Hooligans Plays Baccarat

The Band Game

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    839 Replies •
  • Views 31,721 Views
Follow
Oksana
haha yes, reading this back in my non eggnogg'ed state I can see that now... but really I lump them all together in this contest. Those are the guys who I've just always heard people tell me were cool and yet the people telling me were the very definition of not. And no one could ever explain to me why these guys/groups were so superior to everyone else... Jimi I get because of the guitar but Clapton is fabulous on the guitar and so was BB King. Zeppelin, Floyd and Marley just seem like the poster childs' of people who have no f'n clue for the most part. That's where my dislike comes from.
Click to expand...

despite what pavy thought, my fruit comparison was not meant to be combative, just thinking back to my youth and growing up amidst the 60s-70s music. there's no room for debate in my opinion when it comes to the beatles' impact on pop, rock and music overall, both from the point of music itself as well as the business of music. i also recall thinking at the time just how much their music changed (advanced?, got more sophisticated?) in a very short time from the stuff they were playing in '64 to what they were producing in the later 60s.

in pink floyd's defense -- and i've been a huge fan since around 1968, whenever ummagumma came out -- they never really were mainstream pop. some of their music beginning with dark side of the moon found success in pop sales, but that was never their finite genre within the grand rock-n-roll classification. there was a big connection in the 'psychedelic' sound between austin and san fran on this side of the atlantic while it was going on in england/europe. even by the beatles themselves started doing weird stuff once they released the sgt pepper's lonely hearts club band album by that time, but when floyd's ummagumma caught wind, that's the first time i remember it becoming more popular. the av dept at our school sock hops would even put on their own 'light show,' which was nothing more than an overhead projector and two clear pie plates with colored water.

anyway, to make a short tale longer, i do believe pink floyd had a definite clue, and the fact the band finally gave up on syd barrett and kept producing great tunes (again, my opinion) shows that.

i didn't know a thing about reggae outside hearing 'caribbean sound' on trips until i heard marley, so i can't profess to know first-hand how he rose to such fame. i think he became the vehicle for what grew from that area's folk and island tunes combining, much like elvis was for rock-n-roll in the 50s. that's my story and i'm sticking to it.
 
Bay Bud
despite what pavy thought, my fruit comparison was not meant to be combative, just thinking back to my youth and growing up amidst the 60s-70s music. there's no room for debate in my opinion when it comes to the beatles' impact on pop, rock and music overall, both from the point of music itself as well as the business of music. i also recall thinking at the time just how much their music changed (advanced?, got more sophisticated?) in a very short time from the stuff they were playing in '64 to what they were producing in the later 60s.

in pink floyd's defense -- and i've been a huge fan since around 1968, whenever ummagumma came out -- they never really were mainstream pop. some of their music beginning with dark side of the moon found success in pop sales, but that was never their finite genre within the grand rock-n-roll classification. there was a big connection in the 'psychedelic' sound between austin and san fran on this side of the atlantic while it was going on in england/europe. even by the beatles themselves started doing weird stuff once they released the sgt pepper's lonely hearts club band album by that time, but when floyd's ummagumma caught wind, that's the first time i remember it becoming more popular. the av dept at our school sock hops would even put on their own 'light show,' which was nothing more than an overhead projector and two clear pie plates with colored water.

anyway, to make a short tale longer, i do believe pink floyd had a definite clue, and the fact the band finally gave up on syd barrett and kept producing great tunes (again, my opinion) shows that.

i didn't know a thing about reggae outside hearing 'caribbean sound' on trips until i heard marley, so i can't profess to know first-hand how he rose to such fame. i think he became the vehicle for what grew from that area's folk and island tunes combining, much like elvis was for rock-n-roll in the 50s. that's my story and i'm sticking to it.
Click to expand...

I love hearing someone's connection to music... thank you. It helps to personalise things a bit more than just the generic whitewash I've tended to give certain groups over time. And to be frank, my experiences with Floyd tended to revolve around someone throwing The Wall in the VCR when they were tripping on whatever and everyone else marvelling at how amazing it was while my straight self just couldn't see it.

The Beatles are unrivalled in my opinion as far as their contribution to music. But I also feel that way about the legacies of Elvis and Sinatra (whom I can't believe didn't even make Cougey's list). A large part of that is probably due to the fact that I grew up on these guys and my parents were fanatics... can't even use the abbreviated term when it came to their love for any of these three because it was just a constant bombardment in my house. I'm grateful for that though...I still listen to them today and I probably always will.

Again Cougs, great thread. Had a lot of fun in this one. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.