The Official Needles and Grooves 1001 Album Generator Project (aka Preachin’ about the Preachers if today’s selection sucks)

Joe Mac said:
It’s a difficult concept and “the world” is hard because it’s more often than not a moniker attached to a British band that breaks the states or the biggest American band who sorta has some kinda of decent following in Europe. And lots of times the two areas are not necessarily in concert on that. In all honestly it’s never been something that’s interested me because I don’t know what it really means or signifies and it’s often attributed to bands who’ve past their most vital and compromised what made them unique to appeal to larger audience.
Click to expand...
I think you’re being a bit insular regarding this and maybe I am being too broad. My comp would probably work better with sports figures to illustrate my point. Like Jordan in The NBA on the 90s or Gretzky with hockey in the 1980s or Pele and Soccer in the 1970s they were athletes that you knew in real time that they were the pinnacle of that era.

Like for rock music in the late 60s it was the Beatles and I feel like Led Zeppelin by the time of IV were the same way. I man not saying that zeppelin were equivalent to the Beatles just that they were the biggest most important band of the early/mid 70s. After Zeppelin, it get a little less monolithic mainly because of the explosion of other genres in the 1980s but I feel like there were still rock band from that time frame that everyone looked at and were like yeah they are “The Band” I think Springsteen wore that crown for a bit in the earlier part of the decade. I am just trying to putmy finger on some of the other GOATS That were recognized as such in real time.

I understand that art is much more subjective that athletic achievement since with athletes you have record books and championships but I feel like there is still levels of greatness that can be recognized as such by all within the moment they are occurring. That it what I am trying to put my finger on. If that makes any sense.
 
U2 are a band that have just never clicked with me but i absolutely understand the appeal. They have individual songs and singles that are incredible but none of my attempts at their albums have left me wowed. Every time I go back to them I do enjoy them a little more so maybe one day I’ll be a fan but that’s a slow process it seems lol
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
I think you’re being a bit insular regarding this and maybe I am being too broad. My comp would probably work better with sports figures to illustrate my point. Like Jordan in The NBA on the 90s or Gretzky with hockey in the 1980s or Pele and Soccer in the 1970s they were athletes that you knew in real time that they were the pinnacle of that era.

Like for rock music in the late 60s it was the Beatles and I feel like Led Zeppelin by the time of IV were the same way. I man not saying that zeppelin were equivalent to the Beatles just that they were the biggest most important band of the early/mid 70s. After Zeppelin, it get a little less monolithic mainly because of the explosion of other genres in the 1980s but I feel like there were still rock band from that time frame that everyone looked at and were like yeah they are “The Band” I think Springsteen wore that crown for a bit in the earlier part of the decade. I am just trying to putmy finger on some of the other GOATS That were recognized as such in real time.

I understand that art is much more subjective that athletic achievement since with athletes you have record books and championships but I feel like there is still levels of greatness that can be recognized as such by all within the moment they are occurring. That it what I am trying to put my finger on. If that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

I dunno pretty much all your references there, Beatles aside, are to things that were big in America, or that were big in America at that time despite their best years being well behind them…

It’s honestly not something that’s interested me. I can see that there were times when it may have happened in the past but I’d dispute that there was always such a thing and given that rock in no longer the dominant cultural force in music I don’t think it’s anything that relevant anymore. With the exception of U2 I don’t think it’s ever been anyone outside of the uk or the states and when it’s been someone from outside the states it’s been breaking the states that has been the measure.
 
Joe Mac said:
I dunno pretty much all your references there, Beatles aside, are to things that were big in America, or that were big in America at that time despite their best years being well behind them…

It’s honestly not something that’s interested me. I can see that there were times when it may have happened in the past but I’d dispute that there was always such a thing and given that rock in no longer the dominant cultural force in music I don’t think it’s anything that relevant anymore. With the exception of U2 I don’t think it’s ever been anyone outside of the uk or the states and when it’s been someone from outside the states it’s been breaking the states that has been the measure.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I find it interesting from a historical standpoint and understanding yesterday better to appreciate today and tomorrow but it’s fair if you don’t. I guess my question would more towards the others on here who enjoy looking at music from a historical context.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
Yeah. I find it interesting from a historical standpoint and understanding yesterday better to appreciate today and tomorrow but it’s fair if you don’t. I guess my question would more towards the others on here who enjoy looking at music from a historical context.
Click to expand...

Yeah I suppose music history to me is scenes and how they interplay with social movements and artists and who they influence and how they influence rather than that but yeah we’re all different I suppose.
 
Joe Mac said:
Yeah I suppose music history to me is scenes and how they interplay with social movements and artists and who they influence and how they influence rather than that but yeah we’re all different I suppose.
Click to expand...
I mean Rush, U2, and other bands dominate and sell out huge arena/stadiums all over the world. I think saying U2 from Fire to Pop were in fact the biggest band in the world is fair. The Beatles were the same way. There were huge and making headlines in Japan and other places.

Most of these bands TLK has been talking about are huge on charts outside of the European/American countries as well.

I imagine if we were (and are probably headed this way) where China/India are the dominant voices in both the economic/political realm, then we would see the same kind of crossover with their artists.

Being that bands can have that kind of stage means they are influencing things. U2 is for sure a big influence on Radiohead and Coldplay, for example. And not just musically, like @jamieanderson1968 pointed out their circumvention of the normal route to success meant that it wasn’t just the punks who could do that and be huge opening the door for the whole indie movement of the eighties that in turn allowed the Alternative movement of the 90s to fundamentally change the very nature of pop music allowing for Hip Hop to be the juggernaut it is today.

It is indeed part of the history.
 
Last edited:
Lee Newman said:
I mean Rush, U2, and other bands dominate and sell out huge arena/stadiums all over the world. I think saying U2 from Fire to Pop were in fact the biggest band in the world. The Beatles were the same way. There were huge and making headlines in Japan and other places.

Most of these bands TLK has been talking about also are huge on charts outside of the European/American countries as well.

I imagine if we were (and are probably headed this way) where China/India are the dominant voices in both the economic/political realm, then we will see the same kind of crossover with their artists.

Being that bands can have that kind of stage means they are influencing things. U2 is for sure a big influence on Radiohead and Coldplay, for example. And not just musically, like @jamieanderson1968 pointed out their circumvention of the normal route to success meant that it wasn’t just the punks who could do that and be huge opening the door for the whole indie movement of the eighties that in turn allowed the Alternative movement of the 90s to fundamentally change the very nature of pop music allowing for Hip Hop to be the juggernaut it is today.

It is indeed part of the history.
Click to expand...

You e said some mad things but U2 influencing Radiohead is right up there.
 
dbarila said:
I'm a No Line On the Horizon defender It's got it's weak moments but I like the sound they were going for. It may just not have been executed correctly and they definitely picked the wrong lead single. I'll actually go out on a limb and say that the 360 Tour might be the best tour they've ever done. The production was a great, they mixed up the set list, they dusted off some deep cuts.
Click to expand...

Joe Mac said:
I only saw them once and that was the Joshua Tree 30th anniversary and was a completely unplanned event. My cousin was over from Scotland for the gig and I took him and his mate on a pub crawl beforehand and half cut decided to buy a ticket on the street…

It was a fantastic gig but that album and Dublin and particularly it being in Croke Park and the size and history of that stadium absolutely all added into that!
Click to expand...

My one and only time seeing U2 was the first North American show of the War tour in Chapel Hill.

Outdoor show in an incredible downpour. Bono climbed the lighting rig just the same. Pretty scary, actually. The Edge and the dude crouched down at the monitors looked a little concerned...

U2 CH.jpg

Had tickets to see them once more in 1992. Something told me not to go so I sold my ticket. Our son was born that night. Three weeks early and totally unexpected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top