Friday, December 6, 2013
timeline: 1041
100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0- 0+ 1 2
000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
| previous | next |
1041
| unclear date: |
| tancred d'hauteville (died) |
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/chronology/CE/1000/000/40/01.html
ollie
I like going through my media chronologically, in all aspects. I started with wwi. After immersing myself in WWI media, docs, literature, art, etc for about a month, the joy of those early 20s jazz recording sprang to life and didn't seem trite in the slightest. I've actually been doing this for a couple of years now and I'm in the early 90s now. Its a fun experiment that I'd highly recommend.
I want someone to invent an app so people can build historical/chronological playlists with friends. It would be cool if people could have a best of 1990 cross media playlist to crowdsource
... or a best of 1782
jessica amber murray
i was building chronological playlists on youtube for a while, but have kind of let it sit since i moved here. 60s - 00s. plus one for "serialism" which i took a broad definition of to include any kind of abstract jazz. and i suppose i'm building something like that on my web page, slowly, although it's cross-linked to literature and other things as well. i think it's a neat idea, too. http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIx9xafrMCgYqDYIp4SK6tA/videos?view=1
ollie
I have this book, its a historical atlas of world history. I think it forms an excellent template for how people should interact with their media. Sort of like a google earth with a timeline that media could be tagged to by date.
I'm meeting with someone in the next month to develop the idea. If you have any input I'd be interested to hear about it.
I want it to be a crowdsourced documentary organiser that can serve as a tool for historical schooling.
jessica amber murray
i think that sounds like a lot of programming! i've played around with geographical lists to organize bands in scenes (montreal post-rock, or seattle grunge, or whatever) and can see the appeal to approaching music this way, at least up until about 2000 when the internet sort of abolished the local music scene by opening up the spread of ideas. the kind of isolation that created the washington/oregon punk scene probably isn't going to happen again. what we've seen more recently are scenes jumping up around hashtags. a good example of that is "chillwave". it's interesting, but is it anachronistic? and, if so, if the focus is *history*, does that matter? i was actually thinking of building something like this for my programming project. i ran it by a bunch of people and they all questioned whether there was any kind of demand for it. my answer was always "well, i'd use it.". but after thinking about it, i sort of think they're right. i mean, i like the idea - i'd use the site. but it's hard to see why people would move from spotify (although i should point out that spotify didn't exist at the time, and my idea may have been interpreted as an alternate model for spotify that took in aspects of discogs, which also didn't exist, and timeline, which also didn't exist....) or last.fm for that reason, or why the media companies would license it. i've been slowly building up a timeline on facebook, though. just my own records. just a hobby. but i do hope that, one day, it's a large resource. having something like that opened up and crowd-sourced would definitely be interesting. but, again, why would people use it instead of wikipedia, besides the gui? so, i guess my input is it's a cool idea that's going to require a lot of work and will probably have a hard time sustaining itself. but i'd use it. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jessicas-Music-Collection/505092896244390?ref=hl
ollie
I don't know a thing about programming, but the first step from my basic perspective is meta-tagging fields for detailed date information, so your date tag for Sgt. Pepper says June 1, 1967 instead of 1967.
As for local scenes being relevant or not, think of how this could be applied as an event promotion/ local media collection tool.
jessica amber murray
you'd probably end up storing it all in xml files with those tags and then putting a searchable interface over top of it for usability. the user would be able to construct a timeline of desired events by genre, individual, whatever so that timelines of 'john lennon, 1960-1980' or 'punk rock, 1976-1996' could be constructed.
ollie
Bring in the geographic tag and it becomes a historical media atlas. With a calendrical interface, people can contextualise their media historically.
Computer, what was happening in October 1962?
its already on wikipedia, just not the direct link to the media
First James Bond movie, first Beach Boys album, first Beatles single, Cuban Missile Crisis.
jessica amber murray
yeah. it's a neat idea. i wish you had asked me this five years ago, though, when i was in the right head space. right now, i'm personally more interested in building a personalized timeline that focuses on my own writing, reviews, interpretations, etc than opening it up to crowdsourcing and objective analysis. but i do think the latter would be interesting to see exist.
ollie
That's where it becomes a promotional tool.
A database for event footage so that people can familiarise themselves with a local art scene.
I'm looking forward to developing it. Know a couple of teachers who think it will be a good teaching tool for history.
I'll keep you updated.
jessica amber murray
i'll just point out that if you compare it to something like discogs or librarything, something that bogs those sites down is the user content. wildly inaccurate or borderline reviews by people that don't really know what they're talking about. i guess that's more something to worry about down the line. but i think the major usability challenge on the timeline is likely to be clutter. maybe another example to look at is the phenomena of the soundcloud comment.
ollie
I see it working more like facebook, where you add users based on the quality of their content. For instance, there would be some interest in having an Idle No More or an Oxford History department newsfeed for tagged media.
I like going through my media chronologically, in all aspects. I started with wwi. After immersing myself in WWI media, docs, literature, art, etc for about a month, the joy of those early 20s jazz recording sprang to life and didn't seem trite in the slightest. I've actually been doing this for a couple of years now and I'm in the early 90s now. Its a fun experiment that I'd highly recommend.
I want someone to invent an app so people can build historical/chronological playlists with friends. It would be cool if people could have a best of 1990 cross media playlist to crowdsource
... or a best of 1782
jessica amber murray
i was building chronological playlists on youtube for a while, but have kind of let it sit since i moved here. 60s - 00s. plus one for "serialism" which i took a broad definition of to include any kind of abstract jazz. and i suppose i'm building something like that on my web page, slowly, although it's cross-linked to literature and other things as well. i think it's a neat idea, too. http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIx9xafrMCgYqDYIp4SK6tA/videos?view=1
ollie
I have this book, its a historical atlas of world history. I think it forms an excellent template for how people should interact with their media. Sort of like a google earth with a timeline that media could be tagged to by date.
I'm meeting with someone in the next month to develop the idea. If you have any input I'd be interested to hear about it.
I want it to be a crowdsourced documentary organiser that can serve as a tool for historical schooling.
jessica amber murray
i think that sounds like a lot of programming! i've played around with geographical lists to organize bands in scenes (montreal post-rock, or seattle grunge, or whatever) and can see the appeal to approaching music this way, at least up until about 2000 when the internet sort of abolished the local music scene by opening up the spread of ideas. the kind of isolation that created the washington/oregon punk scene probably isn't going to happen again. what we've seen more recently are scenes jumping up around hashtags. a good example of that is "chillwave". it's interesting, but is it anachronistic? and, if so, if the focus is *history*, does that matter? i was actually thinking of building something like this for my programming project. i ran it by a bunch of people and they all questioned whether there was any kind of demand for it. my answer was always "well, i'd use it.". but after thinking about it, i sort of think they're right. i mean, i like the idea - i'd use the site. but it's hard to see why people would move from spotify (although i should point out that spotify didn't exist at the time, and my idea may have been interpreted as an alternate model for spotify that took in aspects of discogs, which also didn't exist, and timeline, which also didn't exist....) or last.fm for that reason, or why the media companies would license it. i've been slowly building up a timeline on facebook, though. just my own records. just a hobby. but i do hope that, one day, it's a large resource. having something like that opened up and crowd-sourced would definitely be interesting. but, again, why would people use it instead of wikipedia, besides the gui? so, i guess my input is it's a cool idea that's going to require a lot of work and will probably have a hard time sustaining itself. but i'd use it. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jessicas-Music-Collection/505092896244390?ref=hl
ollie
I don't know a thing about programming, but the first step from my basic perspective is meta-tagging fields for detailed date information, so your date tag for Sgt. Pepper says June 1, 1967 instead of 1967.
As for local scenes being relevant or not, think of how this could be applied as an event promotion/ local media collection tool.
jessica amber murray
you'd probably end up storing it all in xml files with those tags and then putting a searchable interface over top of it for usability. the user would be able to construct a timeline of desired events by genre, individual, whatever so that timelines of 'john lennon, 1960-1980' or 'punk rock, 1976-1996' could be constructed.
ollie
Bring in the geographic tag and it becomes a historical media atlas. With a calendrical interface, people can contextualise their media historically.
Computer, what was happening in October 1962?
its already on wikipedia, just not the direct link to the media
First James Bond movie, first Beach Boys album, first Beatles single, Cuban Missile Crisis.
jessica amber murray
yeah. it's a neat idea. i wish you had asked me this five years ago, though, when i was in the right head space. right now, i'm personally more interested in building a personalized timeline that focuses on my own writing, reviews, interpretations, etc than opening it up to crowdsourcing and objective analysis. but i do think the latter would be interesting to see exist.
ollie
That's where it becomes a promotional tool.
A database for event footage so that people can familiarise themselves with a local art scene.
I'm looking forward to developing it. Know a couple of teachers who think it will be a good teaching tool for history.
I'll keep you updated.
jessica amber murray
i'll just point out that if you compare it to something like discogs or librarything, something that bogs those sites down is the user content. wildly inaccurate or borderline reviews by people that don't really know what they're talking about. i guess that's more something to worry about down the line. but i think the major usability challenge on the timeline is likely to be clutter. maybe another example to look at is the phenomena of the soundcloud comment.
ollie
I see it working more like facebook, where you add users based on the quality of their content. For instance, there would be some interest in having an Idle No More or an Oxford History department newsfeed for tagged media.
on the inevitability of metalcore fans all eventually dying of catastrophic, stress-related heart attacks
all tension, no release.
studies will show that metalcore fans will have higher rates of stress related illnesses.
(deleted)
well, they will, once the audience reaches heart attack age. which is probably not that far into the future.
well, if anybody does the studies, anyways. there's a research idea, at the least.
(deleted)
hardcore is a type of music that developed in the late 70s and early 80s, mostly out of the punk movement. early hardcore bands included the likes of bad brains, the dead kennedys and black flag. it had some influence on thrash metal bands like slayer, which is what this sounds a lot more like, and a mild, roundabout influence on progressive metal bands like dream theatre, which provide the missing piece in the equation. yet, it lacks the political messaging that defines hardcore as a genre. i'm willing to concede that this isn't as bad as the modern "metalcore" that derives itself thematically from bands like limp bizkit, but it has essentially nothing in common with hardcore as a genre. labeling it as such is really highly disingenuous; thematically and conceptually this is metal, and not punk.
i stand by my hypothesis, however, and think you're providing more evidence for it than you realize.
(deleted)
i'm actually a middle aged schizophrenic weirdo with a masters degree and a good sense of misanthropic humour, but that's a nice try.
(deleted)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20013543
(deleted)
i'll still take beethoven over rossini, though, because it has that release. this doesn't. listening to this is like bottling your emotions up until you explode....
...and arguments otherwise are basically labeling that explosion as stress relief.
(deleted)
i think release could refer equally well to an idea from music theory and a reduction of volume and/or intensity. what you're getting at is the opposite of release. it's not my fault, it's just what the word means. but i sort of explained that already, too - what you're doing is creating high amounts of tension, watching it explode and then calling it release, when what that is is either tension (relative to the first meaning) or implosion (relative to the second).
i also have to admit i don't hear a lot of chaos in this. it's very ordered.
(deleted)
yet, none of these words express relative concepts. you're consequently spouting pretentious nonsense.
what you mean to say is that the record makes full use of the spectrum, which i can mildly agree with, and also that you enjoy the adrenaline rush and subsequent burnout.
the price of this disc is going to increase dramatically if heroin users find out it produces endorphins....
(deleted)
converge is a type of progressive metal. i've used the term thrash in this thread and would continue to. they don't draw much influence from hardcore (which preceded them by a good ten years) and never did.
certainly, converge and dillinger are more similar to each other than either are to black flag or bad brains or minor threat or....
studies will show that metalcore fans will have higher rates of stress related illnesses.
(deleted)
well, they will, once the audience reaches heart attack age. which is probably not that far into the future.
well, if anybody does the studies, anyways. there's a research idea, at the least.
(deleted)
hardcore is a type of music that developed in the late 70s and early 80s, mostly out of the punk movement. early hardcore bands included the likes of bad brains, the dead kennedys and black flag. it had some influence on thrash metal bands like slayer, which is what this sounds a lot more like, and a mild, roundabout influence on progressive metal bands like dream theatre, which provide the missing piece in the equation. yet, it lacks the political messaging that defines hardcore as a genre. i'm willing to concede that this isn't as bad as the modern "metalcore" that derives itself thematically from bands like limp bizkit, but it has essentially nothing in common with hardcore as a genre. labeling it as such is really highly disingenuous; thematically and conceptually this is metal, and not punk.
i stand by my hypothesis, however, and think you're providing more evidence for it than you realize.
(deleted)
i'm actually a middle aged schizophrenic weirdo with a masters degree and a good sense of misanthropic humour, but that's a nice try.
(deleted)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20013543
(deleted)
i'll still take beethoven over rossini, though, because it has that release. this doesn't. listening to this is like bottling your emotions up until you explode....
...and arguments otherwise are basically labeling that explosion as stress relief.
(deleted)
i think release could refer equally well to an idea from music theory and a reduction of volume and/or intensity. what you're getting at is the opposite of release. it's not my fault, it's just what the word means. but i sort of explained that already, too - what you're doing is creating high amounts of tension, watching it explode and then calling it release, when what that is is either tension (relative to the first meaning) or implosion (relative to the second).
i also have to admit i don't hear a lot of chaos in this. it's very ordered.
(deleted)
yet, none of these words express relative concepts. you're consequently spouting pretentious nonsense.
what you mean to say is that the record makes full use of the spectrum, which i can mildly agree with, and also that you enjoy the adrenaline rush and subsequent burnout.
the price of this disc is going to increase dramatically if heroin users find out it produces endorphins....
(deleted)
converge is a type of progressive metal. i've used the term thrash in this thread and would continue to. they don't draw much influence from hardcore (which preceded them by a good ten years) and never did.
certainly, converge and dillinger are more similar to each other than either are to black flag or bad brains or minor threat or....
regarding the legacy of christian tonality in western popular music, and subsequent challenges to it
tomhulcelover
how are you gonna say the beatles ripped off of journey? haha didn't that beatles song come out before?
deathtokoalas
that's right. these are all rip-offs of let it be.
most shocking statement of the century, said nobody: all pop music is ripped off from the beatles.
...although the dude that pointed out that it's just a basic mathematically correct chord progression is also right, even though it just obscures the reality that pop music has been stuck in tonal stasis since the 1700s. people in mozart's time frame wouldn't have insulted you for your lack of originality if you had played something with a mathematically correct structure, they would have accused you of channeling satan and destroying music if you deviated from a proper chord progression.
the mathematics of tonality underlie the primary reason that creativity and popularity go together so seldomly and are often defined more by atmospheric changes rather than tonal shifts. if you want people to react well to your music, you need to conform to the mathematics underlying harmony. it's consequently us, the consumers, that drive a lack of originality in popular media.
that's all this is really pointing out.
tomhulcelover
umm ok
deathtokoalas
the channeling of satan part is historically completely accurate. chopin is one example. and beethoven was regularly accused of trying to destroy music (and, in fact, was.). let alone, you know, ozzy.
the intervals and shifts that we interpret as acceptable are precisely the intervals and shifts that the church declared to be acceptable. that's not a coincidence.
tomhulcelover
dude, im sorry but i dont really care
deathtokoalas
seems like you do to me. whatever.
Tom Alma
Bear in mind that Waltzing Matilda was around a long time before The Beatles...
deathtokoalas
sure. and celtic folk, as we know it, came from renaissance lute music. most of the songs in the list, though, are let it be, including the journey tune. i was more drawing attention to the background that it all has in sanctioned christian tonality (itself derived from pythagorean number mysticism).
babalooey100
Cool I thought the Pythagoreans only played triangles .
deathtokoalas
except that pythagoras (who was head of a philosophical school that fused number theory and music theory into a kind of buddhist mysticism) stole his theorem about parallelism (which is actually wrong in the geometry we live in) from chaldean sages while he was stumbling through babylonia searching for wisdom, and they themselves probably ripped it off from the egyptians, who probably stole it from atlantis and/or aliens, at which point our history currently begins and we can't go back any further.
Jimmy Greer
Uhhhh, dumbass....the reason Mozart and them could be more creative is because they've got about 60 more instruments to use than your average rock n roll band.
deathtokoalas
yeah, that makes perfect sense, you illiterate nincompoop.
in terms of creativity, the beatles blow mozart out of the water, and it's precisely because they're on the other side of the abolition of a set of rules that mozart was expected to follow. nobody talks about mozart's creativity - because he was not a creative artist. rather, people hold him up as the finest example of a dullard who followed the set of proper conventions, as they were pushed down from the hierarchy above.
if you're going to bother, try and keep up. but i'd rather you just shut the fuck up.
Aussie Dave
Mozart was amazing
deathtokoalas
you could create a computer algorithm, call it "mozart" and lose nothing of value from the original. i suppose there will always be those that praise form over function, but creative is not the correct way to describe his music.
Matthew Joseph Harrington
Too many notes for you?
deathtokoalas
you don't even realize that you have no idea what you're talking about....
i mean, i'd like to produce a witty come back, but it just doesn't make any sense. it's, like, not even wrong.
BryanPiekarski
You're crazy. "All pop music is ripped off from The Beatles." Unless this statement was satirical, in which case, I retract my comment.
deathtokoalas
i don't even think it's controversial.
BryanPiekarski
The Beatles definitely did have a lasting impact on popular music, their music spawned a lot of copycat bands trying to copy their sound and success throughout the 60s, but The Beatles were pretty much gone by the 70s. Besides, The Beatles were no where near as influential to even rock n' roll as the likes of Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry.
deathtokoalas
i don't see any use in arguing with hipster revisionists about something that is not considered controversial by anybody with the slightest bit of understanding on the topic.
you probably don't realize that the beatles actually changed the rules of music theory when it comes to harmony, which is what the video is about. there was music before and after the beatles. there are very few artists that can make that sort of claim. you can talk about bach, beethoven, debussy....and the beatles are next in line. there hasn't really been a shift away from this yet, but there have been a few near misses (kurt cobain's concept of harmony was radically different, but he didn't have enough of an effect on what followed to cause a shift. reznorian tonality has been recently seeping into pop music (see the most recent avril lavigne song for an example) but it is repackaged impressionism.).
i mean, you don't even seem to realize that buddy holly and chuck berry existed about ten years before the beatles did anything worth listening to, or pushed through the changes that i'm talking about. 50s, 60s...same thing, right?
BryanPiekarski
I don't understand your last paragraph. You seem to agree with me but you're also berating me?
deathtokoalas
chuck berry and buddy holly belong to the era that existed before the beatles. they were both influential on the beatles, chuck berry moreso, but trying to compare their influence is basically a category error. it's like comparing michael jackson to kanye west.
in terms of direct influence, it's a joke to suggest either one of them even come close to the influence the beatles left. in terms of their influence on music, they are only important in terms of the artists they influenced, which would also include the rolling stones and the who and pink floyd and many others. and, if you want to play the game of stringing things backwards, you have to string it back further than the 50s, and you have to consequently conclude that neither one of them deserves more than a footnote in history - neither did much more than market traditional folk and blues arrangements that were written well before they were born.
the beatles transcended all of that, and in the process changed the very fabric of what pop music actually is.
BryanPiekarski
is 1957 to 1964 really a huge cap in time? "neither deserves more than a footnote in history" lol. What did The Beatles really change? Their impact doesn't seem to resonate today as it did throughout the 1960s.
deathtokoalas
you think that because you don't understand the changes they made.
the britpop movement aside, every time you hear a string section in a pop song ballad, that's the beatles. and, as i've mentioned they're responsible for a shift in tonality. shifting tonality is gigantic. there's only a handful of artists that can state that, and i listed them already.
you admittedly have to stretch a little to pull metal out of helter skelter, or techno out of tommorrow never knows, but the blunt reality is that these were the beginnings of those genres. and, they of course hold a central place in psychedelic and progressive music; you can hear their influence still across that spectrum, from tame impala to radiohead to the mars volta.
but, in terms of chord progressions, the key is that shift in tonality that they pushed, with the help of george martin.
speaking of michael jackson and the beatles, most people don't know that michael spent a good deal of his childhood living with paul mccartney. it's known they collaborated a bit, but paul did a lot of ghost writing and michael mostly relied on his producers so the extent of his involvement in michael's work is a bit of an open question, in my mind.
the influence of those five dudes is really just immeasurable.
...and as for lennon's work in the 70s, it's worth noting that he wrote what is probably david bowie's biggest hit (fame), amongst other things.
how are you gonna say the beatles ripped off of journey? haha didn't that beatles song come out before?
deathtokoalas
that's right. these are all rip-offs of let it be.
most shocking statement of the century, said nobody: all pop music is ripped off from the beatles.
...although the dude that pointed out that it's just a basic mathematically correct chord progression is also right, even though it just obscures the reality that pop music has been stuck in tonal stasis since the 1700s. people in mozart's time frame wouldn't have insulted you for your lack of originality if you had played something with a mathematically correct structure, they would have accused you of channeling satan and destroying music if you deviated from a proper chord progression.
the mathematics of tonality underlie the primary reason that creativity and popularity go together so seldomly and are often defined more by atmospheric changes rather than tonal shifts. if you want people to react well to your music, you need to conform to the mathematics underlying harmony. it's consequently us, the consumers, that drive a lack of originality in popular media.
that's all this is really pointing out.
tomhulcelover
umm ok
deathtokoalas
the channeling of satan part is historically completely accurate. chopin is one example. and beethoven was regularly accused of trying to destroy music (and, in fact, was.). let alone, you know, ozzy.
the intervals and shifts that we interpret as acceptable are precisely the intervals and shifts that the church declared to be acceptable. that's not a coincidence.
tomhulcelover
dude, im sorry but i dont really care
deathtokoalas
seems like you do to me. whatever.
Tom Alma
Bear in mind that Waltzing Matilda was around a long time before The Beatles...
deathtokoalas
sure. and celtic folk, as we know it, came from renaissance lute music. most of the songs in the list, though, are let it be, including the journey tune. i was more drawing attention to the background that it all has in sanctioned christian tonality (itself derived from pythagorean number mysticism).
babalooey100
Cool I thought the Pythagoreans only played triangles .
deathtokoalas
except that pythagoras (who was head of a philosophical school that fused number theory and music theory into a kind of buddhist mysticism) stole his theorem about parallelism (which is actually wrong in the geometry we live in) from chaldean sages while he was stumbling through babylonia searching for wisdom, and they themselves probably ripped it off from the egyptians, who probably stole it from atlantis and/or aliens, at which point our history currently begins and we can't go back any further.
Jimmy Greer
Uhhhh, dumbass....the reason Mozart and them could be more creative is because they've got about 60 more instruments to use than your average rock n roll band.
deathtokoalas
yeah, that makes perfect sense, you illiterate nincompoop.
in terms of creativity, the beatles blow mozart out of the water, and it's precisely because they're on the other side of the abolition of a set of rules that mozart was expected to follow. nobody talks about mozart's creativity - because he was not a creative artist. rather, people hold him up as the finest example of a dullard who followed the set of proper conventions, as they were pushed down from the hierarchy above.
if you're going to bother, try and keep up. but i'd rather you just shut the fuck up.
Aussie Dave
Mozart was amazing
deathtokoalas
you could create a computer algorithm, call it "mozart" and lose nothing of value from the original. i suppose there will always be those that praise form over function, but creative is not the correct way to describe his music.
Matthew Joseph Harrington
Too many notes for you?
deathtokoalas
you don't even realize that you have no idea what you're talking about....
i mean, i'd like to produce a witty come back, but it just doesn't make any sense. it's, like, not even wrong.
BryanPiekarski
You're crazy. "All pop music is ripped off from The Beatles." Unless this statement was satirical, in which case, I retract my comment.
deathtokoalas
i don't even think it's controversial.
BryanPiekarski
The Beatles definitely did have a lasting impact on popular music, their music spawned a lot of copycat bands trying to copy their sound and success throughout the 60s, but The Beatles were pretty much gone by the 70s. Besides, The Beatles were no where near as influential to even rock n' roll as the likes of Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry.
deathtokoalas
i don't see any use in arguing with hipster revisionists about something that is not considered controversial by anybody with the slightest bit of understanding on the topic.
you probably don't realize that the beatles actually changed the rules of music theory when it comes to harmony, which is what the video is about. there was music before and after the beatles. there are very few artists that can make that sort of claim. you can talk about bach, beethoven, debussy....and the beatles are next in line. there hasn't really been a shift away from this yet, but there have been a few near misses (kurt cobain's concept of harmony was radically different, but he didn't have enough of an effect on what followed to cause a shift. reznorian tonality has been recently seeping into pop music (see the most recent avril lavigne song for an example) but it is repackaged impressionism.).
i mean, you don't even seem to realize that buddy holly and chuck berry existed about ten years before the beatles did anything worth listening to, or pushed through the changes that i'm talking about. 50s, 60s...same thing, right?
BryanPiekarski
I don't understand your last paragraph. You seem to agree with me but you're also berating me?
deathtokoalas
chuck berry and buddy holly belong to the era that existed before the beatles. they were both influential on the beatles, chuck berry moreso, but trying to compare their influence is basically a category error. it's like comparing michael jackson to kanye west.
in terms of direct influence, it's a joke to suggest either one of them even come close to the influence the beatles left. in terms of their influence on music, they are only important in terms of the artists they influenced, which would also include the rolling stones and the who and pink floyd and many others. and, if you want to play the game of stringing things backwards, you have to string it back further than the 50s, and you have to consequently conclude that neither one of them deserves more than a footnote in history - neither did much more than market traditional folk and blues arrangements that were written well before they were born.
the beatles transcended all of that, and in the process changed the very fabric of what pop music actually is.
BryanPiekarski
is 1957 to 1964 really a huge cap in time? "neither deserves more than a footnote in history" lol. What did The Beatles really change? Their impact doesn't seem to resonate today as it did throughout the 1960s.
deathtokoalas
you think that because you don't understand the changes they made.
the britpop movement aside, every time you hear a string section in a pop song ballad, that's the beatles. and, as i've mentioned they're responsible for a shift in tonality. shifting tonality is gigantic. there's only a handful of artists that can state that, and i listed them already.
you admittedly have to stretch a little to pull metal out of helter skelter, or techno out of tommorrow never knows, but the blunt reality is that these were the beginnings of those genres. and, they of course hold a central place in psychedelic and progressive music; you can hear their influence still across that spectrum, from tame impala to radiohead to the mars volta.
but, in terms of chord progressions, the key is that shift in tonality that they pushed, with the help of george martin.
speaking of michael jackson and the beatles, most people don't know that michael spent a good deal of his childhood living with paul mccartney. it's known they collaborated a bit, but paul did a lot of ghost writing and michael mostly relied on his producers so the extent of his involvement in michael's work is a bit of an open question, in my mind.
the influence of those five dudes is really just immeasurable.
...and as for lennon's work in the 70s, it's worth noting that he wrote what is probably david bowie's biggest hit (fame), amongst other things.
"oh, shut up. just shut the fuck up. you know what you would have actually been if you were alive in the 60s? you would have been a fucking beegees fan. you would have thought hendrix was unlistenable, the beatles were sell outs, floyd was boring, the doors were disrespectful, the who were communists and sabbath were a joke. you wouldn't have had an opinion on king crimson or yes or genesis or david bowie, or subotnick or glass or reich or xenakis or stockhausen or babbit, 'cause you'd have never even heard of them. but, the beegees? you'd have fucking loved the beegees."
fucking hipsters.
i won't post a beegees song here. sorry.
instead, here's a moody blues record.
fucking hipsters.
i won't post a beegees song here. sorry.
instead, here's a moody blues record.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)