Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Complete the following sequence: Elvis, Beatles, Pistols, Roses...

littlebabyjesus said:
I wouldn't question Elvis for the 50s.

I'd go for the Kinks ahead of the Beatles for the 60s, though. I think the Kinks were, in the end, more influential. Or later in the decade, MC5 or Velvet Underground. So...

Elvis, The Kinks, Kraftwerk, Bauhaus, PJ Harvey, erm... fuck knows, Morcheeba:confused:
Click to expand...

That's just saying who you prefer, the beatles are the only possible answer to the 60s
 
butchersapron said:
You do know that's about as untrue a statement as you've ever posted right?
Click to expand...
I suppose it depended on who you knew, but I found an old Venue that advertised a "disco" at Lakota in '93.

I have to admit I preferred to walk to my local event rather than go on a magical mystery tour.
 
Iggy, MC5 et al preceded punk for sure and Kraftwerk the same for electronica - but they didn't have the same cultural impact as the Pistols and that's what I'm trying to put my finger on. Were they the last artists to completely change the rules of the game? Jacko and Madge are good shouts too. To whom does butchersapron refer?
 
You said the kinks, have you typed that wrong?

The kinks didn't get there (where?) first either, the who did, under the name the hi-humbers.

(sorry)
 
steveblue said:
Iggy, MC5 et al preceded punk for sure and Kraftwerk the same for electronica - but they didn't have the same cultural impact as the Pistols and that's what I'm trying to put my finger on. Were they the last artists to completely change the rules of the game? Jacko and Madge are good shouts too. To whom does butchersapron refer?
Click to expand...
Fair enough – if you want cultural impact, then Elvis, Beatles fine, Pistols ok. I don't really think the Stone Roses are up there though. The Smiths had a bigger impact on more people, I reckon.

tbh I can't really think of anyone good for the 90s or 00s.
 
butchersapron said:
You said the kinks, have you typed that wrong?

The kinks didn't get there (where?) first either, the who did, under the name the hi-humbers.

(sorry)
Click to expand...
The Who are a good shout. I am by no means an expert on 60s music, but what I've heard from the Kinks around 63/64 was way more interesting than what the Beatles were doing at the same time.

But for wider cultural impact, yes, the Beatles. It often isn't the most influential that are the most popular at the time.

What about Bowie for the 70s? (yes I know he started in the 60s)
 
The clue is in the question - none of them were first, but they all influenced what came after in some way. There must have been paradigm shifts since 1977 - but perhaps they are less revolutionary?
 
steveblue said:
Iggy, MC5 et al preceded punk for sure and Kraftwerk the same for electronica - but they didn't have the same cultural impact as the Pistols and that's what I'm trying to put my finger on. Were they the last artists to completely change the rules of the game? Jacko and Madge are good shouts too. To whom does butchersapron refer?
Click to expand...

Not changed by bands anymore, not changed at all. Not been massive new ways of doing stuff for 20 years. Or has there? Opens doors to getting beat.
 
Ramones, Smiths and Bowie all have to be contenders - but I've never heard of Coil. I suppose rave was the obvious ten-years-on paradigm shift from the Pistols - but who was the stand-out act?
 
steveblue said:
Ramones, Smiths and Bowie all have to be contenders - but I've never heard of Coil. I suppose rave was the obvious ten-years-on paradigm shift from the Pistols - but who was the stand-out act?
Click to expand...
I was being slightly facetious. Coil were an experimental/industrial band. Influenced NineInchNails, among others, but not paradigm-shifting.
 
There is a total absence at the moment of the overblown silliness that was progressive rock. Led Zep?

It's either just me getting old, or between the 60s and 80s there were in fact quite a few paradigm shifts, some acting in parallel. And since then it's just been a recombination of previous themes.

That may be due to my ignorance, though.
 
Public Enemy is a good shout too. So that's Elvis, Beatles, Bowie, Ramones, Pistols, Public Enemy, Smiths, Roses, Jacko, Madge, Nirvana, Prodigy, Oasis, Winehouse... It's too long - I'm not even sure of the chronology - and still don't seem right somehow.
 
steveblue said:
Public Enemy is a good shout too. So that's Elvis, Beatles, Bowie, Ramones, Pistols, Public Enemy, Smiths, Roses, Jacko, Madge, Nirvana, Prodigy, Oasis, Winehouse... It's too long - I'm not even sure of the chronology - and still don't seem right somehow.
Click to expand...

Thats because half of them didnt represent a paradigm shift.
 
The problem is with the new bands is that there were/are many many more than were around the preceding decade or generation. In the noughties, and the advent of the internet with myspace, you tube blah blah, pretty much everyone can get their 15 minutes of fame. Likewise the 90's but less so, and again working backwards there were less bands available for consumer consumption.

So yeah, Elvis, Beatles, Pistole - they got the column inches in the day. After that, well it was survival of the fittest for bands, and survival of the cleverest for record companies.

I'd maybe also add Blur for 80's as they kinda kick started indie, and also were varied enough to influence a lot of other bands, and have also gone on to do other things to.

So, my list now....

Elvis, Beatles, Pistols, Bowie, Nirvana (in the US)/Blur (in the UK), possibly Artic Monkeys for the noughties.

eta - in the 70's there was a shift in record company marketing strategy. Bands were signed to 5-8 albume deals, with the record company willing to sign off the first 2 albums to generate a fanbase. Hence the longevity of so many 70's bands from The Monkees through Abba, Supertramp, Genesis, Elo etc.

These days (well for the last 10-15 years) bands have been signed on shorter deals, where we are now at the stage where bands are signed for a one single deal, with the *option* of the label picking up a second one depending on the success. Consumerism has dictated that we want more, faster and better than we ever had before.

I dont think we will find a defining band of the noughties for this reason, and definitely not for the oneties. Or whatever it will be called

The thing with the noughties is that so *many* bands are available that not many genuine bands who debuted in the noughties have had enough releases or kicked up enough of a storm to raise themselves above the quagmire of the rest of the industry.
 
I'm starting to think littlebabyjesus is right - so let's make it easier/harder and say each has to represent a 10-year period. So that's Elvis 1955-1965, Beatles 1965-1975. But for 1975-1985 none of our contenders - Bowie, Ramones, Pistols, Public Enemy, Smiths, Roses, Jacko, Madge - comes close. That must be what happened - the Beatles opened the floodgates and the paradigm shifts became more frequent but less monumental?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wilf
Free ticket for Sex Pistols/Stranglers/Buzzcocks, 23rd August, Margate Dreamland
Replies
2
Views
239
Wilf
Wilf
Fozzie Bear
RIP Dave Ball (Soft Cell, The Grid etc)
Replies
13
Views
270
DJWrongspeed
DJWrongspeed
Humberto
The Stone Roses
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
editor
RIP Mick Ralphs - founding member of Mott the Hoople and Bad Company
Replies
6
Views
342
seeformiles
seeformiles
Humberto
Pre Beatles post war Americana
2
Replies
52
Views
1K
Humberto
Humberto
Back
Top Bottom