Where is Gen X's 'Beatles?'

[Motown Marvel]

lol

ha, you of all people i dont expect to agree with that. one day you'll have to understand that as phenominal as bonham was....there have been better drummers. gene krupa and buddy rich could drum circles around bonham. but in my opinion, mitch mitchell was every bit the quality drummer as bonham was. those two and moon are by far the best ROCK drummers of all time.

 

[Mee]

I am referring specifically to The 1990's and 2000's. You can't tell me the only groundbreaking thing to come out of music in the last 20+ years is Grunge.

Yeah, there was some other stuff; techno, gangsta rap(oh boy), etc.. Their were some really original groups but nothing has shaken the world musically like the Beatles did. Then when you add on bands like Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, and The Doors I think - my god, my generation is seriously lacking musically. It makes me wonder where else my generation is lacking.

Just putting this out there.

Everything topping the charts today is generic. Labels find something that works, (like say...the Pussycat Dolls) and copy it. (Danity Kane) There's no room for revolution. You can find some genius stuff out there, but none of them will ever be as big as The Beatles.

 

[Franklin Richards]

ha, you of all people i dont expect to agree with that. one day you'll have to understand that as phenominal as bonham was....there have been better drummers. gene krupa and buddy rich could drum circles around bonham. but in my opinion, mitch mitchell was every bit the quality drummer as bonham was. those two and moon are by far the best ROCK drummers of all time.

Bah!

Neil Peart FTW!!

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

God did not come down and say, "I will send you a band that will change the world and change music as you know it and write a hundred hit songs, every 20 years, so watch for them."

Because there was never anything like the Beatles before the Beatles, there can never be "another Beatles".
Everything after the Beatles is a Post-Beatles band.
So, if they're "the new Beatles",...*b00m*, they're not the new Beatles.

Humans want to categorize and rank everything, and impose patterns on everything.
That's not the way reality works.

There will never be a "new Beatles", just like there will really never be another Star Wars.

Also, I have to laugh at how so many of the "contenders" mentioned so far have, at best, a handful of really good songs. The Beatles have scores of 'em.

I also see bands mentioned that only play inside one genre.
The Beatles played Skiffle, folk music, Folk Rock, Country, Rock-a-Billy, wannabe ethnic music, experimental noise music, classically tinged muzak, Pop, Blues, Rock, Hard Rock, Punk, fruity harpsichord music, electronic music, Art Rock...



please.

 

[terry78]

Bah!

Neil Peart FTW!!

[YT]365Y1unZNAc[/YT]

It ain't easy bein' cheesy.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

ha, you of all people i dont expect to agree with that. one day you'll have to understand that as phenominal as bonham was....there have been better drummers. gene krupa and buddy rich could drum circles around bonham. but in my opinion, mitch mitchell was every bit the quality drummer as bonham was. those two and moon are by far the best ROCK drummers of all time.

You have to define "better".
There's a technical level.
Technically, Bonham could play anything MM played, and there is, lol, no way in HELL MM could play everything Bonham played, so....wrong.

But there's another level, that isn't as Black+White....note choice, when fills are added and when they hold back, where they inject cross-genre influences...such as Funk and Jazz tropes incorporated into Hard Rock, or Hard Rock imposing itself upon Folk music.

There's charisma, feel, groove, restraint, showmanship....all of that could be included in "better" or "worse".



John Bonham idolized Keith Moon...but is technically better than Keith Moon.
This is like, when I saw Stevie Ray Vaughn playing a Blues festival on PBS years ago, ripping it up and shredding it and playing the Hell out of his guitar, and afterwards, they interveiw him, all sweaty, and all he talks about is how B.B. King's set humbled him and how he was in awe of ONE note B.B. played and doesn't understand how he did it.
But B.B. King could never play what SRV did, technically.


It's subjective.
If, when you think Rock and Roll, you think "tying two drum sticks to a fish and setting it on a drum to thrash around until it dies.", then great.
But MM is a floppy mess and quite sucks...though his suckage compliments the holes in Jimi's songs.....much like the obscenely busy drums in early Black Sabbath worked for them.

But when I think Rock and Roll, I think minimalism, power, simplicity, sex, voodoo trance, visceral, sexy, nasty, scary, wicked, cool, being solid...



lol, John Bonham is the best Rock and Roll drummer.

 

[Motown Marvel]

You have to define "better".
There's a technical level.
Technically, Bonham could play anything MM played, and there is, lol, no way in HELL MM could play everything Bonham played, so....wrong.

But there's another level, that isn't as Black+White....note choice, when fills are added and when they hold back, where they inject cross-genre influences...such as Funk and Jazz tropes incorporated into Hard Rock, or Hard Rock imposing itself upon Folk music.

There's charisma, feel, groove, restraint, showmanship....all of that could be included in "better" or "worse".



John Bonham idolized Keith Moon...but is technically better than Keith Moon.
This is like, when I saw Stevie Ray Vaughn playing a Blues festival on PBS years ago, ripping it up and shredding it and playing the Hell out of his guitar, and afterwards, they interveiw him, all sweaty, and all he talks about is how B.B. King's set humbled him and how he was in awe of ONE note B.B. played and doesn't understand how he did it.
But B.B. King could never play what SRV did, technically.


It's subjective.
If, when you think Rock and Roll, you think "tying two drum sticks to a fish and setting it on a drum to thrash around until it dies.", then great.
But MM is a floppy mess and quite sucks...though his suckage compliments the holes in Jimi's songs.....much like the obscenely busy drums in early Black Sabbath worked for them.

But when I think Rock and Roll, I think minimalism, power, simplicity, sex, voodoo trance, visceral, sexy, nasty, scary, wicked, cool, being solid...



lol, John Bonham is the best Rock and Roll drummer.

even if you dont prefer mitchell to bonham, its pretty irresponsible to call his drumming a floppy mess!! he is clearly one of the most talented rock drummers of all time, along side bonham and moon. and when you get in that company, there technically is no better or worse, just preference.

 

[Speedin Bullet]

are you kidding me?! ringo was a FANTASTIC drummer. it boggles my mind how he's constantly under rated.

Many just don't see it because of the style of music. Ringo really never went all out in a song, he couldn't, the style couldn't support what Ringo could dish.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Many just don't see it because of the style of music. Ringo really never went all out in a song, he couldn't, the style couldn't support what Ringo could dish.

though the music didnt allow for keith moon style drumming, theres still NUMEROUS moments that show ringo's envious quality as a drummer. i mean, anyone who can listen to the song Rain and not recognize his talent is just ignorant.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

even if you dont prefer mitchell to bonham, its pretty irresponsible to call his drumming a floppy mess!!

AAAaahh, my mom was right!
I'm so irresponsible!
*rebel weep*

lol, no, for one, composition-wise, MM was nowhere near as sophisticated and artful as Bonham, and then, technically, MM lacked the skill to play the faster, polyrhythmic stuff, as metered out, solid and correct, as Bonham...but Bonham could play anything MM played. Personal preference aside, Bonham is simply a better player and more adept at drumming for Rock and Roll music.
This even carries over into instrument maintenance of all things. the "sound" of a drummer is way more dependent on how he tunes his drums than people realize.
From Bonham's placement of a tin foil lining in his bass drum to add a layer of noise, to, just, his knowledge of his instrument.....when compared with those awesome cardboard boxes of Mitch's (it's not all the recording engineer's fault), lol, all around, no, sorry....

But I don't even want to talk about technique, because Neil Peart could also play anything MM played, but I'd much rather listen to MM than NP.
(with the lone, but massive exception of the drums on "Tom Sawyer" which are hot.)

 

[Franklin Richards]

YYZ the long version is Drummer Nirvana.

It AIN'T easy being cheezy!!!

 

[souvlaki]

Like others have said, it's hard to compare the Beatles to a modern band/artist, as there are a lot of different factors, different forms of entertainment, different genres, etc. Also factor in file sharing, and just the fact that the music industry is in a much different place than it was in the 1960's.

However, within that specific genre of music, I agree with the people that said Radiohead. They are, at the very least, one of the most influential mainstream bands of the last fifteen years. Yeah, Nirvana were influential, but generally to a bunch of really bad grunge knockoff bands. Radiohead has influenced bands and artists across the board, in various different genres. And despite being on a major label, short of their first album they never "sold out" so to speak, allowing them to retain credibility with the indie crowd. Hell, they even gave their last album away. I suspect twenty years from now there will still be kids buying OK Computer, and Kid A, kind of like there are still kids now buying Revolver, Dark Side of the Moon, Pet Sounds, Velvet Underground and Nico, etc.

Overall, they may not have the mainstream appeal that the Beatles did, but like I said, it's a different market now. They will prove in the long run to be one of the more influential artists.

 

[04nbod]

to be like the beatles the band has to be both talented and popular. The only ones i can think of to take the throne is nirvana because of the frenzy that surrounded them back in the day

 

[Captain Planet!]

Everything topping the charts today is generic. Labels find something that works, (like say...the Pussycat Dolls) and copy it. (Danity Kane) There's no room for revolution. You can find some genius stuff out there, but none of them will ever be as big as The Beatles.

That was the most serious post I think you've probably ever made.

 

[Motown Marvel]

AAAaahh, my mom was right!
I'm so irresponsible!
*rebel weep*

lol, no, for one, composition-wise, MM was nowhere near as sophisticated and artful as Bonham, and then, technically, MM lacked the skill to play the faster, polyrhythmic stuff, as metered out, solid and correct, as Bonham...but Bonham could play anything MM played. Personal preference aside, Bonham is simply a better player and more adept at drumming for Rock and Roll music.
This even carries over into instrument maintenance of all things. the "sound" of a drummer is way more dependent on how he tunes his drums than people realize.
From Bonham's placement of a tin foil lining in his bass drum to add a layer of noise, to, just, his knowledge of his instrument.....when compared with those awesome cardboard boxes of Mitch's (it's not all the recording engineer's fault), lol, all around, no, sorry....

But I don't even want to talk about technique, because Neil Peart could also play anything MM played, but I'd much rather listen to MM than NP.
(with the lone, but massive exception of the drums on "Tom Sawyer" which are hot.)

considering your depth of knowledge of zeppelin, im not gonna waste my time trying to debate obscure trivial details involving tin foil and cardboard boxes. but coming from the perspective of a drummer, i think its obvious that mitchell's strengths as a drummer are just as impressive as bonham's strengths (though, its obvious their strengths lie in different areas). but mitchell was a human metronome with impressively inventive and imaginative flowing rhythmic patterns that came from his unique home grown jazz stylings.

 

[Masamune]

Take Eazy-E for example. The guy died of AIDs and went down as one of the greatest and most legendary rappers of all time. You know what he did? Said "F**k the Police." THAT'S IT. He helped skyrocket the animosity towards cops in the rap community.

He's by far one of the best businessmen/rapper of any genre, but soulja boy he truly sucks I've heard bricks with more talent to flow with its words than he had.

Fixed

Eazy-E is the s*** yo

 

[The Battousai]

Speaking of crap...

[YT]6pm2wTGgYAw[/YT]

 

[MattBearPig]

Speaking of crap...

LMAO! I love Bill.

 

[The Battousai]

LMAO! I love Bill.

He's a joy to listen to

George Carlin's my favorite comedian, though t:

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

ColossalSpoon's two suggestions earlier: Jay Z and Red Hot Chilli Peppers

 

[Mee]

That was the most serious post I think you've probably ever made.

They leak out of me every once in a while.

 

[Gallagher]

I would say Nirvana is just about the closest thing to the Beatles we are going to get.

My thoughts exactly. Listen to the Demo of All Apologies from '91 it's sounds, musically not vocally, just like them.

 

[jaguarr]

They leak out of me every once in a while.

Like IBS?

jag

 

[amazingfantasy15]

The Beatles were products of their time, like all the great bands of that era. Today's society will never produce a band like the Beatles because the climate doesn't allow for it. The Beatles came along at one of the most pivotal times in history, with the sexual revolution, civil and women's rights, Vietnam and the hippie movement, drug experimentation, the space race, cold war, all these things influenced the music of that time and I don't see the change that occured during that time happening again. If the Beatles started today, they'd just be another N'Sync boy band and wouldn't find the catalyst's in society to change their musical style so it actually said something and would stay just a generic boy band.

 

[Franklin Richards]