Very Underrated Hard rock band?

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by chrischris, May 9, 2011.

  1. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,722
    Last edited: May 9, 2011
    #1
  2. dParis

    dParis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,632
    I'd rather turn over my compost heap than listen to this ****.
     
    #2
  3. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,722
    #3
  4. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,959
    Bands flewning under the radar are often cromulent.
     
    #4
  5. El Diablo

    El Diablo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,536
    I think they avoided attention because they don't merit any.
     
    #5
  6. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,722
    LOL.. my bad. Time flew when i wrote.
     
    #6
  7. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,959
    #7
  8. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,722
    Of course that could be the case .. did you know that 2 of the Beatles members were told to have no musical talent whatsoever once back in the day in Liverpool too?
     
    #8
  9. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,722
    #9
  10. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,959
    I was told the very same thing.........the nerve.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRiYtW1KRdo&NR=1
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2011
    #10
  11. El Diablo

    El Diablo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,536
    The Beatles themselves always said they were lousy musicians, and nobody I've heard disputes that. Fortunately, George Martin had plenty of talent.
     
    #11
  12. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,722
    Humility is underrated.
    Perhaps time to get that hearing aid after all?..
     
    #12
  13. maverick66

    maverick66 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,137
    Location:
    Valhalla
    I cant stand them at all. People try to pass them off as the best ever but seriously they do nothing for me. Maybe I should do drugs then they wont suck. :)
     
    #13
  14. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,722
    Ok ,of course not everyone like them, but thats not precisely what musical talent equates to ..Nevertheless, what do you like?
     
    #14
  15. maverick66

    maverick66 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,137
    Location:
    Valhalla
    I am a metal head. Been listening to the Death,folk,Pagan,Celtic, and Viking metal mostly these days.
     
    #15
  16. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,959
    Rolling Stone said George Harrison is #21 guitarist of all time

    http://board.georgeharrison.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2612
     
    #16
  17. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,722
    Is that a typo ..? Metal or mental?
     
    #17
  18. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,722
    And what does Rolling Stone know anyhow about music.. ? Its better to ask Tipper Gore or Newt Gingrich or Bill O'Reilly or some other nice mellow and cultivated youngsters.
     
    #18
  19. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,617
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    With any art (music, movies, books, painting, etc), the "best ever" is about a body of work that resonates with the most people possible. That is why the Beatles are the best ever. I always liked the Beatles. Not everything they ever did. But a lot of their stuff.

    On the other hand, I never was a huge Michael Jackson follower. Some things were catchy, but overall... meh. That being said, I can't deny that the guy was one of the best ever due to how his body of work resonated with so many different people in so many different cultures. The Beatles are the same way.
     
    #19
  20. maverick66

    maverick66 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,137
    Location:
    Valhalla
    Cute. Go back to your weak ass wanna be hard rock.

    Agreed but to tell me they were the best ever just rubs me wrong. There is no best ever. It doesnt exist.

    Also I agree Michael Jackson's music was not my thing at all. Way to touch a little boyish for me.
     
    #20
  21. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,959
    The jokes that come to mind........
     
    #21
  22. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,705
    Last edited: May 9, 2011
    #22
  23. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,722
    Like those Countin C's.
    true the thread here has drifted away and astray.
    What do you think of the band i started out this thread on?
     
    #23
  24. SystemicAnomaly

    SystemicAnomaly G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    10,933
    Location:
    Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
    Very interesting sound from Danko Jones and the lads. Would definitely give it another listen. Was surprised to spot Selma Blair and Elijah Wood in their Regret video.


    I'll dispute that. True, The Beatles owe much to the influence and input of George Martin. If anyone deserves the title of the 5th Beatle, it's Martin. However, Harrison was a very decent guitarist and sitar player. McCartney is considered by many to have developed into a very accomplished and innovative bass player -- one of the most melodic bass players in rock. Even the bass legend, Jaco Pastorius, cited Paul M as one of his influences. Give a listen to Paul's bass lines on the album, Abbey Road, and in numerous songs like Nowhere Man, Taxman, Rain, Something, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, and I Want You (She's so Heavy).

    The Beatles strengths included the song-writing of Lennon & McCartney, their generous use of counterpoint and various musical modes (Dorian mode for Eleanor Rigby and Mixolydian mode for Norwegian Wood to name two), their exploration and incorporation of various musical genres, and their considerable influence on the development and direction of rock and pop in the 60s and subsequent decades. Their genre exploration included Celtic music, country & western, rhythm and blues, proto-metal/hard rock, psychedelic rock, musique concrete and more.
     
    #24
  25. Kobble

    Kobble Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,365
    It is a lot like motorcycle bar rock-ZZ Top-ish. I think the 1st video was really better than the song. If I was working on a car or something, this would fit well.
     
    #25
  26. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,617
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Harrison was a very decent guitarist? McCartney was a very accomplished and innovative bass player? Harrison, McCartney, and Lennon were unparalled song writers. They had style and great songwriting ability. That's it.

    But don't reach by regarding them as technicians of their instruments.

    Hundreds of millions of musicians have the Beatles as an influence (whether they know it or not)... but that is purely from their songwriting patterns, their hooks, some of their beats, some of their styles.

    From a technical perspective, nobody is trying to find out how to do appregios like Harrison. Or how to do tapping like Lennon. Or how to do harmonics like McCartney.

    I fully acknowledge the Beatles are the best ever. I enjoy most of their work. But to regard them as any kind of superior instrumental technicians is ridiculous.
     
    #26
  27. Kobble

    Kobble Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,365
    The Beatles were the most popular ever. Promoters are the forgotten link. Promotion is probably 70% of the game. A much lesser talent with greater promotion will always beat a much greater talent with lesser promotion as far a popularity goes.
     
    #27
  28. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,959
    Not that I agree with you, but by "songwriting" are you thinking of lyrics only? Or "composition skills"? Are you thinking "I want to hold your hand" was just Shakespeare?

    If you think they are good composers (for their genre), I think it would be very strange to find any great composer that was not a very good musician as well. Normally composing is an advanced art that can only be mastered after you pay your dues.

    If you are arguing that they did not display virtuosity in their playing, I think you are simply listening to the wrong genre of music. "Popular music" is rarely the place for this sort of stuff.

    Mozart sounded nowhere near as virtuosic as Bach in terms of compositional complexity and technichal virtuosity (at least on the surface). Are we going to argue that Mozart was just a catchy "tunesmith"? That would just be absurd. They just wrote different styles in different time periods for different audiences and tastes (nobody wanted to hear that complicated "baroque" music anymore....and if you understand where the term baroque came from and how and when it came to be applied to that era of music, you will realize that it most certainly wasn't a compliment.....but this is a different story).

    Thinking about Bach and Mozart, nobody but the connoisseur can really listen to and enjoy Bach. Yes, I know, anyone these days will listen to Bach and sigh "Ah Bach, what a genius!!", but that is only because you "know" that is what you are "supposed to do" and you don't want to sound like an ignoramous. But, if you are listening for pleasure and know nothing of music, you are looking for nice melodies not "gawdy" virtuosity. Mozart gives you those in spades. As do The Beatles.

    Could you clearly state where the Beatles excelled.....as they must have excelled somewhere. Promotion will get you so far, but you won't have true staying power.

    Then clearly state where the Beatles were deficent.

    No hedging. Be as concise as possible. Read SA's post. He is very clear and concise (as usual).
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2011
    #28
  29. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,617
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    It depends on what you mean by "musician". The context I am speaking of is technical master of the instrument. So there are two different things here: 1) Songwriting (composition) skills, and 2) Technical mastery of the instrument itself.

    A good song (composition) doesn't require a high level of technical command of the instrument it is written for. Conversely, a composition that requires a high level of technical skill doesn't necessarily make that composition a good one.

    Now, if we are saying that a good musician is anyone who either a good composer and/or a good instrumenal technician... then yes... I agree... all of these are good musicians. But that wasn't the original context I was speaking in.

    The Beatles excelled in songwriting. I measure the artifact of any art (for music it is the song) by how well it resonates and how broadly it is consumed. The Beatles body of work has been consumed by more people across more geographies across more cultures than any musical artist in history.

    They are the best.

    The Beatles are not great instrumental technicians. You will not gain high technical proficiency in guitar (or any instrument) by learning to play the body of work created by The Beatles.

    If someone learned the body of work of someone like Steve Howe (from Yes), they would be more technically proficient in guitar. If someone learned the body of work of Segovia, even more so.

    Is that more concise?
     
    #29
  30. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,959
    I won't pretend to know how great of instrumental technicians the Beatles were. Often, studio musicians are better technically than many performing musicians (they at least have a wider range of skills and extreme versatility but maybe not as virtuosic).....which is why they get the studio gigs.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2011
    #30
  31. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,617
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Exactly. Studio musicians exist because the songwriters/producers know exactly what they want and they themselves are not technically able to produce what is in their mind. The Beatles used a lot of studio musicians. There are even Beatles songs that they could not perform on tour simply because they didn't have either the technology or the manpower... or they would have to perform "unplugged" or "watered down" versions live.

    I watched a documentary on Paul McCartney writing a classic symphony. It was fascinating. He really could only plink about a little on the piano. Otherwise, he was verbally communicating and humming phrases to orchestrators/conductors/musicians to help him actually bring out what was in his head.

    It was fascinating to watch, but it was clearly painful on the studio musicians. McCartney simply didn't have the musical vocabulary to describe what he wanted. So there was lots of trial and error... until McCartney would say... "OH! That's it!" Then you'd hear the orchestrator say, "Yeah, that's a diminished triad transition up to C# in 3/4s on the end of that bar."
     
    #31
  32. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,959
    ^^ Speaking of strict technical merit, I suspect what you say is true (but I have no idea).

    I would think that Harrison must have been "good" though (but again, I have no idea). I know he and Clapton were very good friends. That doesn't mean that they were comparable musically necessarily, but I can't see a friendship like that working if there was extreme professional jealousy (again, not that I have any idea on any of this).
     
    #32
  33. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,968
    Location:
    Antarctica
    Well put (and nice acknowlegment of SA's sentiments). As a 'studio musician' ... I've no 'confusion' discerning between:

    Toto (while capable musicians) and:


    The Beatles.
     
    #33
  34. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,968
    Location:
    Antarctica
    "..this band's come all the way down from an acid trip, just to play for you.."

    p.s. OP: underrated hard rock band?

    IMHO, America's Zep: Crack the Sky.

    ("Surf City" from the LP "Alive & Kickin' Ass" ... 9:28 version)
     
    #34
  35. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,705
    Not bad, I wouldn't "hate on" them. I like the high energy, but I've drifted far far away from listening to the 'harder' stuff. I'm always up for having my eyes opened, though, this didn't "hit the spot" for me. I did think the sound was relatively unique, though.

    Edit: Would be interested/open to listening to a high quality rip through headphones, though. crappy bitrate/speakers don't generally do good music justice.
     
    #35
  36. SystemicAnomaly

    SystemicAnomaly G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    10,933
    Location:
    Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
    I stand by what I said in my previous post. Not reaching at all in my assessment. I think that you missed what I was actually saying. Did I claim that George and Paul were virtuosos on their respective instruments? I did not.

    One not need to be a virtuoso to be regarded as important and influential with regards to playing style. In fact, some virtuosos lack what McCartney possessed -- soul and an innovative style. Guitarist Al DiMeola was a master technician of his instrument. However, he lacked the soul and daring of his contemporary, John McLaughlin (even tho' Al could often play faster and cleaner than John).

    As I stated before, one thing that made Paul stand out as a bass player was his melodic style. Many bass players have been influenced by his bass playing style. If you ask for the top 10 or 20 most influential bass players in rock and jazz, McCartney's name consistently shows up.

    Jaco Pastorius is regarded by many as the single most influential bass player of the latter part of the 20th century. Jaco cites McCartney as an important influence. Chris Squire (of Yes) indicates that Paul McCartney and The Beatles were an important influence on him. This can be found in Yes: The Authorized Biography. Bass virtuoso, Les Claypool of Primus, also has McCartney as one of his influences:

    http://www.celebrityrockstarguitars.com/rock/claypool.htm

    The legendary Stanley Clarke (of RTF) also held McCartney in high regard. In fact, Clarke has a left-handed Spellbinder bass built for McCartney as a gift. If McCartney was a lousy musician as El Diablo indicates or a mediocre, unremarkable bass player as you appear to imply, it would seem unlikely that so many bass players, including a number of virtuoso bass players, would regard Paul as an influence.
    .
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2011
    #36
  37. georgerou

    georgerou Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    27



    The best ever doesnt exist? You maybe right but you have a pretty good list going of who maybe the worst ever with Death, Pagan, Viking, and Celtic.
     
    #37
  38. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,617
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I didn't miss what you were saying. We were having a conversation which basically gets down to semantics and adjectives. What does "decent" mean? What does "innovative" mean? What does "influential" mean. What does "accomplished" mean?

    The discussion is old. Arguing semantics is useless. My last two posts clearly stated in great detail how I feel about The Beatles, the factors that I believe go into musicianship, and the difference between instrumental technical prowess and songwriting prowess.

    I'd rather not spend five days creating a canonical lexicon of agreed upon terminology between you and I. So let's just cut to the chase. I'll simply say that I think you and I, at the end of semantic clarification, would agree on all points.
     
    #38
  39. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,959
    #39
  40. Buckethead

    Buckethead Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,039
    I had to jump on this thread.
    You can only say how great PMac (not Patrick Macenroe) is, that guy is one of the most amazing musicians that lived (I know He is still alive and rocking as good as never).
    All of the best musicians in the world have immense respect to PMAc and the Beatles.
    I have talked to many, Eric Johnson, Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, Billy Sheehan, Paul Gilbert, David Gilmour, Jeff Beck, Slash, Yngwie Malmsteen among the other musicians already cited on this thread.
    Any doubts still?
    After this list I would not even contest how brilliant Paul McCartney is, neither The Beatles.
    As for an underrated hard rock band I'd go with White Snake, this band and David Coverdale deserved a lot more than what they got.
     
    #40
  41. georgerou

    georgerou Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    27

    The only thing people remember about Whitesnake is flaunting Tawni Kataen in their music videos.
     
    #41
  42. Buckethead

    Buckethead Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,039
    Also studio musicians exist because the vast majority of them don't have the talent to write and compose songs and that is why they are nobodies pretty much with great understanding of music and great technique in some cases that offer that to those who don't have.
    Just watch BumbleFoot that plays on Guns N Roses now. The guy is clearly a much more technical guitar player than Slash was, no question, but everything He's done by himself was pure garbage, but as it was technical and impressive He got the gig and lives of jamming and playing great songs that others wrote.
    There are different talents in music, however for me the true talent is the one that composes his own and is able express it.
    You can't expect an average Joe to understand Bach's composition, but they can hear some of the lines, but of course being a musician and knowing how hard it is to compose how Bach did, only who studies, knows it, therefore can appreciate more , and eventually have the ears to listen that beautiful music.
     
    #42
  43. Buckethead

    Buckethead Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,039
    They had some great albums from the first to the last song, I'd say "Slide it in" was my favorite with Burn to the Bones my favorite song.
     
    #43
  44. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,617
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #44

Share This Page