Razorlight and Kaiser Chiefs have nothing on Arctic Monkeys, who in my opinion are brilliant.

They are exciting, but not awesome IMO. Their drummer on the other hand, now thats a different story...

It doesn't particularly ring a chord with me either, though I do appreciate the lyrics and the arrangements. Arctic Monkeys are a very listenable band; I'd sit there and bang through their album, whereas I'd turn the Kaiser Chiefs off after about two songs.

Razorlight's debut Up All Night was a fantastic album, one excellent tune after another. Haven't yet heard their second offering.

Of these sorts of bands, its Franz Ferdinand that get on my tits the most. I loved their debut single, and I own both the albums they have made so far, but the fact I haven't listened to their second album from maybe 3 days after I bought it says everything. Tedious, and they are arrogant bastards as well.

Best 'new' British band are Kasabian for me; Club Foot, Processed Beats, Empire etc are monster tunes. I'd say they were a 'singles' band rather than an 'albums' band though.

I'm not a big fan of this indie-rock scene that's comng out. Don't know if that's the correct term but if Emo is a term, then so is this.
I feel like LG about the Arctic Monkeys. I like them, not over-blown by them but they are a very good band. I think the age issue has a lot to do with it for me. They're teenagers, and for a group that young to play their instruements and write good songs at such a young age is very commendable. It's more the rawness of them I like.

Kaizer Chiefs, Franz Ferdinand and Razor Light get on my tits though. I also didn't mind Razor Lights first album, then Johnny Borrell's head got too big, and to me they sound like Paul McCartney rock (that's not a good thing )

I agree Kasabian are one of the most exciting bands around at the moment. Have'nt really listened to a lot of their stuff, I have Empire and love it. I think you used to best word to describe their tunes LG, "Monster" tunes.

Go on tell me, how they changed the musical landscape. I can name bands who were inspired by the Beatles as an image, but I could name more bands who were inspired musically by Can/Beefheart/Led Zeppelin/Deep Purple/Bowie and so on.



You are welcome to disagree, but I would like to see some evidence. George Martin was the catalyst who made the Beatles from another 60's boy band to what they achieved. For instance before Martin came along, record producers were little more than financiers and had minimal input into record production. George Martin changed that and was not afraid to tell Lennon how a song could be improved. Who orchestrated the strings on 'Eleanor Rigby' ? It wasn't John Lennon, it was Martin. And the orchestration made that song from a good song to a classic. The same with 'Strawberry Fields' and 'Tomorrow Never Knows'. Martin worked over night combining different takes of songs (as opposed to the standard one takes), the Beatles went home mostly. The Beatles would not have achieved the success they did without Martin - that is a fact that cannot be disputed (or if so, some analysis would be nice).

Of course, even before George Martin music production was being revolutionised by Bing Crosby and Les Paul, but I digress...

I would agree I enjoyed listening to their first album but I thought their second album was shite.

To me though there seem to be lots of musicians who can become musicians without knowing how to play there instruments properly but this is covered up due to the wonders of computers and such that can create a perfect sound without a musician even being able to play an instrument.

But then of course money is the main thing in todays society and if a band can make lots of it quickly they won't give a shit about their music.

Trying out a couple of new bands (or material) over the past few days.

Judas Priest - Had the Painkiller album on high rotation, really enjoying this band, some cracking tunes like Leather Rebel and the actual Painkiller track. Definitely be listening to more of their back catalogue.

Also having a delve into Slayer and Iced Earth, as well as raiding my brother's collection for the Metallica and Megadeth cd's that I didn't own.

Tunes:

Metallica - Fuel
Mudhoney - Sweet Young Thing Aint Sweet No More
System Of A Down - Attack
System Of A Down - Soldier Side

Well I have just there! I'm sure my knowledge of music theory is not up to scratch to explain much more.

There were chords that were not used for about a hundred years until The Beatles used them in structures that had never been seen before.

I am not talking about influences. That is completely different.
The Beatles influence was more fundamental than just other bands liking them and being influenced by them. They changed the notes that were used and they way they were used not just other bands liking them and trying to sound similar.

As for George Martin I am not disagreeing with you that he was an amazing producer and definately did shape the sound of The Beatles but as I have said I am talking of influences around the music and how it is written not the studio techniques. But you are just going to show that they (including George) changed music in more ways than one.

There were plenty of people around before George Martin carrying out his role but they were called technicians and arrangers all he really changed was the name and took on several roles. And he was not the first to do this, look up Joe Meek.

As for Eleanor Rigby I couldn't agree with you more it is the strings that makes it. It is still disputed as to whether George wrote the strings alone or not. Paul Mcartney is supposed to have helped. But I don't know.

I really like their Screaming For Vengeance and Defenders Of The Faith albums as well as British Steel. I think their 80's stuff is quite good despite what some may think.



Reign In Blood by Slayer is superb, I'm not big into them but I actually bought that album.

Won't hammer home the point Bob and accept it may be hard to explain more, but you haven't really expanded on your view. Perhaps some reference material I could read up on might make me change my mind or be more receptive to your view.



Err..I've already mentioned Les Paul and the previous roles of producers , so I am fully aware of who Joe Meek (for me this was through Ritchie Blackmore when he was in Lord Sutch's band - but I digress), so I fail to see your argument there.



There is no dispute, the strings are unmistakeably Martins work (substantiated by Tony Visconti). In fact McCartney struggled with the strings on Band On The Run and called in Visconti to help, and failed to acknowledge. Lennon described McCartney as a '****' ! The Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn expands further.

I would like to hear vin's view on this .

In a nutshell though, the Beatles were a good band and they needed an exceptional producer, which they found in Martin. But as Martin said when he first auditioned them :

"they were pretty awful"

Oh and George Martin was born in Highbury...

My view on this....mmm.
I don't wanna keep talking about the Beatles, but here's my two bobs worth.

For me, the Beatles represent the post 50's American Rock'n'Roll, and post war Britain.
If you're looking for technically amazing instrumentalists, find another band. I feel Paul was a very very good bass player, Ringo's drumming is unique and while many think he is a rubbish drummer I'd disagree, his drumming was perfect for the band. Keith Moon, Mitch Mitchell etc would never have worked in the Beatles.
George guitar playing, similar vain to Ringo's drumming. Not the most over extravigant of guitarists but needed what needed to be done for whatever they were working on. And of course so many people can hum a George Harrison solo or licks, unlike many other guitarists, he had many of them.
John was by far the worst musician(playing instruments). But that's what I love about him. Very basic, primal no faffing around, very human, would make mistakes and would spend time doing it till he got it right. Despite that I still feel he was a very under-rated rythm guitarist, nothing amazing, but very under-rated.
Vocally I thought they were great, again they're were cock ups, but IMO I like to see that from artists, illustrating that we are all human - something I value when I listen to music.

What I'm trying to say is they were very much 4 individuals and they needed something, or someone to help them become a cohesive band.
In the old days before they were signed, this was ok, because the rawness of the straight rock covers they were performing night after night in hamburg fitted what they were about at the time. As the grew they became tighter, but then that was undown by Beatlemania.
I'm sure many have seen the footage of Shea Stadium, how out of time and basically they were playing. I still think they managed to do pretty fucking well with no monitors etc with 56,000 people screaming at the top of their lungs throughout. They had to stop recording otherwise they should have split up then.

This is when George Martin comes in the picture for me.
By this time they had already started "experimenting" with Rubber Soul and Revolver. This is when Martin became "the fifth Beatle".
Harrison also begining to have more of an influence.
Martin's use of his musical knowledge was essential to the post Beatlemania sound. As said the strings on Eleanor Rigby was his doing(though if you hear McCartney doing it on just an acoustic, sounds a bit like The Clash's London's Calling ). The solo to "In My Life", and of course the sound that they got on "Tomorrow Never Knows". Lennon stating that he wanted to sound like the Dali Lama from a mountain top. George Martin and Geoff Emerik were the ones to make this happen, coupled with Lennon's fantastic vocal. Then of course came Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane then Pepper.

Basically what I'm trying to get to is, that the Beatles as recording artists where much like other bands from 62-65, the same yet in different ways to The Stones and The Who. After Martin started introducing things like the solo on "In My Life" and they heard what it could sound like, the more confident they became. So they would then go to Martin with ideas, which he with Geoff Emerik would then make happen, which is a very difficult thing to do. It's a very much shared relationship. Rubber Soul and everything they did that followed it was based on this relationship.

I kind of always compare it to Dylan's influence on the Beatles and vice versa. Dylan has stated that the sound of the Beatles influenced his electric stuff, as his writings influenced a new dimension for the Beatles (and others) to explore.
On a side note, I'm not a massive Paul McCartney fan. He had his time and was a great songwriter when he wanted to be, and as I said a very good bass player. And I feel it was his controlling nature that split the band up, not Yoko. I feel if it wasn't for that they would have gone on, maybe not realising stuff as frequently but gone off done their own things (get those ego's stretched), and got back every now and again.

In the end all this debate is great, but if you love the music, any music, nobody is gonna change your mind on what YOU hear. If you like it, you like it, if you don't there is plenty more music out there.

P.S: Sorry for the long post, it would have been longer but I've lost bit of interest.

Great post vin.

Great post Vin.

Rage Against The Machine. How have I not known about this band?Quality goods right there.

Isn't new music all about developing previous music anyway?

Cheers guys.

Not necessarally SG. I know what you mean, but for me listening to something just to use as an example like Kings of Leon, is not that different from rock bands from the early 70's. I'm not saying that they are copying them. Obviously the equipment they have today makes things cleaner, more pallatable to the masses then they had 10 years ago let alone 40 or 50 years ago. Personally, for me, nothing quite beats listening to old blues by people like Howlin Wolf, Blind Willie McTell etc, scratchy records. Although I like a cleaner sound aswell, sometimes it sounds too polished.

Then there are bands/acts that do want to make that progression. A lot of the time acts that do try to make that progression are not really given the chance, especially in this day and age, where if you don't 'make it' with your first album, then your almost forgotten about.

Some bands just love playing the music that they grew up listening to. Yeah the lyrics and situations may change, but for some it's essentially the same music that has been played for almost 100 years, just with dollar signs on it.