Originally posted by greenpawn34When I say that The Beatles are a pop outfit, I don't mean that as a criticism. I'd never call them an average band, in whatever pigeonhole you choose to place them.
Hi
OK without the tongue in cheek.
True Bealtes started of as a pop band, a good pop band who
wrote their own songs, but then moved on and on.
Everyone still was writing and recording songs about finding love,
losing love..etc. When The Bealtes cut a new path and did a song
about a lonely old woman who "...was buried along with her name.
an ...[text shortened]... heir most creative periods.
Any later and they would have been caught up in the Punk scene.
I disagree with you about Zeppelin though, I think they wrote fantastic tunes which sound as great today as they did when they were new, and I don't think they've ever been equalled as a rock band - but then again, they did pretty much define the genre.
I'm mystified by your idea of other music 'swamping' a great band producing great tunes. And many punk bands were heavily influenced by Zeppelin - the scene wouldn't have been what it was without them. All bands are a product of their time aren't they - if The Beatles had released 'Love Me Do' in nineteen forty, they'd've sunk without a trace.
Led Zep were right for their time. Just perfect.
Led Zep 'wrote' some good stuff but their no singles policy
would have gone against them right away. So as a mid 60's outfit
they would have remained unheard.
Very much doubt if they would have got a record deal.
(I have a Led Zep single 'Rock n Roll'/Whole Lotta Love" ex juke box thing - no middle).
So what did they do in 60's? they stemmed from The Yardbirds and
Jeff Beck. Hardly a challenge to The Bealtes and Stones.
And the Punk revolution was anti-Zep and everything it stood for.
Electric blues, Long boring solo's and an 'up your ass' attitude.
Name a Punk band that did anything like 'Stairway to Heaven.'
What LZ song inpired 'Anarchy in the UK' or 'God Save the Queen.'?
This was a whole new generation doing their own thing.
'Love Me Do.' in the 40's? No chance. That was the era of swing.
'In The Mood' etc by Glen Millar.
But if the 10 year old McCarntny & Lennon could play trumpets then
the swing version of 'Love Me Do' would have been a tremendous hit. 😉
Originally posted by greenpawn34well, the beatles started as a rock and roll band, the stuff they played in hamburg was the stuff you'd hear from the likes of chuck berry, elvis, etc. and then they played pop music. On all of their albums, you'd always have songs which were more rock and others which were more pop.
Hi
OK without the tongue in cheek.
True Bealtes started of as a pop band, a good pop band who
wrote their own songs, but then moved on and on.
Everyone still was writing and recording songs about finding love,
losing love..etc. When The Bealtes cut a new path and did a song
about a lonely old woman who "...was buried along with her name.
an ...[text shortened]... heir most creative periods.
Any later and they would have been caught up in the Punk scene.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I disagree with your estimation of Zeppelin, but that's a taste thing - are you familiar with any of their stuff beyond 'Stairway' and the single you mention?
Led Zep were right for their time. Just perfect.
Led Zep 'wrote' some good stuff but their no singles policy
would have gone against them right away. So as a mid 60's outfit
they would have remained unheard.
Very much doubt if they would have got a record deal.
(I have a Led Zep single 'Rock n Roll'/Whole Lotta Love" ex juke box thing - no mid ...[text shortened]... n
the swing version of 'Love Me Do' would have been a tremendous hit. 😉
I maintain that any band can only be right or wrong for their time - take them out of it and they are unlikely to have a similar impact. Lennon and McCartney needed the influences of their time to become the songwriters they were also.
The 'punk revolution' wasn't really kicking against the early metal-style rock of bands like Zeppelin, Sabbath, New York Dolls, Television etc. It was more of a reaction to the progressive rock of bands like Genesis, Yes, Floyd, ELP etc. and the hideous perversion of rock that was 'glam-rock'. That's how I remember it anyway. And while I agree 'stairway' was more proggy than rock, it is entirely atypical of their work. And in fact the early metal sound of their more typical output was very influential for a lot of punk artists - not the Pistols, admittedly, but then, they were never about the music anyway, were they? I do, however, see definite progression from Zeppelin through The Stranglers, The Clash, The Ramones, Siouxie Sioux etc.
But we have wandered somewhat from the point - I still wouldn't class any of these three bands (Beatles, Zeppelin, Queen) as 'rock and roll' bands, despite the fact that at least two of them did produce the odd track in that genre. Would you?
Originally posted by avalanchethecatwell put, I agree.
I disagree with your estimation of Zeppelin, but that's a taste thing - are you familiar with any of their stuff beyond 'Stairway' and the single you mention?
I maintain that any band can only be right or wrong for their time - take them out of it and they are unlikely to have a similar impact. Lennon and McCartney needed the influences of their ...[text shortened]... act that at least two of them did produce the odd track in that genre. Would you?
I still wouldn't class any of these three bands (Beatles, Zeppelin, Queen) as 'rock and roll' bands, despite the fact that at least two of them did produce the odd track in that genre. Would you?
Obviously, they weren't exactly rock and roll bands, they weren't chuck berry or buddy holly, but Im sure you're aware that the term "rock and roll band" here is used as a generic term. It also seems to be that it is in some ways futile (as was said before in different ways) to try compare the three bands listed considering the time difference between them.
Originally posted by generalissimoI had a terrible experience once when I went into a shop and saw a whole section devoted to 'R & B'. "Great!" I thought, "The kids are finally starting to listen to some decent music!" It was not, alas, Rhythm & Blues, and I've still not entirely got over the horror of what it actually was. So I'm a bit 'stick-in-the-mud'ish about genre terms - my CDO kicking in I guess (that's OCD, but I like the letters to be in alphabetical order).
... "rock and roll band" here is used as a generic term.
It also seems to be that it is in some ways futile (as was said before in different ways) to try compare the three bands listed considering the time difference between them.
But yes, entirely futile comparison.
Yeah, I had the same experience with this girl I worked beside.
She said she liked R&B but when I discovered what R&B meant to her
I nearly had a fit. It was awful junk.
I'm OK with the kids having their own music (even though it's junk) but
why can't they give it their own name instead of nicking one.
How about NRJJ 'No Rhythm Just Junk'
Someone mentioned 'Glam Rock' a great band I saw live in the 70's were the Sweet.
Forget those muppet pop songs.
Live they were one of the heaviest, rockiest band I had ever seen.
(including Quo, Deep Purple,Ramones and others - never saw LZ live).
They never wore their TV make up, looked 'normal' and just ripped you apart.
Their set included a heavy metal kind of tribute bits of LZ, Purple, Sabbath
blending into each other - sounds corny I know, but it was good and totally
unexpected.
Originally posted by karoly aczelAs I recall it there really wasn't such a thing as heavy metal when they were producing their best stuff. A little research reveals that the term was probably coined in the late 60s or early 70s, but I don't think it really began to stick until Motorhead, AC/DC and Judas Priest started breaking through, say around 1975. Cognoscenti would probably disagree, but that's because they'd've been ahead of the curve.
wouldn't Led Zep be considered heavy metal by the standards of their music in their time?
Yeah I used the term 'heavy metal' possibly back then the word was
just coming into popular use. Any loud rock band that were not chasing
the teenagers pocket money were heavy metal. (to me anyay)
Cannot recall the first time I heard it or used it.
I did some DJ work off and on in the 70's heavy metal was a no no.
How can the kids dance to that stuff? Get them up and dancing was my job.
I recall Middle of the Road (remember them?) being dance floor fillers.
Chirpa Chirpa Cheap Cheap got them up everytime and T.Rex kept them there.
Mud, the Rollers, Gary Glitter, (have to mention him I'm afraid, he was big then)
.... these guys made DJ-ing very easy money.
Never played what we call heavy metal...too gloomy.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatbelieve me, you're far from being the only one with such type of experience.
I had a terrible experience once when I went into a shop and saw a whole section devoted to 'R & B'. "Great!" I thought, "The kids are finally starting to listen to some decent music!" It was not, alas, Rhythm & Blues, and I've still not entirely got over the horror of what it actually was. So I'm a bit 'stick-in-the-mud'ish about genre terms - my ...[text shortened]... ike the letters to be in alphabetical order).
But yes, entirely futile comparison.
It is indeed a mystery to me why the "R&B" of today is called R&B at all.
Originally posted by greenpawn34it probably came from steppenwolf's born to be wild ("heavy metal thunder.."😉, or so I've heard.
Yeah I used the term 'heavy metal' possibly back then the word was
just coming into popular use. Any loud rock band that were not chasing
the teenagers pocket money were heavy metal. (to me anyay)
Cannot recall the first time I heard it or used it.
I did some DJ work off and on in the 70's heavy metal was a no no.
How can the kids dance to that ...[text shortened]... ese guys made DJ-ing very easy money.
Never played what we call heavy metal...too gloomy.