Competitive Jerks Racing and Training - 2023 (Read 574 times)

Just because people regurgitate this hogwash rubbish doesn't make it true. I guess Taylor Swift is the most influential musician of the 21st century. I'd never known way "taylorgating" was until recently.

 

The Beastie Boys were more influential than the Beatles. The difference is Boomers don't like the way young kids dress unless it's a suit and tie. They also consider the 20th century to start around the time Elvis was popular, and end shortly after they landed their career job.

My wife is a big Beatles fan so I’m familiar with all their stuff. I respect them as they’re unique, but none of their songs would ever make it onto my iPod playlist. 

I’m too young to be a boomer ….but the Sex Pistols were my WOW band when a teenager and they didn’t wear suits. 

My favourite non rock solo artist is Leonard Cohen and saw him live a couple of time and he was absolutely amazing!  Favourite album “I’m your Man”….give it a listen and you’ll not be disappointed. 👍

The Monkees are more unique.

https://www.vh1.com/news/59k878/beatles-songs-that-influenced-heavy-metal

 

Although their Christmastime single borrows heavily from Bobby Parker's "Watch Your Step," the real innovation comes from the raw electronic squeal of the intro. One day when John Lennon leaned his Gibson semi-electric against the studio wall, the A string suddenly began to feedback through his amp, emitting an ear-splitting shriek. The band were intrigued by the noise, and persuaded producer George Martin to edit it on the front of the song—giving feedback its first appearance on a major pop recording. John was always proud of this fact, boasting about it in later years:  "I defy anybody to find a record... unless it is some old blues record from 1922...That uses feedback that way. So I claim it for the Beatles. Before Hendrix, before The Who, before anybody. The first feedback on record."

"I Feel Fine," predates the Who's sonic studio experiments by nearly a year. And from the Who, it's a quick jump to the overdrive howls that dominate metal records.

 

Pretty easy to be the first at something and claim it when you eliminate literally everything before you. 

 

"Revolution," B-side version (1968)

The song's politically charged lyrics transformed it become a rallying cry, inspiring a generation to civic action. Moreover, "Revolution" helped give other bands the confidence to comment on cultural events—previously the exclusive preserve of folky protest songs. Plus, the truly nasty guitar intro undoubtedly inspired a generation of garage bands to invest in a distortion pedal.

 

https://bobbyowsinskiblog.com/story-behind-how-guitar-distortion-was-born/

 

So this song from 1968 inspired a generation to buy a distortion pedal. NOT the song released FOUR YEARS EARLIER by The Kinks. 

 

"Helter Skelter," from The White Album (1968)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rC3l3niTaE

After reading an article describing the Who's then-recent 1967 song "I Can See For Miles" as "the raunchiest, loudest, most ridiculous rock 'n' roll record you've ever heard," Paul McCartney's competitive spirit moved him to create an even nastier track. "I said to the guys, 'I think we should do a song like that; something really wild,'" he remembered during the Beatles Anthology. "And I wrote Helter Skelter."

 

 

The End....yeah a guitar battle never existed before the Beatles made you take turns. Before 1969 Guitar players just played on top of each other to show how amazing they were. 

 

Yeah...the Beatles were TOTALLY influential. Just eliminate all other influences before them, and anyone who did something similar to them is obviously influenced BY them with how big the Beatles were made. Oh and ignore their plagiarism of other's work. It's totally different. Didn't the Beatles create the 4 man band? I'm pretty sure Blink 182 was influenced to form their band by the Beatles. Also Slayer, and the lesser known band known as Slipknot. 

 

It's annoying to continually hear how amazing the Beatles are by people who refuse to actually have a conversation about it. Sure they're iconic. They are the Taylor Swift, Metallica, and Elvis of the 1960s. Maybe the Billy Idol since they grew their hair long and probably went against the grain for a few folks too. They just didn't contribute as much to music as people give them credit for. Sorry it stung hard when John died after marrying Yoko. At least Paul was able to buy back the rights to his song when Michael Jackson had to sell them. 

 

You're kinda missing the point here RP.  I didn't say they were highly innovative, I said they were highly influential.  Big difference there.  Innovation is about what you come up with.  Influence is about how it affects others.  I mean, they were certainly innovative but there was clearly a lot of cross-influencing that happened amongst the various bands at the time, a lot like you see in the 1980's with thrash metal, or the 1990's with grunge.  Those are also good counterpoints - Metallica were probably the most influential of the 1980's thrash metal bands, but it's pretty dubious whether they were the most innovative or not (certainly not from 1990 onwards).  Nirvana were the most influential of the 90's grunge bands, but Alice in Chains and Soundgarden were doing way more innovative and interesting stuff (but does the average punter care that Limo Wreck is in 15/8 time? No, of course they don't).

Influence tends to be a function of reach and innovation.  There were bands that were more innovative than the Beatles, for sure.  However, other than possibly the Stones, no other band at the time even comes remotely close in terms of the combined level of mass appeal and innovation.  And you can draw a line from there to a huge amount of the music that followed over subsequent decades.

I mean if we're talking actual straight up who had the greatest level of direct influence on other musicians and bands, there's a reasonable argument it's actually going to be someone like Howlin' Wolf.  Because the vast majority of modern music, in some shape or form, traces back to the blues.

And as much as I like the Beastie Boys, claiming they are more influential than the Beatles is just plain dumb.

Cal - Ugh, hopefully it's not a muscle tear, hopefully it's a temporary issue with nerve endings.

Mikkey - I've just given a listen to Thin Lizzy, I must say it's quite good, thanks for the rec!

Bands - Interesting discussion about bands, I understand some of the words you're saying 😂

All I can say about that is the following:

Erst wenn die Wolken schlafen gehen,
Kann man uns am Himmel sehen.
Wir haben Angst und sind allein.
Gott weiß, ich will kein Engel sein.

new shoes - I've recently gotten 3 new pairs of shoes cause I panicked I'd run out of shoes.

Anyway, the Altra Escalante Racers are just perfect, the best shoes ever from Altra. So it's nice to be running again in them.

Just a bouncy responsive rubber, no springs.

The Altra Escalante 3s I haven't even run in them, but I have another pair that I was using for workouts, I know they have a very good sole, and over time the area on top of the toes gives in a bit and is not so snug.

The Altra Torin 7 wide was a disappointment on the very first run. It's so unstable and it seems to have some sort of spring going on somewhere on the forefoot area. I was hoping to wear it for long runs, but now I'm not so sure. I'll probably try it again for shorter runs of around one hour and hope that the sole somehow compacts a bit.

That said, at least it's wide enough for my feet and as wide as the original Altras, before they got bought and started producing rocket shape shoes.

 

You're kinda missing the point here RP.  I didn't say they were highly innovative, I said they were highly influential.  Big difference there.  Innovation is about what you come up with.  Influence is about how it affects others.  I mean, they were certainly innovative but there was clearly a lot of cross-influencing that happened amongst the various bands at the time, a lot like you see in the 1980's with thrash metal, or the 1990's with grunge.  Those are also good counterpoints - Metallica were probably the most influential of the 1980's thrash metal bands, but it's pretty dubious whether they were the most innovative or not (certainly not from 1990 onwards).  Nirvana were the most influential of the 90's grunge bands, but Alice in Chains and Soundgarden were doing way more innovative and interesting stuff (but does the average punter care that Limo Wreck is in 15/8 time? No, of course they don't).

 

Influence tends to be a function of reach and innovation.  There were bands that were more innovative than the Beatles, for sure.  However, other than possibly the Stones, no other band at the time even comes remotely close in terms of the combined level of mass appeal and innovation.  And you can draw a line from there to a huge amount of the music that followed over subsequent decades.

 

I mean if we're talking actual straight up who had the greatest level of direct influence on other musicians and bands, there's a reasonable argument it's actually going to be someone like Howlin' Wolf.  Because the vast majority of modern music, in some shape or form, traces back to the blues.

 

And as much as I like the Beastie Boys, claiming they are more influential than the Beatles is just plain dumb.

You were actually sort of claiming they were the most influential. They weren't and they need to stop being given credit for it. They didn't "come up" with anything. Their fans just ignore literally any other influence existing before the Beatles, and everything AFTER the Beatles is credited TO the Beatles.

Now we go into "well it is actually the combination of their success and the influence" which changes the entire conversation. Give credit to the Beatles for everything, and then ignore their success being due to LARGE SUMS OF MONEY BEING PAID.

Typical Beatles fan. Any discussion about the Beatles is not allowed unless we kiss the ring and bend the Knee to Sir Paul. Don't dare say anyone is more influential than The Beatles. Not even Michael Jackson was AS influential as the Beatles. Just...influential.

the Beatles didn't contribute anything great to music. Their music remains in rotation because the royalties make rich people richer, not because it is actually good music.

 

You were actually sort of claiming they were the most influential. They weren't and they need to stop being given credit for it. They didn't "come up" with anything. Their fans just ignore literally any other influence existing before the Beatles, and everything AFTER the Beatles is credited TO the Beatles.

 

Now we go into "well it is actually the combination of their success and the influence" which changes the entire conversation. Give credit to the Beatles for everything, and then ignore their success being due to LARGE SUMS OF MONEY BEING PAID.

 

Typical Beatles fan. Any discussion about the Beatles is not allowed unless we kiss the ring and bend the Knee to Sir Paul. Don't dare say anyone is more influential than The Beatles. Not even Michael Jackson was AS influential as the Beatles. Just...influential.

 

the Beatles didn't contribute anything great to music. Their music remains in rotation because the royalties make rich people richer, not because it is actually good music.

Honestly I wouldn't say I'm a big Beatles fan. I listen to the odd song, but it's very rare for me to listen to an entire album like I do with most bands.  But I also think you've missed the point I was making which is that being influential is not always the same thing as being innovative.  And saying "the Beatles didn't contribute anything great to music" is just plain wrong.  The list (and variety) of artists that have covered them alone will tell you that (ironically it includes Michael Jackson).  "Yesterday" is the most covered song in history.  The reason many of the songs still get played is because they are good songs.  If that is not a reflection of influence, I do not know what is.

 

Honestly I wouldn't say I'm a big Beatles fan. I listen to the odd song, but it's very rare for me to listen to an entire album like I do with most bands.  But I also think you've missed the point I was making which is that being influential is not always the same thing as being innovative.  And saying "the Beatles didn't contribute anything great to music" is just plain wrong.  The list (and variety) of artists that have covered them alone will tell you that (ironically it includes Michael Jackson).  "Yesterday" is the most covered song in history.  The reason many of the songs still get played is because they are good songs.  If that is not a reflection of influence, I do not know what is.

What is so great and influential about Yesterday? It is popular, and being popular doesn't make you influential.

Thin Lizzy. ❤️

Metallica does a really good cover of one of their songs. I think it is "the boys are back in town."