Music tracks that sound like other Music tracks

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Have you ever listened to it ? NMTB stands up today as a phenomenal piece of music which put prog rock to bed and laid the foundations for bands like Nirvana.

Yes I have.

The album is iconic and memorable of course, but The Sex Pistols never really "meant it" if you know what I mean. You only have to look at the 96 Filthy Lucre tour and John Lydon selling butter as evidence of that.

Still a great band.

Rothko wrote: »

Reminded me of these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHNbHn3i9S4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5FyfQDO5g0

I'd give the Pixies the credit for that.

Maybe but certainly Nirvana made it popular.

Rothko wrote: »

Reminded me of these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHNbHn3i9S4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5FyfQDO5g0

I'd give the Pixies the credit for that.

This defines that genre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqMdja4eYs

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

thats kinda reproducing the effects with modern technology, I'd love to see it done with samplers and equipment of the time...

It would be done in exactly the same way but with the ears used in place of the eyes. The software is often just emulations of the hardware used. These software copies of hardware improved the work flow for almost everyone who makes music.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I didn't mention anything about the commercial success of Nevermind but the record certainly was innovative but more importantly influential. It literally inspired a whole generation to pick up an instrument and form a band.

I don't know why you're of the opinion that Nirvana offered nothing new. Angular guitars, fantastic stream of conscious lyrics, sometimes disturbing imagery and subject manner, massive choruses; the patent really of the loud chorus/quiet verse formula, tapping into the well spring of disaffected youth, a healthy DIY attitude... I could go on and on.

I don't really care for Punk. It had it's breakout in the time you are talking about and it shone brightly. The Sex Pistols were, to be frank, a load of bollocks, pun intended, but again, massively influential and punk still is, whether your poison be Rancid or Blink 182.

It is quite sad what you have attributed to Nirvana. You would have to ignore the existence of The Doors and the Velvet Underground for most of your claims there. Bauhaus didn't exist either and the entire goth movement apparently didn't exist either. Nirvana did NOTHING innovative. What you are suggesting is akin to saying One Direction invented pop music

Blink 182 have really nothing to do with the Sex Pistols and everything to do with the Ramones. Skate Punk is a form of pop music derived from American punk, ska and pop.

We won't agree but I was about before Nirvana and listened to a lot of music owning albums by the british band Nirvana and initially surprised to hear people suddenly talking about them. Some 13 year old hearing a band doesn't mean they know about music history and it will sound new to them. Doesn't make it actually new.

Bread out sold the Sex Pistol in th 70s as did ELO and Boney M. Punk truly overrated in popularity and influence. Sex Pistils were never the best punk band and were manufactured like the Monkees. Even The Clash were basically a manufactured band turning to punk as a way to sell music.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is quite sad what you have attributed to Nirvana. You would have to ignore the existence of The Doors and the Velvet Underground for most of your claims there. Bauhaus didn't exist either and the entire goth movement apparently didn't exist either. Nirvana did NOTHING innovative. What you are suggesting is akin to saying One Direction invented pop music

Blink 182 have really nothing to do with the Sex Pistols and everything to do with the Ramones. Skate Punk is a form of pop music derived from American punk, ska and pop.

We won't agree but I was about before Nirvana and listened to a lot of music owning albums by the british band Nirvana and initially surprised to hear people suddenly talking about them. Some 13 year old hearing a band doesn't mean they know about music history and it will sound new to them. Doesn't make it actually new.

Bread out sold the Sex Pistol in th 70s as did ELO and Boney M. Punk truly overrated in popularity and influence. Sex Pistils were never the best punk band and were manufactured like the Monkees. Even The Clash were basically a manufactured band turning to punk as a way to sell music.

What's sad about it? why are you comparing Nirvana to The Doors and The Velvet Underground?

Yes, there was a surrealism to both those acts; Lou Reed was as out there and schziprenhic as you could get. I never cared for the Doors much the same way as you don't for Nirvana.

Nirvana's music was much more immediate and accessible while still having that underlying sense of weird and that's a big reason why, again, Nevermind blew up the way it did.

The punk thing isn't really relevant to the debate, also I never said Blink were directly influenced by the Pistols.

Just out of curiosity, what do you/did you think of Grunge in general?

https://youtu.be/1LtFNvRkwao

https://youtu.be/h4-lKMGII_k

Never understood how they won a song contest with what was clearly a rip off.

Zevon on my mind recently

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is quite sad what you have attributed to Nirvana. You would have to ignore the existence of The Doors and the Velvet Underground for most of your claims there. Bauhaus didn't exist either and the entire goth movement apparently didn't exist either. Nirvana did NOTHING innovative. What you are suggesting is akin to saying One Direction invented pop music

Blink 182 have really nothing to do with the Sex Pistols and everything to do with the Ramones. Skate Punk is a form of pop music derived from American punk, ska and pop.

We won't agree but I was about before Nirvana and listened to a lot of music owning albums by the british band Nirvana and initially surprised to hear people suddenly talking about them. Some 13 year old hearing a band doesn't mean they know about music history and it will sound new to them. Doesn't make it actually new.

Bread out sold the Sex Pistol in th 70s as did ELO and Boney M. Punk truly overrated in popularity and influence. Sex Pistils were never the best punk band and were manufactured like the Monkees. Even The Clash were basically a manufactured band turning to punk as a way to sell music.

I think you're conflating sales with influence tbh. Hall & Oates are the biggest selling duo in music history but would you suggest they are more influential than Simon & Garfunkel, for example? And out of curiosity what music did the Clash play before they turned to punk? If they were all about selling their music, why did they insist on boycotting top of the pops?

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I only say that because both bands more or less started off at the same time and I would argue that Nirvana made it popular to the masses.

It was made popular by Led Zeppelin 20 years earlier but as new generations of listeners came along it was acquired by and reused by contemporary bands and really that is what the thread is all about . In reality a lot of the chord structures had been used by the old bluesmen and were regurgitated by admirers, imitators and plagiarists.

Identical intro, right down to the funky wah-wah guitars.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No I am not mixing up sales and influence. To say Nirvana created styles and elements well established some 25 years before requires ignorance. I don't blame kids listening but if you review back you can see they did nothing new.

Clash used propaganda as did the Pistols. Happens all the time. Beastie Boys, NWA, Simon and Garfunkel etc... all changed styles to sell records. It is the music business first and artistic credibility are way low on the list.

Chances are you have read books or magazine articles about music. What I am pointing out is that such stuff is revisionist. When Nevermind came out people in actual bands weren't jumping on it saying this is the best. They were surprised that such rehashed work was getting such recognission. A few years later the next young bands were somewhat influenced but any that became serious knew by then it was not original. Very like Oasis not being original but people still loved them.

I remember I was listen to music and somebody said it was a rip off of Soundgarden. I was listening to Led Zeppelin! You don't have to be trapped in the music if your youth and defend it just accept what it was. Nirvana maybe what you first heard certain elements but they certainly didn't invent it or even advance it.

No, not quibbling at all with your nirvana comments, they sound more than plausible to me. Musically, i personally dont see punk as being very revolutionary at all. The Clash borrowed heavily from The Who and other 60s mods, as well as a host of others. London Calling was, in part, a formal recognition of those influences and a deliberate attempt to place the band themselves in the long musical tradition, not one that had just sprung up a couple of years before. But punk was revolutionary in the totality of its aspects, how that music was played and how it related to its social milieu. The Clash didnt have even one top 10 UK hit in the life of the band, but its influence far outstripped that, not just in the UK but across europe. Nor did they just haphazardly choose punk because they thought it would sell records. The Pistols supported Joe Strummers band the 101ers in early 76 and that was Strummers epiphany about where music was going and he wanted part of it. You can call it manufactured if you like, but strummer, jones et al were going to be in bands whatever happened and the chemistry was just exactly right. I dont know how they could have had a previous style, as punk was what they played from the start before deviating into other forms.