[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
I think it’s you who keeps making this point in various threads about today’s music. (If not, I apologize. Somebody always does, though.)
[/QUOTE]
Nope, not me. Like I said, I’m pretty indifferent to music. But I think I was focusing on the “innovative” question in the OP, and you’re focusing on the “influential” part, so we’re talking about different things.
[QUOTE=bordelond]
Shame? Who dogs out ELP?
[/QUOTE]
Blender magazine.
Of course, they also dog out the Doors, Kansas, and Primus, so they aren’t to be trusted.
Metallica was a kind of Zep for the 90’s. They were groundbreaking and very influential on the hard rock scene. Aspects of their sound have even filtered to down to more commercial genres of music.
We’ll never see another Beatles. Popular music has become too splintered and subdivided for a single band to really cross over to a monlithic audience anymore, but U2 is probably about the closest we’ve got.
[QUOTE=bordelond]
Shame? Who dogs out ELP?
[/QUOTE]
It was the best I could come up with. I will offer that a few years later, I was a KISS fan.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Metallica was a kind of Zep for the 90’s. They were groundbreaking and very influential on the hard rock scene. Aspects of their sound have even filtered to down to more commercial genres of music.
We’ll never see another Beatles. Popular music has become too splintered and subdivided for a single band to really cross over to a monlithic audience anymore, but U2 is probably about the closest we’ve got.
[/QUOTE]
I basically agree with these statements. Rock and roll is just too splintered and too played out (I think) for there to be any monumental force that refines and defines the sound like the bands in the OP to exist today. Metallica is a good choice for the 90s. I would also stick Radiohead in there. Pixies maybe, although they were too small at the time to compare to any of the greats in the OP.
However, for today, I can’t think of any force in rock music. I think you would need to look to other genres, like hip hop, to find such forces, but I think the 90s were pretty much the golden age for rap, like the 60s/70s were for rock.
[QUOTE=tdn]
What’s your take on Strawberry Alarm Clock?
[/QUOTE]
I wish I knew the dealer who sold them the stuff they were on when they thought of that name. (Alternate take: “It’s always time for fresh fruit.”)
Nine Inch Nails was a major rip off of Skinny Puppy and many of the early industrial/electronic/noise bands, only with whiny, self-pitying vocals and lyrics. However, if you were going to credit/blame anyone with bringing elements of those genres into mainstream rock it would be Trent Reznor not only through NIN, but also by producing other acts, hello Marilyn Manson. IMO, Emo has it’s roots here, not Bauhaus. Bauhaus was a dark glam band inspired by Bowie, The Velvet Underground and T.Rex. Emo takes fashion cues from goth, but is anything but. Emo is basically new school punk/alternative with a dash of later-day Cure and all the melodrama of Morrisey.
Grunge was less a movement than a marketing label. These were garage/punk bands with as much love for Black Sabbath and AC/DC as for The Ramones and The Stooges. If one were to take the elements of what makes something “grunge”, one could call The Sonics a grunge band even though they were a 60’s band. On top of this the bands that were most responsible for the sound that was attributed to “grunge” (The Melvins, Mudhoney, Tad) didn’t see the commercial success that their more radio-friendly clones/contemporaries did.
As for the OP, I don’t think there can be modern day versions of those classics. They are remembered and loved 30 years on for being so amazing and without rivals.
But that’s just me. 
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I wish I knew the dealer who sold them the stuff they were on when they thought of that name. (Alternate take: “It’s always time for fresh fruit.”)
[/QUOTE]
Strawberry and Alarm Clock were two types of blotter acid. That’s where the name came from.
[QUOTE=tdn]
Correct. However, there was never any group more aptly named than The Band.
What’s your take on Strawberry Alarm Clock?
[/QUOTE]
SAC was a studio band.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I wish I knew the dealer who sold them the stuff they were on when they thought of that name. (Alternate take: “It’s always time for fresh fruit.”)
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=fishbicycle]
Strawberry and Alarm Clock were two types of blotter acid. That’s where the name came from.
[/QUOTE]
“Strawberry Alarm Clock” was also a term used to describe a bomb (i.e., the “strawberry” referred to the red dynamite sticks and the “alarm clock” was the time-piece used to set detonation). However, that usage may have started after the band was already on the scene.
Actually, according to the liner notes for the Nuggets boxed set, the name “Strawberry Alarm Clock” was derived from the name of another group, The Chocolate Watchband, in that it was an ice cream flavor combined with a type of time-piece.
[QUOTE=NDP]
Actually, according to the liner notes for the Nuggets boxed set, the name “Strawberry Alarm Clock” was derived from the name of another group, The Chocolate Watchband, in that it was an ice cream flavor combined with a type of time-piece.
[/QUOTE]
That’s like the story behind the name Nigel Tufnel - boring first name plus the name of a London park. Of course, that name was supposed to be a joke…
Three points
Of course those bands defined Rock, if Rock is defined as the kind of music those bands play. If you’re going to say Bob Marley, the Sex Pistols, REM, Public Enemy, Eminem, The Grateful Dead, Johnny Cash, The Allman Brothers, all of Motown, George Clinton/P-Funk and Los Lobos aren’t Rock, then, except for U2, who else really is Rock other than the Who/Zep/Stones crowd? But I do think all of these groups are very well known and very influential. And only P-funk and perhaps the Dead could be said to be even loosely speaking products of ‘66-‘68.
You’re putting a lot of things in “1966-1968" that don’t really belong there. Almost all the The Stones’, Zep’s, and The Who’s good albums came out way after 1968 (technically, *all *of Zep’s albums came out after 1968) Clapton’s peak (Layla) was in the 1970’s.
In any case, as Keith Richards says, Chuck Berry invented Rock and Roll and everyone else has just been copying him since then (except for the ones who are copying Robert Johnson, who invented the blues, and Hank Williams, who invented country).
[QUOTE=Quercus]
Very good point, although a good chunk of the artists you mentioned are also described as rock. I don’t know anybody who would say Eminem and Public Enemy are rock, but I don’t know anybody who would say REM, the Dead, the Allmans, the Sex Pistols and Los Lobos aren’t rock.
[QUOTE=Quercus]
2. You’re putting a lot of things in “1966-1968" that don’t really belong there. Almost all the The Stones’, Zep’s, and The Who’s good albums came out way after 1968 (technically, *all *of Zep’s albums came out after 1968) Clapton’s peak (Layla) was in the 1970’s.
[/QUOTE]
True, and the point had not escaped me. It’s just that I consider those three years to be the most remarkable transition point in all of music, when all of the rules were rewritten. The things you mention were a direct outgrowth of that period. The early 70s were when the seeds of 66-68 bore the best fruit.
It’s hard to conceptualize what I’m saying unless you watch The Kids Are Alright (basically a video anthology of concert footage), I think. The feeling that came over me when I watched it was “Wow, these guys are the originals. This is the blueprint for everything that followed.” Granted, it was more of an emotional response than an intellectual one. One cannot be intellectual while watching Pete Townsend leap about.
I remember reading reviews about Keith Moon when I was young. “Tries to hit every drum at the same time” comes to mind. It’s almost like people were scandalized by his playing. And I thought that was bullshit, everyone plays like that. Moon actually sounded restrained to me. It was years later that I realized that it’s not so much that Moon sounded like everyone else, it’s that everyone else sounded like Moon. He was Rock Drumming 101.
[QUOTE=Quercus]
Three points
…
Nope, nope, nope. No one “invented” blues, but the person who first popularized it was WC Handy. Robert Johnson was amazing - he defined the AAB, 12 bar structure - but in no way invented it. This is similar to saying Chuck Berry invented “Rock and Roll”. Chuck Berry popularized and reshaped boogie woogie. Boogie woogie is born from early styles of piano playing, except that it’s in common time, the left hand is stationary (think ragtime) and the right hand plays blues-inspired chords. Chuck Berry started playing boogie woogie in the early '50s (he was first a blues musician), but the first boogie woogie recording was in the early '20s by Clarence Williams.
I don’t know that much of country, so I’ll refrain from addressing it.
Basically, I’m trying to stress that no single person invented any style of music. You placed too much importance on too few people.
Next up: Emo.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Hm. I’m going to say Trent Reznor comes close to Beatles-quality, insofar as redefining rock. Just close, but he really changed things, and popularized the change.
After that… what built Emo? From Goth, I suppose, I hear a lot of Bauhaus in it.
No, for one group that really, really changed things, the only thing I can think of is Trent. Everything else is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
[/QUOTE]
Emo: An Essay
In the mid-70’s, punk was establish in a few places around the world. Well, New York and London. As time happened, hardcore was established, punk spread, and as it did it became increasingly aggressive. Washington, DC eventually got their own hardcore scene like every major city at the time. Minor Threat, one of the originaters of the hardcore movement, breaks up in 1983. Bad Brains, another hardcore pioneer and DC band, began to record crappy metal around this time as well.
Meanwhile, in 1984 Husker Du released an album that was relatively punk, but focused more on melodic compositions and more angsty lyrics (Zen Arcade, of course). In the same year, Rites of Spring forms from what remained of the DC hardcore band The Untouchables. When you listen to Rites of Spring, note that Piocotto retains that oh-so-popular at the time singing until your out of breath punk way of doing things, but sings about really personal things. At some points, his voice disapears entirely.
Well, 1985 comes. It’s now known as the “Revolution Summer”. Bands began to form in DC by the droves, all closely following the Rites of Spring’s aesthetic. This sound moved around the country, eventually ending up in the mid-West.
That’s actually why so few people know about early emo and only see it as Fallout Boy and tons of crappy other popular bands today. Most of the key, influential records of emo are either rare, since they printed them themselves with limited release numbers, or they didn’t record at all. Emo shows were about the moment. In fact, it used to be common for a band to be dancing/singing so hard, they would kick over the mic but keep on singing. They weren’t about perfection; they were about getting out their emotions.
Very punk in those regards.
Anyway, that’s the birth of emo. I could write a book on why people consider things emo today that never were, but I’m out of money. If you have any specific questions, just ask.
I should add that punk was the movement that proved that you don’t need to be especially good-looking to play rock.
You weren’t around in the 60s, were you? :dubious:
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
[snip]
And it’s me who keeps countering with the point that if nobody’s heard their names, they don’t count. You can’t be truly influential unless you’re truly popular (with some rare individual exceptions). No generation of music fans will grow up being influenced by Bands you’ve Never Heard Of.[/snip]
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, but I must disagree. It’s not how many people have heard of “Band X,” It’s who has been influenced by “Band X.” If “Y” number of popular bands has been influenced by “X,” it doesn’t matter if the general populace has heard of them or not, they’ve been influenced by them.
If tomorrow’s number one through five hits is by bands that idolizes “The Alan Smithee Project,” TASM is influential, whether you’ve heard of them or not.
Peace _ DESK
[QUOTE=D.E.S.K.Top668]
I’m sorry, but I must disagree. It’s not how many people have heard of “Band X,” It’s who has been influenced by “Band X.” If “Y” number of popular bands has been influenced by “X,” it doesn’t matter if the general populace has heard of them or not, they’ve been influenced by them.
If tomorrow’s number one through five hits is by bands that idolizes “The Alan Smithee Project,” TASM is influential, whether you’ve heard of them or not.
Peace _ DESK
[/QUOTE]
Exactly what I was gonna say. Certainly way more bands were influenced (and continue to be influenced) by The Velvet Underground than Cream, but if you look at sales figures and chart positions you’d never know it. Same goes for bands like Husker Du (punk-pop and grunge, from the Pixies to Nirvana, came directly from them - even friggin’ Green day covered 'em, yet 9 out of 10 people have never heard of them) or Gang Of Four (pretty much every “indie rock” act of the last few years, from Bloc Party to Franz Ferdinand). There are tons of bands who had huge followings and strong sales figures that haven’t actually influenced jack shit (ELP or Jethro Tull, anyone?). Hell, The Smiths had a longer-lasting influence than most hit bands of the past 20 years.