So I THOUGHT I didn't like Country music...Then I heard this

[jongib369]

https://youtu.be/0VZuA7iJY4Y

"I thought I was her daddy but she had five more." :roll:

Got any songs that changed your opinion about a genre of music?

[kennethgriffen]

arguably the most talented band ever not named the beatles is a country'ish rock and roll band by the name of fleetwood mac

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P160_odTwyY

[highwhey]

https://i.postimg.cc/kG1hgFMG/DZTXhmC.gif

[kennethgriffen]

https://i.postimg.cc/kG1hgFMG/DZTXhmC.gif


only a f@ggot can't appreciate old country

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

[highwhey]

only a f@ggot can't appreciate old country

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsfcUZBMSSg
i like Johnny Cash, but the new country shit that southerners listen to...**** that. every fvcking white coworker i get in a truck with wants to put their country music on and it's always sh1t. it doesn't even compare to johhny cash, he would tell stories, stories that were funny or just made you enjoy the song. the new country songs are all about drinking cheap light beer and reminiscing about their past loves, that sh1t is depressive

[Ben Simmons 25]

Most country throughout its existence is total ass but there are occasionally exceptions such as the aforementioned Johnny Cash.

Fleetwood Mac wasn

[Uncle Drew]

I THOUGHT
You see, that's where everything went wrong.

[jongib369]

This is pretty dope, not whiney and it's telling a story

https://youtu.be/999RqGZatPs

[jongib369]

You see, that's where everything went wrong.
:roll: :cheers:

[Ben Simmons 25]

Best modern day country song...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPTKR12cUqc

[jongib369]

Best modern day country song...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPTKR12cUqc
Guys hilarious, that's exactly what Highway is referring to :lol

[ShawkFactory]

Chris Stapleton is the only good country artist right now.

And he leans pretty heavily towards the blues anyway

[kennethgriffen]

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

:bowdown:

https://78.media.tumblr.com/a41b90cc75c2e1a642102934eb24c7b2/tumblr_owhu6nMCXt1u2ragso1_500.gif

[Prometheus]

arguably the most talented band ever not named the beatles is a country'ish rock and roll band by the name of fleetwood mac

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P160_odTwyY

Calling the Beatles the "GOAT band" because of their commercial success and iconic status is one thing

But... most talented?

That's just embarrassing. Why form an opinion if you are this clueless?

[Prometheus]

Johnny Cash is dope. I thought everyone knew that.

Modern day country music is at the bottom of the lowest ranks of shit music. Everything about it is against the spirit of what art and music is for.

Manufactured, homogenized, pandering, hollow, meaningless... it encourages stupidity and mediocrity

[hold this L]

The only times I've listened to country is when I'm with someone. Most the chicks songs on their car for some reason tend to some mix of country in there. :lol

It's not bad music like screaming metal, it's just not good enough to be on my spotify.

[fsvr54]

Yea... saying something like "The Beatles is the most talented band ever", is so unbelievably idiotic, that one's opinion on anything else is rendered null a void for the remainder of their existence.

[kennethgriffen]

Calling the Beatles the "GOAT band" because of their commercial success and iconic status is one thing

But... most talented?

That's just embarrassing. Why form an opinion if you are this clueless?


the beatles are so good that even after hearing hundreds of their notable hit songs i'm still discovering legendary songs ive never even heard before

3 of the band members on their own even after the beatles broke up all released enough hit solo songs to all deserve rock and roll hall of fame inductions

paul mccartney played like 30 instruments and was a composer.

they could turn out a #1 song in 20 minutes. they did it so effortlessly. they have to be considered the most talented even if they made some songs you dont like

they had so many different styles and reinvented themselves during and after theur time together

paul went from a classic rock and roll guy to a boy band guy to a psychedelic rocker to a ballad guy to a disco guy to a new wave up tempo guy to a melody guy.

he could practically do anything and be #1 at it.

its ok to hate the beatles. but never disrespect them. personally i dont even have them as one of my top 10 favorite bands

- queen
- nirvana
- pearl jam
- motley crue
- the animals
- the white stripes
- fleetwood mac
- smashing pumpkins
- iron maiden
- journey


i just respect greatness and am not afraid of the truth regardless if it sounds lame or unpopular to some

[Prometheus]

If you mean songwriting talent only, then absolutely they were great - to a mythical, gargantuan degree.

Usually "talent" refers to musical proficiency when talking about musicians

Paul played a lot of instruments, but he was not impressive on any of them. Not bad in any way... but everything he played can be replicated by a beginner.

Literally nothing in the beatles catalogue is musically challenging. They deserve all the respect in the world as song-writers and pop artists. They belong nowhere near a conversation of the most talented musicians.

[fsvr54]

verse-chorus-verse-chorus is not "good songwriting".

[kennethgriffen]

If you mean songwriting talent only, then absolutely they were great - to a mythical, gargantuan degree.

Usually "talent" refers to musical proficiency when talking about musicians

Paul played a lot of instruments, but he was not impressive on any of them. Not bad in any way... but everything he played can be replicated by a beginner.

Literally nothing in the beatles catalogue is musically challenging. They deserve all the respect in the world as song-writers and pop artists. They belong nowhere near a conversation of the most talented musicians.



yeah they couldnt hit a high note like freddie or shred like vanhalen


ok


but they were the best combination of song writing, melody making, reinvention, multi instrumental skills, collaborations between different leads, creation away from the band, speed of production


i think people give way too much credit to vocals as if being able to scream will work for more than just a few songs. shredding becomes stale too... melody making/composing is way more difficult and can last for hundreds of unique songs

[Overdrive]

Johnny Cash is dope. I thought everyone knew that.

Modern day country music is at the bottom of the lowest ranks of shit music. Everything about it is against the spirit of what art and music is for.

Manufactured, homogenized, pandering, hollow, meaningless... it encourages stupidity and mediocrity

Anytime "musicians" discover a genre that can make them good money with little effort they'll jump on it. That's country atm. That's all that's left for anyone, who does non electronic music, who wants to live off it.


verse-chorus-verse-chorus is not "good songwriting".

You can do great non conventional songs with this scheme.

[Prometheus]

It's not even worth trying. You are out of your element... The Beatles are not in that discussion. If you can't see that, you don't know enough.

[Prometheus]

verse-chorus-verse-chorus is not "good songwriting".

They were talented at writing hit songs. Complexity isn't a measure of it, just appeal.

And compared with today, they were actually quite inventive with their chord progressions. Today's industry is saturated with the same I-vi-V-IV chord progressions in almost every song... across all genres. The Beatles managed to crank out one hit song after another without resorting to such homogenization. They were great songwriters.

[Overdrive]

It's not even worth trying. You are out of your element... The Beatles are not in that discussion. If you can't see that, you don't know enough.

I'd say as a sum of the parts the Beatles are one of the most talented bands, individually not so much, but imo McCartney still is one of the best bassplayers of the 60s and very influental. Ofc he can't keep up with the stuff that came after him.

[kennethgriffen]

It's not even worth trying. You are out of your element... The Beatles are not in that discussion. If you can't see that, you don't know enough.


i think its personal preference tbh

the most important skill is song writing/melody creation IMO


why? because you can use those skills to turn ANYONE into a star.

mccartney could have made 100 legends in music if he was a ghost writer/composer

how many legends could mercury have made by telling a guy to sing like him

thats not a transferable skill. its basically god given.

[Smoke117]

arguably the most talented band ever not named the beatles is a country'ish rock and roll band by the name of fleetwood mac

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P160_odTwyY

Fleetwood Mac isn't a country-ish band, tard. On that note, I saw them at the Forum in 2014.

[Prometheus]

I'd say as a sum of the parts the Beatles are one of the most talented bands, individually not so much, but imo McCartney still is one of the best bassplayers of the 60s and very influental. Ofc he can't keep up with the stuff that came after him.

How can you seriously say that?

Honestly though... where is that talent?

Not just those who came after them... many of their contemporaries were far more impressive as musicians... just not as commercially successful

Without leaving the 60s, we have Cream, The Who, Zeppelin, Hendrix, The Dead... just off the top of my head... the Beatles are not on that level.

I'm not saying they are BETTER musicians. But if the word here is "talent" it's pretty cut and dry.

[kennethgriffen]

Fleetwood Mac isn't a country-ish band, tard. On that note, I saw them at the Forum in 2014.


did you assume i meant country insidehoops band

:biggums:




Fleetwood Mac embodied the high gloss, tube-topped ... Later exhumed and taken to the top of the country charts



https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2014/05/the-20-best-fleetwood-mac-songs-of-all-time.html?a=1



woops

[kennethgriffen]

How can you seriously say that?

Honestly though... where is that talent?

Not just those who came after them... many of their contemporaries were far more impressive as musicians... just not as commercially successful

Without leaving the 60s, we have Cream, The Who, Zeppelin, Hendrix, The Dead... just off the top of my head... the Beatles are not on that level.

I'm not saying they are BETTER musicians. But if the word here is "talent" it's pretty cut and dry.


youre black right? i know blacks hate the beatles


kblaze hates them with a passion


every black person i know spits on the beatles. its built into your dna

[Prometheus]

:lol

not quite

i'm italian, scotch/irish, german, dutch, and polish mixed together. pretty sure that = white

and the funny thing about this all is that i love the beatles more than everyone i listed except hendrix and maybe zeppelin. it has nothing to do with what i like - the most talented bands of all time are groups like Dream Theater and Rush... I f*cking hate both of them. A lot of the simplest music is what I enjoy the most.

Talent and good music are completely different concepts

[kennethgriffen]

:lol

not quite

i'm italian, scotch/irish, german, dutch, and polish mixed together. pretty sure that = white

and the funny thing about this all is that i love the beatles more than everyone i listed except hendrix and maybe zeppelin. it has nothing to do with what i like - the most talented bands of all time are groups like Dream Theater and Rush... I f*cking hate both of them. A lot of the simplest music is what I enjoy the most.

Talent and good music are completely different concepts


i love rush. canadian icons. but i can count their hit songs on one hand

maybe they have a more talented singer/guitarist but thats just raw skill that isnt transferable without the much needed song writing

[Prometheus]

That's exactly my point.

You could have just conceded semantics but you play dumb like you don't see the difference.

If someone asks me "Who do you prefer, Rush or the Beatles?" I'll laugh and tell them f*ck Rush. Then maybe rave about some of my favorite lyrics from Lennon.

If the same person asks me which band was more talented, it's Rush by a great margin.

This isn't complicated, you're just stubborn.

[Overdrive]

How can you seriously say that?

Honestly though... where is that talent?

Not just those who came after them... many of their contemporaries were far more impressive as musicians... just not as commercially successful

Without leaving the 60s, we have Cream, The Who, Zeppelin, Hendrix, The Dead... just off the top of my head... the Beatles are not on that level.

I'm not saying they are BETTER musicians. But if the word here is "talent" it's pretty cut and dry.

With sum of the parts I mean that with the exception of Ringo, who was serviceable, they could play pretty well. McCartney being the most sound musician.

The talent lies within making the music sound tight, while having interesting song material. Knowing how to play, when to play and what to play and what not is one of the most important aspects of musicianship.

Everyone on the Beatles had supreme feeling for that. That's why as a band I feel they show more talent than alot others. Of course the individual talent is greater for alot of bands. Do you think as a band Racer X is more talented than the Beatles? Not on an individual basis.

[Smoke117]

That's exactly my point.

You could have just conceded semantics but you play dumb like you don't see the difference.

If someone asks me "Who do you prefer, Rush or the Beatles?" I'll laugh and tell them f*ck Rush. Then maybe rave about some of my favorite lyrics from Lennon.

If the same person asks me which band was more talented, it's Rush by a great margin.

This isn't complicated, you're just stubborn.

Paul Mccartney is an extremely talented musician.

[kennethgriffen]

That's exactly my point.

You could have just conceded semantics but you play dumb like you don't see the difference.

If someone asks me "Who do you prefer, Rush or the Beatles?" I'll laugh and tell them f*ck Rush. Then maybe rave about some of my favorite lyrics from Lennon.

If the same person asks me which band was more talented, it's Rush by a great margin.

This isn't complicated, you're just stubborn.


your point is a better technical singer and guitarist is a more talented band?

no way lol


if thats the case then kelly clarkson and bucket head could combine and be more talented than the beatles to you


musical talent is about waaaaaaaaay more than technical skill in one aspect of music

[Overdrive]

That's exactly my point.

You could have just conceded semantics but you play dumb like you don't see the difference.

If someone asks me "Who do you prefer, Rush or the Beatles?" I'll laugh and tell them f*ck Rush. Then maybe rave about some of my favorite lyrics from Lennon.

If the same person asks me which band was more talented, it's Rush by a great margin.

This isn't complicated, you're just stubborn.

Rush is an outlier. Most bands that have great individuals have shitty incohesive songs that are just made to showcase said individual talent.

They are made up of good, crafty musicians, but they will never shine. Just look at Yngwie. His bands always contain top level musicians, but they rarely do anything of note. The exact opposite of the tightness I spoke about.

[Smoke117]

Technical proficiency is often overrated anyway. This is especially true when it comes to the guitar. There all kinds of guitarist much better technically than, say, a Neil Young, but has a unique way of playing that makes him much more interesting than all this cats who can play super fast and all that bullshit. I don't care about that nonsense. Great songwriters are always interesting musicians because they just know what sounds good.

[Prometheus]

Okay I can appreciate the word "talent" being meant to include good writing (far more subjective than technical skill but we'll move past that for now).

Even then though... it's not to say I don't think they had great talent. But would anyone legitimately try to argue they had more musical talent than Led Zeppelin? Forget your personal preference... I think you're insane if that's a debate in your mind.

[Prometheus]

Technical proficiency is often overrated anyway. This is especially true when it comes to the guitar. There all kinds of guitarist much better technically than, say, a Neil Young, but has a unique way of playing that makes him much more interesting than all this cats who can play super fast and all that bullshit. I don't care about that nonsense. Great songwriters are always interesting musicians because they just know what sounds good.

Pretty sure I've been crystal clear on the fact that I agree with this...

Neil Young is a good example but not a great one :lol he has some pretty cringy solos. So out of pocket sometimes. meh

But I prefer him over Steve Vai... even though Vai is obviously more talented.

[Smoke117]

Okay I can appreciate the word "talent" being meant to include good writing (far more subjective than technical skill but we'll move past that for now).

Even then though... it's not to say I don't think they had great talent. But would anyone legitimately try to argue they had more musical talent than Led Zeppelin? Forget your personal preference... I think you're insane if that's a debate in your mind.

I'd say Paul is as good as musician as anybody. He can play like 20 instruments and is generally considered a top 10 rock bassist of all time. This, by the way, is an instrument he changed to from guitar because the band needed a bass player. On that note, I'd say he's the best guitarist in the band, too, anyway.

[Smoke117]

As far as country goes, I like the singer songwriter depressive shit. That kind of music you down a bottle of whiskey and then eat a shotgun to.

Johnny Cash has never done anything for me, though. I just don't care for his voice.

[Prometheus]

Paul McCartney, I would agree, is superbly talented as a musician. I don't think he's any more or less talented than any of the four members of Zeppelin. My argument is that each of Plant, Page, JPJ and Bonham have more musical talent than any of Lennon, Harrison, or Ringo... and by a lot. They were each standouts at their craft. Page is a legend, undeniable, and I might consider him the least impressive of the four.

Lennon imo is one of the best writers in pop/rock music, ever. But in terms of musical talent, he's a dime-a-dozen. I guess I see musical talent and writing talent as more distinct than most.

Like... I think Lennon was a much more interesting writer than McCartney. But people would argue it. Some would say Paul... and as clear as it seems to me, I have no leg to stand on aside from "I like it more".

Whereas I don't think there's any question that Paul had more musical talent than John.

Writing and musical talent have to be distinct

[Overdrive]

Writing and musical talent have to be distinct

For me it's not. The incorporation of musical skills and writing - arrangement basically - is a musical talent in itself. Led Zeppelin, Cream, Rush and the likes, who have the skills, can write and have good arrangements are rare. Most bands severely lack in one department.

[raprap]

Beatles most talented band lmao what

[Smoke117]

Beatles most talented band lmao what

...they have two of the 5 greatest songwriters of all time. Clown.

[Smoke117]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETkzK9pXMio&t=0s&list=FL7Ht4Q3q3mWnItqkdxIj8PA&index=2

Crazy good guitar break. You don't see that much from country artist.

[Prometheus]

For me it's not. The incorporation of musical skills and writing - arrangement basically - is a musical talent in itself. Led Zeppelin, Cream, Rush and the likes, who have the skills, can write and have good arrangements are rare. Most bands severely lack in one department.

Okay. Two questions:

1. Who had more musical talent, David Gilmour or Roger Waters?
2. Who was a better writer, David Gilmour or Roger Waters?

[Overdrive]

Okay. Two questions:

1. Who had more musical talent, David Gilmour or Roger Waters?
2. Who was a better writer, David Gilmour or Roger Waters?

That's besides my point. I'm saying a band as a whole can be more talented than the sum of the individuals' talent.

[Prometheus]

That's besides my point. I'm saying a band as a whole can be more talented than the sum of the individuals' talent.

If you're suggesting that's the case with the Beatles, then that's a total joke. They would be nearly the opposite of that concept. Paul and John froze out George Harrison for almost their whole careers together. George Martin had more influence on most of their songs than Harrison did. Paul was coming in with songs written and recording all the bass and guitar parts, and Martin would sometimes dictate Harrison's solos to him note for note. And Ringo? Does anyone have anything to say about his unique contributions to the band? His voice added a novel, comedic spin on a few songs. That's it.

They were basically just showcases of Lennon/McCartney tunes (that's a joint effot, not a whole band) with a few songs written solely by Harrison.

A band as a whole CAN be much more talented than the sum of the individual parts... that's the beauty of any music that is collaborative... especially if it's improvisational in nature. The talent of the Grateful Dead is greater than the sum of their individual talents. The same would be true with Zeppelin... JHE, Cream... in each case, the musicians are writing all their own parts, sometimes improvising them, both live and in the studio.

Speaking of improv, does jazz count when discussing bands? I assume we're just in the pop/rock domain here, but you would have to stack a thousand Lennon/McCartney duos on top of one another to compare with the musical talent of Miles Davis' late '50s sextet... just as an example.

[Kblaze8855]

kblaze hates them with a passion

You are just brutally full of shit sometimes.


Neil Young is a good example but not a great one he has some pretty cringy solos. So out of pocket sometimes. meh

But I prefer him over Steve Vai... even though Vai is obviously more talented.

Very true.

When I started playing guitar I always gravitated towards guys more like Young than Vai. Id like the ability to play For the Love of God...but I wouldnt enjoy playing it like I enjoy the mockery I make of Cortez the Killer.

Give me Young, Gilmour, Buddy Guy, Knophler, BB and guys like that I can feel over Vai, Buckethead, and most of the real complicated ones even though I will play them all from time to time. I could listen to Clapton play old love live all day. Just what I like to hear.

Best combo of both styles to me? Gary Moore, SRV, and Hendrix. You can play along with them for a while then they just murder you and you wanna quit playing forever. Even their technically more simple shit. I cant even get through Parisienne Walkways "easy" part to embarrass myself on the solo.

Its motivational though. I watch Vai and im impressed with his wizardry...but have no interest in trying it.

I couldnt even begin to do the intro to voodoo chile for months but the first time you hit it makes you feel like a god and you stick to it for 2 weeks. Partly because of the ****ing stupid tuning where you cant play anything else...but its motivational.

I know Buckethead is a monster but Soothsayer doesnt motivate. I'll listen to it now and then but I dont really have interest in playing that way even if I could.

[Kblaze8855]

Far as the topic goes....

Chris Stapleton turned me around on modern country. I could listen to a lot of the old country but 80s-modern I couldnt take it. Stapleton is a bit different to me.

[jongib369]

Far as the topic goes....

Chris Stapleton turned me around on modern country. I could listen to a lot of the old country but 80s-modern I couldnt take it. Stapleton is a bit different to me.
What do you think about Cash? I've heard a couple songs of his in the past, but it never really struck me. Then I heard one of his songs while lifting in a empty gym last week and it hit me like a sack of bricks. Made me think of an ex, glad no one was there because I went nuts lifting :lol. Went to the gym at 2AM earlier and it's usually deserted, had him on shuffle the entire time. Love being able to control the radio

Also what are your favorite songs to play? You have good taste, don't see many people mention Buddy Guy these days. Stone Crazy is one of favorite songs.

Buddy Guy & Jimi Hendrix - Jam Session :bowdown: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq3rWLySRf8)

[Kblaze8855]

Johnny is one of those guys I love a few songs to death but ive never looked into him as well as I should.

Hung my Head and his version of Hurt are among my favorite songs.

And my favorite songs to play are...unsurprisingly....the easy ones that make it look like I know what im doing. So a lot of 50s blues. You can play muddy waters riffs after 2 weeks.

Against the wind is also fun to play. And Purple rain before the solo loses me.

I dont put the time in I need to really be good at it.

[jongib369]

Johnny is one of those guys I love a few songs to death but ive never looked into him as well as I should.

Hung my Head and his version of Hurt are among my favorite songs.

And my favorite songs to play are...unsurprisingly....the easy ones that make it look like I know what im doing. So a lot of 50s blues. You can play muddy waters riffs after 2 weeks.

Against the wind is also fun to play. And Purple rain before the solo loses me.

I dont put the time in I need to really be good at it.
Yeah Hurt is one of those songs that hits anyone with a soul right in the feels, I don't know how anyone can dislike that song...Or at least not appreciate it on some level. Should give this a listen if you haven't dove deep in his collection

Johnny Cash At Folsom Prison (1968) (Full album)
(https://youtu.be/ME3WWjAEZ3I)

Love hearing the prisoners cheer n shit, or some of the funny things he says to them.

Clip of him at it that's funny, apparently the water was dirty as shit
Johnny cash at Folsom dumps out his water
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9QUOSH1DII)

Fan of Muddy, and I'm thinking about learning guitar so I might start with some of those guys

[Overdrive]

If you're suggesting that's the case with the Beatles, then that's a total joke. They would be nearly the opposite of that concept. Paul and John froze out George Harrison for almost their whole careers together. George Martin had more influence on most of their songs than Harrison did. Paul was coming in with songs written and recording all the bass and guitar parts, and Martin would sometimes dictate Harrison's solos to him note for note. And Ringo? Does anyone have anything to say about his unique contributions to the band? His voice added a novel, comedic spin on a few songs. That's it.

They were basically just showcases of Lennon/McCartney tunes (that's a joint effot, not a whole band) with a few songs written solely by Harrison.

Looking at it from that perspective it's kind of true, but strip any member's Beatles catalogue and they're not that great - so the Beatles as a whole were more talented than the singular members. And I think the Beatles as a whole were talented.
Lennon still had some good songs. McCartney was pure cheese for most of his solo career. Actually Harrison had the strongest solo album among them, but still nothing that would've made him famous if it weren't for the Beatles. Neither could reproduce either songwriting or musicianship in any way he did in the Beatles.

Speaking of Harrison. The first real musical shift was heavily inspired by Harrison, his new found love for folk and world music. Rubber Soul that is. Martin's influence isn't anything to be ashamed about. Dark Side of the Moon doesn't become as great without Alan Parsons either.

Which brings me back to your PF question:

I think Waters could've done songwriting only, like Taupin did for Elton John, and take any guy who can play roots and PF would've been as successful. I know it's a hyperbole, he did work on progressions, some famous bass lines etc - but overall his bass playing is ass. For the Beatles you could take away Ringo, but obviously they needed a drummer like him. A guy who'd sit in the back and play simple beats. Harrison even if not involved as much early on was irreplaceable.




A band as a whole CAN be much more talented than the sum of the individual parts... that's the beauty of any music that is collaborative... especially if it's improvisational in nature. The talent of the Grateful Dead is greater than the sum of their individual talents. The same would be true with Zeppelin... JHE, Cream... in each case, the musicians are writing all their own parts, sometimes improvising them, both live and in the studio.

Speaking of improv, does jazz count when discussing bands? I assume we're just in the pop/rock domain here, but you would have to stack a thousand Lennon/McCartney duos on top of one another to compare with the musical talent of Miles Davis' late '50s sextet... just as an example.

Cream and the Dead are the best examples you have given among 60s bands imo. The Who were nice, but the didn't show the signs of supreme talent(aside from Moon and Entwistle) until Tommy and I think even that is overrated. Live at Leeds is were they started to become great and that's what? '69?, 70?

Led Zeppelin, same, they came along in '69. JHE? Solid rhythm section, but that's it. Noel Redding played guitar before joining them and played some songs on a Fender Bass VI, because he wasn't used to it yet. Unique, but not more talented than Harrison. Mitchell was better on drums than the 2nd best Beatle on his instrument, but as a sum they weren't better. It was Hendrix and the guys.
The Band of Gypsys actually were the better band, but they had more of a soul/funk approach. Billy Cox was a really talented guy and Miles wasn't worse than Mitchell either.

Wouldn't bring Jazz into the discussion, whole other dimension of music just like classic is. A good jazz combo will kill any rock band, so does a classical orchestra with anything else.

[jongib369]

Looking at it from that perspective it's kind of true, but strip any member's Beatles catalogue and they're not that great - so the Beatles as a whole were more talented than the singular members. And I think the Beatles as a whole were talented.
Lennon still had some good songs. McCartney was pure cheese for most of his solo career. Actually Harrison had the strongest solo album among them, but still nothing that would've made him famous if it weren't for the Beatles. Neither could reproduce either songwriting or musicianship in any way he did in the Beatles.

Speaking of Harrison. The first real musical shift was heavily inspired by Harrison, his new found love for folk and world music. Rubber Soul that is. Martin's influence isn't anything to be ashamed about. Dark Side of the Moon doesn't become as great without Alan Parsons either.

Which brings me back to your PF question:

I think Waters could've done songwriting only, like Taupin did for Elton John, and take any guy who can play roots and PF would've been as successful. I know it's a hyperbole, he did work on progressions, some famous bass lines etc - but overall his bass playing is ass. For the Beatles you could take away Ringo, but obviously they needed a drummer like him. A guy who'd sit in the back and play simple beats. Harrison even if not involved as much early on was irreplaceable.




Cream and the Dead are the best examples you have given among 60s bands imo. The Who were nice, but the didn't show the signs of supreme talent(aside from Moon and Entwistle) until Tommy and I think even that is overrated. Live at Leeds is were they started to become great and that's what? '69?, 70?

Led Zeppelin, same, they came along in '69. JHE? Solid rhythm section, but that's it. Noel Redding played guitar before joining them and played some songs on a Fender Bass VI, because he wasn't used to it yet. Unique, but not more talented than Harrison. Mitchell was better on drums than the 2nd best Beatle on his instrument, but as a sum they weren't better. It was Hendrix and the guys.
The Band of Gypsys actually were the better band, but they had more of a soul/funk approach. Billy Cox was a really talented guy and Miles wasn't worse than Mitchell either.

Wouldn't bring Jazz into the discussion, whole other dimension of music just like classic is. A good jazz combo will kill any rock band, so does a classical orchestra with anything else.
You don't care for Plants singing I assume? He's arguably the GOAT frontman. 80s hair metal guys tried so hard to be a unique version of him in my eyes :lol

Btw we joined ISH the same year/month :banana:

[Overdrive]

You don't care for Plants singing I assume? He's arguably the GOAT frontman. 80s hair metal guys tried so hard to be a unique version of him in my eyes :lol

Btw we joined ISH the same year/month :banana:

I love him, but they're no 60s band for me.

[Prometheus]

Looking at it from that perspective it's kind of true, but strip any member's Beatles catalogue and they're not that great - so the Beatles as a whole were more talented than the singular members. And I think the Beatles as a whole were talented.
Lennon still had some good songs. McCartney was pure cheese for most of his solo career. Actually Harrison had the strongest solo album among them, but still nothing that would've made him famous if it weren't for the Beatles. Neither could reproduce either songwriting or musicianship in any way he did in the Beatles.

Speaking of Harrison. The first real musical shift was heavily inspired by Harrison, his new found love for folk and world music. Rubber Soul that is. Martin's influence isn't anything to be ashamed about. Dark Side of the Moon doesn't become as great without Alan Parsons either.

Which brings me back to your PF question:

I think Waters could've done songwriting only, like Taupin did for Elton John, and take any guy who can play roots and PF would've been as successful. I know it's a hyperbole, he did work on progressions, some famous bass lines etc - but overall his bass playing is ass. For the Beatles you could take away Ringo, but obviously they needed a drummer like him. A guy who'd sit in the back and play simple beats. Harrison even if not involved as much early on was irreplaceable.




Cream and the Dead are the best examples you have given among 60s bands imo. The Who were nice, but the didn't show the signs of supreme talent(aside from Moon and Entwistle) until Tommy and I think even that is overrated. Live at Leeds is were they started to become great and that's what? '69?, 70?

Led Zeppelin, same, they came along in '69. JHE? Solid rhythm section, but that's it. Noel Redding played guitar before joining them and played some songs on a Fender Bass VI, because he wasn't used to it yet. Unique, but not more talented than Harrison. Mitchell was better on drums than the 2nd best Beatle on his instrument, but as a sum they weren't better. It was Hendrix and the guys.
The Band of Gypsys actually were the better band, but they had more of a soul/funk approach. Billy Cox was a really talented guy and Miles wasn't worse than Mitchell either.

Wouldn't bring Jazz into the discussion, whole other dimension of music just like classic is. A good jazz combo will kill any rock band, so does a classical orchestra with anything else.

The Miles/Mitchell comparison really threw me to be honest.

I like Band of Gypsys... a LOT. It's probably my favorite thing Hendrix ever did. But you're saying Mitch wasn't an obviously way better drummer than Buddy? I lkke what Buddy added with his vocal, and pocket drumming is more valuable to some, but Mitch could jam for real. JHE was much more of a "band" than people give it credit for - because Hendrix himself was such a radically Promethean figure... he just naturally soaked up all the attention and admiration like a sponge. But those albums weren't just Jimi and some white boys. Go back and listen to "All Along the Watchtower" and imagine Buddy Miles playing drums on it. Imagine Ringo. Mitch Mitchell was a really important part of tbeir sound.

I'm also curious about the Waters comment. Are you saying just have him write lyrics? Because he wrote both the lyrics and the chord progressions for a great portion of their stuff. Money was all him. He wrote the chords to Time. He wrote... almost the entirety of the Wall. I am agreeing that they could have been as successful with a replacement bassist/vocalist (though his heavy accent and whiny tone are iconic) but his writing includes chord progressions and riffs, not just words.

I used Gilmour/Waters because in all of rock history, I'm not sure I can think of a better example of two equally important bandmates who are so diametric on the whole "writing talent" vs. "musical talent" idea. Waters is, to me, one of the best writers in all of rock. Okay no, to me he is the best. But in terms of musical talent, he's a potato. Compare that with Gilmour - he took over a majority of the writing process after Roger left, and the songs are dull and uninspiring. He just couldn't be the writer that Waters was. But in terms of musical talent, David Gilmour is... a god. He is like a beacon of light who walks the earth emitting beautiful sound - not just his playing but his voice. A lot of their 3-part harmonies were just 3 Gilmours in the studio, which Was ters and Wright would sub in live and it wouldn't sound as good.

The whole being greater than the sum of its parts is true of that pair for sure...

[Prometheus]

since blaze brought up playing along, who here ****s with the Allmans?

Idk if anyone's solos are more fun to nail than Duane's. Probably because it's always doable :lol

Band of Gypsys is amazingly fun to play along with but he loses me on a few sections... not the quick pentatonic stuff, but when he will spend like two whole bars just bending one string up through a series of notes... frantically... with the wah and the univibe and everything.... yeah I can't make that sound. Parts of machine gun are impossible. but the rest of the album is doable

the Beatles are fun to play along to because 100% of their guitar parts are easy and the songs are just so god damn catchy

Zeppelin is too obvious. Everyone who learns the guitar goes through a phase where they learn every Zeppelin riff... but his solos are some of the hardest to replicate, and it's by design. He purposely kept his sloppiest, most awkward takes to make the solos sound more unique and harder to imitate.

[Kblaze8855]

The Allmans got me into Dickey Betts. When hes with Great southern he has some shit I can catch up with.

And yea I can do the LZ riffs but the solos all kick my ass. Even the shit that sounds simple till you try it like Since I been loving you. Not a whole lot of notes but that doesnt make it easy...least not for a scrub.

[TheMan]

Johnny Cash is alright, also Willie Nelson. Like some of that country rock sound from the Eagles, CCR, Tom Petty, Lynyrd Skynyrd etc...

But modern country is probably the worst musical genre alongside that mumble rap...pure trash for low IQ mouthbreathers.

[Overdrive]

The Miles/Mitchell comparison really threw me to be honest.

I like Band of Gypsys... a LOT. It's probably my favorite thing Hendrix ever did. But you're saying Mitch wasn't an obviously way better drummer than Buddy? I lkke what Buddy added with his vocal, and pocket drumming is more valuable to some, but Mitch could jam for real. JHE was much more of a "band" than people give it credit for - because Hendrix himself was such a radically Promethean figure... he just naturally soaked up all the attention and admiration like a sponge. But those albums weren't just Jimi and some white boys. Go back and listen to "All Along the Watchtower" and imagine Buddy Miles playing drums on it. Imagine Ringo. Mitch Mitchell was a really important part of tbeir sound.

I don't think Mitchell's free flowing style would have worked in a lot of other bands. Miles could spontanously sit in for most bands and keep them tight. So technically for me Miles is the better drummer. Doesn't mean I don't prefer the experience material.



I'm also curious about the Waters comment. Are you saying just have him write lyrics? Because he wrote both the lyrics and the chord progressions for a great portion of their stuff. Money was all him. He wrote the chords to Time. He wrote... almost the entirety of the Wall. I am agreeing that they could have been as successful with a replacement bassist/vocalist (though his heavy accent and whiny tone are iconic) but his writing includes chord progressions and riffs, not just words.

I used Gilmour/Waters because in all of rock history, I'm not sure I can think of a better example of two equally important bandmates who are so diametric on the whole "writing talent" vs. "musical talent" idea. Waters is, to me, one of the best writers in all of rock. Okay no, to me he is the best. But in terms of musical talent, he's a potato. Compare that with Gilmour - he took over a majority of the writing process after Roger left, and the songs are dull and uninspiring. He just couldn't be the writer that Waters was. But in terms of musical talent, David Gilmour is... a god. He is like a beacon of light who walks the earth emitting beautiful sound - not just his playing but his voice. A lot of their 3-part harmonies were just 3 Gilmours in the studio, which Was ters and Wright would sub in live and it wouldn't sound as good.

The whole being greater than the sum of its parts is true of that pair for sure...

As said in the 2nd sentence the Taupin remark was a hyperbole. Ofc he did a lot of progressions and riffs like the mentioned Money. A surrogate bassist would've sufficed as you said, aslong as he kept writing the songs. I actually don't like his voice and don't enjoy the Wall that much either, atleast not as much as the other iconic albums.

I know we won't agree, but this extreme case fits my argument. You can hide Waters, because Gilmour and Wright are pretty talented and so Pink Floyd as a whole sounds much more virtous than Waters does as an individual.

Of course when you isolate him it's all gone. His solo stuff isn't good either.
Just like the Beatles neither of Waters or Pink Floyd's postwaters stuff would've made them famous.

[Prometheus]

The Allmans got me into Dickey Betts. When hes with Great southern he has some shit I can catch up with.

And yea I can do the LZ riffs but the solos all kick my ass. Even the shit that sounds simple till you try it like Since I been loving you. Not a whole lot of notes but that doesnt make it easy...least not for a scrub.

Since I've Been is one of those songs that you really shouldn't attempt if you aren't fluent.

I don't mean that as a gatekeeper - it's just that the entire song is played within such a loose framework. He's... to an extent... improvising throughout the entire song. Yes the second verse is dominated by a repeated arpeg pattern, but within that he's not glued to anything. If you're learning to play that with tabs only, I would say that is a waste and will take forever. Save that tune for when you can pick out the skeleton by ear.

[Smoke117]

since blaze brought up playing along, who here ****s with the Allmans?

Idk if anyone's solos are more fun to nail than Duane's. Probably because it's always doable :lol

Band of Gypsys is amazingly fun to play along with but he loses me on a few sections... not the quick pentatonic stuff, but when he will spend like two whole bars just bending one string up through a series of notes... frantically... with the wah and the univibe and everything.... yeah I can't make that sound. Parts of machine gun are impossible. but the rest of the album is doable

the Beatles are fun to play along to because 100% of their guitar parts are easy and the songs are just so god damn catchy


Zeppelin is too obvious. Everyone who learns the guitar goes through a phase where they learn every Zeppelin riff... but his solos are some of the hardest to replicate, and it's by design. He purposely kept his sloppiest, most awkward takes to make the solos sound more unique and harder to imitate.

For my money, Derek and the Dominos - Layla and Assorted Love Songs is the greatest guitar album of all time. It also has Jim Gordon who is a genius when ti comes to drumming. Shame he's a nut.

[Overdrive]

The Allmans got me into Dickey Betts. When hes with Great southern he has some shit I can catch up with.

And yea I can do the LZ riffs but the solos all kick my ass. Even the shit that sounds simple till you try it like Since I been loving you. Not a whole lot of notes but that doesnt make it easy...least not for a scrub.

Slow and loose is always harder, if you're not at your speed treshold. The tension build up simply tempts you to rush notes.

Try to hit quarters on a 40bpm click. The margin of error is way greater than 8th on 180bpm.

[BarberSchool]

Rural whites made good music in the 70's when they did psychedlics.
Think Allman Bros - Whipping Post, Foghat, Mountain - Mississippi Queen, etc

Their "country" music now is as low tier as trap is for southern blacks.
All worthless. Even the hybrid forms like FLA/GA line. Never even wanted to attempt toleration of that music to bang sunburned daisy duke clad undergrads at Country Thunder.

Carry on, but miss me.

[Prometheus]

For my money, Derek and the Dominos - Layla and Assorted Love Songs is the greatest guitar album of all time. It also has Jim Gordon who is a genius when ti comes to drumming. Shame he's a nut.

:applause:

[Overdrive]

Rural whites made good music in the 70's when they did psychedlics.
Think Allman Bros - Whipping Post, Foghat, Mountain - Mississippi Queen, etc

Their "country" music now is as low tier as trap is for southern blacks.
All worthless. Even the hybrid forms like FLA/GA line. Never even wanted to attempt toleration of that music to bang sunburned daisy duke clad undergrads at Country Thunder.

Carry on, but miss me.

Pretty sure Mountain was from the NYC, Jersey Metro area.


For my money, Derek and the Dominos - Layla and Assorted Love Songs is the greatest guitar album of all time. It also has Jim Gordon who is a genius when ti comes to drumming. Shame he's a nut.

Gun to my head I couldn't tell which album I think is the greatest "guitar album" of all time. Layla definately is up there. I think Machine Head was as groundbreaking as VH, maybe I'd pick that.

Allman Bros' Fillmore is another gem. Rory Gallagher's Irish tour & Live in Europe same, very underrated guitarist tbh.


Back on topic, aside from contemporary country being a cash grab for musicians I enjoy some of some Outlaw's music, but overall even older stuff is unbearable for me. I think it's hard to grasp if you're not from the US.

[BarberSchool]

Pretty sure Mountain was from the NYC, Jersey Metro area.This fact must hurt Mississippians as much as CCR being from Berkeley hurts Cajuns.

The North strikes again.