But it's true you know, i really really hate that trend of doing wannabee-mellow crap with acoustic guitars and lyrics that are supposed to be "exposing their feelings/soul" but it's just pretentious crap made to fill out radio air waves and make the i-buy-1-cd-a-year-idiot happy and leaves them feeling that they bought a "quality album" ...... no really difference in quality in Coldplay-bands and Jive Bunny or woodpeckers from space, but i must give the jive b./woodpecker guys some credit for not showing themselves, if Coldpaly had a wrestler with a mask or some cartoon lead singer it would at least be easier to not care about it..
By the way, there's been a MASSIVE trend in this music over here, people are crazy for singer/songwriters and indiepopcountrycrap
Give me those dwarfes from the waxidermy site anytime rather than that smeared bullshit..
Gotta agree. Everything does sound like Coldplay now. So many bands on the wagon its redikkiliss!
.. but if I were to choose one to listen to.. it would indeed be Coldplay.
I mean the first two albums were well arranged. The chords and progressions were compared to their rivals, the music composition was the bomb.. definitely unique... BUT the lyrics were depressing as feck.. every track was a downer. Thats what pissed me off.
The latest album though, is actually good[/b] IMHO. The lyrics are more upbeat and open to interpretation and the music composition is still first rate.
Gotta agree. Everything does sound like Coldplay now. So many bands on the wagon its redikkiliss!
.. but if I were to choose one to listen to.. it would indeed be Coldplay.
I mean the first two albums were well arranged. The chords and progressions were compared to their rivals, the music composition was the bomb.. definitely unique... BUT the lyrics were depressing as feck.. every track was a downer. Thats what pissed me off.
The latest album though, is actually good[/b] IMHO. The lyrics are more upbeat and open to interpretation and the music composition is still first rate.
So Coldplay = okay.
Eveything that sounds like it =
I had this discussion before and i easily get carried away in my quest to hate music that is just DULL, you know, you don't even get irritated it's just like a plush grey quilt that is flowing in n out of your conscience, but i know what you mean it's not that they can't play or that the songs are 100% crap it's just the whole movement of crapcrap that is overwhelming..
If i'd have to listen to one of these bands it would maybe be Coldplay but my guess is that if it's was Coldplay i'd probably had to strangle myself with my headphones or walk out in front of a car if i listened to more than 3 songs in a row..
if Coldpaly had a wrestler with a mask or some cartoon lead singer it would at least be easier to not care about it..
I find it extremely easy to not care at all about Coldplay, nor the bands they copy (Radiohead) or the bands that copy them (tooo many and too insignificant to mention if I could even tell them apart)
I find that music completely uninteresting, yes, even Radiohead, who you can blame for the whole trend. Blame the marketing folks who figured out how to sell the streamlined version(Coldplay) and make it even more boring.
if Coldpaly had a wrestler with a mask or some cartoon lead singer it would at least be easier to not care about it..
I find it extremely easy to not care at all about Coldplay, nor the bands they copy (Radiohead) or the bands that copy them (tooo many and too insignificant to mention if I could even tell them apart)
I find that music completely uninteresting, yes, even Radiohead, who you can blame for the whole trend. Blame the marketing folks who figured out how to sell the streamlined version(Coldplay) and make it even more boring.
Absolutely, also the buying public is responsible but still, i can't help to get agitated sometimes thinking of all this, i guess it's more personal than a real problem but by now maybe one shouldn't get surprised that it's the streamlined, watered down crap that gets the attention..
if Coldpaly had a wrestler with a mask or some cartoon lead singer it would at least be easier to not care about it..
I find it extremely easy to not care at all about Coldplay, nor the bands they copy (Radiohead) or the bands that copy them (tooo many and too insignificant to mention if I could even tell them apart)
I find that music completely uninteresting, yes, even Radiohead, who you can blame for the whole trend. Blame the marketing folks who figured out how to sell the streamlined version(Coldplay) and make it even more boring.
Absolutely, also the buying public is responsible but still, i can't help to get agitated sometimes thinking of all this, i guess it's more personal than a real problem but by now maybe one shouldn't get surprised that it's the streamlined, watered down crap that gets the attention..
/L
People buy whatever you put in their face with a fancy wrapper.
I find it extremely easy to not care at all about Coldplay, nor the bands they copy (Radiohead) or the bands that copy them (tooo many and too insignificant to mention if I could even tell them apart)
I find that music completely uninteresting, yes, even Radiohead, who you can blame for the whole trend. Blame the marketing folks who figured out how to sell the streamlined version(Coldplay) and make it even more boring.
coldplay sound like almost every band that came out during the early to mid 90s in the UK, britpop or whatever, and most of those bands did the sound better then
Within the context of both bands movements through that phase.
Almost every move the Stones (and just about any other rock band you can name) made from 1965 to 1967 was copped from the Beatles, who in the end were not only stylistic trailblazers but also superior songwriters.
So tracks like a hard days night were folk influenced ?
I thought they both started out as rock n roll.
(Which BTW was the context I was using for the x = diet x theory).
the beatles early stuff was very influenced by sciffle witch was like a faster folk or kinf like a fast country thing, hard days night would has this same influence, if you ever heard sciffle it would make sense to you, the RS's were almost completly consumed with blues and it shows through out their whole career which really needs to end soon
So tracks like a hard days night were folk influenced ?
I thought they both started out as rock n roll.
(Which BTW was the context I was using for the x = diet x theory).
The Beatles and The Stones have very distinctly different roots. The Beatles were weaned on a steady diet of Buddy Holly (they took their name as sort of a play off of The Crickets), Little Richard, Elvis, Chuck Berry, and yeah, some skiffle and such. The Stones, on the other hand, were very much a blues-influenced band to the point that they took their name from a Muddy Waters song. Listen to the Stones' first couple albums and it's pretty much straight up blues covers with some token originals thrown in there. The Stones were influenced by Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry as well but took it in a much different direction than the Beatles.
To say that The Stones are Diet Beatles really kind of belies the reality of the music when it came out. If anything, the Stones were seen as the edgy dangerous group and the Beatles were the lightweight poppy group. To say that the Stones chased the Beatles really only works insofar as the Stones tried to make it as popular as The Beatles but I wouldn't say much of their music stylistically chased the Beatles.
To say that the Stones chased the Beatles really only works insofar as the Stones tried to make it as popular as The Beatles but I wouldn't say much of their music stylistically chased the Beatles.
Check out the following...
No Beatles and none of these would have existed. The Stones would have still been covering Muddy Waters...
To say that the Stones chased the Beatles really only works insofar as the Stones tried to make it as popular as The Beatles but I wouldn't say much of their music stylistically chased the Beatles.
Check out the following...
No Beatles and none of these would have existed. The Stones would have still been covering Muddy Waters...
Three whole albums out of 23 albums the Stones released up through 1981...whoopdee-doo. For one year the Stones tried to ride some of the Beatles bandwagon. Hell, it was 1967 and the Beatles were the biggest thing going. But then 1968 hit and the Stones started doing their own thing. So, I think to say that the Beatles had a huge stylistic influence on the Stones in regards to their entire career is quite misleading and calling the Stones the "Diet Beatles" is completely wrong. If you wanna say they were jocking the Beatles in 1967, cool, I have no problem, but there's 20 other albums that prove otherwise. For instance, "Beggars Banquet" came out after "Their Satanic Majesties Request" and I find no Beatles influence in that at all.
soulmarcosa
4,296 Posts
Comments
By the way, there's been a MASSIVE trend in this music over here, people are crazy for singer/songwriters and indiepopcountrycrap
Give me those dwarfes from the waxidermy site anytime rather than that smeared bullshit..
/L
.. but if I were to choose one to listen to.. it would indeed be Coldplay.
I mean the first two albums were well arranged. The chords and progressions were
The latest album though, is actually good[/b] IMHO. The lyrics are more upbeat and open to interpretation and the music composition is still first rate.
So Coldplay = okay.
Eveything that sounds like it =
I had this discussion before and i easily get carried away in my quest to hate music that is just DULL, you know, you don't even get irritated it's just like a plush grey quilt that is flowing in n out of your conscience, but i know what you mean it's not that they can't play or that the songs are 100% crap it's just the whole movement of crapcrap that is overwhelming..
If i'd have to listen to one of these bands it would maybe be Coldplay but my guess is that if it's was Coldplay i'd probably had to strangle myself with my headphones or walk out in front of a car if i listened to more than 3 songs in a row..
/Leo
I find it extremely easy to not care at all about Coldplay, nor the bands they copy (Radiohead) or the bands that copy them (tooo many and too insignificant to mention if I could even tell them apart)
I find that music completely uninteresting, yes, even Radiohead, who you can blame for the whole trend. Blame the marketing folks who figured out how to sell the streamlined version(Coldplay) and make it even more boring.
Absolutely, also the buying public is responsible but still, i can't help to get agitated sometimes thinking of all this, i guess it's more personal than a real problem but by now maybe one shouldn't get surprised that it's the streamlined, watered down crap that gets the attention..
/L
People buy whatever you put in their face with a fancy wrapper.
People buy whatever you put in their face with a fancy wrapper.
Thank you.
You could apply that theory to everything.
THE-BREAKS.COM = DIET SOULSTRUT
THE BEATLES = DIET STONES
uh huh....
Within the context of both bands movements through that phase.
thats a straight up retarted statement
Almost every move the Stones (and just about any other rock band you can name) made from 1965 to 1967 was copped from the Beatles, who in the end were not only stylistic trailblazers but also superior songwriters.
Obviously they took their own paths after a while but what about the first few years though?
naw beatles were a had a sciffle and folk influnce, stones were blues
I thought they both started out as rock n roll.
(Which BTW was the context I was using for the x = diet x theory).
the beatles early stuff was very influenced by sciffle witch was like a faster folk or kinf like a fast country thing, hard days night would has this same influence, if you ever heard sciffle it would make sense to you, the RS's were almost completly consumed with blues and it shows through out their whole career which really needs to end soon
The Beatles and The Stones have very distinctly different roots. The Beatles were weaned on a steady diet of Buddy Holly (they took their name as sort of a play off of The Crickets), Little Richard, Elvis, Chuck Berry, and yeah, some skiffle and such. The Stones, on the other hand, were very much a blues-influenced band to the point that they took their name from a Muddy Waters song. Listen to the Stones' first couple albums and it's pretty much straight up blues covers with some token originals thrown in there. The Stones were influenced by Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry as well but took it in a much different direction than the Beatles.
To say that The Stones are Diet Beatles really kind of belies the reality of the music when it came out. If anything, the Stones were seen as the edgy dangerous group and the Beatles were the lightweight poppy group. To say that the Stones chased the Beatles really only works insofar as the Stones tried to make it as popular as The Beatles but I wouldn't say much of their music stylistically chased the Beatles.
Check out the following...
No Beatles and none of these would have existed. The Stones would have still been covering Muddy Waters...
Three whole albums out of 23 albums the Stones released up through 1981...whoopdee-doo. For one year the Stones tried to ride some of the Beatles bandwagon. Hell, it was 1967 and the Beatles were the biggest thing going. But then 1968 hit and the Stones started doing their own thing. So, I think to say that the Beatles had a huge stylistic influence on the Stones in regards to their entire career is quite misleading and calling the Stones the "Diet Beatles" is completely wrong. If you wanna say they were jocking the Beatles in 1967, cool, I have no problem, but there's 20 other albums that prove otherwise. For instance, "Beggars Banquet" came out after "Their Satanic Majesties Request" and I find no Beatles influence in that at all.
Thats all I meant by BEATLES = DIET STONES. Nothing more than that.
Just to clear that mis-interpretation up.
Oh and this is my 1000th post y'all!!!!!!!!!
coldplay = boring garbage
if you disagree, you are simply wrong, that's it.