- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who has the more diverse, detailed music? Steely Dan vs. Led Zepplin, Beatles, etc
Posted on 9/28/17 at 6:41 am to prplhze2000
Posted on 9/28/17 at 6:41 am to prplhze2000
Can't stand jazz. I love Steely Dan. They are the clear winner in this one. I don't get the elevator comments.
0
Posted on 9/28/17 at 8:25 am to Burt Reynolds
quote:
Zep would be the better musicians
Difficult to imagine a rock band with more talented musicians, man-for-man. The songwriting was relatively unimaginative - Page somewhat infamously ripped off every great blues man he could find. Lyrically, Plant could approach greatness at times. While more of a vocal stylist than a strong singer, at times, when he was younger, he could deliver his lyrics powerfully.
quote:
Beatles would have the better lyrics and vocals
Yeah - the Beatles (and they were caught doing ripoffs too, but mostly early) had 3 legitimate songwriters who were also legitimate lead singers. For platinum sellers, I think we have to get to Fleetwood Mac to approach that level of talent in those 2 key areas.
quote:
The doors kinda suck
I can't agree with this, but they are overrated. Morrison wasn't much of a singer - but his lyrics were genius at times. The End is a masterpiece, but their work did not have the breadth or depth of Zeppelin or The Beatles, heck not even the Stones or The Who for my money.
quote:
I think Steely Dan are better studio musicians than any of them. Gaucho was perfection
I would be remiss (and we're still fairly close on the heels of Becker's passing) - Steely Dan wasn't really a "band" - it was an abstract musical concept surrounding Becker and Fagan - they were excellent in the studio because they hired the best studio musicians available. And guys who actually passed through the band were of the caliber of Skunk Baxter, Denny Dias - really top flight guys who were also great session musicians for others.
Main difference between Steely Dan and, say, The Beach Boys or any number of west coast rock and middle America R&B acts of the '60s and '70s is that Steely Dan wasn't afraid to say, "Yeah, we work with Skunk, Denny, Jim Gordon, Jeff Porcaro - we want the best."
A lot of those other folks used session musicians who largely labored in anonymity (the so-called Wrecking Crew, the Swampers, etc.).
Posted on 9/28/17 at 12:35 pm to MidnightVibe
quote:
Beatles would have the better lyrics and vocals
quote:
Than who? Certainly not Robert Plant.
I love LZ, and Plant was a good fit for them, but he is not in the same class lyrically as Lennon/McCartney and surely not vocally as either John Lennon or Paul McCartney. I think Plant's solo career confirms both.
Posted on 9/28/17 at 1:10 pm to Forkbeard3777
Zeppelin ripped more people off than the other 3 combined.
Posted on 9/28/17 at 1:29 pm to Forkbeard3777
quote:
Diverese
Bob Dylan or Neil Young
both did rock, country, and folk
Posted on 9/28/17 at 2:19 pm to Forkbeard3777
I don't see how Zepplin and The Doors fit in here. Both didn't really venture too far away from their schtick. Steely Dan is all over the place, so I get it. The Beatles went from Boy Band, to Rock Band, to Psychadelic Rock Band, to Garage rock band.
This post was edited on 9/28/17 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 9/28/17 at 2:59 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:Not so fast- Zep's first two albums electrified a lot of the old blues standards that they " stole " from other artists who " stole " from their peers and predecessors. Of all the bands mentioned, Led Zep is the most diverse
The songwriting was relatively unimaginative
LZ I and 2 electric blues
LZ III - mostly acoustic songs
LZ IV - rock and roll,black dog both rock classis and side 2 misty mountain going to California harks back to LZ 3 with the acoustic mandolin groove
LZ houses of the holy how diverse can a band be? rain song,over the hills, no quarter , song remains the same
LZ physical graffiti - my personal fave Kashmir, Time of Dyin, down by the seaside is a country tune for god sake....10 years gone, custard pie. They were all over the place on this album.
LZ prescence- all over the place on this one as well
LZ in thru the outdoor- Probably the most diverse one of all - hotdog-country boogie all of my love- pop classic carouselambra- Where the hell did this one come from.
Certainly they were anything but unimaginative.
Posted on 9/28/17 at 3:26 pm to Forkbeard3777
quote:the frick
Of course, I dropped Steely Dan. He was surprised, but certainly not offended. He did say some of their music was "elevator music-ish".
Posted on 9/28/17 at 4:21 pm to randybobandy
quote:
Not so fast- Zep's first two albums electrified a lot of the old blues standards that they " stole " from other artists who " stole " from their peers and predecessors. Of all the bands mentioned, Led Zep is the most diverse
LZ I and 2 electric blues
LZ III - mostly acoustic songs
LZ IV - rock and roll,black dog both rock classis and side 2 misty mountain going to California harks back to LZ 3 with the acoustic mandolin groove
LZ houses of the holy how diverse can a band be? rain song,over the hills, no quarter , song remains the same
LZ physical graffiti - my personal fave Kashmir, Time of Dyin, down by the seaside is a country tune for god sake....10 years gone, custard pie. They were all over the place on this album.
LZ prescence- all over the place on this one as well
LZ in thru the outdoor- Probably the most diverse one of all - hotdog-country boogie all of my love- pop classic carouselambra- Where the hell did this one come from.
Certainly they were anything but unimaginative.
I actually agree. Yes, their early stuff was basically an electrified ripoff of American blues men.
But as they continued their catalog became very diverse. Definitely not unimaginative
Posted on 9/28/17 at 5:14 pm to Forkbeard3777
Frank Zappa and Prince where also pretty good and diverse.
Posted on 9/28/17 at 9:07 pm to MidnightVibe
quote:
I think that people who want to argue for the Beatles realize -- though they won't admit it -- that their catalog doesn't stand up. Their music has not aged nearly as well as several of their contemporaries. And so they try to make up for this deficiency by seeing how many times they can use the words "influential", "important", or the like. It makes me queasy.
Bottom line: I realize that everyone has their own personal taste and opinion of music but this is without a doubt the most asinine statement I have ever heard.
This post was edited on 9/29/17 at 10:59 pm
Posted on 9/28/17 at 10:02 pm to Forkbeard3777
The Beatles, when you're the kings of melody and lyrics you can play multiple genres with relative ease this isn't rocket science
Posted on 9/29/17 at 10:46 am to MidnightVibe
quote:
I think that people who want to argue for the Beatles realize -- though they won't admit it -- that their catalog doesn't stand up
Going to have to strongly disagree with this assertion. The Beatles are so diverse that they have at least something that holds up for everyone. Well almost everyone
Posted on 9/29/17 at 1:20 pm to MidnightVibe
quote:
I think that people who want to argue for the Beatles realize -- though they won't admit it -- that their catalog doesn't stand up.
Laughably, provably wrong. Beatles songs are still referenced in lyrics, used in film and ads - probably at a greater clip than any 2 or 3 other artists combined. This is 2017 and there hasn't been "Beatles" in 47 years.
The very definition of "standing up" over time.
Posted on 9/30/17 at 11:03 pm to MidnightVibe
quote:
I think that people who want to argue for the Beatles realize -- though they won't admit it -- that their catalog doesn't stand up.
This has got to be the most obvious Devil's Advocate argument in the history of planet Earth. There's a reason the Beatles are TO THIS DAY the biggest-selling musical act in the history of popular music. June 2017, 50th anniversary of Sgt Pepper, I believe the album reached top 10 or maybe 1 again on the album charts due to the commemoration of that seminal album in music history. The music greats from Michael Jackson to Prince to Madonna to The Bangles to even Katy Perry(who's covered Hey Jude live in her concerts), etc cite them as an influence and their music continues to be played immensely on classic hits radio to this day. Essentially all of popular music's advancements and progression in terms of melody, diversity, and lyrical composition is basically attributed to their massive influence on the profession through what they created and elevated in terms of improving on the design that Chuck Berry and Little Richard started.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:29 am to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
Essentially all of popular music's advancements and progression in terms of melody, diversity, and lyrical composition is basically attributed to their massive influence on the profession through what they created and elevated
Solo artists before them were "going big" - bigger bands, horn sections, session musicians - even the Beach Boys and many of the R&B acts of the '60s relied heavily upon session musicians. The Beatles were self-contained, for the most part - they had Billy Preston on a lot over the last couple of years and occasionally had a guest musician or two, but - despite not being much of a touring band after the Beatlemania period, the lads from Liverpool could pretty much show up and play you what you heard on the album.
Every band since either cites the Beatles as an influence or they're lying to be chic, hip or cool.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 7:56 am to Ace Midnight
and there was a lot of stuff borrowed from them too,that most listeners don't even realize.
I don't think Pink Floyd would even exist without The Beatles.
I am not talking about opening doors.I'm talking about borrowing musically.
I don't think Pink Floyd would even exist without The Beatles.
I am not talking about opening doors.I'm talking about borrowing musically.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 8:19 am to auggie
quote:
I don't think Pink Floyd would even exist without The Beatles.
They were closer to contemporaries than you might think. You see, the origin of a lot of those British acts was the explosion of the blues - a lot of American blues artists starting hitting the UK circuit in the late 1950s and early 1960s - it's obvious when you hear Keith Richards, Syd Barrett, David Gilmour, Robert Plant - and, at times, George Harrison that as much as Scotty Moore and Buddy Holly had influenced them, the Kings, Muddy Waters, etc. Heck, Pink Floyd is a combination of Pink Anderson and Floyd Council - because Barrett had records by those cats in his collection.
quote:
I am not talking about opening doors.I'm talking about borrowing musically.
That certainly happened in the '70s - but I'm not sure Pink Floyd was necessarily doing this - they had gone psychedelic themselves, and appeared to be carving their own path after Barrett imploded.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 8:28 am to Ace Midnight
well,you know,it has been a sort of new thought to me, and it came to me the other day listening to McCartney's Medicine Jar.
I don't know how long Paul had left that song laying around,before he finally did something with it,but I suspect that he had been saving it for a while,and some people had heard it.
I don't know how long Paul had left that song laying around,before he finally did something with it,but I suspect that he had been saving it for a while,and some people had heard it.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News