NewYorkMets9 Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 Hey, this is my first post. I'm a 16 year old drummer/pianist. I listen to classic rock for the most part although I listen to some jazz, hip hop, or anything really. A good song is a good song in my eyees. Anyway, here's my question. I was thinking about bands of the 60's vs bands of the 90's in terms of their role in popular music. Here's my analogy: Beatles = Nirvana Rolling Stones = Pearl Jam The Doors = Soundgarden Do you agree? Feel free to add on to the analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earth-Angel Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 Welcome to Songfacts, NYM9 I'd somewhat agree with the Beatles = Nirvana analogy, both being how big they were in their relevent heydays and still are, even after the death of the "leader", but also how members of both bands went on to have very successful careers thereafter. Rolling Stones = Pearl Jam, well I'm not the biggest Stones fan (not because I don't like them, mainly as I don't know much of them except what I hear on the radio and what I read on the boards) but I'd say the Stones would need a stronger comparison. Pearl Jam were pretty big in the 90's, but I don't know why they would be = to the Stones. I'm sure proper fans could flesh this one out better The Doors = Soundgarden. This one is a little easier to imagine, although I'm not too sure what sort of comparison you could draw up. Perhaps that their music is slightly darker than what was popular at the time, but still remained rather mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewYorkMets9 Posted November 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 For the Doors to Soundgarden, I was thinking that both bands were never on top although they were probably the most talented band at the time. For the Stones to Pearl Jam, I was thinking that both were right behind the Beatles/Nirvana, but just never reached #1. Also, both bands seemed to be a little heavier than their counterparts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 Hi! Welcome to here! In terms of their role, eh? Well, most 90s bands didn't last very long or have now faded but the Beatles, the Stones and the Doors went on and on and on... thinking up an analogy seems quite difficult. And you've only taken into account the grunge bands - I guess because that was really what dominated the 90s. How about something for the effect of Guns and Roses, Def Leppard, Metallica, R.E.M.... etc. I think I'd equate R.E.M to the Beatles then. Then Nirvana and Pearl Jam and their offshoots to the Rolling Stones And Blind Melon to the Doors. It seems hugely unbalanced but it's the best I can do right now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible_r Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 no, not REM to the Beatles, REM have not had that huge of an impact, plus they do not have such an intense following. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 I dont know about the comparison...but any fan of the METS is a friend of mine!....welcome to songfacts NYM9!....this place rocks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 I would say this (cool topic, by the way): Beatles = U2 I know U2 is technically an 80's band, but so is Soundgarden. U2 isn't nearly as innovative as The Beatles, but who is? Nirvana is good, though, regarding impact and brief life. Stones = Dave Matthews Band In terms of relentless touring and intense following. U2 might also apply here, being the biggest rock band currently of the last 20 years. Doors = Soundgarden That's pretty good, actually, though I think Soundgarden was 10 times better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewYorkMets9 Posted November 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 No offense, but I just hate U2 too much to compare them to the Beatles. I don't think DMB is mainstream enough to be compared to the Stones. Although they are very popular (largely with college kids) they don't get very much attention on radio or tv. Where do the Smashing Pumpkins fit into this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible_r Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 lol, i agree on u2, i don't hate them but they annoy me somewhat! whatever happened to the smashing pumkins? they were great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewYorkMets9 Posted November 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 On the topic of Smashing Pumpkins, the only song I have by them is "Bullet with Butterfly Wings". I love it and I want some more. What do you guys suggest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earth-Angel Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 I like Daslied's analysis with the Beatles and U2. I'd have to say that would be the most accurate comparison. Both enormous, both with a huge impact, completely global following, in the papers, devoted fans, obsessive fans, similar type of chart success etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callmeanimal Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 "Bullet With Butterfly Wings" is a great song from "Mellon Collie & The Infinite Sadness". In this same double CD I recomend you "Zero", "thirty three", "Stumbleine", "1979".I also recomend you their "Siamese Dream" L.P.It contains a masterpiece called "Disarm". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earth-Angel Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 Mellon Collie is a really good album, possibly their best. Singles to look out for are "today", "1979", "Mayonaise", "Stumbeline", "Appels and oranges", "Blank page", "Daphne descends", "Zero" and "Disarm". Well those are my favourites anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 I'm not a huge U2 fan, but I appreciate them. No band is more important to me than The Beatles, so I'm not going to make a light comparison. I'm speaking solely of stature and role in the industry. I'm also not by any means a Dave Matthews fan; see above paragraph for reasoning. Smashing Pumpkins were such a good band. Definitely try "Siamese Dream", and if you can find it, "Gish". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible_r Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 I quite like "ava adore" too! but my fave songs are "today" and "bullet for butterfly wings" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible_r Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 oh, and i still prefer the beatles-nirvana analogy. both had a tremedous impact, both band leaders' death caused great grief to the fans, and shock to the world in general, and both bands still have great followings although they don't exist anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJonSurfer Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 (edited) More important than all this...you're a Mets Fan..welcome.. Edited November 11, 2005 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted November 11, 2005 Report Share Posted November 11, 2005 ^ Exactly what I said Ron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 Oooo yes! U2 to the Beatles! They didn't cross my mind. Perhaps we could take a Britpop influence too... with the collective impact of Oasis and Blur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 I think the influence Beatles and Stones had on music and on society is no way to be compared with any other bands, maybe Bob Dylan, or reggae later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callmeanimal Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 I think the influence Beatles and Stones had on music and on society is no way to be compared with any other bands, maybe Bob Dylan, or reggae later... I agree, Edna. The comparisons don´t stand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 There may be similar things in their styles, music, reaction among their fans, etc., but the times had changed, the medias are huge now and business strategies have become so different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible_r Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 Oooo yes! U2 to the Beatles! They didn't cross my mind. Perhaps we could take a Britpop influence too... with the collective impact of Oasis and Blur. both were a british invasion! I grew up with britpop, and i'm sure it made a great impact on me, same way that the beatles did on that generation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 I'm not sure, but didnt U2 used to be a cover band for the Beatles when they first started out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted November 12, 2005 Report Share Posted November 12, 2005 I think the influence Beatles and Stones had on music and on society is no way to be compared with any other bands, maybe Bob Dylan, or reggae later... Yes but if you absolutely HAD to make a comparison and a gun was held to your head and a scary person said "60s to 90s analogies" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now