Tropical Island Music Artist Draft - FINIS
- Thread starter Bricklayer
- Start date
With the first overall pick in the musical artist draft, I select:
The Beatles
One of the most successful, influential, and copied rock bands in history; for every music pick after the 1960s you can ask yourself, "how did NoBonus's pick, the Beatles, influence my pick?" Great cataglog of albums. No question about this pick at all.
The Beatles
One of the most successful, influential, and copied rock bands in history; for every music pick after the 1960s you can ask yourself, "how did NoBonus's pick, the Beatles, influence my pick?" Great cataglog of albums. No question about this pick at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
I struggled a lot with this one, but in the end I had to pick:
The Velvet Underground
"the first Velvet Underground album only sold 10,000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band' - Brian Eno
The Velvet underground never made it big, yet their influence cannot be overstated. They were making music that sounded like no one else at the time, and as a result they helped give birth to a new genre of music. But this is pick is about more then history. I just love their sound. Lou Reed is such a great song writer, and the crazy combination of pop, low-fi, and punk just works for me.
The Velvet Underground
"the first Velvet Underground album only sold 10,000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band' - Brian Eno
The Velvet underground never made it big, yet their influence cannot be overstated. They were making music that sounded like no one else at the time, and as a result they helped give birth to a new genre of music. But this is pick is about more then history. I just love their sound. Lou Reed is such a great song writer, and the crazy combination of pop, low-fi, and punk just works for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Figured they'd go fast. For years they were my favorite band and I still love them. I don't mind that much not getting to draft them though because I listened to them so much when I was younger that I eventually kind of burned myself on them a little. I still love their 80s stuff but i hardly ever listen to it anymore just because i'm so overly familiar with it. And i can pretty much do without anything they did after The Black album.
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't think VU would get picked that fast, if at all. They really seem to have become exponentially more popular over the last decade or so. Far more than they ever were originally. A lot of that probably has to do with the internet. Personally, I think they're one of the most overrated over-mythologized bands in rock history. Lou Reed is just a dull artist to me. Never cared for his voice, guitar playing, or songwriting much. I do like VU & Nico a little though, mostly because of Nico. Her voice was the only interesting thing about the group to me. Lots of people love them though, so to each their own.
Last edited by a moderator:
Plenty of critics and hipster types get a bit carried away when it comes to the VU. Many even go as far as to claim they're the most important, influential, innovative, etc. band in rock history, which is of course silly hyperbole. A lot of it seems to come from folks taking statements like "everyone who bought their album formed a band" somewhat if not wholly literal.
You also see VU & Nico popping up near or at the top of a lot of greatest album lists ahead of much more popular and widely acclaimed albums. It’s the most blatant example of revisionist music history out there.
Please don’t take it personal, though. I’m really not trying to be a jerk. I fully respect the subjectivity of taste. My issue isn’t with you or anyone else who actually loves their music. My gripe is with the whole culture of myth and legend that surrounds the band.
You also see VU & Nico popping up near or at the top of a lot of greatest album lists ahead of much more popular and widely acclaimed albums. It’s the most blatant example of revisionist music history out there.
Please don’t take it personal, though. I’m really not trying to be a jerk. I fully respect the subjectivity of taste. My issue isn’t with you or anyone else who actually loves their music. My gripe is with the whole culture of myth and legend that surrounds the band.
Last edited:
No worries. You haven't said anything even the least bit offensive. Were doing a music draft here, any discussion along these lines is welcomed as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not using "critics or hipster types" to quantify the importance and influence of VU. Why do that when you can go straight to the source. The number of artists, especially those in the punk and new wave movement of the 70's and 80's, who claim VU as a major influence is pretty much overwhelming. I don't see whats revisionist about that. If a large number of artist state that you influenced them, then you are influential. And if many of those artist you influenced had a major impact on musical culture, then you are important via said influence. Going by this metric, VU is one of the most influential and important bands of the modern era.
The reason they had such a large influence while being such a small band is because of how impactful they were. Which is why the quote "the first Velvet Underground album only sold 10,000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band" is so damn perfect. They didn't sound like, look like, or write songs like most artists of the day. What a rock star was and what The Velvet Underground were was widely different. They were obtainable. So for kids or artist who couldn't or didn't want to be the next Rolling Stones, here was this out. This striped down rock pop thing that wasn't that, and at the same time upped the ante on what you could write a song about, while sounding pretty damn good. They expanded the idea of what a rock band could be, and a bunch of people walked through the door that they helped open.
I'm not using "critics or hipster types" to quantify the importance and influence of VU. Why do that when you can go straight to the source. The number of artists, especially those in the punk and new wave movement of the 70's and 80's, who claim VU as a major influence is pretty much overwhelming. I don't see whats revisionist about that. If a large number of artist state that you influenced them, then you are influential. And if many of those artist you influenced had a major impact on musical culture, then you are important via said influence. Going by this metric, VU is one of the most influential and important bands of the modern era.
The reason they had such a large influence while being such a small band is because of how impactful they were. Which is why the quote "the first Velvet Underground album only sold 10,000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band" is so damn perfect. They didn't sound like, look like, or write songs like most artists of the day. What a rock star was and what The Velvet Underground were was widely different. They were obtainable. So for kids or artist who couldn't or didn't want to be the next Rolling Stones, here was this out. This striped down rock pop thing that wasn't that, and at the same time upped the ante on what you could write a song about, while sounding pretty damn good. They expanded the idea of what a rock band could be, and a bunch of people walked through the door that they helped open.
That's the thing though, there are plenty of other artists who are name dropped as influences just as often as the VU but who don't have nearly the culture of mythology around them. I won't name them now because I get the idea that we're not supposed to be talking about artists that haven't been drafted yet. I'm sure you're aware of who some of them are though.
I also don’t agree that what they were doing was all that unique or innovative musically. Songs like Sunday Morning, Run Run Run, Venus in Furs, etc. used fairly pedestrian chord progressions that weren’t too far removed from the styles that were popular at the time.
I’ll admit that their noisy, lo-fi approach was somewhat unique at the time and that it’s certainly been influential, even decades later. I’m in the camp that thinks their influence in that regard inspired more bad music than good, though. The movement, if you want to call it that which they started would later morph into the punk movement and part of the punk ethos has always seemed to be putting a greater emphasis on things like attitude, lyrics, rough production, etc. than on creating things that are complex or compelling on a purely musical level. That's why I'm not much of a punk fan overall.
I should also add that overall, influence counts for very little to me. I certainly acknowledge when a band is influential, and the VU were, but I don’t think that anything like an influential music = good music correlation exists. I also don’t see influence as being transitive. In other words if band A influenced band B and band B influenced band C, I don’t think that amounts to band C being influenced by band A, though many folks approach it that way and I can see the reasoning there.
I also don’t agree that what they were doing was all that unique or innovative musically. Songs like Sunday Morning, Run Run Run, Venus in Furs, etc. used fairly pedestrian chord progressions that weren’t too far removed from the styles that were popular at the time.
I’ll admit that their noisy, lo-fi approach was somewhat unique at the time and that it’s certainly been influential, even decades later. I’m in the camp that thinks their influence in that regard inspired more bad music than good, though. The movement, if you want to call it that which they started would later morph into the punk movement and part of the punk ethos has always seemed to be putting a greater emphasis on things like attitude, lyrics, rough production, etc. than on creating things that are complex or compelling on a purely musical level. That's why I'm not much of a punk fan overall.
I should also add that overall, influence counts for very little to me. I certainly acknowledge when a band is influential, and the VU were, but I don’t think that anything like an influential music = good music correlation exists. I also don’t see influence as being transitive. In other words if band A influenced band B and band B influenced band C, I don’t think that amounts to band C being influenced by band A, though many folks approach it that way and I can see the reasoning there.
You're right some of the cord progressions and structure of those songs isn't widely different. They did do some interesting stuff musically with the lo-fi minimalist nature of their songs, which you mentioned. As far as song writing goes, Lou Reed was writing about subjects no one else was touching, or at least not in the unapologetic nature he was. Not only was he writing songs about taboo subjects, but he was doing it without any kind of sarcasm or mysticism. Drugs, sex and sexuality, insecurity was all on the table and in a very interesting way. VU had a unique voice.
The whole influence doesn't equal good thing is a bit tricky. To the individual no, and because that's what this list is about I suppose your right in this context. If we were trying to make an objective list of the greatest bands in history influence would be have to be a criteria though. As for influence not being transitive... thats tough. I can see both sides of that one although I line up more with you.
Just to be clear I didn't pick VU because of their influence, this is my personal list after all, I just felt the need to defend them on that account.
The whole influence doesn't equal good thing is a bit tricky. To the individual no, and because that's what this list is about I suppose your right in this context. If we were trying to make an objective list of the greatest bands in history influence would be have to be a criteria though. As for influence not being transitive... thats tough. I can see both sides of that one although I line up more with you.
Just to be clear I didn't pick VU because of their influence, this is my personal list after all, I just felt the need to defend them on that account.
That’s all true, but it all has to do with lyrics, not music. That goes back the punk thing I was referring to with the greater emphasis on lyrics.
I’m not saying lyrics aren’t important but when evaluating a band, music comes first for me. I’m aware that many critics and music fans put a greater or equal importance on lyrics, though.
The semantic content of lyrics is a different thing than musical properties like timbre, melody, rhythm, counter point, etc. I think too often when assessing a band folks pay too much attention to the former and not enough to the latter.
I think great bands tend to be influential, so often it goes hand in hand. But there are also cases where some pretty crappy music becomes very influential. Although, usually the crappy stuff doesn’t have any type of long lasting influence.
Yeah I got that. I was just bring it up because being a musician myself, I love talking about music.
I’m not saying lyrics aren’t important but when evaluating a band, music comes first for me. I’m aware that many critics and music fans put a greater or equal importance on lyrics, though.
The semantic content of lyrics is a different thing than musical properties like timbre, melody, rhythm, counter point, etc. I think too often when assessing a band folks pay too much attention to the former and not enough to the latter.
I think great bands tend to be influential, so often it goes hand in hand. But there are also cases where some pretty crappy music becomes very influential. Although, usually the crappy stuff doesn’t have any type of long lasting influence.
Yeah I got that. I was just bring it up because being a musician myself, I love talking about music.
Last edited:
I think you pretty much nailed it here. Lyrics are equal, and if the lyricist is good enough, even more important then the music a lot of the time for me. Not that the music is unimportant, it just needs to compliment the lyrics for me to be satisfied in many cases.
Now that I know where your coming from I'm interested to see how your list comes together.
Now that I know where your coming from I'm interested to see how your list comes together.
Last edited:
Surprised and not surprised to see Metallica go so fast. I'm in the camp that thinks everything after Justics sucks. Sucks words I can't type here.
BUUUUUT... even if you're in that camp, they had 4 full albums and two EPs that were amazing. Which puts them ahead of many, many others.
I just don't understand where it all went wrong, they seemed like some of the coolest guys in the world in the 80s and then turned into a bunch of nouveau rich pretentious a-holes... and then they started suing their fans. Uggh.
BUUUUUT... even if you're in that camp, they had 4 full albums and two EPs that were amazing. Which puts them ahead of many, many others.
I just don't understand where it all went wrong, they seemed like some of the coolest guys in the world in the 80s and then turned into a bunch of nouveau rich pretentious a-holes... and then they started suing their fans. Uggh.
As a singer I feel much the same way. I dabbled around in guitar so that is probably second for me. My musical tastes are no secret and yet I may have already said too much 
Velvets though, I just never got. And after finally getting around to reading Please Kill Me earlier this year I think I like Lou Reed (and Patti Smith for that matter) a whole lot less.
Velvets though, I just never got. And after finally getting around to reading Please Kill Me earlier this year I think I like Lou Reed (and Patti Smith for that matter) a whole lot less.
Master of Puppets is arguably the best metal album out there. I would consider another (but I won't mention it quite yet, as it involves a band that hasn't been picked - and probably won't be. Who knows?)
Ride the Lightning is solid, And Justice For All...outer-worldly. Kill 'Em All has some good moments as well.
I liked the Black album when it came out, but it's declined in my favor with each listen. It sounds, for lack of a better description, like they were trying for airplay.
After that, it seems like they were in a rut, or maybe had lost some creative juices. They definitely took a step backwards into more rock over metal with the Black album, which is why I think I don't like it as much. Load/ReLoad have some nice ditties, but they're not what a band like Metallica should put out.
St. Anger? I'm in anger with whomever thought it would be a good idea to make the album with Lars banging on trash cans and devoid of what Kirk truly brings to the band. Utter waste. I think Death Magnetic was a pull in the right direction, but there are so many young hungry bands out there showing what it means to be tight musically that it's hard to get back into Metallica. Also, I am of the firm belief (and you'll never convince me otherwise) that Lars as a drummer has held the band back from even greater heights.
Overall, I think it's a great #1 pick.
Ride the Lightning is solid, And Justice For All...outer-worldly. Kill 'Em All has some good moments as well.
I liked the Black album when it came out, but it's declined in my favor with each listen. It sounds, for lack of a better description, like they were trying for airplay.
After that, it seems like they were in a rut, or maybe had lost some creative juices. They definitely took a step backwards into more rock over metal with the Black album, which is why I think I don't like it as much. Load/ReLoad have some nice ditties, but they're not what a band like Metallica should put out.
St. Anger? I'm in anger with whomever thought it would be a good idea to make the album with Lars banging on trash cans and devoid of what Kirk truly brings to the band. Utter waste. I think Death Magnetic was a pull in the right direction, but there are so many young hungry bands out there showing what it means to be tight musically that it's hard to get back into Metallica. Also, I am of the firm belief (and you'll never convince me otherwise) that Lars as a drummer has held the band back from even greater heights.
Overall, I think it's a great #1 pick.
In regards to Lars as a drummer. I've wavered on that point over the years. There's no doubt that there's way more skilled drummers out there, I bet Lars himself would be the first to admit that. I'm not sure a world class drummer would have necessarily made Metallica better though. What Lars lacked in technical chops he made up for in energy and creativity. He played a lot of beats that were fairly unusual and even more importantly, he just always seemed to have an almost psychic connection with James.
I slightly favor Justice to Puppets. I think the song writing is better even though Puppets has the fuller sound (which of course was the first chink in the armor - the whole pettiness over Cliff's replacement and the complete disrespect they showed to Newsted over an entire decade and a half). I too "liked" the Black album initially but have grown to hate it over the years. I put liked in quotes because on first listen I was immensely disappointed but convinced they could do no wrong and so I kept listening over and over and over. That tour was the beginning of the end for me though, they played two dates at Arco with assigned seating, no opening act and identical setlists save for Breadfan one night and So What on the other.
I agree on Lars. He couldn't play his best stuff live so eventually they just stopped even recording it. I think in the mid-part of the last decade they started doing Dyers Eve and it was just awful.
I agree on Lars. He couldn't play his best stuff live so eventually they just stopped even recording it. I think in the mid-part of the last decade they started doing Dyers Eve and it was just awful.