Jump to content

Academy of the Over-Rated


Asithappens

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh reaaaaaaaaallly ?  Do tell.....

I find depending on what vodka is made with it can have a distinct flavor (more of an undertone, really). I'm not really a fan of Tito's because it's a corn vodka and it gives it this weird, sweet almost syrupy flavor. 

You are right though in that you can take swill, filter it 6 or 7 times (not sure about just 3), and it will be about as good as any "premium" brand. 

And, if you are mixing it with a bunch of crap it doesn't matter as long as it's half decent shit. But I tend to drink over ice with a splash of soda and lime. If I ask for Ketel and you pour me Tito's I'll probably notice and tell you to take it back. 

Edited by ztejas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I find depending on what vodka is made with it can have a distinct flavor (more of an undertone, really). I'm not really a fan of Tito's because it's a corn vodka and it gives it this weird, sweet almost syrupy flavor. 

You are right though in that you can take swill, filter it 6 or 7 times (not sure about just 3), and it will be about as good as any "premium" brand. 

And, if you are mixing it with a bunch of crap it doesn't matter as long as it's half decent shit. But I tend to drink over ice with a splash of soda and lime. If I ask for Ketel and you pour me Tito's I'll probably notice and tell you to take it back. 

Yeah I agree, there are some subtle flavor and texture differences in vodka depending on your ingredients, it's just that they are really sublte when compared to something like Scotch or bourbon or even rum.  

 

Smooth amber (W.Va) makes a vodka that I really like to drink over rocks with a lemon twist. I'd describe it as a veeeeeeeery veeeeeery subtle syrupy, butterscotch after taste, which usually I wouldn't like, but for some reason it works for me in their vodka.

3 filtering usually gets you a cleaner less hangover potential vodka from what I've read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's up there.

Considering the source, I’ll take that as a complement. It takes a certain kind of cultural narcissism to elevate 1960-70 in the manner of the stories Boomers tell about themselves. You aren’t that important that your music is so important and influential. If Gen X were as full of themselves we’d hear the same tall tales about Paul Westerberg. 

There’s a certain bit of pretending that nothing came before (the idea that they were uniquely complex is simply wrong) and everything since is filtered through a single decade (hip hop is undeniably more present in virtually every popular genre today than any influences of the 60s and 70s).

It doesn’t mean they aren’t great, influential, and important. They were and are. It just means that the greatness of the Beatles has been highly exaggerated, which is the definition of overrated. A lot of music happened in the 20th century and the Beatles are part of that story, but their part isn’t nearly as important as the popular conception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mole said:

Considering the source, I’ll take that as a complement. It takes a certain kind of cultural narcissism to elevate 1960-70 in the manner of the stories Boomers tell about themselves. You aren’t that important that your music is so important and influential. If Gen X were as full of themselves we’d hear the same tall tales about Paul Westerberg. 

There’s a certain bit of pretending that nothing came before (the idea that they were uniquely complex is simply wrong) and everything since is filtered through a single decade (hip hop is undeniably more present in virtually every popular genre today than any influences of the 60s and 70s).

It doesn’t mean they aren’t great, influential, and important. They were and are. It just means that the greatness of the Beatles has been highly exaggerated, which is the definition of overrated. A lot of music happened in the 20th century and the Beatles are part of that story, but their part isn’t nearly as important as the popular conception.

I don't think you will find anyone in the music industry that will agree with what you are saying about the Beatles.

That ought to tell you something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

I don't think you will find anyone in the music industry that will agree with what you are saying about the Beatles.

That ought to tell you something.

Pretty much this. Unless of course they're all just a bunch of old boomers who grew up listing to the Beatles, and were just hoodwinked by their cleverly disguised mediocrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

I don't think you will find anyone in the music industry that will agree with what you are saying about the Beatles.

That ought to tell you something.

Meh. Everyone in the entertainment industry be it acting, music, sports are rarely going to trash each other. Well besides rap but that's because that is how that genre is set up. Dissing each other and "beef". It serves no purpose for a musical act to come out and say what Mole is saying. Even if they believe it. So just because none of their peers say this, doesn't really mean much. A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2019 at 10:05 PM, Vic Mackey said:

Whataburger

Chick Fil A

Red Hot Chili Peppers

Foo Fighters

Grateful Dead

Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees

Blazing Saddles
Nirvana
Chuck Norris
Walking Dead
Bruce Springsteen
A Christmas Story
Guns N Roses
Pantera
Bacon
Texas State Fair
Ranch dressing
Fletcher's Corn Dogs
Caddyshack
Star Wars

 

A lot of people give you crap for your taste in women, but you have much bigger problems.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

If you are implying that Paul Westerberg is overrated, we're going to have a problem.

Just the opposite. He’s severely underrated. He’s the Gen X Dylan. If he came up 20 years earlier we’d hear about him all the time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the source, I’ll take that as a complement. It takes a certain kind of cultural narcissism to elevate 1960-70 in the manner of the stories Boomers tell about themselves. You aren’t that important that your music is so important and influential. If Gen X were as full of themselves we’d hear the same tall tales about Paul Westerberg. 
There’s a certain bit of pretending that nothing came before (the idea that they were uniquely complex is simply wrong) and everything since is filtered through a single decade (hip hop is undeniably more present in virtually every popular genre today than any influences of the 60s and 70s).
It doesn’t mean they aren’t great, influential, and important. They were and are. It just means that the greatness of the Beatles has been highly exaggerated, which is the definition of overrated. A lot of music happened in the 20th century and the Beatles are part of that story, but their part isn’t nearly as important as the popular conception.

This is the biggest reduction of all time. “There was a lot of music in the 20th century and the Beatles were just a part of that”. So they’re just like any other band.

You need to do some research and see how many bands have said they got into the music business because of the Beatles. Read about how many consider Dylan to be their main influence and how he is widely considered one if the greatest song writers of our time.

Hip hop can’t hold Motown’s jock strap. Who do you think all these samples the use come from? Rock, pop and R&B, all the genres you think are passe’
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mileslong said:


This is the biggest reduction of all time. “There was a lot of music in the 20th century and the Beatles were just a part of that”. So they’re just like any other band.

You need to do some research and see how many bands have said they got into the music business because of the Beatles. Read about how many consider Dylan to be their main influence and how he is widely considered one if the greatest song writers of our time.

Hip hop can’t hold Motown’s jock strap. Who do you think all these samples the use come from? Rock, pop and R&B, all the genres you think are passe’

Motown weeps at the thought of what a lot of bad hip hop does, me as well.   Sampling other peoples music and adding lyrics is interesting, but hey how about making your own music to put to your own words ?  Call me crazy.... 

The Beatles were and are great. They influenced rock and pop in the 60's and 70's, there's simply no getting around that fact.  You may not care for their sound, music is after all personal preference, but the bizarre notion that they were just another 60's band is laughable.  I bet you could play a snippet of Beatles music to undiscovered tribes living in the Amazonian basin, and they could finish the lyrics or name the song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

Everyone samples, though. Yes, rap does it the most but those Motown artists also sampled earlier artists. Everyone has influences. Hip hop has more longevity than Motown did. I enjoy both, though.

Hip hop has more longevity than Motown ?  Now why would you say that ?  Please show your work on that one.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Hip hop has more longevity than Motown ?  Now why would you say that ?  Please show your work on that one.  

 

 

 

Yeah my bad. I thought Motown started a decade later than it did. Hip hop started in the mid to late 70s. But hip hop will be here indefinitely. No signs of going anywhere. Difference in hip hop is it appeals to smaller demographic of age compared to other genres. You aren't going to see 60 year old rappers. Hell even when you get in your 40s, the appeal of those artists can drop. Unlike other genres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motown weeps at the thought of what a lot of bad hip hop does, me as well.   Sampling other peoples music and adding lyrics is interesting, but hey how about making your own music to put to your own words ?  Call me crazy.... 
The Beatles were and are great. They influenced rock and pop in the 60's and 70's, there's simply no getting around that fact.  You may not care for their sound, music is after all personal preference, but the bizarre notion that they were just another 60's band is laughable.  I bet you could play a snippet of Beatles music to undiscovered tribes living in the Amazonian basin, and they could finish the lyrics or name the song.

I didn’t say that, I was quoting Mole, I was defending their place in history
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mileslong said:


I didn’t say that, I was quoting Mole, I was defending their place in history

I'm not directing my comments at you.  I think it was at Vic regarding his Motown vs. hip hop comments.  I'm waitiing for someone to say Motown was overrated, and I'm not a huge Motown fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mileslong said:


This is the biggest reduction of all time. “There was a lot of music in the 20th century and the Beatles were just a part of that”. So they’re just like any other band.

This too is a huge reduction. I’d agree with the statement “the Beatles were most important group in their time period of their genre.” That’s a much more narrow statement than “they were the most influential of the 20th century.”  The first statement is reasonable even if you prefer the Stones. The second one takes an insanely provincial view. 

In the same time period of the 60s, John Coltrane in some ways wrote the conclusion to many of the significant musical developments of the previous 150 years. Two-hundred years from now, musicians will be studying him in depths that they’ll never consider the Beatles. At least as a musician, I think he has more lasting significance. That’s just one musician in one genre and 7 years of output. Coltrane also has a church. Advantage: Coltrane. 

Almost any movie with an orchestral score bears the strong imprint of Mahler and Schoenberg. Mahler’s been dead for over 100 years and Schoenberg for nearly 70, yet their influence is much more discernible than any lasting influence of the Beatles. Also, any composer in the classical idiom was forced to consciously accept or reject Schoenberg for most of the 20th century. Two-hundred years from now college music students will still be annoyed by tone rows. These composers and a few others from the 20th century have lasting musical influence in ways that the Beatles won’t. 

As for the Motown vs hip hop debate, I’ll personally take James Jamerson over Dr. Dre any day. Motown just feels good. Personal preference aside, you can’t turn on the radio without hearing the imprint of hip hop. Even country music sometimes sounds like break beats with pedal steel and redneck escape fantasies. We’re in the era where hip hop has largely taken over, even if it gets translated into other idioms. Kendrick Lamar won the Pulitzer last year. It’s the established popular music of the era. Tastes change. Hip hop will soon be the music of the olds if it isn’t already. 

All that to say,

Beatles: great

Popular view of them: over exaggerated and lacking any context or breadth of understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mole said:

This too is a huge reduction. I’d agree with the statement “the Beatles were most important group in their time period of their genre.” That’s a much more narrow statement than “they were the most influential of the 20th century.”  The first statement is reasonable even if you prefer the Stones. The second one takes an insanely provincial view. 

In the same time period of the 60s, John Coltrane in some ways wrote the conclusion to many of the significant musical developments of the previous 150 years. Two-hundred years from now, musicians will be studying him in depths that they’ll never consider the Beatles. At least as a musician, I think he has more lasting significance. That’s just one musician in one genre and 7 years of output. Coltrane also has a church. Advantage: Coltrane. 

Almost any movie with an orchestral score bears the strong imprint of Mahler and Schoenberg. Mahler’s been dead for over 100 years and Schoenberg for nearly 70, yet their influence is much more discernible than any lasting influence of the Beatles. Also, any composer in the classical idiom was forced to consciously accept or reject Schoenberg for most of the 20th century. Two-hundred years from now college music students will still be annoyed by tone rows. These composers and a few others from the 20th century have lasting musical influence in ways that the Beatles won’t. 

As for the Motown vs hip hop debate, I’ll personally take James Jamerson over Dr. Dre any day. Motown just feels good. Personal preference aside, you can’t turn on the radio without hearing the imprint of hip hop. Even country music sometimes sounds like break beats with pedal steel and redneck escape fantasies. We’re in the era where hip hop has largely taken over, even if it gets translated into other idioms. Kendrick Lamar won the Pulitzer last year. It’s the established popular music of the era. Tastes change. Hip hop will soon be the music of the olds if it isn’t already. 

All that to say,

Beatles: great

Popular view of them: over exaggerated and lacking any context or breadth of understanding.

Is someone saying they're the most influential of the 20th c. ?    They're the most influential of the 60's  and into the 70's for sure.

 

And as you get older you can't listen to some of the stuff you listened to when younger, it just grates in your hearing, and your nerves, and you just get bored with it. Hip hop will be a text book example of that.  There's not a hug breadth of hip hop style. It's fairly formulaic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mole said:

This too is a huge reduction. I’d agree with the statement “the Beatles were most important group in their time period of their genre.” That’s a much more narrow statement than “they were the most influential of the 20th century.”  The first statement is reasonable even if you prefer the Stones. The second one takes an insanely provincial view. 

In the same time period of the 60s, John Coltrane in some ways wrote the conclusion to many of the significant musical developments of the previous 150 years. Two-hundred years from now, musicians will be studying him in depths that they’ll never consider the Beatles. At least as a musician, I think he has more lasting significance. That’s just one musician in one genre and 7 years of output. Coltrane also has a church. Advantage: Coltrane.

All that to say,

Beatles: great

Popular view of them: over exaggerated and lacking any context or breadth of understanding.

You're confusing influential vs overrated, but I'll bite on the influential argument. The question isn't "movies vs the Beatles" or "hip hop vs the Beatles," the question is about the Beatles' influence on modern music and pop culture. Their influence is greater than any other songwriter or songwriting team. John Coltrane may be 1000x the musician that the Beatles were combined, and he may be criminally underrated by the layperson. But he hasn't had nearly the influence that the Beatles have had on popular music or culture (or any other massively popular rock / pop / hip hop artist). More influential in his genre? Maybe. More influential overall? Not a chance. 

Still, now that you mention it, I'm going to spin A Love Supreme for the evening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, honolulu horn said:

You're confusing influential vs overrated, but I'll bite on the influential argument. The question isn't "movies vs the Beatles" or "hip hop vs the Beatles," the question is about the Beatles' influence on modern music and pop culture. Their influence is greater than any other songwriter or songwriting team. John Coltrane may be 1000x the musician that the Beatles were combined, and he may be criminally underrated by the layperson. But he hasn't had nearly the influence that the Beatles have had on popular music or culture (or any other massively popular rock / pop / hip hop artist). More influential in his genre? Maybe. More influential overall? Not a chance. 

Still, now that you mention it, I'm going to spin A Love Supreme for the evening.

This. Hell they influenced hairstyles, fashion, reverb, interests in eastern philosophy,  oh and music, don't forget about the music.  John Coltraine was an amazing musician but did not influence popular culture to any degree approaching what the Beatles or Elvis did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2019 at 1:40 PM, honolulu horn said:

 They had more influence than any other musicians in the 20th century

 

13 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Is someone saying they're the most influential of the 20th c. ?    They're the most influential of the 60's  and into the 70's for sure.

 

And as you get older you can't listen to some of the stuff you listened to when younger, it just grates in your hearing, and your nerves, and you just get bored with it. Hip hop will be a text book example of that.  There's not a hug breadth of hip hop style. It's fairly formulaic.

Yes someone said that (see above) and it’s not an unusual position, which is why they’re the first thing I think of when someone says overrated, even though I recognize they are great and hugely influential. They were great songwriters, culturally very important, and popularized some important developments, yet they are still overrated due to very narrow thinking about music. 

I’ll admit a bias that I think about these things in mostly musical terms, so the pop culture issues might get short change from me. Sure they influenced a generation, but once they get placed against vastness of music history and some of the giants of the 20th century, their influence looks very temporary. 

Some of it comes down to the word influence. The Beatles influenced a lot of people in a very short time frame; some of the giants of the 20th century will have effects centuries from now. Which is more influential? If the influence largely vanishes after a generation, how much influence is it really?

The extreme example of this is Max Martin. I’m not about to compare him to the Beatles artistically, but his influence is much more clearly heard over the last few decades. No one really cares about one of his songs even a few months after they’re released, so there’s nothing lasting there. Still, everyone copies him because he’s solved the pop song puzzle for this era. He’s influential, but only in a very temporary way. The opposite end of the spectrum is Bach. No one really writes music like him anymore, yet every year freshman music students all across the country learn how to write four part harmony like him. Even if no one ever played his music again, he’d still be influencing generations of musicians.

I’m not really a big fan of hip hop, I don’t seek it out for casual listening, but you’re missing out by dismissing it as a medium. There has been some great hip hop music made.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mole said:

 

Yes someone said that (see above) and it’s not an unusual position, which is why they’re the first thing I think of when someone says overrated, even though I recognize they are great and hugely influential. They were great songwriters, culturally very important, and popularized some important developments, yet they are still overrated due to very narrow thinking about music. 

I’ll admit a bias that I think about these things in mostly musical terms, so the pop culture issues might get short change from me. Sure they influenced a generation, but once they get placed against vastness of music history and some of the giants of the 20th century, their influence looks very temporary. 

Some of it comes down to the word influence. The Beatles influenced a lot of people in a very short time frame; some of the giants of the 20th century will have effects centuries from now. Which is more influential? If the influence largely vanishes after a generation, how much influence is it really?

I’m not really a big fan of hip hop, I don’t seek it out for casual listening, but you’re missing out by dismissing it as a medium. There has been some great hip hop music made.

I'm the one who said it, and I stand by it, but not interested in continuing to defend it. I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said, though I think the influence (and subsequent "overratedness" or whatever it's called) will stand the test of time, for a long long time. Let's agree to meet in 200 years and see what's up.

And not sure why you think I'm dismissing hip hop. I love it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, honolulu horn said:

I'm the one who said it, and I stand by it, but not interested in continuing to defend it. I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said, though I think the influence (and subsequent "overratedness" or whatever it's called) will stand the test of time, for a long long time. Let's agree to meet in 200 years and see what's up.

And not sure why you think I'm dismissing hip hop. I love it.

He was addressing my post I think. I'm not a big hip hop fan. I'm not the demographic, but I do dig some of it. Good music is good music. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beatles fanbois not going away.

Overrated, to me, has a specific meaning: were they as good as people say they were? Influence is a different category, and in fact if they weren't that good, and were still extremely influential, this just reinforces the argument that they are overrated. They played gummy, pedestrian pop that echoed the stuff from postwar British pop, along with elements from other genres, especially early rock and roll. They couldn't even play their instruments well enough to keep up with the tempo Ringo tried to set for them on their first US tour. Musically, they just weren't as good as the godlike status many people ascribe to them. Culture, hairstyles, Eastern religion - what the fuck does any of that have to do with the actual music they produced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Beatles fanbois not going away.

Overrated, to me, has a specific meaning: were they as good as people say they were? Influence is a different category, and in fact if they weren't that good, and were still extremely influential, this just reinforces the argument that they are overrated. They played gummy, pedestrian pop that echoed the stuff from postwar British pop, along with elements from other genres, especially early rock and roll. They couldn't even play their instruments well enough to keep up with the tempo Ringo tried to set for them on their first US tour. Musically, they just weren't as good as the godlike status many people ascribe to them. Culture, hairstyles, Eastern religion - what the fuck does any of that have to do with the actual music they produced?

Show me on the doll where the Beatles didn't touch you .  Give it up Mano, you're the minority opinion in the entire world on this one. You're welcome to your personal opinion, it just doesn't jive with the actual sentient beings of the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2019 at 10:20 AM, ztejas said:

I find depending on what vodka is made with it can have a distinct flavor (more of an undertone, really). I'm not really a fan of Tito's because it's a corn vodka and it gives it this weird, sweet almost syrupy flavor. 

You are right though in that you can take swill, filter it 6 or 7 times (not sure about just 3), and it will be about as good as any "premium" brand. 

And, if you are mixing it with a bunch of crap it doesn't matter as long as it's half decent shit. But I tend to drink over ice with a splash of soda and lime. If I ask for Ketel and you pour me Tito's I'll probably notice and tell you to take it back. 

Completely agree. 

For me,  potato vodkas taste better and give me less chance for a hangover than corn, grain, rice, grape or any other vodka.  Chopin is my favorite (I drink with a splash of Topo Chico & a lime wedge) but normally I get Monopolowa most of the time because it's good and inexpensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2019 at 7:17 PM, Vic Mackey said:

Everyone samples, though. Yes, rap does it the most but those Motown artists also sampled earlier artists. Everyone has influences. Hip hop has more longevity than Motown did. I enjoy both, though.

Wut ?

Rap and hip hop cannot carry Motown's jock.

Dumbest thing I have ever read.

Motown will be around forever.....rap and hip hop not so much because it SUCKS ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Flip flops

Vastly over rated

Yeah, I know, let the flip flop war begin, but at this point anything is better than this music history debate.

It's not really a debate it's old white guys shaking a stick at hip hop. 

But, yeah, flip flops are gross imo. If you're at the beach or at the pool I get it. But these douchenozzles that wear flip flops as a casual shoe or even worse dress them up with jeans make me roll my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ztejas said:

It's not really a debate it's old white guys shaking a stick at hip hop. 

But, yeah, flip flops are gross imo. If you're at the beach or at the pool I get it. But these douchenozzles that wear flip flops as a casual shoe or even worse dress them up with jeans make me roll my eyes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2019 at 11:33 AM, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah, but for years Coloradans have HAAAAAAATED Texans... that whole skiing in jeans thing I believe.....

Growing up a summer invader of Pagosa I still remember reading graffiti circa 1980 in Durango, ‘Here I sit buns a flexing making another goddamn Texan.’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2019 at 10:08 PM, Mole said:

This too is a huge reduction. I’d agree with the statement “the Beatles were most important group in their time period of their genre.” That’s a much more narrow statement than “they were the most influential of the 20th century.”  The first statement is reasonable even if you prefer the Stones. The second one takes an insanely provincial view. 

In the same time period of the 60s, John Coltrane in some ways wrote the conclusion to many of the significant musical developments of the previous 150 years. Two-hundred years from now, musicians will be studying him in depths that they’ll never consider the Beatles. At least as a musician, I think he has more lasting significance. That’s just one musician in one genre and 7 years of output. Coltrane also has a church. Advantage: Coltrane. 

Almost any movie with an orchestral score bears the strong imprint of Mahler and Schoenberg. Mahler’s been dead for over 100 years and Schoenberg for nearly 70, yet their influence is much more discernible than any lasting influence of the Beatles. Also, any composer in the classical idiom was forced to consciously accept or reject Schoenberg for most of the 20th century. Two-hundred years from now college music students will still be annoyed by tone rows. These composers and a few others from the 20th century have lasting musical influence in ways that the Beatles won’t. 

As for the Motown vs hip hop debate, I’ll personally take James Jamerson over Dr. Dre any day. Motown just feels good. Personal preference aside, you can’t turn on the radio without hearing the imprint of hip hop. Even country music sometimes sounds like break beats with pedal steel and redneck escape fantasies. We’re in the era where hip hop has largely taken over, even if it gets translated into other idioms. Kendrick Lamar won the Pulitzer last year. It’s the established popular music of the era. Tastes change. Hip hop will soon be the music of the olds if it isn’t already. 

All that to say,

Beatles: great

Popular view of them: over exaggerated and lacking any context or breadth of understanding.

I don’t know if you are old enough to have actually listened to the radio back in the day. But here is how it really is. The three most important artists of the 20th century were in this order, Ray Charles, Elvis and the Beatles. They were the triad of power that without which we would not have the music we have today. Or at least would have been delayed for a few decades.

Here are the simple reasons. If you really care do your research, there are many, many more.

First, Ray Charles is number one for the simple reason he did the unthinkable by blending Gospel and blues into pop form music signatures that are still being copied to this day. AND he not only introduced it to the white market, but he completely legitimized it. Without Ray we don’t have rock and roll, Elvis, the British Invasion or anything else. And he got crucified by his own community for doing it.

The second was Elvis. He took up what Ray started, but added the marketable good looking white boy element to the sound. Had it not been for the crooked Colonel, Elvis would have been 10 times as big. Not touring worldwide killed Elvis in the 60’s. 

Then comes the Beatles. They filled the vacuum created by Elvis and his handlers (ie the Colonel) for not touring properly, and letting his sound get stale by 1963. When they released Meet the Beatles. AND the writing and arrangements of Lennon and McCartney would push them to superstardom. 

Those three artists were not only the most important of the 20th century for the development of the many different genres of music we enjoy today. It was that collectively they didn’t just impact the political, cultural and social attitudes of the entire planet of their time, they fucking changed them. It took those three, in that order, to write the history of rock and roll. A style of music that 99% of music executives of the time said was just a fad, and would never last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scooter Monzingo said:

I don’t know if you are old enough to have actually listened to the radio back in the day. But here is how it really is. The three most important artists of the 20th century were in this order, Ray Charles, Elvis and the Beatles. They were the triad of power that without which we would not have the music we have today. Or at least would have been delayed for a few decades.

Here are the simple reasons. If you really care do your research, there are many, many more.

First, Ray Charles is number one for the simple reason he did the unthinkable by blending Gospel and blues into pop form music signatures that are still being copied to this day. AND he not only introduced it to the white market, but he completely legitimized it. Without Ray we don’t have rock and roll, Elvis, the British Invasion or anything else. And he got crucified by his own community for doing it.

The second was Elvis. He took up what Ray started, but added the marketable good looking white boy element to the sound. Had it not been for the crooked Colonel, Elvis would have been 10 times as big. Not touring worldwide killed Elvis in the 60’s. 

Then comes the Beatles. They filled the vacuum created by Elvis and his handlers (ie the Colonel) for not touring properly, and letting his sound get stale by 1963. When they released Meet the Beatles. AND the writing and arrangements of Lennon and McCartney would push them to superstardom. 

Those three artists were not only the most important of the 20th century for the development of the many different genres of music we enjoy today. It was that collectively they didn’t just impact the political, cultural and social attitudes of the entire planet of their time, they fucking changed them. It took those three, in that order, to write the history of rock and roll. A style of music that 99% of music executives of the time said was just a fad, and would never last.

Interesting take.  All 3 became icons of their ages for sure.  Of the 3 Ray is the most important/ raw talent IMO. He succeeded despite his blindness (which may have helped him as a musician) and his race, in a time and place of tremendous racism. The cards were stacked against him pretty early on in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...