Headliners 2016

[mrtourette]

[Guest]

 

 

2 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

There's still only 12 notes no matter what you're playing them on. The creativity & diversity that the Beatles showed over the space of 7 years on 13 (if you count Yellow Submarine) albums was extraordinary. 

McCartney was 28 when they split. 28 with that body of work behind him. Unbelievable. 

Do you really think they would have better if they had a synth? 

 

No mate they would not and I think what I have been trying to say has maybe come across wrong (Not like me that is it? :-) )

I like bands who push boundaries and The Beatles did that. You will get no criticism from me in regards to The Beatles. 

Do I think the Beatles would have been better if they had access to sequencers, samplers, synths? Damn right I do and I think they would have fully embraced them. 

[The Nal]

44 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I am an electrical engineer mate. I am always going to veer towards the groups who pioneered sound synthesis using electrical components rather than the ones who pluck strings or bang a stick on animal skins.

Listen to Abbey Road then. Maxwells Silver Hammer, I Want You Shes So Heavy, Here Comes the Sun and Because all feature an early custom made Moog. Played by George, John and Paul across the the 4 tracks. 

Even as far back as Tomorrow Never Knows they were experimenting with tape loops, vocals through organ speakers etc. Can't get much more pioneering than that from a major group.

Or give "Electric Sound" by George Harrison a spin. 100% Moog. Released May 1969. Its fairly unlistenable these days but certainly ticks the "pioneered sound synthesis using electrical components rather than the ones who pluck strings or bang a stick on animal skins" box. A big green tick, done in magic marker and a smiley face beside it. 

 

Sorry, anyway, Coldplay.......

Edited February 12, 2016 by The Nal

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Listen to Abbey Road then. Maxwells Silver Hammer, I Want You Shes So Heavy, Here Comes the Sun and Because all feature an early custom made Moog. Played by George, John and Paul across the the 4 tracks. 

Even as far back as Tomorrow Never Knows they were experimenting with tape loops, vocals through organ speakers etc. Can't get much more pioneering than that from a major group.

They were totally pioneering mate. Fair play to the Beatles, they were ahead of the game and they deserve all the accolades they get. 

The thing is though how would you categorise their music? For me they were a group that remained within the confines of Rock/Pop music. You could never accuse the Beatles of being house, hip hop, disco and so on.

When I mentioned New Orders and Depeche Mode as being more diverse I meant in the way they seem to have mutated through more genres, not that they were more experimental or ground breaking.

 

edit - Have got to go looking at Bathrooms, will give that George Harrison album a listen later.

 

Edited February 12, 2016 by Guest

[Purple aki squat]

1 hour ago, HoTWire said:

I'm indifferent to both, they are effectively equal.

Whilst we're here: I also think LCD Soundsystem are not very good.  The Libertines are only famous because everything else was shittier than them.  Arcade Fire are okay.  ELO are uninteresting.  Blur haven't made a good album (but some good songs) since Modern Life Is Rubbish.  The Stone Roses are terrible live (I've seen them three times across the years, always bad).  Whoever headlines Glastonbury it'll have little to no bearing on whether you have an enjoyable festival.

Clearly Ozric Tentacles should headline Pyramid on the Sunday, with Jean Michael Jarre's 80's light show.

U OK HON

[The Nal]

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The thing is though how would you categorise their music? For me they were a group that remained within the confines of Rock/Pop music. You could never accuse the Beatles of being house, hip hop, disco and so on.

True, but that music didn't exist then. They pushed the boundaries as much as they possibly could. And some of it sounds a bit dated at times now. Not a whole lot of it mind you. Same as some of New Order and Depeche Mode sounds a bit dated now. As some early hip hop does etc.

Anyway, Jim Morrison said it better than I could. 1969.

[Wooderson]

20 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

Some of your finest recent work Mr. T

[ericlered]

46 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Same reason I don't like Joy Division, I find the singer extremely depressing.

Again I'm writing this as a huge New Order fan, but.... I cannot see how anybody, and I mean anybody could prefer Barney as a frontman to Ian Curtis.

Mind boggling.

 

[theDandy]

51 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

that's funny...

here's someone plucking some strings.....

 

wonderful, have a wee mooch at this. Simply just plucking some stringers though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25j-r06QNo8

[theDandy]

13 minutes ago, eastynh said:

They were totally pioneering mate. Fair play to the Beatles, they were ahead of the game and they deserve all the accolades they get. 

The thing is though how would you categorise their music? For me they were a group that remained within the confines of Rock/Pop music. You could never accuse the Beatles of being house, hip hop, disco and so on.

When I mentioned New Orders and Depeche Mode as being more diverse I meant in the way they seem to have mutated through more genres, not that they were more experimental or ground breaking.

 

edit - Have got to go looking at Bathrooms, will give that George Harrison album a listen later.

 

 

I simply don't see New Order or Depeche Mode as being more diverse and genre-spanning than the Beatles. I won't say you're incorrect again, but I will say that I disagree to a colossal degree.

[Wooderson]

The waterproofing of the leccie by NO's engineers was WAY ahead of its time.

 

[The Nal]

Speaking of Beatles/classical guitar

 

[SwedgeAntilles]

5 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

the best music defies categorising. What's Strawberry Fields Forever, or Tomorrow Never Knows? It's not rock or pop, by any stretch of the imagination. 

Creating music because it fits a category or genre, is the most pointless exercise possible

Exactly. The Beatles are at a level whereby trying to stick them into a defined genre is utterly pointless. They've basically got their own category "sounds like the Beatles".

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, ericlered said:

Again I'm writing this as a huge New Order fan, but.... I cannot see how anybody, and I mean anybody could prefer Barney as a frontman to Ian Curtis.

Mind boggling.

 

I never mentioned who is the better frontman even though neither of them can sing. All I said was that I find Joy Division utterly depressing

7 minutes ago, theDandy said:

 

I simply don't see New Order or Depeche Mode as being more diverse and genre-spanning than the Beatles. I won't say you're incorrect again, but I will say that I disagree to a colossal degree.

I would say that Depeche Mode more so than New Order. From bubblegum pop, electro, diso, goth, grunge, rock, house, techno, they have covered it all

5 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

you really believe they covered more 'ground' than The Beatles?

I think they have covered more genres. I do not think they are more ground breaking, I would like to clarify that.

[theDandy]

5 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Speaking of Beatles/classical guitar

 

 

These are both wonderful. Apologies for not being able to embed the same as everybody else on here, but the there's a gentleman on Youtube who has an account called 'Troubleclef' who does brilliant song covers through classical guitar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbizWzKZowo

 

[theDandy]

2 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I would say that Depeche Mode more so than New Order. From bubblegum pop, electro, diso, goth, grunge, rock, house, techno, they have covered it all

Can you give me examples of each in song? I'm genuinely intrigued now, I've never really had Depeche Mode down as being so diverse. Certainly nowhere near the Beatles, in my eyes pretty much nobody does when it comes to variety of music within their discography.

[Gnomicide]

Is it ok to point out at this stage that Depeche Mode & New Order are both shite?

[Gucci Piggy]

1 minute ago, Gnomicide said:

Is it ok to point out at this stage that Depeche Mode & New Order are both shite?

No.

I dunno about New Order but not Depeche Mode.

Edit: I want you to know that your post sounded like my dad. My dad's favourite artists are Meatloaf, Elton John and Il Divo.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Will-2609

[The Nal]

6 minutes ago, theDandy said:

These are both wonderful. Apologies for not being able to embed the same as everybody else on here, but the there's a gentleman on Youtube who has an account called 'Troubleclef' who does brilliant song covers through classical guitar:

Lovely! 

Not a fucking patch on this lad though.

 

[stuartbert two hats]

6 minutes ago, eastynh said:

 

I would say that Depeche Mode more so than New Order. From bubblegum pop, electro, diso, goth, grunge, rock, house, techno, they have covered it all

 

I like their first album.  Unfortunately that band effectively split up afterwards, and I've not enjoyed any Depeche Mode or Vince Clarke material as much as that first album.  I think it triggers early childhood memories in me (born 1978)

[mrtourette]

I think the bottom line is that the Beatles never once asked Geoff Hurst or Nobby Stiles to rap on one of their songs.

[Wooderson]

Just now, Gnomicide said:

Is it ok to point out at this stage that Depeche Mode & New Order are both shite?

They have their moments - v few admittedly.

 

 

[Gnomicide]

2 minutes ago, Will-2609 said:

Edit: I want you to know that your post sounded like my dad. 

#TeamWill-2609'sDad

 

[mr gumby]

5 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

I think the bottom line is that the Beatles never once asked Geoff Hurst or Nobby Stiles to rap on one of their songs.

But they did ask Ringo to sing. 

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, mr gumby said:

But they did ask Ringo to sing. 

Paul McCartney being a complete and utter bastard again.