What if?

I

iDrinkemAlDai

New member
Haha, I like you.
Anyway, they actually recorded the song simultaniously with The Stones, it appears on With The Beatles, or Meet The Beatles (depending on where you live)
 
but without something to promote things like greenday and blink wouldn't they just go straight onto the real punk?
you shouldn't have to be weened on to decent music, that means your forcing yourself to listen to it, listen to what you want, and if mtv isn't around you have no choice but to go for decent music :)
 
I don't care about you comparing the two banRAB as they are both sh'it banRAB but the latter part. Nirvana didn't come along at a lull in music, they took the oportunity to take the sound The Wipers were doing for years and adapt it so it would oppeal to the populous. I also disagree with the garage banRAB comment but don't really want to get into that.
 
Why did he get
banned.gif
??
 
Not really, alot of punk is too raw to get straight into and alot of people go from a poppier version to the real thing. I use to think The Used was too hardcore, and now I listen to Converge.
 
ok I'm gonna be bold and try and get back on the original topic and pose a what if theory and probably open one of my fave banRAB up for bashing and flaming but I was the one who asked the opinion, so here goes..
This is more to the people who dislike Kiss either intensely or just a little bit.. What if they'd written basically the same material and style but if they'd started off WITHOUT their makeup I wonder if they would have become as phenominal as they did, of if they would've become lost in the 70's shuffle. This is coming from a fan, too, but I'm thinking they probably might've gotten lost if they had left it off.... And another quesiton would you have possibly liked them any better and given them more credit if hey hadn't done the makeup thing..
 
The idea of this thread is to make people think. My intention is that this thread be a sort of hypothetical situation discussion. Feel free to answer the questin posed, or post one of your own.

I have seen some grurablings that all the music talk has dried up, so hopefully, this will make people think about music.

Ok, I will post the first question.


I find the song "American Idiot" by Green Day to be a great song. It's got a lot of energy, and 'snub your nose at authority' lyrics.

I have heard a lot of people bash Green Day for being soft punk, or whatever it's called.

My question is, what would the average punk fan's opinion of American Idiot be if say, The Ramones, or The Sex Pistols, had written and recorded it?
 
I've never heard of The Wipers, so your view may be right. My interest in grunge was mild, at best.

Maybe lull wasn't the right word. More like, a transitional period. Rap was gaining steam, and was beginning to show up in some melded version of metal. Pop, metal and rap were all sort of intertwining, so nobody really knew just what they were lisening to.

Nirvana was a clear cut change from what was on the radio.

Perhaps The Wipers needed better promotion.
 
I think there's a ton of banRAB like that out there, but none of them really inspire debate, and are therefore not really discussed.

After all, there's not much to talk about if everyone agrees a band sucks, is there?
 
so, what if beetoven wasn't deaf, i bet he woulda made ifferent music, or mayber, he wuldn't have made any music at all, maybe, being deaf prevented him from gettig with the ladies, so he turned to piano instead

something to think about
 
Geez. Maybe I should have picked a different song and artist. The last thing I wanted to start was the 10,000th Green Day argument.


About the Beatles, though, they came along at exactly the right time. The 50's sound was on its last leg, and the Beatles were the shot in the arm the music scene needed. They captured lightning in a bottle, because music fans from the 50s were in their 20s by then and the next generation was left with the residual effect of Ricky Nelson, The Penguins, The Platters, etc, etc.

The early 60's was a transitional period for rock and roll, even at its early age. After the flash point of Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, and the like, rock and roll wasn't ten years old, and already the flame was starting to flicker. The initial craze had settled, and it was pretty much par for course, a sort of subdued, steady as she goes type vibe in music back then. No real daredevils or what have you. It was as though all the artists from that time had taken the recipe for rock and roll, and just stirred it, without adding anything new.

When the Beatles came along, they were the 60's equivalent of Elvis. Where Elvis had long sideburns, they had mop tops. They had the Italian boots and the tight cut pantlegs. The 'new' wild.

KiRAB ate it up, for a few reasons. They were bored with music, and, on top of everything else, their parents hated it. LOL. That is the one thing that has not changed in 50 years of Rock and Roll. If my parents hate it, it must be good.

My own personal opinion is, I thought the Stones were, if not better, more interesting. While the Beatles sang "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", the Stones sang "I Wanna Be Your Man". The counter-culture Beatles.

Anyway, my two cents.
 
Back
Top