Music tracks that sound like other Music tracks

Someone mentioned Underworld - Born Slippy. Born Slippy is sampled from an early 90s dance tune, the name of which I cannot remember, but the piano keys are just slower.

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.

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?

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.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

By that logic your problem should be with The Pixies then for "ripping off" The Velvet Underground and The Doors.

The Pixies were never as mainstream popular as Nirvana.

You don't like grunge, fair enough.

I am not claiming the Pixies were innovative. They were popular before Nirvana who just happened to become more popular. To say they started at the same time is the issue I had. They did start close to each other but that is not the same as saying they were on the international music scene at the same time.

Grunge was fine but basically just rock music. Personally Peral Jam's 10 was better than Nevermind. People in my circle definitely saw Nevermind as a kids album for those who didn't know much about music.

Nevermind was old hat to those who already were listening to the alternative music scene. There were better bands and Nirvana were just OK and certainly don't deserve the revisionists praise and retelling of what was going on. Lazy journalism has a lot to do with it.