Have there been any bands in the last 20 years that are like the Beatles insofar as CHANGING music?

I'm not talking about sound or popularity, I'm talking about doing something that had never been done before. :shrug:

I haven't heard their last few albums, but I know a lot of people would probably say that "Kid A" and...umm...the other one released around that time were a pretty radical experiment.

Mike Keneally used to play guitar for Frank Zappa and Steve Vai (and just played the Dethklok tour), and has done all kinds of things that have never been done before (in my humble opinion). Electric, acoustic, orchestra...all kinds of things that I've never heard anybody else do before or since.

Porcupine Tree combined the best of psychedelia, Beach Boys harmonies and progressive metal into something totally new.

Nirvana was just more popular and their tragedy struck much later.

:P

people who wanted that kind of music but didn't know it existed. :)

So there.

Those guys were the shit

Never mind the bollocks lyrics... :puke:

Good guitar work, but as far as the early 1990s are concerned, television was far more creative ("Herman's Head", "True Colors", "Roseanne", et al)

Kidding.

And unlike newer entities, including some trashy pop signers that aren't exactly defined as "rock and roll", "The Monkees" actually deserves a spot in the R&R HoF. They fought for autonomy as they were tired of being heckled by a media lambasting them as being a sappy corporate push, and proved their mettle. Indeed, all their albums from 1967 (Headquarters, Pisces Aquarius Capricorn and Jones LTD, and the soundtrack to "HEAD" are genuinely fantastic.)

:hide:

to most posts. You are a wealth of opinion, most of which I find fascinating.

:D

I'm hoping to be the next Donahue, Oprah (a tall order...), or Bill O'Reilly some day, though you won't see me on "Inside Edition" or even those taped outtakes that get leaked onto the internet... :evilgrin:

and also to chop off my willie after implanting some saline solution into my chest...

Wow, I've simply got to stop watching ribald BBC comedies...

The first was The Doors on "Strange Days," but then the Monkees used it on "Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn and Jones" (specifically on "Star Collector" and "Daily Nightly").

gave it a three dimensional feel that also sums up the drug-induced dreams of the hippies with its lyrics and music. (the 'video' to the song in one of their episodes was also novel for being in monochrome rather than technicolor; possibly to further add to the effect...)

Michael Nesmith wrote it, if I recall rightly... makes sense; the man's a musical genius, but the country music genre was his personal preference?! (His country-slanted tunes are admittedly good, but country music is generally depressing or depression-inducing...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgJ55PJJHnw
(Link to the song)

I wasn't a fan of it at the time, and I'm still not really a fan, but it was a turning point in music - especially after the nauseating '80's hair bands.

and not something that radically changed music. :shrug:

There's not much folk rock influence on Pearl Jam's Ten, or Soundgarden's early stuff, or Nirvana, or any of those bands that hit it big out of Seattle at first.

Of course, what started nice ended up copied and taken way overboard, which is why most of the 1970s, along with almost every past 1984, ir utterly forgettable...

I'd give an honorable mention to the B-52s' album "Funplex"; the combination of techno and real instruments (especially those terrific guitar riffs) is definitely a long overdue step forward, even if many of the songs' lyrics don't match up in quality... ((Whatever happened to their other types of songs like "Cake", "Wig", "Butterbean", "Is That You Mo-Dean", "The World's Green Laughter" (instrumental), "Trism", "Work that Skirt" (Instrumental), "hero Worship" (also novel in 1979, although its style didn't catch on, "Deadbeat Club", "Follow Your Bliss"(instrumental), et al?))

Hey, wait a minute! :mad:

Kidding...I love Devo. Mothersbaugh is a genius.

Which is why it's so cool that they managed to make it. :)

I'm not a big fan of the music itself, but I love the fact that they made their own style and still got popular.

Add another decade and I can name a few more.

C'mon, white Jewish punk rockers turned rappers opening for Madonna?

I can't say they were imitated, or started a new trend in music.

Beasties were one of the greatest shows I've ever seen, and this was back before their anti-surf/mosh douchery.

And they were pioneers in setting the legality of it.

If so, you can thank the Dust Brothers for that.

They're sampling prior was awesome (in choice, not with doing anything with it), but that always seems to be the album everyone points too for their sampling.

I love (still) their use of "Back In Black" for "Rock Hard." So far ahead of their time.

That's what they wanted. And their post PB sampling is still better than most everyone else, that's why I give them credit.

Dust Brothers sent them a tape, and the BB's loved it so much they decided to base the entire album around it, and made their songs to fit the entire tape the Dust Brothers made.

That was quite a feat in its own right. And don't get me wrong I love the Beasties, and I think they influenced popular bands that came out 10+ years later (rap-rock hybrid craze) but I was stunned to read that the true story behind that album.

That album opened the door to their future work (which was done by them mostly) and countless other bands, not to mention some of my favorite Rave DJs.

I'd never heard of them before Fight Club, and I'm not knocking them by saying that.

back in (89?). That whole album is apparently that demo, that the Beasties wrote their songs over without changing a thing (based on a pretty long article about it in the late 90's I read, and re-read - I think it was Rolling Stone, but I could be wrong on the source).

As much as I don't want to doubt the Beasties, it would explain the sudden turn in musical styles.

It was a completely collaborative thing. The Beasties wanted to use the demo unedited and the Dust Bro's happily agreed (they were flattered if I recall).

that's cool. still, I'll have to look up some older Dust Brothers. I'm musically *******

in this list we're creating. Pop music in the sampling age, post-post-modern mishmash a go-go. NOt sure how far his infuluence extended to others, however.

Great discussion topic. We loves our XS!!!

:hi:

They can just do it differently. It's all based and influenced (and occasionally flat out ripped off) from previous music. The Beatles took an existing sound and applied a twist to it that worked, which is what a lot of great bands do in all genres. This is actually one of the things I love about music. It's like a constantly mutating nebulous organism, new tendrils constantly branching out in different aural directions all the time.

I know a lot of stuff that could be considered "new" by my standards, but they're so under the radar that they'll never have the influence to effect a large chunk of music in general that a band like the Beatles did (consider yourselves lucky lol).

I think Led Zep and Metallica were close in many ways. They both influenced a ton a bands after them. They appealed to people who were/are into different styles of music otherwise. I remember one day at my friend's house back in the 80's, listening to Metallica's Master of Puppets with him and his father. His father played clarinet in an orchestra and he was amazed at some of stuff Metallica was doing.

But, like the Beatles, Metallica and Led Zep weren't "new" technically.

All I know is that music is great. :)

Needless to say, it was a big change.

I suppose there have been some who have changed it - for the worst. The Mariah Carey, Michael Bolton I-have-no-clue-HOW-to-sing-a-song-but-let-me-show-off-my-pipes crowd have done that. And their legacy is that every time I go into a CVS or RiteAid, I want to kill myself.

Then there's the rappers. Especially the gangsta rappers. Let's see, versus Revolver or Sgt. Pepper's? Uh . . . no.

There's been good and fine stuff. Not now, but there has been.

Maybe Miley Cyrus?

Uh . . . no.

Now you didn't say 'change music for the better' now didya?

Sure Britney changed it... For the worse

At least to me.

It was like two parallel lines wrapping.

:headbang:

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

I also can't think of any band that got the kind of attention and fan reaction they did.

I just remember being in Jr. High and hearing their music for the first time . . . That's just a year or two past 20 years - but still . . . It waas just cool, and different, and haunting . . . Then we had Cowboy Junkies, Chris Isaac - little bit of 'rockabilly' in that.

I want to punch each of them in the neck

:puke:

They were the catalyst that got RAP (or as it's now known, Hip Hop) going by appealing to young white teens.

Around the same time, Run DMC and Aerosmith did their song/video, and THAT is what I think brought average white people to rap music. I hated that song. I also hated that it brought average white people to rap music.

The Beasties were their own appeal then, and it doesn't seem that the people they drew in became rap fans, but either Beastie fans, or fading in the wind pseudo-fans. I point to the lack of commercial success (then) of Paul's Boutique as a case in point. Lot's of complete garbage rap came out around the time of PB and shortly after that shot up to number one. Thanks average white people for making Tone Loc, Young MC, MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice so popular.

I did start listening to RUN-DMC at a friend's house, myself. And then 2 Live Crew, sitting there mouth agape, with an Asian math expert friend in front if his Amiga while we played Hack. They're good at math, you know.

But, by the time Vanilla Ice came out, I'd gone through my dark Phil Collins stage on Z-100 and moved on to Overkill, and Testament, Anthrax, Megadeth, etc.

. . . if they just used the original studio version's drum beat and guitar tracks as break beats rather than dragging fresh-out-of-rehab Steve Tyler and Joe Perry in the studio to contribute half-assed and plodding guitar playing and worse-than-mailed-in vocals. The best part of that song is the "school girl sleazy" part where they DO use the original studio drum track; only then does it come to life.

The rest of Raising Hell is great, but I skip that disappointing track. And it became their biggest song.

:thumbsup:

It has happened numerous times, since the Beatles, but that hasn't necessarily been a good thing. No one changed it as much, or have been as great, since the Beatles.

You won't hear their songs on American radio but they're probably the most original band I've heard in the last 20 years.

Pihi Neito:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXIYK7xGdZ4&feature=related

Äijö:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_keS5CgpBT0&feature=related

Leppiäinen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZlK3KXQGrI&feature=related

Tuulen Tunto:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guDRZyJi2WQ&feature=related

I have their first album. What's great is how upbeat and happy they sound, but when you read the english translation of the lyrics, it reads like Nick Cave...

Time flies

Zen Arcade is the source of all your grunge, alternative, post-punk, post rock, etc. More or less everything heard on college/alternative radio after 1987 can be traced to that album. Even it's less-than-stellar production can't stop the power of the songs themselves.

Bullhead, a grossly overlooked album, inspired tons of underground bands to rethink the way they deliver the goods.

Run DMC opened the floodgates for just about every damned modern urban-rooted popularity. Two musical "change your life" events happened for me: the first time I heard Run DMC and the first time I heard Husker Du.

Groups on the music-changing level of the Beatles or Brian Wilson/Beach Boys . . . that's a tad harder to come by. Even the critically-jizzed-upon Radiohead lifts a lot of their post-OK Computer stuff from Aphex Twin, Squarepusher, Mark Hollis/Talk Talk and Gong. Of course, if one never heard of those groups prior, one would probably think they're the greatest band on Earth.

pity that...

Without NWA, much of the styles and pop music of today wouldn't be here. (don't know if that's a good or bad thing, lol). Nirvana introduced the general public to a different sound of music during a time when rock was dominated by shitty hair bands.

The first rock/rap fusion? Or was that more than 20 fucking years ago?

On their self titled LP in 1984 they recorded "Rock Box" (which was the first musical life-changer for me described above), and the year after that they put out King of Rock. The title track of that album, I think, is one of the best rap songs of all time.

But while they had guitar it wasn't a true rock/rap fusion.

:hide:

That man invented thrash metal.

'nuff said....

Tikki

I would say Radiohead have. They are one of the few bands who've kept the same line-up and have moved on from each album. The great thing is every album is in a different direction. I can't think of any band who have had No.1 albums that then take risks. Most just stick to their winning sound.

their winning sound *is* sounding different.

How they manage to pull it off consistently is beyond me. :shrug:

Strummer/Jones songbook is more meaningful to me than Lennon/McCartney ever could be.

I'll put "Rude Boy" up against "Help!" any day. Reggae speaks to me way more than Harrison's sitars ever could. I am glad I missed all the hypocritical maharishi crap. The Traveling Wilburys were cool and fantastic musicians and all that, McCartney is talented and likable, BFD. The Mescaleros were epic and BAD rocked the house for a time.

Trying to be as objective as possible-- and with the caveat that I truly dislike almost all popular music that's been released after (about) 1982, I'd say no.

The genres themselves have certainly changed, but I'd attribute that more to astute marketing and the I-Pod generation's predilection for almost constant mutation and change in both form and format rather than any one band (or a few bands).

Seems to me that the most dramatic changes in the popular music scene over the past twenty years have been less in the music itself, and more style, wardrobe, Trendy Angst & Cynicism(TM) and makeup.

:shrug:

Thinking about it, though, Paul Simon (and others who followed his lead) definitely did something different with the incorporation of widely unknown sound (South African, in that case) on the Graceland LP. It'd been done before, of course, including by the Beatles (primarily Indian examples), but it was still somewhat of a novelty and a pleasant one to behold. I wouldn't say it changed anything on the scale of the changes wrought by the Beatles, though, and the same goes for rap, grunge, 'alternative' whinymusic, etc.

I think, among the bigger names in pop at the time, the Beach Boys (Brian Wilson, really) deserve a bit of a nod for having made some pretty nifty innovations -- the Beatles sure thought so.

The only band that comes to mind at ALL is Black Sabbath - they basically invented heavy metal. Without them, the genre simply would not exist. (Note I say heavy metal, not hard rock)

But I'm not sure even the Beatles (and George Martin!) "changed" music so much as they took things that had been done before (though not necessarily in pop or rock) to a higher/better/more accessible level.

Oddly enough, I was just reading an essay by George Starostin about this very topic a few days ago.

You might find it interesting or enlightening as it pertains VERY directly to your question. (It is a bit long though...)

http://starling.rinet.ru/music/essay1.htm

"Anyway, like I said, I don't think that too many people will argue with me when I say that the Beatles and Co. provided us with the most important musical revolution in the 20th century or, in fact, with one of the most important musical and cultural revolutions ever. The big problem is: so what? The Beatles are the biggest, right, but where did this revolution lead us? What happened later, and was there anything really serious done in pop music after the Beatles?

To answer that question, one has to ponder upon the tricky question of what is a musical revolution and what are normally its reasons and its consequences. A musical revolution represents an essential turning point that brings in a completely different musical style: not just a new instrument or a new time signature or a new approach to singing, but a certain change in musical conscience. Of course, a musical revolution has nothing to do with political revolutions (at least, not usually), and its very nature is of an entirely different kind: musical revolutions do not happen in a day or a year. Roughly (very roughly) speaking, there have been three important musical revolutions over the course of the last few centuries - the Classical Revolution of the XVIIIth century, the Jazz Revolution of the early 1900's, and the Rock Revolution of the 1960's. The first one established a new type of music - music for the sake of art, music that had to be listened to as a self-estimated value, not devoted entirely to church or festival or other applied necessities. The second one was a crucial point in toppling the old, bearded values of Classical: music was rejuvenating, throwing off the shackles of the obsolete European style and going back into the masses. And the third one was even more important in that it was a blistering, successful attempt at reconciliating everything: old values with new ones, 'elite' with 'working class', and protest audiences with conservatives. Come to think of it, what is rock music? Out of all the known genres, it is probably the hardest to define. If one takes Dylan's 'Mr Tambourine Man', the Clash's debut album, and Yes' Close To The Edge, all of which are normally considered to be 'rock', one can see that such enormous gaps as exist between the three can hardly be found in any other type of music."

The Beatles' music was never that revolutionary. Popularity was actually the key. They started out a lameass pop band and always had a knack for writing catchy tunes so when they adopted a psychedelic sound people actually listened. If you cannot tell I am a little tired of people fawning over the Beatles, they were a great band sure but there are sooooo many of those because so many people love to play music.

i decline to comment.