comparing S.P. to the Beatles and Radiohead to Pink Floyd - Page 2

redbreegull · 01-10-2010, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Order 66

I'm talking more along the lines of cultural impact and how rock was shaped for the next decade.

This is why Nirvana is the Beatles of their generation... if you are going to act like a maroon and try to make cross generational analogies in music.

KManXC · 01-10-2010, 10:36 PM

The Beatles are The Beatles. Period. No other group comes close to having their influence both at the time and in the future. Part of this was their breaking through in a time in history when it was possible to have the impact that they did. Putting Nirvana in this class is an insult to The Beatles although much less of an insult than saying the Pumpkins belong anywhere near this conversation in any way, shape or form.

The Pumpkins aren't even the most influential, popular or best band from their heyday- they might be my favorite, but let's be real here people... And today, forget about it- they're a parody (a bad one I might add) of themselves.

slunken · 01-10-2010, 10:54 PM

can soundgarden be led zep?

Catherine Wheel · 01-10-2010, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Putting Nirvana in this class is an insult to The Beatles although much less of an insult than saying the Pumpkins belong anywhere near this conversation in any way, shape or form.

You're honestly going to say that Nirvana are more worthy of that comparison than the Smashing Pumpkins? Nirvana who weren't very versatile and who were very upfront about borrowing ideas from the Pixies.

I'm just talking about bodies of work. Not fame or influence.

slunken · 01-10-2010, 11:02 PM

So what is it, aside from fame or influence, about the Beatles' body of work that you find so immaculate?

Catherine Wheel · 01-10-2010, 11:29 PM

They are far from my favorite band from the 60s. But I think aside from the Doors they were the most interesting band from that era. Taking rock in an experimental direction while still managing to write songs with good hooks.

slunken · 01-10-2010, 11:37 PM

more "pop" than "rock" if you ask me. i think, during the 60s, rock music in and of itself was pretty experimental

stumpycat · 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KManXC

The Beatles are The Beatles. Period. No other group comes close to having their influence both at the time and in the future. Part of this was their breaking through in a time in history when it was possible to have the impact that they did. Putting Nirvana in this class is an insult to The Beatles although much less of an insult than saying the Pumpkins belong anywhere near this conversation in any way, shape or form.

The Pumpkins aren't even the most influential, popular or best band from their heyday- they might be my favorite, but let's be real here people... And today, forget about it- they're a parody (a bad one I might add) of themselves.

This.

At that point in rock and roll history, it was much easier to be groundbreaking and novel to the point that you captivated listeners into shock, awe, and fascination. Also, at this point the rock scene (and popular music in general) seems to have split into so many different sub-genres that any single artist has trouble capturing a market share of the audience.

Iodine_Red · 01-13-2010, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slunken

can soundgarden be led zep?

Yes, yes they can.

runnersdialzero · 01-13-2010, 06:50 PM

*if* there was a beatles of this generation, i would go with Nirvana for the meteoric rise from humble beginnings to superstardom and sweeping influence. Agree overall that there is no other beatles, though, especially not SP. Radiohead to Pink Floyd seems unsubstantiated, too

stumpycat · 01-14-2010, 02:45 AM

I think what has happened to the shared culture of music (insofar that we DO share it as a public) is a bit like what has happened to the media news networks now: there is no Walter Cronkite figure or news network that everyone relies upon, in part because the "mainstream" has fractured into increasingly insular echo chambers of personal preference and self selective exposure. We can say "fuck the commercial radio" altogether (a shared listening experience which is necessarily limited in selection by geographic region) because we can tailor make our own listening experience now, even for free, using services such as Live365.

The Melty Man · 01-16-2010, 02:03 AM

Apologies to Thom but Roger Waters is far, far more talented.

redbreegull · 01-16-2010, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Melty Man

Apologies to Thom but Roger Waters is far, far more talented.

I know it is popular opinion that "legendary" bands like Pink Floyd can never be rivaled, but I honestly think Radiohead are just as good.

applepwnz · 01-16-2010, 07:02 PM

SP is (or at least was) The Who

redbreegull · 01-16-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applepwnz

SP is (or at least was) The Who

Pearl Jam are definitely The Who

applepwnz · 01-16-2010, 07:10 PM

Pearl Jam is the Rolling Stones, Nirvana is the Beatles, SP is the Who, Green Day is the Monkees

Catherine Wheel · 01-16-2010, 07:14 PM

Soundgarden are definitely Led Zeppelin

SPLATTER · 01-16-2010, 07:33 PM

everyone is smoke and mirrors. who cares.

redbreegull · 01-16-2010, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applepwnz

Pearl Jam is the Rolling Stones, Nirvana is the Beatles, SP is the Who, Green Day is the Monkees

SP have nothing in common with the Who musically or in the sphere of fame and influence.

The only band from the 60s/70s that I could even fathom comparing SP to is Rush

slunken · 01-16-2010, 11:05 PM

cheap trick?

stumpycat · 01-16-2010, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redbreegull

SP have nothing in common with the Who musically or in the sphere of fame and influence.

The only band from the 60s/70s that I could even fathom comparing SP to is Rush

How about Jefferson Airplane!? Some parallels are there, in the world of pop music culture of their respective times.

The Melty Man · 01-17-2010, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I know it is popular opinion that "legendary" bands like Pink Floyd can never be rivaled, but I honestly think Radiohead are just as good.

Listen to Radiohead makes me want to kill myself.... Listening to Floyd makes me understand why I want to kill myself.... there is a subtle difference in Water's genius....

vkissas · 01-30-2010, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Order 66

I would say nirvana is a rough equivalent of led zeppelin

that would be soundgarden......Nirvana is on their own league

redbreegull · 01-30-2010, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Melty Man

Listen to Radiohead makes me want to kill myself.... Listening to Floyd makes me understand why I want to kill myself.... there is a subtle difference in Water's genius....

you're full of shit

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
List your CD Collection	Alan Wu	Music Board Archive	57	04-13-2007 12:44 AM

01-10-2010, 10:36 PM	#32
KManXC Ownz Location: Charlottesville, VA Posts: 575	The Beatles are The Beatles. Period. No other group comes close to having their influence both at the time and in the future. Part of this was their breaking through in a time in history when it was possible to have the impact that they did. Putting Nirvana in this class is an insult to The Beatles although much less of an insult than saying the Pumpkins belong anywhere near this conversation in any way, shape or form. The Pumpkins aren't even the most influential, popular or best band from their heyday- they might be my favorite, but let's be real here people... And today, forget about it- they're a parody (a bad one I might add) of themselves.

01-10-2010, 10:54 PM	#33
slunken Virgo Posts: 42,781	can soundgarden be led zep?

01-10-2010, 11:02 PM	#35
slunken Virgo Posts: 42,781	So what is it, aside from fame or influence, about the Beatles' body of work that you find so immaculate?

01-10-2010, 11:29 PM	#36
Catherine Wheel Banned Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 6,310	They are far from my favorite band from the 60s. But I think aside from the Doors they were the most interesting band from that era. Taking rock in an experimental direction while still managing to write songs with good hooks.

01-10-2010, 11:37 PM	#37
slunken Virgo Posts: 42,781	more "pop" than "rock" if you ask me. i think, during the 60s, rock music in and of itself was pretty experimental

01-13-2010, 06:50 PM	#40
runnersdialzero Ownz Posts: 659	if there was a beatles of this generation, i would go with Nirvana for the meteoric rise from humble beginnings to superstardom and sweeping influence. Agree overall that there is no other beatles, though, especially not SP. Radiohead to Pink Floyd seems unsubstantiated, too

01-14-2010, 02:45 AM	#41
stumpycat Apocalyptic Poster Location: Fort Worth, Texas Posts: 3,088	I think what has happened to the shared culture of music (insofar that we DO share it as a public) is a bit like what has happened to the media news networks now: there is no Walter Cronkite figure or news network that everyone relies upon, in part because the "mainstream" has fractured into increasingly insular echo chambers of personal preference and self selective exposure. We can say "fuck the commercial radio" altogether (a shared listening experience which is necessarily limited in selection by geographic region) because we can tailor make our own listening experience now, even for free, using services such as Live365.

01-16-2010, 02:03 AM	#42
The Melty Man Ownz Posts: 855	Apologies to Thom but Roger Waters is far, far more talented.

01-16-2010, 07:02 PM	#44
applepwnz Ownz Posts: 729	SP is (or at least was) The Who

01-16-2010, 07:10 PM	#46
applepwnz Ownz Posts: 729	Pearl Jam is the Rolling Stones, Nirvana is the Beatles, SP is the Who, Green Day is the Monkees

01-16-2010, 07:14 PM	#47
Catherine Wheel Banned Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 6,310	Soundgarden are definitely Led Zeppelin

01-16-2010, 07:33 PM	#48
SPLATTER Demi-God Location: New York Posts: 424	everyone is smoke and mirrors. who cares.

01-16-2010, 11:05 PM	#50
slunken Virgo Posts: 42,781	cheap trick?