Off Topic Band/Artist You Don't 'Get'?

Fair enough. I suppose he'd helped them a lot.

 

I don't know, maybe it's in the amount of covers of Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Smokey Robinson and the like.

You know, like The Stones did?

 

Their use of 3 part harmonies, feedback from a guitar on a recording, even the use of non major/minor chords in mainstream song writing was all pioneered by the Beatles, they changed everything. Although its probably easier just to dismiss them eh?

 

The Miracles, The Shirelles, Arthur Alexander, Little Richard, Fats Domino, The Coasters, Lloyd Price, The Del Vikings, Larry Williams, The Isley Brothers, Barrett Strong and The Marvelettes to name a few.

 

It's ridiculous how much people try to dismiss what they did.

 

The ones who dismiss them tend not to know much about the history of music/recording/writing etc cos if they did they wouldn't dismiss them. The problem is the Stones appeared edgier etc so people think they were cooler so therefore they must have been better or equivalent to the Beatles.

 

Here's one that I'm sure will cause some squealing, but it needs to be said -

Arctic Monkeys

I got their first album.

I sort of got their second album.

I didn't get any others.

Now, they have AM out, and they've sucked all of the guts and zip from their music. It sounds so tired and withered. They called it a 'sexy' album, or something, and started wearing leather trousers and gyrating like Shakin' Stevens. I can't believe Josh Homme encouraged it.

All hope lost.

Such am important band submitting to cliche and neutering their sound.

I no longer get them.

 

I like all of their albums, but nothing they did came close to those first to albums.

On a side note from them, what about The Libertines?

 

Perfectly understandable.

 

The Stones' 'edginess' was wholly manufactured for the exact reason you state. They started as a simple Blues cover band made up of ex-art college students.

 

Talented, some good tunes. Some dumb stuff too I think.

Consumed by red top bollocks in the end. Took their eye off the ball and never made a truly great album, just two decent ones.

If you want to be really critical, you could argue it was merely Chazz & Dave with louder guitars.

So in summary, I think they were alright.

 

They could be the tightest, most influential band in the world but if they haven't got soul, I simply don't get them. Sorry.

I stand corrected, as I've never heard any of these songs.

 

I like the Chazz & Dave bit, when you think about it, they are a bit like that.

 

So, why haven't they got 'soul'? Because they clearly have many influences from black music and soul, as has been proved on here.

 

Of course, you're right. The evidence on this thread is overwhelming.

 

Why are you avoiding the question?

 

Likewise?

 

What, the question I answered earlier in the thread? Go have a look.

Now, back to my question. Why haven't they got 'soul'? Because they clearly have many influences from black music and soul, as has been proved on here.