Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Three 20th Century Bands that be in history books

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Andialu wrote:
That's your problem. You're looking, not listening. smile

Yeah, not shallow, AT ALL. lol

Clever quip but I think everyone knows the Beatles catalogue.
And that also emphasises my point: it needs to be about more than the music to be considered of historical importance. So we need to be seeing it's influence if it's a historically important phenomena.

Don't get me wrong - I can see their influence being important at the time. But not now.

OK I have attempted to show why The Sex Pistols are an important inclusion in the history books more than on just a music level but when all is said and done If you guys want the Beatles in your history books that's fine. We are just going to have to agree to disagree and let some new people have their three bands smile

Mar 25 13 02:22 pm Link

Photographer

Andialu

Posts: 14029

San Pedro, California, US

Eliza C wrote:

Clever quip but I think everyone knows the Beatles catalogue.
And that also emphasises my point: it needs to be about more than the music to be considered of historical importance. So we need to be seeing it's influence if it's a historically important phenomena.

Don't get me wrong - I can see their influence being important at the time. But not now.

OK I have attempted to show why The Sex Pistols are an important conclusion but when all is said and done If you guys want the Beatles in your history books that's fine. We are just going to have to agree to disagree and let some new people have their three bands smile

So saith the fashionista, so saith no one else. smile

Mar 25 13 02:26 pm Link

Photographer

Patrick Walberg

Posts: 45192

San Juan Bautista, California, US

Eliza C wrote:
So sorry Kurt would have wanted to be with the Pistols not The Beatles etc.

Evidence Patrick; evidence.

Here you go; 

Kurt Cobain doing what I was doing at age 2 ... singing Beatles songs!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roV_3nGGigc


Direct quotes from Kurt in an interview where the Beatles are mentioned;

GW: What did you listen to then?
COBAIN: Whatever I could get a hold of. My aunts would give me Beatles records, so for the most part it was just the Beatles, and every once in a while, if I was lucky, I was able to buy a single.

GW: Did you like the Beatles?
COBAIN: Oh, yeah. My mother always tried to keep a little bit of British culture in our family. We'd drink tea all the time! I never really knew about my ancestors until this year, when I learned that the name Cobain was Irish. My parents had never bothered to find that stuff out. I found out by looking through phone books throughout America for names that were similar to mine. I couldn't find any Cobains at all, so I started calling Coburns. I found this one lady in San Francisco who had been researching our family history for years.

From:  http://kuriakon00.tripod.com/kurt/kurt_cobain_2.htm

Kurt also like Neil Young, and Freddie Mercury of Queen ... in addition to the Sex Pistols.

Mar 25 13 02:28 pm Link

Photographer

Llobet Photography

Posts: 4915

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US

Eliza C wrote:
I don't know anybody in the UK that particularly likes them. A cursory glance at my facebook friends reveal mainly Amercians that have ticked like yet I have many more British friends. Just among my lab colleagues of 20 or so I think there is one who likes the Beatles. 7 of us like Bauhaus for example by contrast and all of us have some Pistols in our collections.

This is interesting and funny too.  I don't know if it's your age group, or the fact that you're all British or what that causes you and your group of people to have disdain towards the Beatles.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Beatles music and some is just too immature for me, like the really early stuff.  I also like some of the Sex Pistols too.  I have their album.  Heck, used to dance to their stuff and even PIL music too and New Wave, etc. And I do realize that people still like to put on mohawks and dye their hair blue for fun to be punkish, but this makes me laugh.  They do stand out in a crowd though, whereas all of us wearing jeans kinda blend in with each other.  But to marginalize the Beatles influence on all of our modern society is a woeful neglect of historical fact.

Edit:  I think you and your country men and women should be proud of the fact that so much great music and influence has come out of England.  Think about it.

Mar 25 13 02:31 pm Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Gary Melton wrote:
Actually Eliza, I think you're the one who is totally missing the point of this thread.  I asked what three bands from the [2nd half of the] 20th century do you think will be in history books 500 years from now...I did NOT ask - which bands from the 20th century have changed our culture the most.

What I'm mostly talking about is which bands will prove to be the most "timeless" and thus still be talked about hundreds of years from now.

Here's something of an example of what I'm talking about.  Two movies made in 1939: Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz are as entertaining today as they were almost 75 years ago.  Hundreds of other films were made that same year that didn't hold up well for even 10 years, but people will still be enjoying these 2 films 200 years from now.  These 2 movies didn't really change the world - they just captured universal (and timeless) ideas and emotions, and they did it really well.

I think The Beatles music did the same kind of thing - it did a great job of capturing universal (and timeless) ideas and emotions.

[And just like with The Beatles - some people will say that they just don't "get" those 2 movies...but a large majority of people would agree with me that they are "timeless".]

I see your point.
I made it ages ago re cinema. Spielberg. Many more people will see his films but if we take ET and Close Encounters NO cinema buff will consider them as groundbreaking as any of Tarkovsky's movies. Yet the latter are so bleak as to be unwatchable and turgid for entertainment and unknown by most people. But they are far more historically important. What is popular and succesful is no indication of artistic or historical importance.

So I still maintain in any general history of the twentieth centiurey in 500 yeasr time I don't think the Beatles will get more than a small mention whereas punk will because it continues to shape modern cultural expression - Heath Ledge and the joker being sinpired by the Sex Pistols was given as an example. So we don't know just how far punk will shape the future. The Beatles job was done by the mid seventies and the rest is nostalgia.

Anyway it's your book so no hard feelings smile x

Mar 25 13 02:31 pm Link

Photographer

Gary Melton

Posts: 6680

Dallas, Texas, US

Eliza C wrote:
...it needs to be about more than the music to be considered of historical importance. So we need to be seeing it's influence if it's a historically important phenomena...

Again - I disagree with you.  Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and others like them are in the history books because we STILL enjoy their music...their music is timeless!

Before the movie Amadeus came out, most people didn't have the first clue about the lives or cultural effects of any of the great musicians from 250 years ago or so.

Mar 25 13 02:31 pm Link

Photographer

Patrick Walberg

Posts: 45192

San Juan Bautista, California, US

Eliza C wrote:
OK I have attempted to show why The Sex Pistols are an important inclusion in the history books more than on just a music level but when all is said and done If you guys want the Beatles in your history books that's fine. We are just going to have to agree to disagree and let some new people have their three bands smile

I will be happy to abstain from further debate if you will to.  Let's see what other bands are mentioned.  Give peace ... umm people a chance!  wink

Mar 25 13 02:34 pm Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Gary Melton wrote:
Again - I disagree with you.  Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and others like them are in the history books because we STILL enjoy their music...their music is timeless!

Before the movie Amadeus came out, most people didn't have the first clue about the lives or cultural effects of any of the great musicians from 250 years ago or so.

Their music was NOT  necessarily the popular music at the time.
The most popular in England at that time would have been something like "Johnny's so Long at the Fair". Know that one do we? Exactly. Mozart etc were more historically important in terms of artistic merit and lasting influence  than popular folk songs and that is my point.

Mar 25 13 02:37 pm Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I will be happy to abstain from further debate if you will to.  Let's see what other bands are mentioned.  Give peace ... umm people a chance!  wink

lol

cool x

Mar 25 13 02:40 pm Link

Photographer

Patrick Walberg

Posts: 45192

San Juan Bautista, California, US

Eliza C wrote:
Their music was NOT  necessarily the popular music at the time.
The most popular in England at that time would have been something like "Johnny's so Long at the Fair". Know that one do we? Exactly. Mozart etc were more historically important in terms of artistic merit and lasting influence  than popular folk songs and that is my point.

Interesting; A traditional nursery rhyme that can be traced back as far as the 1780s in England was more popular than the musical works of Mozart, Beethoven, or Bach?  You've just lost all credibility with me.

Funny!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fKm4TcpqJs

Mar 25 13 02:44 pm Link

Photographer

Gary Melton

Posts: 6680

Dallas, Texas, US

Eliza C wrote:
Their music was NOT  necessarily the popular music at the time.
The most popular in England at that time would have been something like "Johnny's so Long at the Fair". Know that one do we? Exactly. Mozart etc were more historically important in terms of artistic merit and lasting influence  than popular folk songs and that is my point.

Exactly!  Remember, in Mozart's time - there was no radio or iTunes.  Music was "live", or it was sheet music...which at that time had to be hand copied, so even the sheet music was not widely disseminated.  There was really NO worldwide standards for popular music at that time - it was all regional, ie whatever was most popular for a particular culture/area of people then.

So of all the music created back then - only the best of it...the music with the most "...artistic merit and lasting influence..." made it this far into the future: Mozart, Beethoven, et al.

Well, now we DO have the internet and iTunes and so music DOES get much more widely heard...and I STILL think that the number one candidate for the survival of the music of any latter half 20th century band is...The Beatles.  Their songs were magical, interesting and unique.  People will enjoy their artistry for years and years to come...

Mar 25 13 02:58 pm Link

Photographer

Clarence Zimmerman

Posts: 4050

Orlando, Florida, US

To all music lovers alike,

Due to all the long winded arguments, we have made a very difficult decision; all bands that originated in the UK are now excluded. We feel that this is the best way to go about it and thank you all for your cooperation.

Sincerely,
The History Books....

smile

Mar 25 13 03:19 pm Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

BlueMoonPics wrote:
This is interesting and funny too.  I don't know if it's your age group, or the fact that you're all British or what that causes you and your group of people to have disdain towards the Beatles.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Beatles music and some is just too immature for me, like the really early stuff.  I also like some of the Sex Pistols too.  I have their album.  Heck, used to dance to their stuff and even PIL music too and New Wave, etc. And I do realize that people still like to put on mohawks and dye their hair blue for fun to be punkish, but this makes me laugh.  They do stand out in a crowd though, whereas all of us wearing jeans kinda blend in with each other.  But to marginalize the Beatles influence on all of our modern society is a woeful neglect of historical fact.

Edit:  I think you and your country men and women should be proud of the fact that so much great music and influence has come out of England.  Think about it.

I take your point but with resrevations.
Fisrtly I can honestly say there is more appreciation among my age group to about 50 years old of The Dead Kennedys than the Beatles among quite a wide social cricle that encompass my friends.

I think you make a point though that is important. The UK has always held style as important. Punk was partly a reaction against conmformity of dress in terms of t short and jeans uniform; and even the Beatles with nehru jackets and Sgt Pepper bandsman's jackets were also more individually styled. But also there were US influences in terms of style on punk: The New York Dolls for example.
Many british people value style as individual expression. Sadly now 'street wear' has become a conformist uniform and individuality is not as evident as it used to be. But you do get those that dress differently still and they tend to be the creative community. I don't think that is so different in New York actually but less evident on the west coast and mid US from what I have seen. Though of course you do get regional exceptions. The western style for example is not purely functional and it doesn't have the global street conformity either. So things like cowboy boots I think are cool and timeless.

But Vivienne Westwood is admired as a cultural icon here across classes and cultures there is no doubt about that. She isn't just about fashion it's about Art and style and  bricolage and a blend of our heritage while embracing the avant garde. Nobody in the UK whose opinion mattered would see Westwood's contribution as shallow. She deserves the emphasis the VanA museum places on her and her iconic status that crosses from punks to Royal Ascot. There was always that about British style from the intellegenisa dandies of the Regency period who liked to rough it in the taverns through to John Steed and Honor Blackman that mixture of the traditional and the edgy; and cross class style. We have always expressed ourselves through style and it is important. I don't think Americans quite get Royal Ascot or the punk peacocks you describe. See it in terms of cultural expression and you may. See it in terms of dressing up for fun and to be stared at and you won't. Once a month I go to a club in Swansea and meet friends and dance and some people are genuinely nervous about us and shout 'freaks' from a safe distance. I have always had that. So have many of my friends. But we don't do it to shock. We do it because it is who we are. We raid the wardobe of the past, of the fetish world, of the industrial scene of rock and roll classics etc and make a bricolage. Dressing in a uniform baseball cap jeans and training shoes has nothing to do with my culture. The English eccentric and his/her sense of style does.

Mar 25 13 03:22 pm Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Interesting; A traditional nursery rhyme that can be traced back as far as the 1780s in England was more popular than the musical works of Mozart, Beethoven, or Bach?  You've just lost all credibility with me.

Funny!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fKm4TcpqJs

At the time such things would have been. Many classical composers often wrote for the court. It was for the elite. That is not to say they also didn't write things like hymns for the church which were then distributed to the masses. And they of course have lasted. But all those popular folk songs? Look for the authors and you will find 'anon'.

Mar 25 13 03:25 pm Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Clarence Zimmerman wrote:
To all music lovers alike,

Due to all the long winded arguments, we have made a very difficult decision; all bands that originated in the UK are now excluded. We feel that this is the best way to go about it and thank you all for your cooperation.

Sincerely,
The History Books....

smile

Ok good idea.

1. Guns n Roses
2. Iggy Pop and the Stooges
3. The Ramones or the New York Dolls

lol

Just kidding and that opens a whole new can of worms and I'd have to think about it more carefully.

Mar 25 13 03:27 pm Link

Photographer

-Koa-

Posts: 5250

Castaner, Puerto Rico, US

Gary Melton wrote:

The thread is not mis-titled...it is what I titled it: three 20th century bands that will be in history [books].  If people are not making suggestions based on my original thread title - that is on them, not ME.  I was looking for ideas from people on which bands they thought were significant enough that they would be slam-dunks for future historians to mention.

'Sorry...I never meant to start World War III!!!  smile

It was bound to happen.

This time, you have the "Ubber Cool" kids with their punk bands or whatever. Their arguments would be the same had it been somone talking about Gangsa rap, Jazz or even Classical music. To each his own.

As for me:
1) The Beatles
2) Pink Floyd
3) Electric Light Orchestra
I'll throw in Chicago just for the heck of it.

Personally, it starts and ends with The Beatles. Everything else can be argued about for who takes second, third etc.

As for The Rolling Stones. Really!? I love the early Stones...Pre-disco. They went to shit around mid-late 70's. I tried to like them, I really did but they got to discoish/dance formulaic.

-Koa-
www.borikenwarrior.com
Models! Join me on Facebook!
www.facebook.com/borikenwarriormodels.com

Mar 25 13 03:49 pm Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

-Koa- wrote:
It was bound to happen.

This time, you have the "Ubber Cool" kids with their punk bands or whatever. Their arguments would be the same had it been somone talking about Gangsa rap, Jazz or even Classical music. To each his own.

As for me:
1) The Beatles
2) Pink Floyd
3) Electric Light Orchestra
I'll throw in Chicago just for the heck of it.

Personally, it starts and ends with The Beatles. Everything else can be argued about for who takes second, third etc.

As for The Rolling Stones. Really!? I love the early Stones...Pre-disco. They went to shit around mid-late 70's. I tried to like them, I really did but they got to discoish/dance formulaic.

-Koa-
www.borikenwarrior.com
Models! Join me on Facebook!
www.facebook.com/borikenwarriormodels.com

well at least you note punk is uber cool 37 years on.

I suppose dinosaurs were important at the time.
They are not however important in current eco systems lol

I agree The Stones went shit.
But not quite as shit as Wings were they?
And the early Stones still sound great whereas a lot of the Beatles stuff I maintain sounds dated. And ELO well... lol


I am just teasing. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion and we shall be influenced by what we like or what was from our era. But I actually I haven't been. I wasn't born when punk happened. I haven't included any bands I regularly listen to in the last 15 years. I just notice the profound influence the Pistols have had on the Art music cinema and fashion I have grown up with. I haven't noticed ELO having any contribution to it so I can't see how you can objectively put a case for inclusion. Pink Floyd I don't like but they are a fair inclusion; and even the Beatles at a push purely on popularity and success.

So may I ask why ELO? Or Chicago for that matter.

Mar 25 13 04:11 pm Link

Photographer

Justin

Posts: 22389

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

I need to conduct an experiment.

I'll ask my grandkids with the mohawks if they can hum any Beatles songs. I'll ask them if they can hum any Sex Pistols songs.

I will bring no bias to the queries. I'm honestly interested in what they have to say. I'll report back.

Mar 25 13 07:25 pm Link

Model

Koryn

Posts: 39496

Boston, Massachusetts, US

Eliza C wrote:
But not quite as shit as Wings were they?

lol

Mar 25 13 07:42 pm Link

Model

Koryn

Posts: 39496

Boston, Massachusetts, US

Justin wrote:
I need to conduct an experiment.

I'll ask my grandkids with the mohawks if they can hum any Beatles songs. I'll ask them if they can hum any Sex Pistols songs.

I will bring no bias to the queries. I'm honestly interested in what they have to say. I'll report back.

To be completely fair, it's hard to hum Sex Pistols song. Production quality sucked back then, and it wasn't exactly meant to sound "good" in recordings.

Ask them if they can hum a Ramones song.

Mar 25 13 07:43 pm Link

Photographer

Justin

Posts: 22389

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

Koryn Locke wrote:
To be completely fair, it's hard to hum Sex Pistols song. Production quality sucked back then, and it wasn't exactly meant to sound "good" in recordings.

Ask them if they can hum a Ramones song.

I'm missing that translation - some of the Pretenders riffs sound downright George Harrison, and Elton John did Beatles, and I'm not going to ask them about the Pretenders or Elton John - but I will.

I'll ask them:

1. Do you know the names of any Sex Pistols songs?
2. Do you know the names of any Beatles songs?
3. Can you hum any Ramones songs?
4. Can you hum any Beatles songs?

If there's something wrong with the methodology, let me know.

Mar 25 13 07:57 pm Link

Photographer

Gary Melton

Posts: 6680

Dallas, Texas, US

Justin wrote:

I'm missing that translation - some of the Pretenders riffs sound downright George Harrison, and Elton John did Beatles, and I'm not going to ask them about the Pretenders or Elton John - but I will.

I'll ask them:

1. Do you know the names of any Sex Pistols songs?
2. Do you know the names of any Beatles songs?
3. Can you hum any Ramones songs?
4. Can you hum any Beatles songs?

If there's something wrong with the methodology, let me know.

make them ditch the mohawks first...

Mar 25 13 08:01 pm Link

Photographer

Justin

Posts: 22389

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

Justin wrote:
If there's something wrong with the methodology, let me know.

Gary Melton wrote:
make them ditch the mohawks first...

Dude. I'm not going to have them cut off the rest of their hair!

Mar 25 13 08:05 pm Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Justin wrote:
I'm missing that translation - some of the Pretenders riffs sound downright George Harrison, and Elton John did Beatles, and I'm not going to ask them about the Pretenders or Elton John - but I will.

I'll ask them:

1. Do you know the names of any Sex Pistols songs?
2. Do you know the names of any Beatles songs?
3. Can you hum any Ramones songs?
4. Can you hum any Beatles songs?

If there's something wrong with the methodology, let me know.

Actually this is a great example of the limitations of what people like to think of as 'scientific method'. Essentially your idea is a rudimentary quantative method.  You can quantify how many Beatles songs they know in comparison to the Sex Pistols and can thereby prove your hypothesis that the Beatles exerted more influence yes?

This method works in my area of science when doing geochemistry. I can look at the chemical components of something and tell its origins.

However it is not always useful. This would need to be tested with qualatative methods and I will illustrate why with an example.

If you asked a sample of 1000 atheists if they could hum a hymn I bet you 99% could. Does this mean Christianity has exterted an influence on their lives? By contast I bet if you asked them to quote Richard Dawkins the majority would not. Yet who has had the greatest infleunce on them? Now we could make some conclusions saying that Christianity has permeated their lives more than they imagine, or indeed it may be that hymns had a negative impact. So for example boredom in church as a child being made to recite hymns could have made them more likely to have an aversion to christianity: reject it. While Dawkins may not actually had much impact at all. But they would be guesses and actually a different researcher would not think that far and just point to the fact Christiainity has actually influenced them.

Likewise your idea. They may know the Beatles songs more than the Pistols ones. But they may actually detest what that music stands for. While they may not know so many Pistols ones and they may not actually had a direct bearing but they are broadly alligned with the same ethos and recognise that The Sex Pistols represented a revolution against that music.

So no; we need a qualatative experiment. Because with that method we can actually find out what we seek. The most effective with people in anthropological and sociological research involves participant observation. And the most effective of all is complete participant. Simply because information given to an outsider does not always carry validity. So better to become 'part' of the study  group. This is unlikely something you would be able to do. So the best way is to find someone their age familiar with these fields of research to submerse themselves in contemporary punk culture. Rather like if you want to gather quality information about national or industrial secrets you have a spy to go native and work behind the enemy lines rather than rely on hard data you can measure or use interrogation techniques. I would expect though such an attempt - though I may be wrong - they would find no lasting profound infleunce of the Beatles in their lives.

Of course sometimes particpant observation is not that effective. And I would cite Chrissie Hynde as an example of how the point of punk was completely missed depite her taking part in it. She could not go native because she simply wasn't native to the ethos. She could study and be influenced but that is all. And ultimately yep the Pretenders owe more to the Beatles than the Sex Pistols. I don't however know of anyone that would consider them punk Accirding to John Lydon , Glen Matlock got kicked out of The Pistols for being infleunced by The Beatles btw.

Mar 26 13 04:21 am Link

Photographer

Justin

Posts: 22389

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

Justin wrote:
1. Do you know the names of any Sex Pistols songs?
2. Do you know the names of any Beatles songs?
3. Can you hum any Ramones songs?
4. Can you hum any Beatles songs?

Eliza C wrote:
Actually this is a great example of the limitations of what people like to think of as 'scientific method'.

It's not a scientific method. I don't have an operating hypothesis. I'm asking my grandkids what they're familiar with, because I'm curious.

As I understand the scientific process, it optimally involves objective analysis, devotion to results, and exclusion of preformed bias. I'm not sure I see that in this thread, but I will ask them without any expectation of a particular outcome. Because I'm honestly curious what they'll say.

Mar 26 13 04:48 am Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Justin wrote:
It's not a scientific method. I don't have an operating hypothesis. I'm asking my grandkids what they're familiar with, because I'm curious.

As I understand the scientific process, it optimally involves objective analysis, devotion to results, and exclusion of preformed bias. I'm not sure I see that in this thread, but I will ask them without any expectation of a particular outcome. Because I'm honestly curious what they'll say.

As I said this is something that requires qualatative scientific method. You may or may not have a bias but whatever you will find no quality data from such questions on which we can base any worthwhile conclusions. I am not curious because I know for example that any atheist could hum a hymn that doesn't tell us they are influenced in any positive way by Christianity do you see my point?

I agree that this thread is full of bias. Even I possibly have a bias but I don't actually like the Sex Pistols or The Beatles; and am not that fond of the Stones. Most of the bands I like you won't be familiar with. Apart from maybe The Sisters of Mercy and Bauhaus.  So I have actually tried to see which bands have the longest and most profound influene on contemporary culture as a measure of their likely historical longevity (continuity and change is an important concept in history) and therefore I think the choice of the Sex Pistols and exclusion of the Beatles based on evidence I have presented rather than bias. I believe that Springheel has presented a parody of the bias toward The Beatles etc in this thread by selecting obscure music to make a similar point.

I suppose you could ask them without lead in questions. That is don't ask them about the Beatles or The Pistols ask them which bands they think have had most infleunce on their lives and which from the past they think have most relevance today etc. Wouldn't tell us much but would tell us more than asking them to hum a Beatles song.

500 years is a very long time.
As I think the Beatles have not lasted into cutting edge creativity into the 21st century (ie fifty years) whereas The Sex Pistols influence is demonstrably still at that edge after 37 years. While what I am saying may be contentious it is supportable with evidence.

I am quite happy to accept a different criteria but that is the one I have put forward. I may be worng but I have attempted a critique based on something.

If we are asking who will be in the history books for being most popular and selling the most records etc we have quantative data that would put the Beatles there of course.

But I am playing devil's advocate in suggesting we should use a criteria based on more than popularity or sales. If we did that we'd come up with Tretchikoff's blue Chinese girl painting as being the most important picture in the history of twentieth century Art. Clearly a nonsense.

That doesn't mean mine is the only criteria we should use if at all. But we need some criteria. Or we may as well just list our favourites.

It shouldn't be difficult to develop a criteria based on more than popularity to judge this. Musical ability would be equally as preposterous as otherwise we'd have prog rock dinosaurs there and the early beatles would definitely be out.

Mar 26 13 04:54 am Link

Photographer

Justin

Posts: 22389

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

Eliza C wrote:
As I said this is something that requires qualatative scientific method.

Talking to my grandkids doesn't require any such thing.

You may or may not have a bias but whatever you will find no quality data from such questions on which we can base any worthwhile conclusions.

I'm not forming conclusions. I'm curious what my grandkids have to say vis-a-vis familiarity with the Beatles versus Sex Pistols.

I am not curious because I know for example that any atheist could hum a hymn that doesn't tell us they are influenced in any positive way by Christianity do you see my point?

I see your point, but your point is obfuscating my future conversation (which will likely take place Easter, speaking of Christian influences). I'm not asking them what they're influenced by. I'm curious what they're familiar with.

I agree that this thread is full of bias. Even I possibly have a bias

I suppose you could ask them without lead in questions. That is don't ask them about the Beatles or The Pistols ask them which bands they think have had most infleunce on their lives and which from the past they think have most relevance today etc. Wouldn't tell us much but would tell us more than asking them to hum a Beatles song.

Thanks. I'm curious if they're more familiar with the Beatles or the Sex Pistols (or the Sex Pistols' apparent musically genetic descendants, the Ramones). If that doesn't tell you much, then feel free to dismiss it. It will answer my question.

Mar 26 13 05:11 am Link

Makeup Artist

Dana Spence

Posts: 229

Washington, District of Columbia, US

HWM Photography wrote:
The Funk Brothers...the greatest band most people have never known (but most have heard)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Funk_Brothers

Nine pages into this, and only one person has mentioned The Funk Brothers.

I'm going to grab a bottle of tequila, listen to my records, and cry.

Mar 26 13 05:12 am Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Justin wrote:

Eliza C wrote:
As I said this is something that requires qualatative scientific method.

Talking to my grandkids doesn't require any such thing.

You may or may not have a bias but whatever you will find no quality data from such questions on which we can base any worthwhile conclusions.

I'm not forming conclusions. I'm curious what my grandkids have to say vis-a-vis familiarity with the Beatles versus Sex Pistols.

I am not curious because I know for example that any atheist could hum a hymn that doesn't tell us they are influenced in any positive way by Christianity do you see my point?

I see your point, but your point is obfuscating my future conversation (which will likely take place Easter, speaking of Christian influences). I'm not asking them what they're influenced by. I'm curious what they're familiar with.


Thanks. I'm curious if they're more familiar with the Beatles or the Sex Pistols (or the Sex Pistols' apparent musically genetic descendants, the Ramones). If that doesn't tell you much, then feel free to dismiss it. It will answer my question.

No it won't. It may reinforce a prejudice but that isn't the same thing. You also have a very small sample. So even if they said to you 'who the fuck are The Beatles?" yeah The Pistols is where it's at"  we couldn't accept that as valid data that could be indicative of the influence of either on modern youth. And almost certainly a subject interviewed in this fashion will immediately adapt their answers to expectaions and perceived bias. So they may want to please grandad and connect with him via his music; or they may reject you thinking you are trying to be 'cool'. People's behaviour cannot be predicted like so many chemicals.

You asked if the method was sound I am telling you why it isn't. smile

Mar 26 13 05:17 am Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Dana Spence wrote:

Nine pages into this, and only one person has mentioned The Funk Brothers.

I'm going to grab a bottle of tequila, listen to my records, and cry.

Session musicians.
Rather like how orchestra members are not remembered as well as the composers.

Mar 26 13 05:19 am Link

Photographer

Justin

Posts: 22389

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

Justin wrote:
It will answer my question.

Eliza C wrote:
No it won't.

When my question seeks to find out whom they're more familiar with, of course it does.

It may reinforce a prejudice but that isn't the same thing.

I don't have a prejudice. I have a curiosity.

You also have a very small sample.

Well, I've tried like the dickens to have more grandchildren, but my wife must be on birth control or something.

So even if they said to you 'who the fuck are The Beatles?" yeah The Pistols is where it's at"  we couldn't accept that as valid data

Well, it would indicate that they're more familiar with the Sex Pistols than the Beatles, and that answers my question.

People's behaviour cannot be predicted like so many chemicals.

I'm not predicting it. It's an open-ended query.

You asked if the method was sound I am telling you why it isn't. smile

I agree the method isn't sound for the type of results you are seeking.

Mar 26 13 05:22 am Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Here you go; 

Kurt Cobain doing what I was doing at age 2 ... singing Beatles songs!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roV_3nGGigc


Direct quotes from Kurt in an interview where the Beatles are mentioned;

GW: What did you listen to then?
COBAIN: Whatever I could get a hold of. My aunts would give me Beatles records, so for the most part it was just the Beatles, and every once in a while, if I was lucky, I was able to buy a single.

GW: Did you like the Beatles?
COBAIN: Oh, yeah. My mother always tried to keep a little bit of British culture in our family. We'd drink tea all the time! I never really knew about my ancestors until this year, when I learned that the name Cobain was Irish. My parents had never bothered to find that stuff out. I found out by looking through phone books throughout America for names that were similar to mine. I couldn't find any Cobains at all, so I started calling Coburns. I found this one lady in San Francisco who had been researching our family history for years.

From:  http://kuriakon00.tripod.com/kurt/kurt_cobain_2.htm

Kurt also like Neil Young, and Freddie Mercury of Queen ... in addition to the Sex Pistols.

Despite the fact I have pointed you to evidence that Cobain cites the Sex Pistols as his most important musical influence you come back with the fact he was given Beatles records to listen to at two years old by his aunties. Well yes that will have had some influence obviously but as I have said we are all exposed to hymns in young childhood like All Things Bright and Beautiful but we don't go on to become Christians.

Mar 26 13 05:23 am Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Justin wrote:

Justin wrote:
It will answer my question.

Eliza C wrote:
No it won't.

When my question seeks to find out whom they're more familiar with, of course it does.

It may reinforce a prejudice but that isn't the same thing.

I don't have a prejudice. I have a curiosity.

You also have a very small sample.

Well, I've tried like the dickens to have more grandchildren, but my wife must be on birth control or something.

So even if they said to you 'who the fuck are The Beatles?" yeah The Pistols is where it's at"  we couldn't accept that as valid data

Well, it would indicate that they're more familiar with the Sex Pistols than the Beatles, and that answers my question.

I'm not predicting it. It's an open-ended query.

I agree the method isn't sound for the type of results you are seeking.

lol birth control. 

How curious are you really?

It is possible to get someone to add them on facebook and see what they have ticked as 'like' - still not very enlightening but more so than interaction by someone who they will respond to because of your relationship as a relative for the reasons I already cited. Otherwise they will likely just want to please grandad or distance you from their music world by pointing out you won't understand or their answers may be contaminated by other perceptions.

Mar 26 13 05:29 am Link

Photographer

Justin

Posts: 22389

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

Eliza C wrote:
How curious are you really?

It is possible to get someone to add them on facebook and see what they have ticked as 'like' -

I'm Facebook friends with my grandkids (and kids, too). I can see.

From your perspective, I think you can argue that since they have mohawks, they're showing punk influence, whether they are familiar with songs or bands or not. I might argue that just the ability to have mohawks in school is a direct consequence of the changes that took place in the late 60's / early 70's, directly after (or in some cases, maybe during) the time when some of us remember kids getting suspended for having hair that was too long.

Otherwise they will likely just want to please grandad or distance you from their music world by pointing out you won't understand or their answers may be contaminated by other perceptions.

If they wanted to please me, they wouldn't have mohawks. We have open communication. They expect open and honest language from me, as I do from them. I'm not worried about getting politically correct answers.

Mar 26 13 05:41 am Link

Photographer

ArtisticPhotography

Posts: 7699

Buffalo, New York, US

There are a lot of other notable bands out there.

Don't forget the BeeGees, who have an enormous number of hit songs and were the sound track of the 80s. You still here a lot of there stuff.

Santana started before most of these bands and is still one of the few oldies who is making significant, original music that gets air-play. If nothing else, his staying power is amazing.

Bruce Springsteen with or without the E-Street Band is also making new music that is pretty good. He has rebuilt himself a number of times.

Dave Matthews Band will be the band of the first part of this century. They are revolutionizing the music industry.

For what it's worth, only 1 of these 4 bands are American and none are British.

Edit: I'm also going to add Preservation Hall Jazz Band. It's a different style but they are always very, very good.

The Dave Brubeck Quartet also would need to be added.

Mar 26 13 05:43 am Link

Makeup Artist

Dana Spence

Posts: 229

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Eliza C wrote:
Session musicians.
Rather like how orchestra members are not remembered as well as the composers.

Extremely sad and very true...
Half of them died broke and unknown. The living members just got a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, which does not translate to cash or name recognition.

But the original question is asking what bands will be in the history books years from now.

The Funk Brothers had a sound that was instantly recognized, immediately, before the lyrics were even delivered. It didn't matter whether it was Stevie, Marvin, Aretha, Diana, Martha, Tammi, Smokey, Levi, Eddie, or anyone else on the roster doing the actual singing. Whether you like it or not, everyone can tell a Motown song from the minute it starts.

No band of musicians has had as many number one hits as they have. That is a massive accomplishment and I can't discredit them for simply being a "house band."

Mar 26 13 07:30 am Link

Photographer

Legacys 7

Posts: 33899

San Francisco, California, US

Koryn Locke wrote:
To be completely fair, it's hard to hum Sex Pistols song. Production quality sucked back then, and it wasn't exactly meant to sound "good" in recordings.

Ask them if they can hum a Ramones song. wink

Mar 26 13 07:41 am Link

Photographer

Legacys 7

Posts: 33899

San Francisco, California, US

Justin wrote:

I'm missing that translation - some of the Pretenders riffs sound downright George Harrison, and Elton John did Beatles, and I'm not going to ask them about the Pretenders or Elton John - but I will.

I'll ask them:

1. Do you know the names of any Sex Pistols songs?
2. Do you know the names of any Beatles songs?
3. Can you hum any Ramones songs?
4. Can you hum any Beatles songs?


If there's something wrong with the methodology, let me know.

You know what's funny? I was going to use this exact same point, by pointing out that you'll get more people that can name at least one Beatles song compared to the sex pistols. When I think of punk, the first group that comes to my mind are Ramones.

Mar 26 13 07:47 am Link

Photographer

Lovely Day Media

Posts: 5885

Vineland, New Jersey, US

I'm a bit late (okay, a lot) and I didn't read all 9 pages of posts ... but how about Aerosmith, Buffalo Springfield and the E Street Band?

Mar 26 13 08:02 am Link

Model

Retiredmodel

Posts: 7884

Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom

Justin wrote:
I'm Facebook friends with my grandkids (and kids, too). I can see.

From your perspective, I think you can argue that since they have mohawks, they're showing punk influence, whether they are familiar with songs or bands or not. I might argue that just the ability to have mohawks in school is a direct consequence of the changes that took place in the late 60's / early 70's, directly after (or in some cases, maybe during) the time when some of us remember kids getting suspended for having hair that was too long.


If they wanted to please me, they wouldn't have mohawks. We have open communication. They expect open and honest language from me, as I do from them. I'm not worried about getting politically correct answers.

I have just been talking to my partner about this and he laughed. He was a teacher in 1983 and says the very people you are suggesting made that kind of liberation possible were the ones stopping people coming to school with pink hair etc. They were the establishment by then and school uniform was enforced as an equalizer - the argument being the comprehensive ideal of egalitarian education was served better by conformity. And that included at the time 'long hair'. Short and spikey hair and even neat rockabilly haircuts were frowned on he says by teachers "who looked like they were out of 'Easy Rider'" he says smile He goes on to cite Tony Blackburn as a DJ with a frequently expressed pathological hatred of punk who was one of the main dj's of the Beatles era:
https://nostalgiastore.co.uk/files/blackburn.jpg

"Vegetarian DJ Tony Blackburn denounced the song as "disgraceful", claiming that the Sex Pistols made him "ashamed of the pop world""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2001/dec/03/netnotes


The point being made is that the anti establshment from the sixties quickly became the establishment and that has not happened with punk precisely because it was not a mass commercially engineered movement.

What punk was rebelling against as much as anything was the hippy and sixties ideals of egality etc which had permeated society and become establishment and conformist. The Dead Kennedys 'California Uber Alles' is testimony to this.

Also evident in your response is discomfort with individual expression through hairstyle etc that shows nothing much has changed and why those mohawks still challenge the establishment. If what you suggest was true you wouldn't give them a second thought. Which is why I maintain punk is still at the cutting edge of change.

If you are on facebook check through what their 'likes' are rather than ask them. I still don't think it will tell you much as then their behaviour may be influenced by peers, girls they want to impress etc. but it's better than asking them with lead in questions with what may be perceived as an agenda or bonding which they may answer falsely to.

Mar 26 13 10:05 am Link