The Beatles were good but extremely boring
Raja
improvisations? Sure they could make tons of cutesy melodies and
harmonies. But that is not what I expect from a ROCK band. I need some
jaw dropping solos and riffs, some thunderous drumming and screaming
by the singer. In the pop and singer/songwriter world, Beatles are
unmatched. But how exciting were they? May be for the 60s they were
very exciting (and probably even hard rock for the early 60s) but
most of their songs nowadays sound like nursery rhymes or plain
constipated or "Hare Rama Hare Krishna" influenced snoozefests.
Inspite of making tons of songs with brilliant melodies, The Beatles
made only very few songs you can rock out to. That doesnt mean they
were not great. They were truly a great band, but extremely boring.
These are the only Beatles songs I can seriously rock out to.
Chronologically...
Album songs (14)
______________
Twist And Shout
Love Me Do
Please Please Me
I Wanna Be Your Man
A Hard Days Night
Cant Buy Me Love
Eight Days A Week
Help
Ticket to Ride
Got to Get You Into my Life
Back in the USSR
Hey Bulldog
Come Together
Get Back
Non album songs (8)
_________________
From Me To You
She Loves You
I Want To Hold Your Hand
I Feel Fine
Im Down
Day Tripper
Paperback Writer
Lady Madonna
So there are 22 Beatles' songs (of their gazillion songs) out there
which are truly entertaining. I know there might be some other songs
which others might find exciting but none of the others I can think of
truly excite me. Coincidently majority of their exciting songs were
released as singles and you can probably find most of these songs on
the The Beatles #1 collection. I guess Beatles #1 is the most exciting
CD of Beatles songs out there. No wonder it sold a lot.
Eiron
> When was the last time Beatles rocked? How many of their songs have
> improvisations? Sure they could make tons of cutesy melodies and
> harmonies. But that is not what I expect from a ROCK band. I need some
> jaw dropping solos and riffs, some thunderous drumming and screaming
> by the singer. In the pop and singer/songwriter world, Beatles are
> unmatched. But how exciting were they? May be for the 60s they were
> very exciting (and probably even hard rock for the early 60s) but
> most of their songs nowadays sound like nursery rhymes or plain
> constipated or "Hare Rama Hare Krishna" influenced snoozefests.
They were crap in the sixties and only appealed to tone-deaf girls.
My late father-in-law was in the Cavern club once and told them to
keep the noise down as some people were there for a quiet drink.
He appreciated good music....
--
Eiron.
Gracchus
> When was the last time Beatles rocked? How many of their songs have
> improvisations?
This really is a stupid post. It's like saying "Why weren't the
Beatles Led Zeppelin?" "Why can't jazz sound like rock?"
If you want to "rock out," listen to a different band. There's enough
loud garbage out there to entertain you for a lifetime.
jason-...@hotmail.com
One Beatles song I really like is She Came in Through the Bathroom
Window. That's my favorite on Abbey Road.
Raja
> On Jul 28, 11:02 am, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When was the last time Beatles rocked? How many of their songs have
> > improvisations?
>
> This really is a stupid post. It's like saying "Why weren't the
> Beatles Led Zeppelin?" "Why can't jazz sound like rock?"
I didnt say that. Led Zeppelin werent the only rock band which rocked.
There were many.
>
> If you want to "rock out," listen to a different band. There's enough
> loud garbage out there to entertain you for a lifetime.
Loud garbage? You dont have to be loud to rock.
Joe Ramirez
What's with your godforsaken trolling today? "Fat people are a
disgrace"? "The Beatles were boring"? These topics are straight from
the 1995 Usenet troll's how-to manual. You are hitting a new low in
vacuousness. I think that sickening shouting match you had with Fan
about whose country was more pedophile-friendly has unhinged you. Take
a break.
Joe Ramirez
VestMusi...@hotmail.com
> On Jul 28, 11:02�am, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > When was the last time Beatles rocked? How many of their songs have
> > improvisations? Sure they could make tons of cutesy melodies and
> > harmonies. But that is not what I expect from a ROCK band. I need some
> > jaw dropping solos and riffs, some thunderous drumming and screaming
> > by the singer. �In the pop and singer/songwriter world, Beatles are
> > unmatched. But how exciting were they? May be for the 60s they were
> > very exciting (and probably even hard rock for the early 60s) �but
> > most of their songs nowadays sound like nursery rhymes or plain
> > constipated or "Hare Rama Hare Krishna" influenced snoozefests.
>
> > Inspite of making tons of songs with brilliant melodies, The Beatles
> > made only very few songs you can rock out to. That doesnt mean they
> > were not great. They were truly a great band, but extremely boring.
>
> > These are the only Beatles songs I can seriously rock out to.
>
> One Beatles song I really like is She Came in Through the Bathroom
> Window. That's my favorite on Abbey Road.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
#1 No. 9
#2 Why Don't We Do It in the Road
#3 Candy-O
The Cars were better than the beatles
Martin Hofner
>
> - Show quoted text -
==========================
Good God, the prepubescents have broken through the digital idiot
barrier again!
Gracchus
> On Jul 28, 11:22 am, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > This really is a stupid post. It's like saying "Why weren't the
> > Beatles Led Zeppelin?" "Why can't jazz sound like rock?"
>
> I didnt say that. Led Zeppelin werent the only rock band which rocked.
> There were many.
It wasn't the Beatles' forte. They were composers and craftsmen
primarily--obviously none of them were instrumental virtuosos, nor did
they ever pretend to be. Labeling them "boring" for this makes no
sense at all.
Raja
LOL, you need to chill.
Raja
I didnt label them boring for that. Was anyone in the The Rolling
Stones or The Kinks a virtuoso? Hardly. But they made several more
rocking songs.
Raja
>
> - Show quoted text -
They have about 6 memorable songs but all those 6 were amazing. Even
their greatest hits CD does not have all good songs. They are like 3
tiers below The Beatles.
Sal Video
mention Helter Skelter or Yer Blues?
You know nothing about the Beatles.
"Raja" <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ff597f3-236d-417b...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
zepf...@yahoo.com
> You mention Love Me Do and Can't Buy Me Love as "rock" songs and don't
> mention Helter Skelter or Yer Blues?
Both those songs suck. I have mentioned only the good ones.
>
> You know nothing about the Beatles.
Right, I have only heard all their songs...
>
> "Raja" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > CD of Beatles songs out there. No wonder it sold a lot.- Hide quoted text -
The Arranger
> When was the last time Beatles rocked?
c. 1970
The Arranger
Gracchus
> On Jul 28, 12:03 pm, "Sal Video" <svi...@access.com> wrote:
> > You know nothing about the Beatles.
>
> Right, I have only heard all their songs...
And apparently don't like many of their songs much. When someone gives
a counterexample in response to your claims, you say that those songs
suck. Therefore, no one can challenge your original claim, because
you've decided in advance what is good, what isn't, what "rocks," and
what doesn't.
So why bother starting a discussion on a topic you're not interested
in discussing? And why bother starting a thread about a band you don't
even like?
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
wrote:
>When was the last time Beatles rocked? How many of their songs have
>improvisations? Sure they could make tons of cutesy melodies and
>harmonies. But that is not what I expect from a ROCK band. I need some
>jaw dropping solos and riffs, some thunderous drumming and screaming
>by the singer. In the pop and singer/songwriter world, Beatles are
>unmatched. But how exciting were they? May be for the 60s they were
>very exciting (and probably even hard rock for the early 60s) but
>most of their songs nowadays sound like nursery rhymes or plain
>constipated or "Hare Rama Hare Krishna" influenced snoozefests.
>
>Inspite of making tons of songs with brilliant melodies, The Beatles
>made only very few songs you can rock out to. That doesnt mean they
>were not great. They were truly a great band, but extremely boring.
>
>These are the only Beatles songs I can seriously rock out to.
Dude, you're completely missing the element of "time" here. If you
put them in FOCUS, like when they started, there weren't many ROCKERS
out there.
Damn, you young 'uns have a different mindset. hehehehe...
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
>On Jul 28, 12:03 pm, "Sal Video" <svi...@access.com> wrote:
>> You mention Love Me Do and Can't Buy Me Love as "rock" songs and don't
>> mention Helter Skelter or Yer Blues?
>
>Both those songs suck. I have mentioned only the good ones.
>
>>
>> You know nothing about the Beatles.
>
>Right, I have only heard all their songs...
OK. You have heard every one, including all of their live
performances? I tend to think that would be a miracle, considering
you weren't alive back then.
Are you alive now?
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
Then answer is quite simple, really. He's an attention addict. He
likes the spotlight. Since he doesn't "get any" out there, he tries
to "get some" in here.
Fortunately, many of us here are not easy meat for his hamburger
grinder... We call him on his shit and he keeps coming back for more.
That's some seriously dedicated masochism.
Many of us have given this boy hints about how to write a list topic
here, but he refuses to heed any advice and still requests, desires
and outright wants 'Net abuse.
He may make someone's psychiatric thesis someday. Maybe a movie or a
book deal, who knows? Hopefully he won't go Columbine on us.
It's real simple, as mentioned. All he has to do is back up his
"self-evident" claims with his own words. He can't seem to do that -
must be a mental block or the water he's drinking. He twists and
shouts other's words but cannot come up with his own.
Listing is a form of obsessive - compulsive behavior. The person
doing it often has no care about the outcome, only the act itself
seems important. It is truly sad, but life can be at times.
This seems to be Raja's lot. Unless he decides to stop plagiarizing
everyone else and get a listful - or listless - life, he'll be stuck
in that triangle of self-obsession.
Ahhh, I need some coffee after that spiel.
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
Then answer is quite simple, really. He's an attention addict. He
likes the spotlight. Since he doesn't "get any" out there, he tries
to "get some" in here.
Fortunately, many of us here are not easy meat for his hamburger
grinder... We call him on his shit and he keeps coming back for more.
That's some seriously dedicated masochism.
Many of us have given this boy hints about how to write a list topic
here, but he refuses to heed any advice and still requests, desires
and outright wants 'Net abuse.
He may make someone's psychiatric thesis someday. Maybe a movie or a
book deal, who knows? Hopefully he won't go Columbine on us.
It's real simple, as mentioned. All he has to do is back up his
"self-evident" claims with his own words. He can't seem to do that -
must be a mental block or the water he's drinking. He twists and
shouts other's words but cannot come up with his own.
Listing is a form of obsessive - compulsive behavior. The person
doing it often has no care about the outcome, only the act itself
seems important. It is truly sad, but life can be at times.
This seems to be Raja's lot. Unless he decides to stop plagiarizing
everyone else and get a listful - or listless - life, he'll be stuck
in that triangle of self-obsession.
Ahhh, I need some coffee after that spiel.
By the way, the subject line is an oxymoron, probably posted by a
moron snorting Oxydol detergent.
guyan...@yahoo.com
easy young lady, well written both posts, Raja is a sad loser getting
close to whisper in 'losingmagnitude -100 both of them'?
Steven Sullivan
Fuck off, Raja.
--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
Thanks for the flattery, but I have no boobs.
kipps
geminij...@yahoo.com
Still sucking the life out of this group eh?
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
wrote:
No, I'm not gay either. Nice try, punchbag.
guyan...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:35:49 -0700 (PDT), kipps <k_par...@yahoo.com>
Assholes
DavidW
> When was the last time Beatles rocked? How many of their songs have
> improvisations? Sure they could make tons of cutesy melodies and
> harmonies. But that is not what I expect from a ROCK band. I need some
> jaw dropping solos and riffs, some thunderous drumming and screaming
> by the singer. In the pop and singer/songwriter world, Beatles are
> unmatched. But how exciting were they? May be for the 60s they were
> very exciting (and probably even hard rock for the early 60s) but
> most of their songs nowadays sound like nursery rhymes or plain
> constipated or "Hare Rama Hare Krishna" influenced snoozefests.
>
> Inspite of making tons of songs with brilliant melodies, The Beatles
> made only very few songs you can rock out to. That doesnt mean they
> were not great. They were truly a great band, but extremely boring.
>
> These are the only Beatles songs I can seriously rock out to.
>
I can't remember the Beatles' original, but Zoot's "Eleanor Rigby" certainly
rocks. A song can have elements of rock there in the music, but if the band
doesn't play it that way it won't sound like a rock song.
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
Gee, why thank you. I'll remember this on your next birthday.
Bernie Woodham
"Gracchus" <cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dcba73c5-fc1e-4c52...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 28, 11:02 am, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When was the last time Beatles rocked? How many of their songs have
>> improvisations?
>
> Beatles Led Zeppelin?" "Why can't jazz sound like rock?"
>
> loud garbage out there to entertain you for a lifetime.
What I find amusing is Raja says The Beatles were a great band and says they
were boring in the same breath.
Yeah, well Zeppelin was a mediocre boring band. At least The Beatles didn't
have to steal their stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkX7Q2J7k48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toSGDuSuTJk
This next file opens Acrobat:
http://www.shindig-magazine.com/pdf/dazed.pdf
Morning Glory
> When was the last time Beatles rocked?
Umm that would be when they broke up sometime in 1970.
>Sure they could make tons of cutesy melodies and
> harmonies. But that is not what I expect from a ROCK band. I need some
> jaw dropping solos and riffs, some thunderous drumming and screaming
> by the singer.
Really? Then The Who should be your band. Maybe the guitar solos
weren't so jaw dropping, but that bass solo in "My Generation" is very
difficult to emulate.
What about "I Want You (She's so Heavy)? I'm suprised that that wasn't
even mentioned as well as "Happiness is a Warm Gun" or "Helter
Skelter" once again your list is biased but I guess that doesn't
matter...
> So there are 22 Beatles' songs (of their gazillion songs)
Gazillion. From the mind of an immature man-child.
> I guess Beatles #1 is the most exciting CD
You guessed wrong. Try again next week.
guyan...@yahoo.com
fuck off faggot, Raja has more character than you.
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
That's why you like him soooo much. You 2 can go get a room, childish
one. Sounds like you've been on the 'Net all of a week. Best of luck
with the room!
Raja
He picked the two Beatles songs I hate the most. What am I supposed to
do, then?
Raja
wrote:> This from the guy who worships Pink Floyd, whose catalog is stuffed with
> non-"rocking," slow-motion, dreamy, sluggish tunes. And ooh, who rocks
> harder than Van Der Graaf Generator? <groan>
> Beatles' catalog. Looks like you've just heard their best-of albums.
> Either that, or you're simply trolling again. You cite light stuff such
> as "Love Me Do," "From Me to You," "Please Please Me" and "Eight Days a
> Week," but not "Birthday," "Helter Skelter," "Revolution," "Yer Blues,"
I hate most songs from Disc 2 of White Album. They stink even if some
of them rock hard.
> "One After 909," "Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My
> Monkey," "The End," "I Saw Her Standing There"
How are these rocking? I Saw Her Standing There" threatens to rock at
some places though.
>and a pile of covers such
> as "Long Tall Sally," "Money (That's What I Want")," "Slow Down," "Leave
> My Kitten Alone," "Dizzy Miss Lizzie," "Boys," "Roll Over Beethoven"...?
None of them are that great songs. I think Boys and Slow Down are
pretty good but really not their best stuff.
> Pretty hard to rationally defend, if you're really claiming to judge the
> Beatles purely by whether they "rock."
>
> Dude.
Raja
> enough...but now you're indicating other criteria. Not consistent.
What nonsense? I find crap songs boring too.
>
> So...I guess "Helter Skelter" stinks but isn't boring?
of course crap songs are boring by default.
> Are there other
> Beatles tracks which are boring yet good?
many. In fact their catalogue is filled with them.
Governor Swill
>On Jul 28, 12:02 pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When was the last time Beatles rocked?
>
>Still sucking the life out of this group eh?
It's the only music based thread in the whole room. Too bad Raja's
such a twit.
Swill
--
No, his mind is not for rent
To any God or government.
Always hopeful, yet discontent,
He knows changes arent permanent,
But change is.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
Governor Swill
>> Twist And Shout
>> Love Me Do
>> Please Please Me
>> I Wanna Be Your Man
>> A Hard Days Night
>> Cant Buy Me Love
>> Eight Days A Week
>> Help
>> Ticket to Ride
>> Got to Get You Into my Life
>> Back in the USSR
>> Hey Bulldog
>> Come Together
>> Get Back
>> She Loves You
>> I Want To Hold Your Hand
>> I Feel Fine
>> Im Down
>> Day Tripper
>> Paperback Writer
>> Lady Madonna
>
>I can't remember the Beatles' original, but Zoot's "Eleanor Rigby" certainly
>rocks. A song can have elements of rock there in the music, but if the band
>doesn't play it that way it won't sound like a rock song.
Taxman rocks. Savoy Truffle has some heavy guitar and then there's
side 2 of Abbey Road. Lots of rockin' there.
DavidW
Great cover.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3IUASoqfM
> A song can have elements of rock there in the music,
> but if the band doesn't play it that way it won't sound like a rock
> song.
I meant to say "_the_ elements of rock".
Raja
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:02:28 -0700 (PDT), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
Is it me or Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks, Who etc all rocked harder and
they were pretty much from the same period. In fact Beatles were quite
loud in their earlier albums and then went into a Hare Rama Hare
Krishna phase in the mid 60s and never recovered. Abbey Road was a
half arsed attempt at rocking but they did try to get back to the
roots there.
amy
> When was the last time Beatles rocked? How many of their songs have
> improvisations? Sure they could make tons of cutesy melodies and
> harmonies. But that is not what I expect from a ROCK band. I need some
> jaw dropping solos and riffs, some thunderous drumming and screaming
> by the singer. In the pop and singer/songwriter world, Beatles are
> unmatched. But how exciting were they? May be for the 60s they were
> very exciting (and probably even hard rock for the early 60s) but
> most of their songs nowadays sound like nursery rhymes or plain
> constipated or "Hare Rama Hare Krishna" influenced snoozefests.
>
> Inspite of making tons of songs with brilliant melodies, The Beatles
> made only very few songs you can rock out to. That doesnt mean they
> were not great. They were truly a great band, but extremely boring.
>
> These are the only Beatles songs I can seriously rock out to.
>
> which are truly entertaining. I know there might be some other songs
> which others might find exciting but none of the others I can think of
> truly excite me. Coincidently majority of their exciting songs were
> released as singles and you can probably find most of these songs on
> the The Beatles #1 collection. I guess Beatles #1 is the most exciting
> CD of Beatles songs out there. No wonder it sold a lot.
No bands have improvisations on their albums everything is planned
arranged written and rehearsed. barring solos and live recordings.
Eiron
> Yeah, well Zeppelin was a mediocre boring band. At least The Beatles didn't
> have to steal their stuff:
How about 'Bad Penny Blues'?
--
Eiron.
Stephen X. Carter
>You have no coherent position. You're just childishly trolling again.
PKB!
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
zzbu...@netscape.net
> When was the last timeBeatlesrocked?
1969, as the story goes. Since everything after that was
remizes of tapes.
How many of their songs have
> improvisations?
Only one: A Day in the Life.
Sure they could make tons of cutesy melodies and
> harmonies. But that is not what I expect from a ROCK band. I need some
> jaw dropping solos and riffs, some thunderous drumming and screaming
> by the singer. In the pop and singer/songwriter world,Beatlesare
> unmatched. But how exciting were they? May be for the 60s they were
> very exciting (and probably even hard rock for the early 60s) but
> most of their songs nowadays sound like nursery rhymes or plain
> constipated or "Hare Rama Hare Krishna" influenced snoozefests.
That's mostly because most of today's hard rock isn't even music
anymore.
It's crashing jets into skyscrapers. They don't even bother with
tickets anymore.
It's just drills and drugs.
> Inspite of making tons of songs with brilliant melodies, TheBeatles
> made only very few songs you can rock out to. That doesnt mean they
> were not great. They were truly a great band, but extremely boring.
>
> These are the onlyBeatlessongs I can seriously rock out to.
> So there are 22Beatles' songs (of their gazillion songs) out there
> which are truly entertaining. I know there might be some other songs
> which others might find exciting but none of the others I can think of
> truly excite me. Coincidently majority of their exciting songs were
> released as singles and you can probably find most of these songs on
> the TheBeatles#1 collection. I guessBeatles#1 is the most exciting
> CD ofBeatlessongs out there. No wonder it sold a lot.
Mike Dickson
> No bands have improvisations on their albums everything is planned
> arranged written and rehearsed. barring solos and live recordings.
Really?
No band /ever/?
Do you know what you're talking about?
--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
Free Music Project: http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson
Or http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/
Mike Dickson
> He picked the two Beatles songs I hate the most. What am I supposed to
> do, then?
How does 'shutting the fuck right up' sound as a suggestion?
Raja
You could use one yourself.
zepf...@yahoo.com
I think you lack comprehension skills.
zepf...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:51:44 -0700 (PDT), Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com>
> Album. Our band is covering those right now and theres some terrific,
> angry hard rock riffing on those. Helter Skelter has an almost
> punk-style guitar line in certain sections.
It is still a horrible song with no memorable melody and go nowhere
screaming.
>
> Your protests are futile and your logic is fruitless. You have no time
> frame experience to compare apples to apples, and even funnier, at
> this point, you are comparing apples to oranges.
>
> Its obvious to any working musician, or anybody who was there at the
> time, that the Beatles could definitely rock WHEN THEY WANTED TO.
Unfortunately they didnt want it much.
>
> Its also obvious that they wanted to do many different things as well.
Or took too much drugs?
>
> Now go away and let the Led Zep group finally rest in peace.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
rfor...@msn.com
> When was the last time Beatles rocked? How many of their songs have
> improvisations? Sure they could make tons of cutesy melodies and
> harmonies. But that is not what I expect from a ROCK band. I need some
> jaw dropping solos and riffs, some thunderous drumming and screaming
> by the singer. In the pop and singer/songwriter world, Beatles are
> unmatched. But how exciting were they? May be for the 60s they were
> very exciting (and probably even hard rock for the early 60s) but
> most of their songs nowadays sound like nursery rhymes or plain
> constipated or "Hare Rama Hare Krishna" influenced snoozefests.
>
> Inspite of making tons of songs with brilliant melodies, The Beatles
> made only very few songs you can rock out to. That doesnt mean they
> were not great. They were truly a great band, but extremely boring.
>
> These are the only Beatles songs I can seriously rock out to.
>
> which are truly entertaining. I know there might be some other songs
> which others might find exciting but none of the others I can think of
> truly excite me. Coincidently majority of their exciting songs were
> released as singles and you can probably find most of these songs on
> CD of Beatles songs out there. No wonder it sold a lot.
True, the Beatles were not strictly a hard-rock band. They could rock
out with the very best of them and often did(and your list, although
good, omits some other powerful rockers, what "Helter Skelter", "Why
Don't We Do it in the Road", "Oh! Darling", "Yer Blues", "Everybody's
Got Something to Hide," "Dizzie Miss Lizzie," (you included Twist &
Shout so obviously covers count), "Little Child" to name a few, don't
rock your balls?)....but they were far too creatively and musically
inquisitive, restless, curious and versatile to be limited to JUST
doing that, which is why they also produced countless pop classics in
completely different directions.
richforman
Bernie Woodham
"Eiron" <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f7s0tF...@mid.individual.net...
No comparison. The most that could be said is that there is some similarity
in the piano's chord progression. But this would be influence only.
With the Zep we are talking about note-for-note ripoffs. Black Mountain
Side was the exact guitar work of Bert Jansch on his version of Black
Waterside.
"Dazed and Confused" is the ripoff of a copyrighted song written by someone
else.
There's quite a few instances of LZ doing this, The Smallfaces version of
Willie Dixon's "You Need Loving" is yet another example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkQpZpFLpv4&feature=related
There is also Davy Graham's "She Moves Through the Fair" vs "White Summer"
These weren't influences. These were ripoffs.
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
wrote:
That's actually not "totally" true. Witness Voodoo Chile on Electric
Ladyland. This was a studio "jam" and at times, improv. There may
have been some ground rules, but it is a longish song and not mapped
out like other songs. It may sound from a live venue, but those are
people in the studio with the musicians.
You are correct for the most part. If I sat down and concentrated on
this, I could probably come up with a few more examples, but this is
not a contest.
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
<forename...@geemail.com> wrote:
>Raja wrote:
>
>> He picked the two Beatles songs I hate the most. What am I supposed to
>> do, then?
>
>How does 'shutting the fuck right up' sound as a suggestion?
Mike, I don't think that was strong enough.
How about, "FUCK OFF RAJA" !!!!!
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
<HPLaur...@yahoonospam.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:05:36 -0700 (PDT), Raja <zepf...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>Dont you get tired of the same thing happening over and over?
>
>You cross-post these stupid lists of your opinions about bands, then
>you get defensive when anyone disagrees with you, then you get flamed
>and told the shut the hell up.
>
>Its like clockwork, same thing, every single time, over and over.
>
>Are you THAT desperate for attention?
Yes. He is.
Eiron
> Tracy_...@frontiernet.net wrote:
>
>>> No bands have improvisations on their albums everything is planned
>>> arranged written and rehearsed. barring solos and live recordings.
>> That's actually not "totally" true. Witness Voodoo Chile on Electric
>> Ladyland. This was a studio "jam" and at times, improv. There may
>> have been some ground rules, but it is a longish song and not mapped
>> out like other songs. It may sound from a live venue, but those are
>> people in the studio with the musicians.
>>
>> You are correct for the most part. If I sat down and concentrated on
>> this, I could probably come up with a few more examples, but this is
>> not a contest.
>
> don't count solos" is a pretty weak point. And even so, you can find
> group improvisations on albums. Just for starters (O'Leary will love
> this), you could point to a few tracks by the 1973-74 era King Crimson.
The improvised King Crimson tracks were recorded live.
--
Eiron.
STK
How about '80s Crimson then - Requiem and Nuages.
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
<whydoIst...@usenet.com> wrote:
>Tracy_...@frontiernet.net wrote:
>
>> >No bands have improvisations on their albums everything is planned
>> >arranged written and rehearsed. barring solos and live recordings.
>>
>> That's actually not "totally" true. Witness Voodoo Chile on Electric
>> Ladyland. This was a studio "jam" and at times, improv. There may
>> have been some ground rules, but it is a longish song and not mapped
>> out like other songs. It may sound from a live venue, but those are
>> people in the studio with the musicians.
>>
>> You are correct for the most part. If I sat down and concentrated on
>> this, I could probably come up with a few more examples, but this is
>> not a contest.
>
>Saying "no bands have improvisations on their albums...well, if you
>don't count solos" is a pretty weak point. And even so, you can find
>group improvisations on albums. Just for starters (O'Leary will love
>this), you could point to a few tracks by the 1973-74 era King Crimson.
>And if you go beyond pop and rock records, you can find loads of
>improvisation.
I was going to mention Crimson, but those records were assumed studio
but actually many of the improv cuts were live with no audience
recognition. This was shown to us with the 4 CD "Great Deceiver" set.
>I recall an '80s SST band called Paper Bag who bragged that their
>records were *entirely* improvised. I even saw them perform once. And I
>believe one of the members even used to post to rec.music.progressive
>from time to time.
Hmmm... Further, I wonder what you would call Henry Cow?
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
wrote:
Or, Indispline...
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
amy
That far off soaring sound?...... that was his post going
waaaaaaaaaaaaaay over your head ragay
Mike Dickson
Perhaps. I mean, I barely ever look into r.m.p these days, let alone the
other groups this seeping fuckstain infects with his endless, mindless
repetitious slaverings, but every time I take a peek I see this 'Raja'
lackwit blithering on about some meaningless and utterly uninteresting
list or another that he has conconcted out of his head that says nothing
about anything other than how thoroughly fucking lonely he must be.
Rose.A...@gmail.com
>
> You cross-post these stupid lists of your opinions about bands, then
> you get defensive when anyone disagrees with you, then you get flamed
> and told the shut the hell up.
>
> Its like clockwork, same thing, every single time, over and over.
>
> Are you THAT desperate for attention?
Yes, he is.
Rose.A...@gmail.com
Ok, but that's still twice as many entertaining songs as Yes had. Go
figure.
Leon Trollski
"Raja" <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ff597f3-236d-417b...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
A stupid idea, and yet another list . . . . please someone ask Uncle
Mustapha to sell the little bastard to some brothel.
Kyla =^..^=`
"Leon Trollski" ...
>
> "Raja" >
> A stupid idea, and yet another list
A grocery list?
. . . . please someone ask Uncle
> Mustapha to sell the little bastard to some brothel.
No one would take him <G>
Kyla
waves Hi to all the crossposters then deletes the entire thread.
>
>
Tracy_...@frontiernet.net
wrote:
Isn't he already working off his VISA through 7-11 duty?
progea
> waves Hi to all the crossposters then deletes the entire thread.
Marshall McLuhan, casual viewing, head buried in the sand
On Aug 18, 1:10 pm, Tracy_Bar...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 04:06:40 GMT, "Leon Trollski" <l...@garyrock.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Raja" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:0ff597f3-236d-417b...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >A stupid idea, and yet another list . . . . please someone ask Uncle
> >Mustapha to sell the little bastard to some brothel.
>
> Isn't he already working off his VISA through 7-11 duty?
LOL