Name musicians/bands/producers you've never heard and probably never will hear

D

droid

Well-known member
luka said:
Nothing the Beatles does sounds perfect. It always sounds provisional whereas motown released a huge number or perfect records. Records that are so.perfectly formed it's like they've ways existed. The Beatles always sound very sludgey, very sluggish and half formed. You don't get the sharp edges and smooth surfaces you get with motown. There's nothing sexy or glamorous there
Click to expand...

Cant really agree with this. They did plenty of rough stuff - (nearly all of let it be for example), but take 'When Im 64, Day in the life, Michelle, Norwegian wood, Blackbird...'. Like them or loathe them - they are perfect.

But yes, it is a totally different style to Motown, but there are problems there too. Too smooth, no rough edges or textures, endless variations on a tried and tested formula.
 
Last edited:
luka

luka

Well-known member
Yeah I dunno those songs just sound drab, tired and grey to me but it's a matter of taste, we won't find a middle ground so probably not worth pursuing it.

I don't have any sentimental attachment to them because they were never ever played in my house as a child so I view them with complete perfect objectivity whereas for you lot their music is tangled up with childhood memories and emotions
 
D

droid

Well-known member
Yes and no. I remember at age 12 or so rewinding the end of 'day in the life' over and over again on my walkman trying to pinpoint the exact moment it faded out , so, for me, it's as much about an introduction into sonic possibility as it is nostalgia. Didn't get heavily into them until my teens, then it was revolver, magical mystery tour, abbey road.

There's quite a few Beatles tunes I dont like, but believe me, spend 6 months on a factory floor with piped in daytime radio, and a Beatles record shines like the sun amongst the dross that makes up most of pop music.

Regardless, I dont think the Motown comparison fits. Its just too different. Like comparing Gaye to Dylan.
 
D

droid

Well-known member
! Theyre both pretty famous tunes.

Even at their most grandiose and sickly the fuckers hook you. The pathos in this:

 
Last edited:
Corpsey

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
Blackbird famously helped inspire Charles Manson to try and kickstart a race war. Its one of my favourites, despite the piped in birdsong now sounding a little naff.

I guess the Beatles were more than anybody else responsible for turning rock n roll into a cerebral genre instead of a visceral genre aimed at dance floors. They were the first to try a lot of things, and inevitably some of those things didn't work (or many). Thinking of the harpsichord solo in the middle of the otherwise perfect "In My Life", which for me scuppers it.

I guess a lot of these things that the Beatles did sound passé to our ears but at the time I bet it was genuinely mind blowing for people to hear those things.

There was a good program Howard Goodall did about the Beatles wherein he explains some of the radical things they did with chord progressions etc. And " Revolution In The Head" by Ian McDonald is similarly musically informed as well as good on the cultural background.
 
D

droid

Well-known member
It was pretty much the entire white album that Manson locked onto.

I think theyve generally stood up well to the test of time, partly because theres just so much stuff going on in their tunes. And stuff like this:



Still doesnt have a decent analogue today.
 
C

CrowleyHead

Well-known member
luka said:
I know I shouldn't go on about the Beatles cos you can't change anybody mind and I don't dislike everything they do. I even own revolver and have listened to it on more than one occasion.
BUT i don't and can't see how anybody could consider them to be in the same league as songwriters, musicians or vocalists as the motown crew who I consider to be the pinnacle of pop music. Nothing the Beatles does sounds perfect. It always sounds provisional whereas motown released a huge number or perfect records. Records that are so.perfectly formed it's like they've ways existed. The Beatles always sound very sludgey, very sluggish and half formed. You don't get the sharp edges and smooth surfaces you get with motown. There's nothing sexy or glamorous there
Click to expand...

That's logical, considering The Beatles is (at its core) 2 guys and Motown is a corporation/think tank style environment.

The Beatles are songwriters and work with each other and each other alone. Obviously they have a sort of 'general' competition with pop, paying attention to the Stones, Beach Boys, whomever. But Motown are not only fighting for dominance in the R&B charts, they're working at besting each other... H-D-H vs. Smokey, as dancing groups. Look at Marvin Gaye who marries into the Gordy family hoping to be afforded a position over other artists, not unlike the old schtick of someone marrying the boss' daughter to move up.

Everyone talks about the assembly line concept with Motown, but Motown has multiple degrees of interlocking pressure and competition even before they have to deal with the outside world.
 
Corpsey

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
This is a good place to post this, perhaps. An article about the hitmakers behind Katy Perry and other artists, and who have scored the most number one singles ever... Behind Lennon and McCartney.

Interesting and somewhat dispiriting to observe the modern pop process as more or less hostile to genuine innovation, micromanaged and stripped of all spontaneity and productive of music in which meaning is hog-tied to structure. Structure which is deliberately, mathematically contrived. I mean, its admirable in a way, and impressive. (And some of the songs they've done have been great ("since you've been gone", anyone?)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/10/14/the-doctor-is-in
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
That's logical, considering The Beatles is (at its core) 2 guys and Motown is a corporation/think tank style environment.
Click to expand...
Logical of course but the reason I make the comparison is the enormous overinflation of the Beatles reputation when looked at logically they never made one song on the level of tracks of my tears for example and as musicians are nowhere near funk brothers and friends and as vocalists make a deeply offputing flat undynamic nasal whiney noise.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
And then you're told you must enjoy them cos they were the first people to put a backwards sitar on a track or something as if that's a useful contribution
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
It's a stupid thing to argue about but anytime it comes up.I just can't help myself because the reputation is so out of whack with the achievements
 
D

droid

Well-known member
Thats simply because you don't understand/appreciate what their achievements were.

Regardless of the merits of the music, they invented the LP, set a template for the modern music industry and completely redefined pop.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
He can do sneering or self pity or even both at once, but that's the entirety of his range of expression it's a nasty passive aggressive thing
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
Except for The Las, The Las were quite similar and also probably angels albeit lesser ones, not archangels, or seraphim but possibly cherubim or something
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top