|
|
Post by straf on Jul 17, 2011 13:41:31 GMT -5
George Harrison was one of the first to use a sitar, or any eastern instruments for that matter, in pop music. Not true. He was the first person to have sitar in a released song. On the reissue of the Yardbird's first album, the demo version of "Heart Full Of Soul" is included, where a sitar plays the main riff of the song. I wasn't sure of it's exact recording date, but after looking around, I found that it does in fact pre-date "Norwegian Wood" by several months. You're probably thinking that "oh, that shouldn't count", and I guess it doesn't, but Georgy wasn't the only person thinking of using Eastern instruments in music. Now, take this next statement with a grain of salt: Bootleggers existed even back then, but they didn't just deal in live shows. Studio recordings could have gotten out. Who knows? "Heart Full Of Soul" might have made some rounds. You never know. Eight Days a Week was the first songs to feature a fade-in. Not to seem... what's the word? I forget. Anyway, is a fade-in really that important? But besides that, fade-ins were almost standard practice in the 30's, when songs over five minutes had to be split between two sides of a disc. Does this count? Yes. And while cheating with Google to come up with a better answer, somebody claimed that an old recording from 1894 called "The Spirit of ’76" used both fade-ins and fade-outs, but I wasn't able to find audio for that. Helter Skelter was one of the heaviest songs around at the time. What is your definition of "heavy"? I could easily point you towards Blue Cheer or MC5 or something. Like SMAP said, it's probably the heaviest successful song of that time. |
|
|
|
Post by straf on Jul 17, 2011 14:02:57 GMT -5
-An extreme amount of hits (extreme). First off, what do you mean by "hits"? As in, #1, Top 10, Top 40 or chart entries? But do hits even matter? Glee has over 100 chart entries, but does that make them good? Elton John had... Top 40 hits, but does that make him God-tier? No.
(After checking with Wikipedia, Elton John had 56 Top 40's. Oh, and the Beatles did have the most #1s, but guess who's in second place with only two less? Mariah Carey. "Hits" are bullshit.)
-April of 1964 they had 5 songs in the top 5 of the billboard top 100
-First to use backwards vocals
OK.
-Yesterday is the most covered song of all time
Sure, if you don't want to count traditional songs that have been passed down and played for ages.
-They wrote almost every song the played (outside of covers)
I think that you just mooted your own statement. Unless you meant that they weren't given songs to play, then OK. But lots of other artists did that too. Bob Dylan for example.
-First pop band to use an arena
I don't think that venues count as achievements. That may be just me, though.
The Beach Boys' entire career are based around harmonies.
I cut out the rest. There's nothing there to disprove since those are subjective.
Question who do /you/ think is the best band of all time?
Nobody. Sure, I have clear-cut favorites, but I don't think are the best. However...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaouJ6ufLE&fmt=22 |
|
|
|
Post by straf on Jul 17, 2011 14:18:26 GMT -5
Mainly because he was very good at the most important job for a drummer: keeping a consistent tempo and being consistent in general (incidentally, this is why I'm only a mediocre drummer; I'm not very consistent). He didn't do a lot of solos or flashy fills because it wouldn't really fit the music. In other words, he knew his place, and even though it was backseat to the rest of the band, he filled it better than just about any other drummer could.  |
|
|
|
Post by fishy on Jul 17, 2011 15:39:20 GMT -5
Why don't you like the Beatles?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wave57 on Jul 17, 2011 22:14:08 GMT -5
Well obviously Koro there is no convincing you to like them.
We've given you plenty of reasons why and there is nothing else we can do.
I always ask myself "What exact words could make this person change their mind?"
So far I see none.
|
|
|
|
Post by civplayah on Jul 17, 2011 22:21:01 GMT -5
I don't like this thread title because opinions are 100% subjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by straf on Jul 17, 2011 23:35:58 GMT -5
I don't like this thread title because opinions are 100% subjective. One would think, wouldn't they? Of course, the philosophy behind aesthetics has a long history. Who knows. One day, we might find that there is a line of objectivity. |
|
|
|
Post by straf on Jul 17, 2011 23:36:32 GMT -5
Why don't you like the Beatles? Depends. How long is your attention span? |
|
|
|
Post by civplayah on Jul 17, 2011 23:43:33 GMT -5
I don't like this thread title because opinions are 100% subjective. One would think, wouldn't they? Of course, the philosophy behind aesthetics has a long history. Who knows. One day, we might find that there is a line of objectivity. You're quite the smart***, aren't you? |
|
|
|
Post by straf on Jul 17, 2011 23:46:38 GMT -5
No. I just like philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by SMAP on Jul 17, 2011 23:46:58 GMT -5
CHILDREN IN THE BACKSEAT
WE PROMISED THIS WOULD BE A CIVIL RIDE
|
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Jul 18, 2011 0:32:57 GMT -5
Yep, if this gets out of hand, it's getting locked ASAP.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusSilencio on Jul 18, 2011 10:49:04 GMT -5
Charlie Watts was a good drummer, but I don't believe he was quite as steady/consistent as Ringo. To be fair, there's a reason why the released version of Heart Full of Soul didn't have the sitar: the sitar sound was too thin for the type of music they were playing. George found a way to incorporate sitar, and it worked well. Depends. How long is your attention span? Rather than passively insulting people, you could just give your reasons. If you posted it on another forum, you could just link to it if you don't feel like typing it out again. A lot of what the Beatles did was popularize concepts. They weren't the absolute first band to write all of their own songs, but they popularized it. They weren't the first band to have a concept album, but they made concept albums acceptable/expected. They certainly didn't write the heaviest songs, but they showed that heavy songs can do well commercially. They did invent some studio effects, but even for the ones they didn't, they showed that creative studio effects can help music commercially. It could be argued that the reason for this is because they did these things well. |
|
|
|
Post by SMAP on Jul 18, 2011 11:54:09 GMT -5
^The second half of Jesus's post is what I've been trying to get at all along.
|
|
|
|
Post by fishy on Jul 18, 2011 15:40:32 GMT -5
Why don't you like the Beatles? Depends. How long is your attention span? Long enough, I would think. @ Jesus, I didn't take this as an insult anyway.  |
|
