Jimi is after the Beatles. Kurt. And Jimi do not belong in the same sentence.
actually jimi and the beatles were kind of alongside each other. jimi was very influenced by the sgt. pepper album at the time. the day after its release he opened up his own concert with a blistering version of the title track which blew the beatles version away!
you are still correct though. kurt and jimi do not belong in the same sentence.
actually jimi and the beatles were kind of alongside each other. jimi was very influenced by the sgt. pepper album at the time. the day after its release he opened up his own concert with a blistering version of the title track which blew the beatles version away!
you are still correct though. kurt and jimi do not belong in the same sentence.
You have the story wrong. His version didn't blow The Beatles' version away by any means. A week after Sgt Peppers came out, Paul and John (possibly George, I forget exactly) went to see Hendrix play. He knew they were going to be there and figured out his own version of the title track to play in honor of them and the album. He was so blown away by it, as were a lot of artists and bands at the time. If you listen to his version of it, sure it's cool and all, but there's nothing special about it. In no way did it blow the original away.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
on last saturday on bbc2's 'seven ages of rock', they stated that he opened his own concert with sgt. peppers the day after its release. they even spoke to eye witnesses and played old interview footage of how everyone was amazed that he could play it after just one night. apparently he did spend the entire night listening to it, although noel and mitch weren't there and had far less time to learn the song. the beatles were not at this concert, although tv cameras were. they played footage of the jimi hendrix experience playing sgt. pepper. and imo it blew the beatles version away. they also spoke to hendrix's biographer. but of course they could all be lying.i guess
on last saturday on bbc2's 'seven ages of rock', they stated that he opened his own concert with sgt. peppers the day after its release. they even spoke to eye witnesses and played old interview footage of how everyone was amazed that he could play it after just one night. apparently he did spend the entire night listening to it, although noel and mitch weren't there and had far less time to learn the song. the beatles were not at this concert, although tv cameras were. they played footage of the jimi hendrix experience playing sgt. pepper. and imo it blew the beatles version away. they also spoke to hendrix's biographer. but of course they could all be lying.i guess
your story is correct amigo... and part of binfrog's is right as well (the blowing away bit is subjective) but I watched Anthology the other night and even Macca says that 2 days after the album was released he and George were at the show when he opened with it.
"The Sgt. Pepper's album and single had just been released days prior, and two Beatles (Paul McCartney and George Harrison) were in attendance at the show, along with a roll-call of UK rock stardom: Brian Epstein, Eric Clapton, Spencer Davis, Jack Bruce, and pop singer Lulu.
Hendrix opened the show with his own rendition of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", which he had learned in the few days leading up to the show. Harrison and McCartney were extremely impressed by this, and especially because it was played on the Sunday after the release of Sgt. Pepper the previous Friday. McCartney had publicly endorsed Hendrix for months, before Hendrix broke into the UK music scene
."
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
not going to go thru 9 pages, but i can state in my opinion, nirvana is the most over-rated band since the beattles. sure they are both due some credit, but they are given way too much.
I don't want to be hostile. I don't want to be dismal. But I don't want to rot in an apathetic existance either.
Yet when someone posts about the Arcade Fire being the greatest band in the world, no, Arcade Fire is overhyped. They are crap people on the board say.
Is that not hypocritical?
I think that this one example is not hypocritical because of how long Arcade Fire have been around. As great as they may be, it gets tiresome after awhile of hearing how great (insert band with a lot of media praise) are only to never hear from them again or at best them releasing a decent sophmore album only to fade away. Other than that, as much as I don't care for most of Nirvana's music (anymore) I can't disagree with you or Tom Petty. They have definitely had the biggest impact since the Beatles. To the Nirvana haters, or those who simply disagree, I pose the question: If not Nirvana, then who?
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
or those who simply disagree, I pose the question: If not Nirvana, then who?
Led Zeppelin
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
That's fair. But if one career overlaps the other can it be said that they (Zeppelin) had that great of an impact in importance since the Beatles, seeing how the Beatles were still around? I guess so. I assume my issue, if any with Petty's statement is that he said since the Beatles. I doubt anyone would question the importance of Nirvana if Petty had said over the last 20 years they are the most important. Sorry, just rambling there.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
That's fair. But if one career overlaps the other can it be said that they (Zeppelin) had that great of an impact in importance since the Beatles, seeing how the Beatles were still around?
as much as i love zepplin i don't think they can be seen as more influential than the beatles (something i hate to say). they progressed and laid a template that many bands have followed since but they stole most of their first three albums of music from old blues men! it wasn't really until iv and physical graphiti that they started to prove themselves as song writers and arrangers.
i feel that black sabbath were more influential as what they created was pretty unique at the time and started a whole genre of music almost single handedly.
That's fair. But if one career overlaps the other can it be said that they (Zeppelin) had that great of an impact in importance since the Beatles, seeing how the Beatles were still around? I guess so.
its not really an overlap... Abbey Road beng released Sept 69 (Let it Be was already recorded but released later) and Led Zeppelin I was released Jan/Feb 69.. ok, it was just after each other but i do think Led Zep are the most important band sice the Beatles... Led Zep were just massive...
and to the person who just said Black Sabbath... thanks for the laugh buddy
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
no problem. at least sabbath didn't steal all their riffs!
maybe you have to be british to appreciate the influence they had on heavy metal.
i am british... hopefully for not too long though
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mookie9999
or those who simply disagree, I pose the question: If not Nirvana, then who?
Mookie, maybe you didn't read my dietribe. Again, I love Nirvana but here's a list of some bands who's debut was after the Beatles or were still releasing music after the Beatles were done and are all equally if not more important, and in many cases better than Nirvana:
The Who, The Stones, Led Zep, Genesis, CCR, Run DMC, Beastie Boys, Eric Clapton, Jimi, The Ramones, U2, The Police, David Bowie and Spiders from Mars, Pink Floyd, Sly and the Family Stone, The Allman Brothers, The Greatful Dead, The Jackson 5 and Bob Marley & the Wailers.
I actually think all of the above had more crucial contributions, you telling me you can't find one?
Petty's comment is just rediculous. Maybe if he said in the last 15 or 20 years, but since the Beatles? Cammon, get real!
"Women, can't live with'm....pass the beer nuts" - Norman Peterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by mookie9999
or those who simply disagree, I pose the question: If not Nirvana, then who?
Mookie, maybe you didn't read my dietribe. Again, I love Nirvana but here's a list of some bands who's debut was after the Beatles or were still releasing music after the Beatles were done and are all equally if not more important, and in many cases better than Nirvana:
The Who, The Stones, Led Zep, Genesis, CCR, Run DMC, Beastie Boys, Eric Clapton, Jimi, The Ramones, U2, The Police, David Bowie and Spiders from Mars, Pink Floyd, Sly and the Family Stone, The Allman Brothers, The Greatful Dead, The Jackson 5 and Bob Marley & the Wailers.
I actually think all of the above had more crucial contributions, you telling me you can't find one?
Petty's comment is just rediculous. Maybe if he said in the last 15 or 20 years, but since the Beatles? Cammon, get real!
I didn't read your post. However, I later on said basically what you said as far as if the statement was about the last 15-20 years. Almost without exception, I would say all of the musicians you listed are better and more talented than Nirvana, but with the exception of Run DMC and The Ramones, has there been any one band with the lasting impact along with not creating, but popularizing a form of music, catapulting it into the mainstream, turning the music world upside down, making people listen, and still have us talking after so many years like Nirvana? I just that question it just a matter of opinion. I would say that Nirvana is the most important band of the last 15-20 years, and one of the top five important since the Beatles, with Nirvana hanging around the top of the list. Again, I would like to state that I'm not much of a Nirvana fan, but cannot deny their impact and importance.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
but with the exception of Run DMC and The Ramones, has there been any one band with the lasting impact along with not creating, but popularizing a form of music, catapulting it into the mainstream, turning the music world upside down, making people listen, and still have us talking after so many years like Nirvana?
I agree with the above although Run DMC and The Ramones are large carve outs. Bowie, Floyd, Sly & the Dead are all compelling arguments that can be made too though.
Btw, if just in the mood to get under a Nirvana loyalists skin, use the Hip Hop argument, quite fun. Nothing like watching'm squirm when you mention say 2Pac or Biggie in the same breath as Kurt! LOL!
"Women, can't live with'm....pass the beer nuts" - Norman Peterson
Comments
actually jimi and the beatles were kind of alongside each other. jimi was very influenced by the sgt. pepper album at the time. the day after its release he opened up his own concert with a blistering version of the title track which blew the beatles version away!
you are still correct though. kurt and jimi do not belong in the same sentence.
You have the story wrong. His version didn't blow The Beatles' version away by any means. A week after Sgt Peppers came out, Paul and John (possibly George, I forget exactly) went to see Hendrix play. He knew they were going to be there and figured out his own version of the title track to play in honor of them and the album. He was so blown away by it, as were a lot of artists and bands at the time. If you listen to his version of it, sure it's cool and all, but there's nothing special about it. In no way did it blow the original away.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
your story is correct amigo... and part of binfrog's is right as well (the blowing away bit is subjective) but I watched Anthology the other night and even Macca says that 2 days after the album was released he and George were at the show when he opened with it.
here is the correct story
from wikipedia and scroll to Jimi Hendrix entry
"The Sgt. Pepper's album and single had just been released days prior, and two Beatles (Paul McCartney and George Harrison) were in attendance at the show, along with a roll-call of UK rock stardom: Brian Epstein, Eric Clapton, Spencer Davis, Jack Bruce, and pop singer Lulu.
Hendrix opened the show with his own rendition of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", which he had learned in the few days leading up to the show. Harrison and McCartney were extremely impressed by this, and especially because it was played on the Sunday after the release of Sgt. Pepper the previous Friday. McCartney had publicly endorsed Hendrix for months, before Hendrix broke into the UK music scene
."
I think that this one example is not hypocritical because of how long Arcade Fire have been around. As great as they may be, it gets tiresome after awhile of hearing how great (insert band with a lot of media praise) are only to never hear from them again or at best them releasing a decent sophmore album only to fade away. Other than that, as much as I don't care for most of Nirvana's music (anymore) I can't disagree with you or Tom Petty. They have definitely had the biggest impact since the Beatles. To the Nirvana haters, or those who simply disagree, I pose the question: If not Nirvana, then who?
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
Led Zeppelin
That's fair. But if one career overlaps the other can it be said that they (Zeppelin) had that great of an impact in importance since the Beatles, seeing how the Beatles were still around? I guess so. I assume my issue, if any with Petty's statement is that he said since the Beatles. I doubt anyone would question the importance of Nirvana if Petty had said over the last 20 years they are the most important. Sorry, just rambling there.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
as much as i love zepplin i don't think they can be seen as more influential than the beatles (something i hate to say). they progressed and laid a template that many bands have followed since but they stole most of their first three albums of music from old blues men! it wasn't really until iv and physical graphiti that they started to prove themselves as song writers and arrangers.
i feel that black sabbath were more influential as what they created was pretty unique at the time and started a whole genre of music almost single handedly.
its not really an overlap... Abbey Road beng released Sept 69 (Let it Be was already recorded but released later) and Led Zeppelin I was released Jan/Feb 69.. ok, it was just after each other but i do think Led Zep are the most important band sice the Beatles... Led Zep were just massive...
and to the person who just said Black Sabbath... thanks for the laugh buddy
no problem. at least sabbath didn't steal all their riffs!
maybe you have to be british to appreciate the influence they had on heavy metal.
i am british... hopefully for not too long though
Originally Posted by mookie9999
or those who simply disagree, I pose the question: If not Nirvana, then who?
Mookie, maybe you didn't read my dietribe. Again, I love Nirvana but here's a list of some bands who's debut was after the Beatles or were still releasing music after the Beatles were done and are all equally if not more important, and in many cases better than Nirvana:
The Who, The Stones, Led Zep, Genesis, CCR, Run DMC, Beastie Boys, Eric Clapton, Jimi, The Ramones, U2, The Police, David Bowie and Spiders from Mars, Pink Floyd, Sly and the Family Stone, The Allman Brothers, The Greatful Dead, The Jackson 5 and Bob Marley & the Wailers.
I actually think all of the above had more crucial contributions, you telling me you can't find one?
Petty's comment is just rediculous. Maybe if he said in the last 15 or 20 years, but since the Beatles? Cammon, get real!
I didn't read your post. However, I later on said basically what you said as far as if the statement was about the last 15-20 years. Almost without exception, I would say all of the musicians you listed are better and more talented than Nirvana, but with the exception of Run DMC and The Ramones, has there been any one band with the lasting impact along with not creating, but popularizing a form of music, catapulting it into the mainstream, turning the music world upside down, making people listen, and still have us talking after so many years like Nirvana? I just that question it just a matter of opinion. I would say that Nirvana is the most important band of the last 15-20 years, and one of the top five important since the Beatles, with Nirvana hanging around the top of the list. Again, I would like to state that I'm not much of a Nirvana fan, but cannot deny their impact and importance.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
I agree with the above although Run DMC and The Ramones are large carve outs. Bowie, Floyd, Sly & the Dead are all compelling arguments that can be made too though.
Btw, if just in the mood to get under a Nirvana loyalists skin, use the Hip Hop argument, quite fun. Nothing like watching'm squirm when you mention say 2Pac or Biggie in the same breath as Kurt! LOL!
I ain't mad at cha!
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"