La Musique

[Prufrock]

I hate Punk. I hate the Ramones for being Punk's biggest influence.
The greatest artist (musical or other) of the 20th century was Miles Davis, in my opinion.
What you know as 'Emo' isn't really 'Emo' music.
Black Sabbath were the most influential 'heavy' band, for my money.

an opinion you are entitled to, even if it is stupid . only joking obviously tastes differ my point regarding the ramones is that their influence is often seriously underestimated, whether or not you think it to be a good one. as for 'emo' i can see your argument but unfortunately the fact the word is used to describe badns like My Chemical Toilet and the like means that is what the word has come to mean. it is a shame because good bands who are strictly speaking, the likes of Alkaline Trio, Hot Water music to a point etc.. get a bad press because people see them described as emo, and think god not more whiney teenagers, shame really

[Prufrock]

There is no way the Ramones were more influential than the Beatles.

they gave birth to the punk scene and all the deviants from it.

Correct, but then there's a school that'll tell you that The Ramones took their lead from The Kinks early stuff.

or the MC5 or the New York Dolls (sadly destroyed by that tossrag Malcolm McClaren!!) or all of fifties pop. each band have their own influences, similarly the beatles were influenced by 50's pop songs. my point regarding the Ramones was that their influence is often massivly underestimated. They were the canvas on which all down stroke based aggressive music is erm...painted? killed by an analogy

[Lord Kangana]

There is no way the Ramones were more influential than the Beatles.

they gave birth to the punk scene and all the deviants from it.

Correct, but then there's a school that'll tell you that The Ramones took their lead from The Kinks early stuff.

or the MC5 or the New York Dolls (sadly destroyed by that tossrag Malcolm McClaren!!) or all of fifties pop. each band have their own influences, similarly the beatles were influenced by 50's pop songs. my point regarding the Ramones was that their influence is often massivly underestimated. They were the canvas on which all down stroke based aggressive music is erm...painted? killed by an analogy

Supposedly the largest influence musically on the Beatles was 30/40/50's show tunes of Rogers/Hart/Hammerstein (with some Rn'R thrown in for good measure!).

[TANGODANCER]

Just a comment on "aggressive music":

Not sure why music has to be regarded as such, or that it's the only way to go. An instance I heard on here (and not having a go at anybody) but a line "You used to get it in fishnets, now you get it in a nightdress" seems (to me) a bit "giggles behind the hand, schoolboy toilet" stuff. Sex, like all else, is a part of life, not a way of it. Bands/singers who have to rely on controversial topics just to be different don't cut it with me against pure musical talent. Nothing today has just been invented as a topic, just re-hashed and the more it gets up peoples noses the better seems to be a real musical trend with some. The original rock bands like the Kinks, Stones, Who, Beatles etc, all approached life from different angles, managed well enough and, what's more, evolved and lasted.

All good music takes the best of its predecessors and uses it to progress and the strangest of influences come from some unlikely sources: John Lennon was taught to play finger-style guitar by Donovan and was influenced by jazz and blues, Marc Bolan listed Cliff Richards amongst one of his early motivators, The Kinks kept their own style and marched on because it had quality. Motown was new and bright (but still drew from earlier music) and produced some great classics that are still revered today.

Music is in itself almost a bible. What I suppose I'm really saying is that music is never totally "new", nor are its artists. They all have roots in previous formations of the art and a lot of it produces artists who dig back into it and re-hash classics, sometimes badly, sometimes brilliantly, but they all evolve yet respect the past. It's all too vast a world to class only new as useful and discard the lesson learned from its history. Bach and co managed quite well without an "f" word in sight. If some of the artists of the forties and fifties had had the benefits of today's audio technology, image what they could have produced. When you realise they did it with much less hi-tech benefits, you realise that music is far too vast a world to be characterised into a product of today ( I mean an era) alone.

Not a rant, just comments based on a profound admiration of all those generations that contributed. The world didn't begin or won't end with Arctic Monkeys and co. Some of the stuff produced will go on, but it won't be because of fishnet tights.

[Prufrock]

There is no way the Ramones were more influential than the Beatles.

they gave birth to the punk scene and all the deviants from it.

Correct, but then there's a school that'll tell you that The Ramones took their lead from The Kinks early stuff.

or the MC5 or the New York Dolls (sadly destroyed by that tossrag Malcolm McClaren!!) or all of fifties pop. each band have their own influences, similarly the beatles were influenced by 50's pop songs. my point regarding the Ramones was that their influence is often massivly underestimated. They were the canvas on which all down stroke based aggressive music is erm...painted? killed by an analogy

Supposedly the largest influence musically on the Beatles was 30/40/50's show tunes of Rogers/Hart/Hammerstein (with some Rn'R thrown in for good measure!).

fair enough, you learn somethng new everyday! but it just shows if you want to take influece that far back then you have to go all the way back to the blues and the jazz way back when, which is essentially where all modern, western music came from. i still think its fair to say the beatles and the ramones are the two most influential bands in modern music. who was more influential is a matter of opinion, but for the record, mine's right

[Worthy4England]

So it was all down to Tchaikovsky then?

[TANGODANCER]

So it was all down to Tchaikovsky then?

Not quite, Blondell and the troubadors of the middle ages learned a bit from travel, but even Sting was doing Dowling not too long ago.

[Worthy4England]

So it was all down to Tchaikovsky then?

Not quite, Blondell and the troubadors of the middle ages learned a bit from travel, but even Sting was doing Dowling not too long ago.

I was struggling to remember anyone from the middle ages lol....bloody lute pluckers...

[Bruce Rioja]

my point regarding the Ramones was that their influence is often massivly underestimated. They were the canvas on which all down stroke based aggressive music is erm...painted? killed by an analogy

Right, if this makes any sense then you're a better man than I, Gunga Din, but here goes: I think that you massively underestimate the massive level influence that is afforded The Ramones when you say that their inluence is massively underestimated. How did I do? In short, I know very few people that would argue against all roads from the UK punk scene eventually leading back to The Ramones.

[Prufrock]

my point regarding the Ramones was that their influence is often massivly underestimated. They were the canvas on which all down stroke based aggressive music is erm...painted? killed by an analogy

Right, if this makes any sense then you're a better man than I, Gunga Din, but here goes: I think that you massively underestimate the massive level influence that is afforded The Ramones when you say that their inluence is massively underestimated. How did I do? In short, I know very few people that would argue against all roads from the UK punk scene eventually leading back to The Ramones.

i followed...just my point is that their influence is often only talked about in terms of punk, whereas in reality it is much wider. i think anyone who says all uk punk doesnt run back to the ramones is misguided to say the least but i would say their influence on western guitar based music is as great, if not greater than the beatles

[TANGODANCER]

i followed...just my point is that their influence is often only talked about in terms of punk, whereas in reality it is much wider. i think anyone who says all uk punk doesnt run back to the ramones is misguided to say the least but i would say their influence on western guitar based music is as great, if not greater than the beatles

The Beatles could play guitar?

[Bruce Rioja]

i followed...just my point is that their influence is often only talked about in terms of punk, whereas in reality it is much wider. i think anyone who says all uk punk doesnt run back to the ramones is misguided to say the least but i would say their influence on western guitar based music is as great, if not greater than the beatles

Blinkered git that I am, I've never really viewed it in those broader terms before, but yes, I'd say that you've got that spot on.

[Lord Kangana]

Just a comment on "aggressive music":

Not sure why music has to be regarded as such, or that it's the only way to go. An instance I heard on here (and not having a go at anybody) but a line "You used to get it in fishnets, now you get it in a nightdress" seems (to me) a bit "giggles behind the hand, schoolboy toilet" stuff. Sex, like all else, is a part of life, not a way of it. Bands/singers who have to rely on controversial topics just to be different don't cut it with me against pure musical talent. Nothing today has just been invented as a topic, just re-hashed and the more it gets up peoples noses the better seems to be a real musical trend with some. The original rock bands like the Kinks, Stones, Who, Beatles etc, all approached life from different angles, managed well enough and, what's more, evolved and lasted.

All good music takes the best of its predecessors and uses it to progress and the strangest of influences come from some unlikely sources: John Lennon was taught to play finger-style guitar by Donovan and was influenced by jazz and blues, Marc Bolan listed Cliff Richards amongst one of his early motivators, The Kinks kept their own style and marched on because it had quality. Motown was new and bright (but still drew from earlier music) and produced some great classics that are still revered today.

Music is in itself almost a bible. What I suppose I'm really saying is that music is never totally "new", nor are its artists. They all have roots in previous formations of the art and a lot of it produces artists who dig back into it and re-hash classics, sometimes badly, sometimes brilliantly, but they all evolve yet respect the past. It's all too vast a world to class only new as useful and discard the lesson learned from its history. Bach and co managed quite well without an "f" word in sight. If some of the artists of the forties and fifties had had the benefits of today's audio technology, image what they could have produced. When you realise they did it with much less hi-tech benefits, you realise that music is far too vast a world to be characterised into a product of today ( I mean an era) alone.

Not a rant, just comments based on a profound admiration of all those generations that contributed. The world didn't begin or won't end with Arctic Monkeys and co. Some of the stuff produced will go on, but it won't be because of fishnet tights.

Sorry Tango

If its any consolation, it works in the context of the song (ie its not meant to be giggly humour) - which I find to be lyrically very clever. Its all taste, others dismiss it as pap. C'est la vie I s'pose

[Bruce Rioja]

or the MC5 or the New York Dolls (sadly destroyed by that tossrag Malcolm McClaren!!)

I was forunate enough, a few years ago, to meet Glen Matlock up in Glasgow. Lovely bloke, he gave me a signed copy of his autobiography I Was a Teenage Sex Pistol. Basically Matlock was clasically trained and was used by McClaren to set the band up. If there's a way of me getting the book to you you can borrow it on the proviso that I get it back in one piece, and though it does tend to finish as a bit of sour grapes on the author's part, it provides a superb first-hand account of what it was like setting the band up and into just what an odious, mendacious, undeserving bastard McClaren was/is.

[Worthy4England]

i followed...just my point is that their influence is often only talked about in terms of punk, whereas in reality it is much wider. i think anyone who says all uk punk doesnt run back to the ramones is misguided to say the least but i would say their influence on western guitar based music is as great, if not greater than the beatles

Blinkered git that I am, I've never really viewed it in those broader terms before, but yes, I'd say that you've got that spot on.

I think I'd take some convincing.....that their influence was either greater than the beatles, or greater than plenty of people who fitted in, between the Beatles and the Ramones...

[TANGODANCER]

Sorry Tango

If its any consolation, it works in the context of the song (ie its not meant to be giggly humour) - which I find to be lyrically very clever. Its all taste, others dismiss it as pap. C'est la vie I s'pose

Hey, hey, don't be appologising for your views buddy. I only state my own and it wasn't a sanctimonious one. Some of the lyrics from my youth era sound positively embarrassing even to me now.

[Lord Kangana]

Sorry Tango

If its any consolation, it works in the context of the song (ie its not meant to be giggly humour) - which I find to be lyrically very clever. Its all taste, others dismiss it as pap. C'est la vie I s'pose

Hey, hey, don't be appologising for your views buddy. I only state my own and it wasn't a sanctimonious one. Some of the lyrics from my youth era sound positively embarrassing even to me now.

FWIW Then the offending article can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N64QMKEb ... re=related

(I've driven a few people mad with this on repeat at work, so you are not alone in condemning it! )

[Prufrock]

Just a comment on "aggressive music":

Not sure why music has to be regarded as such, or that it's the only way to go. An instance I heard on here (and not having a go at anybody) but a line "You used to get it in fishnets, now you get it in a nightdress" seems (to me) a bit "giggles behind the hand, schoolboy toilet" stuff. Sex, like all else, is a part of life, not a way of it. Bands/singers who have to rely on controversial topics just to be different don't cut it with me against pure musical talent. Nothing today has just been invented as a topic, just re-hashed and the more it gets up peoples noses the better seems to be a real musical trend with some. The original rock bands like the Kinks, Stones, Who, Beatles etc, all approached life from different angles, managed well enough and, what's more, evolved and lasted.

All good music takes the best of its predecessors and uses it to progress and the strangest of influences come from some unlikely sources: John Lennon was taught to play finger-style guitar by Donovan and was influenced by jazz and blues, Marc Bolan listed Cliff Richards amongst one of his early motivators, The Kinks kept their own style and marched on because it had quality. Motown was new and bright (but still drew from earlier music) and produced some great classics that are still revered today.

Music is in itself almost a bible. What I suppose I'm really saying is that music is never totally "new", nor are its artists. They all have roots in previous formations of the art and a lot of it produces artists who dig back into it and re-hash classics, sometimes badly, sometimes brilliantly, but they all evolve yet respect the past. It's all too vast a world to class only new as useful and discard the lesson learned from its history. Bach and co managed quite well without an "f" word in sight. If some of the artists of the forties and fifties had had the benefits of today's audio technology, image what they could have produced. When you realise they did it with much less hi-tech benefits, you realise that music is far too vast a world to be characterised into a product of today ( I mean an era) alone.

Not a rant, just comments based on a profound admiration of all those generations that contributed. The world didn't begin or won't end with Arctic Monkeys and co. Some of the stuff produced will go on, but it won't be because of fishnet tights.

i completely agree regarding controversy tango. its the reason i hold the sex pistols in complete disdain, in my opinion musically they were very VERY average, and relied on swearing on news programs to get their fans, whereas bands such as the buzzcocks, stiff little fingers and to a certain extent (although they did get famous, perhaps not as famous as the Pistols) the clash, were playing the same genre, to a higher level, yet didnt receive as much recognition. unfortunately to be seen as successful ( i talk only about now since i have no experience of whether it was the case in previous generation, but it may well have been) it is necessary to gain as much exposure as possible, and the tabloid press mean scandal equals exposure. i think it is sad to see the effect this has on people like pete doherty, who say what you like about his music, is a very talented poet and lyricist, and yet has destroyed his life and career through erm..extracurricular activities. i wonder how much of this is caused, if only subconsciously by a need to stay in peoples minds to stop them moving on to other musicians?

[Lord Kangana]

The Clash are the greatest Rock 'n' Roll band EVER. London Calling is the greatest album ever(apart from a couple of early Bowie)

I will fight to the death anyone who disagrees with me on this one

[Worthy4England]

Just a comment on "aggressive music":

Not sure why music has to be regarded as such, or that it's the only way to go. An instance I heard on here (and not having a go at anybody) but a line "You used to get it in fishnets, now you get it in a nightdress" seems (to me) a bit "giggles behind the hand, schoolboy toilet" stuff. Sex, like all else, is a part of life, not a way of it. Bands/singers who have to rely on controversial topics just to be different don't cut it with me against pure musical talent. Nothing today has just been invented as a topic, just re-hashed and the more it gets up peoples noses the better seems to be a real musical trend with some. The original rock bands like the Kinks, Stones, Who, Beatles etc, all approached life from different angles, managed well enough and, what's more, evolved and lasted.

All good music takes the best of its predecessors and uses it to progress and the strangest of influences come from some unlikely sources: John Lennon was taught to play finger-style guitar by Donovan and was influenced by jazz and blues, Marc Bolan listed Cliff Richards amongst one of his early motivators, The Kinks kept their own style and marched on because it had quality. Motown was new and bright (but still drew from earlier music) and produced some great classics that are still revered today.

Music is in itself almost a bible. What I suppose I'm really saying is that music is never totally "new", nor are its artists. They all have roots in previous formations of the art and a lot of it produces artists who dig back into it and re-hash classics, sometimes badly, sometimes brilliantly, but they all evolve yet respect the past. It's all too vast a world to class only new as useful and discard the lesson learned from its history. Bach and co managed quite well without an "f" word in sight. If some of the artists of the forties and fifties had had the benefits of today's audio technology, image what they could have produced. When you realise they did it with much less hi-tech benefits, you realise that music is far too vast a world to be characterised into a product of today ( I mean an era) alone.

Not a rant, just comments based on a profound admiration of all those generations that contributed. The world didn't begin or won't end with Arctic Monkeys and co. Some of the stuff produced will go on, but it won't be because of fishnet tights.

i completely agree regarding controversy tango. its the reason i hold the sex pistols in complete disdain, in my opinion musically they were very VERY average, and relied on swearing on news programs to get their fans, whereas bands such as the buzzcocks, stiff little fingers and to a certain extent (although they did get famous, perhaps not as famous as the Pistols) the clash, were playing the same genre, to a higher level, yet didnt receive as much recognition. unfortunately to be seen as successful ( i talk only about now since i have no experience of whether it was the case in previous generation, but it may well have been) it is necessary to gain as much exposure as possible, and the tabloid press mean scandal equals exposure. i think it is sad to see the effect this has on people like pete doherty, who say what you like about his music, is a very talented poet and lyricist, and yet has destroyed his life and career through erm..extracurricular activities. i wonder how much of this is caused, if only subconsciously by a need to stay in peoples minds to stop them moving on to other musicians?

Yes, but controvesy and press coverage of it, didn't just start happening in the 70's Remember the Beatles being "Bigger than God"? Hendrix? Jim Morrison? Jerry Lee Lewis?