Name musicians/bands/producers you've never heard and probably never will hear

luka

Well-known member
And I think we can both agree that it were at Altamont that the dream died and the '60s came skidding and screaming to a halt
 

luka

Well-known member
It's chromium bumpers buckled against the crash barriers of bad acid, Vietnam and the manson family
 

droid

Well-known member
Hating the Beatles is an interesting business. I personally have always enjoyed them. But if you happen to be, like most people, more or less indifferent to them, I can understand the temptation to develop an active hatred, just because it's a lot more interesting than not caring either way. It suggests boldness, passion, and critical thinking on your part, you know? Do it at the right parties, and you can wind up standing in a corner looking like a delightful raconteur, with half a dozen people standing around you hanging on your every word, because they're desperate to convince you that you could not possibly hate the Beatles and must be mistaken somehow.

For a lot of music lovers, though, hating the Beatles is a 101 class in basic contrarianism. So if you're going to do it, you should do it carefully and effectively. Here are some pointers.

http://www.vulture.com/2010/12/how_to_hate_the_beatles.html
 

luka

Well-known member
Yes if someone forms a different opinion to you it is by definition mere contrarianism.
 
Last edited:

luka

Well-known member
But don't worry about crafting your own pointed, devilishly witty rejoinder, just link to something someone else has written, it's easier and it saves time
 

CrowleyHead

Well-known member
Lemmy from Motorhead has a great story of Ringo beating a fan with a wrench before they got signed. Points for that.

It also kind of murks the Beatles thing that you know a bunch of the drums is Bernard Perdie ghosting in for Ringo. Its like "MAN, RINGO CAN ACTUALLY... No, wait, that's Bernard."
 

droid

Well-known member
Yes I can see that now. There's a lot of nuance at work here. We're almost drowning in subtlety.
 

CrowleyHead

Well-known member
This is a good place to post this, perhaps. An article about the hitmakers behind Katy Perry and other artists, and who have scored the most number one singles ever... Behind Lennon and McCartney.

Interesting and somewhat dispiriting to observe the modern pop process as more or less hostile to genuine innovation, micromanaged and stripped of all spontaneity and productive of music in which meaning is hog-tied to structure. Structure which is deliberately, mathematically contrived. I mean, its admirable in a way, and impressive. (And some of the songs they've done have been great ("since you've been gone", anyone?)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/10/14/the-doctor-is-in

Well, this isn't TOO far from Motown's aesthetic really. Besides how effectively clean and well recorded everything was, is any Motown single TRULY a radical break from R&B beforehand? They learned how to make the singles they'd been hearing and recording for two, three decades prior into more hyper digestible forms. That's not so divorced from Dr. Luke & Max Martin.
 

droid

Well-known member
Perdie ghosting in for Ringo. Its like "MAN, RINGO CAN ACTUALLY... No, wait, that's Bernard."

Apocryphal. He may have overdubbed Pete Best on 'The Sheridan sessions', but no, this never happened.

McCartney did do a couple of tunes on the white album when Ringo left the band, but thats more or less it.
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
Well, this isn't TOO far from Motown's aesthetic really. Besides how effectively clean and well recorded everything was, is any Motown single TRULY a radical break from R&B beforehand? They learned how to make the singles they'd been hearing and recording for two, three decades prior into more hyper digestible forms. That's not so divorced from Dr. Luke & Max Martin.

Yeah, and this sort of gets to the heart of the issue with The Beatles in that they are prized for innovation and the meaningfulness of their lyrics (which was a product of the time, I suppose, given that (I think) Lennon said he wrote I Am The Walrus purposefully to excite ridiculous interpretations of nonsense), arguably more so than the POP! aspect of their sound. Now, actually, as Luka is sort of suggesting in his (extremely funny) posts, their innovative achievements have perhaps been overstated - and in a sense they too resemble Max Martin/Dr Luke, in that they took the avant-garde techniques/innovations of classical composers, and the music of cultures such as India e.g., and brought and fitted those into a pop context.

This thread was such a stupid idea and its turned into an entertaining and interesting read so thanks for that you lot.

I'm currently listening to an artist I've never really listened to before - Kate Bush. And I'm really enjoying the experience.

Have I turned Dissensus into MOJO forum though? :eek:
 

droid

Well-known member
Yeah, and this sort of gets to the heart of the issue with The Beatles in that they are prized for innovation and the meaningfulness of their lyrics (which was a product of the time, I suppose, given that (I think) Lennon said he wrote I Am The Walrus purposefully to excite ridiculous interpretations of nonsense), arguably more so than the POP! aspect of their sound. Now, actually, as Luka is sort of suggesting in his (extremely funny) posts, their innovative achievements have perhaps been overstated - and in a sense they too resemble Max Martin/Dr Luke, in that they took the avant-garde techniques/innovations of classical composers, and the music of cultures such as India e.g., and brought and fitted those into a pop context.

The point I was trying to make is less about musical innovation and more about overall influence. They changed things hugely in many areas of music, from merchandising to touring to publishing models, the use of the studio, how LP's were produced and perceived... not that they were innovative (though sometimes they were), or were the only people doing some of these things, but that their position greatly magnified their influence.

Obv, this is all blindingly self evident, so much so that it does not need stating at all (or so I thought). Cliches are cliches for a reason.
 

trza

Well-known member
I don't listen to the Beattles or get worked up about the wierd worship of them by the majority of rock writers from two generations ago. They did play jazz and r&b for a time in Germany before they blew up and the influences of that with the rock and rock appeared in their music. Some of the cover versions blow my mind, still discovering more of them all the time.
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
Yes, that is what I meant, of course. I have heard their greatest hits, as does everybody. I just never cared to sit down to listen to even one of their albums and I doubt I ever will. There is an obvious quality to their music, but it's lost on me. Most of it riles me up.

Leo, is right, by the way. It's not only laziness. It's also priorities. Beatles, Stones, folk, eighties punk, recent hiphop, etc. score low on my priorities list. I am sure I miss out on some excellent stuff, mind you, it's not that I am proud of it.

I think music is one of the few areas where it's important to be informed about why one isn't interested; it's important to be able to sing songs one dislikes. To whittle down that information, especially if you're making music.

I've no attachment to the Beatles - of their songs, I've only kept Daytripper and a slowed down version of I Want You - but in terms of music history, they have a place and I wanted to hear them. You can easily get their albums in libraries, so went through them, systematically. I do this alot, and it's interesting. It's only, what, 45 minutes a night for a week. It doesn't take long, and after that you can definitively go "Wow, I really hate the Beatles", or whoever. And be able to state why.

I don't understand this "never heard and never will" stuff at all. Even difficult music just requires sitting there, it's far from a chore.
 
Top