normal. I don't know if you play guitar, but some of the chords John and Paul used together are mindblowingly strange when used together.

Omni is right here.
 
it still doesn't make them good. I cringe everytime I hear a Beatles song.

But you see, no one cares in this context about what you think about their music compared with your taste. The Beatles were original and influential despite you not liking them. Your cringing is irrelevant.
 
I like everything that I've heard by Coil, but Love's Secret Domain is clearly their masterpiece. I love the juxtaposition of early industrial, acid house, sample abuse and the weird songs like "Things Happen" and the title track. It was just so ahead of its time. It's an album that I can always come back to and enjoy immensely.
 
Listening to 'Empyreal Isles' by Herbie Hancock. Great modal jazz with a wonderful eye for melody and different light and shade than many of the other genre releases of the time (1964).
 
New LSD March is fucking excellent; cold, harsh psych-rock from Japan.

@Orion, I have been getting into Jazz myself. I highly suggest The Art Ensemble of Chicago. They rule.
 
i'd much rather have a band rip off the melvins and co (and yes, nirvana > other popular grunge, but that's not hard) than innovate in most of the ways the beatles did post-revolver.
 
Penny Rimbaud is a faggot.

You're unbelievable. Your logic is shot and you simply can not hold your opinion up with anything.

Seth Putnam makes terrible pop grindcore and is a disgrace to the genre. You are also. You don't even listen to good grind or punk. Fuck off, poser. You are on ignore.
 
New LSD March is fucking excellent; cold, harsh psych-rock from Japan.

@Orion, I have been getting into Jazz myself. I highly suggest The Art Ensemble of Chicago. They rule.

Wiki describes them as avant-jazz. I can definitely get into that. I'm one of those people who aspires to one day have a giant 'Bitches Brew' print on the wall. Miles, Coltrane, Hancock, everybody who ventured into avant-jazz and fusion, that's completely my bag, not that I dislike more traditionalist forms at all. But as far as I'm concerned 'Kind of Blue' is the big bang in modern jazz, just like I don't *really* care about rock music until 'In The Court of the Crimson King' (ok, 'Piper At The Gates of Dawn' has a place for me too). I'll have to look into the Ensemble, the next discography I'm going to dive into though is Sun Ra...the only reason I don't have anything yet is just because I've been too lazy to dig on Amazon and I usually get all kinds of good jazz deals from Barnes & Noble, sitting around playing samples for hours. But that will change. :loco: