Mason wrote:I don't understand why you said I'd only read it if I was "feeling generous".
Because it's long and nobody ever responds to my longer posts, haha.
RIFA wrote:Question to Vader. Why do you have to refer to Beatles tonal consistency according to a modern setting? Why do you have to think about Beatles in a modernistic way?
Another question. How can you make a difference between these bands if you're only acknowledging parts of someone's success?
Another question. Doesn't the fact that the Beatles and Rolling Stones are still huge this day say a lot about their tonal consistency? Also... do you think Radiohead will have the same impact as The Beatles 30 years from now? I personally doubt it.
Another question. How many worldwide HITS that shook the world Radiohead had?
How many Beatles?
Another question. If you consider Radiohead better than the Beatles because they influenced music so many times by delivering sounds no one ever knew before... then why Jean Michele Jarre wouldn't be better than Radiohead? Why Pink Floyd wouldn't be better than Radiohead? You do realize that Radiohead's contribution to music is far less important than JMJ's for example. It's not even comparable if you talk about the invention of certain sounds.
I gotta get back to studying, so this'll be my last post here probably.
1.) I don't necessarily think of it in a modernist way, it's just that the slight variations in tonal quality aren't that creative in a broader context. They're still slight variations, regardless of when it was made, people just may not have realizes it at the time. I'm a firm believer that timeless, iconic works can't ever seem too conventional just because time's gone by. Godfather, Blade Runner, 2001, etc.
2.) I don't think I am, I'm merely mentioning that in passing.
3.) Not really, and there's a bunch of societal reasons for that. Most artists that sell the most records are as typical as they come, unconventionality is a much tougher sell, which is why it's so impressive RH and Trent have been as successful as they have been, their music isn't nearly as accessible per the musical norms at the time of release. The Beatles/Stones' music is catchy and melodic with a lot of classical music theory in there too because they're such wonderfully gifted musicians, the songwriting itself wasn't what was unconventional about them (usually), it was just amazing. I don't think RH will have had the same impact, but they'll probably get as close as any other band from this generation.
4.) Dunno, but this goes back to a previous point.
5.) I'm not necessarily measuring it that way. Plus, tons of Pink Floyd sounds pretty similar anyway. I'm surprised nobody brought them up sooner, I know a lot more people in general who try to argue this about them than Beatles/the Stones. It's undeniable other musicians have invented more sounds, but I've heard little music that can release single songs or albums that carry the emotional and thematic complexity of Kid A, for instance. It's how its assembled as much as the innovation, or innovation through how its assembled and presented.
To the last couple comments after Rifa's post- I've definitely heard most of both artist's albums, some quite a few times. I'm personally not a huge fan of each but that's because it's just not my style, not their objective merits (which as I've said, are huge), but a lot of my high school friends were. They seem like slight variations compared to the massive variation of some modern artists, Radiohead especially, whose sound literally transforms album by album (except for Hail to the Thief obviously). That strikes me much more as a showcase of creative and technical talent than the other music.
What do you mean the modern sound? I don't really like Pablo Honey or The Bends, but they were singular enough, but from OK Computer onwards, their sound changed totally with each record, in a way Talli would describe as checkov, haha. The actual songwriting style itself changes dramatically, instrument usage dramatically, if you didn't have Thom singing, you would have no clue it was the same band for a lot of it.
Lastly, they have massive discographies, it goes without saying their 'top ten' songs wouldn't sound similar. I'm obviously talking in general.
-Vader
LOL
