2005 – The Year In Music Videos (April)

by alphamonkey on December 30, 2005 · 23 comments

in Audio Visual,Music Videos,Uncategorized

April brought us the spooky beauty of Carpark North’s Human, as well as a double shot of Beatlemania courtesy of William Shatner and the Fab Four themselves.

  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr
  • fantastic duck

    I can honestly say that I hate the beatles. They were a bunch of fucking hippies and their music is a foolish, naive, and idiotic as the movement itself. Sure they have very catchy and good MUSIC, but their lyrics are terrible. “No one ever done me, till she done me”, yeah that’s deep man, hey don’t smoke all the weed, I need to finish writing this song man! And the next day we have Yesterday being written, becuase he’s actually only half the man he is when he’s high, that great, trully a human being to look up to. Really, i think they are no better than the 50 cents of the 60’s.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    Did a hippy steal your girlfriend or something?

    Look, I adore the Beatles, but I still get sick of the constant slathering adoration, mostly because it’s so devoid of context. Younger generations dont’ see the impact The Beatles had on popular music, they just experience the songs themselves which, to be fair, can sound less than brilliant when you’ve been listening to everything that’s been recorded since. But the fact remains they were phenomenal songwriters and arrangers, and they very much changed the face of popular music for the better.

  • fantastic duck

    I am not at all arguing their impact on popular music, that would be retarded, considering it’s quite obvious how prolific their influence is.

    And fine, I do take the issue out of context when quoting lyrics and using them literaly, because when one refers to the Beatles, it is a reference more to the popular ideas of the time, rather than the specific band per se.

    And that I guess is why I am venting my anger on the Beatles, because they represent the popular mentality of the era, which I find disgusting and ignorant, because I do not think apathy is every the “right” thing, which hippies seem to embrace as dogma.

    And like I said, they did produce good MUSIC, hell my parents, who were born and raised in the Soviet Union, listened to that shit, albeit whithout knowing what was being said (they were in for a surprise when they learned english here).

    The most certainly changed the face of popular music, but for the better? I disagree, as I said, I see them no better than the popular music of today.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    It is well documented that the greatest influence for the better in music was The Scorpions, with there ability to rock everyone, literally and figuratively, “like a hurricane”. This level of rock had never been acheived before, and most likely never will be again.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    You’re ignoring years of conclusive research into the collective power of ‘Cum On Feel The Noize’ and ‘Kick Out The Jams’, but that’s what I’d expect from a commie sympathizer.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    You mean “Carnie sympathizer”, and if my love for fat women is going to come under question, I’m not sure I need to be here anymore. Also, Quiet Riot sucks. I can handle the MC-5, but if you really think “Kick Out The Jams” had the same sociological impact as “Rock You Like A Hurricane”, you’re eaten one too many delicious Hostess fruit pies, Mr. McCarthy.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    Sure, you don’t hear Kick out the Jams at Air Shows swap meets, or Memorial Day fireworks shows, but that’s because mankind’s sissy ears can’t take the sheer level of awesomeness required for maximum effect.

    And I t’weren’t talking about no iced tea swilling Quiet Riot, I was talking about Slade, whom you obviously need a refresher course in.

    Sociological impact schmimpact. ‘Cradle of Love’ had sociological impact, and I’m pretty sure we’d all like to forget that.

  • http://www.allamericanplayboys.com noochienoochie

    Not to mention live, you didn’t just hear ‘Kick out the Jams’. You heard ‘Kick out the Jams, Motherf*@ker!’. And really, let’s face it, the words Motherf*@ker or Motherf*@kin’ can fit into ANY line of lyrics you throw at ‘em.

    W/o the Beatles, Britney Spears would be singing to a 1-4-5 chord progression.

  • fantastic duck

    that is a terrible example, like what she’s doing now is much better.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    That reminds me of Peter Griffin admitting he doesn’t like The Godfather.

    “I like the Money Pit. That’s all I have to say about that.”

  • http://www.allamericanplayboys.com noochienoochie

    Good point. Actually I’d rather hear her sing to that instead of what she does. But my point was, the Beatles helped more than anyone, to spearhead the whole idea, the value, of creating different and interestingly new compositions. Before them, rnr was basically all the same song w/ different lyrics and/or attitudes. Pop music since owes them big time.

  • fantastic duck

    I guess. I don’t deny that they had talent, its where they directed it that vexes me.

  • fantastic duck

    You know what, i still disagree, saying that pop music would not have advanced were it not for the Beatles is an exageration. Pop music sucked before them because it was just being born, kids just began having access to cheap instruments like guitars. With the advent of the radio, and especially the television, music and specific bands were actually becoming popular on the scale we are familiar with today. Shit, i’m leaving on a camping trip in 10 minutes so this rebuttle sucks, i’m back on tuesday, to be continued.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    For all intents and purposes, Rock and pop were nearly wholly dead when the Beatles hit the scene.  Jerry Lee Lewis had returned to county, Little Richard had quit playing rock music, Elvis was in the Army, and Buddy Holly was dead.  What was being produced in America was either surf rock (Jan and Dean, The Beach Boys), or Brill Building pop.

    The Beatles were unique in that they were undeniably the best songwriter/musicians out there, but also the most popular.  That’s exceedingly rare, but they’re real influence was in how they expanded the landscape of rock music to incorporate wildly disparate elements in ways that no one had thought to before.  Likewise, they’re prowess inspired others to match them (The Rolling Stones first real hit in the UK was a Beatles cover), and eventually break off into their own directions.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    Oops, hit enter a little too fast.  Think about it this way, The Beatles’ work changed the path of all the work that came after it.  Sure other bands have done it (U2’s Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby both drastically changed the landscape of what came after, etc. etc.), but it’s hard to pinpoint a single band with so large an influence.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    what he said. plus Radiohead. (mwahaha)

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    Actually, without Achtung Baby we wouldn’t have Radiohead (at least, not as the influencers they are now).

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    I remember fondly the days when U2 songs had meaning, before they decided that counting incorrectly in Spanish was cool. What ever happened to them, I wonder?

  • http://www.allamericanplayboys.com noochienoochie

    I’m pretty sure that was correct italian, not spanish. But yeah, they totally teh suck in any language these days. I would almost rather listen to Creed, or even “Friends Forever” by the cast of Saved by the Bell, set on repeat no less, instead of the self-deprecating crap that U2 thinks is sooo cutting edge.

  • fantastic duck

    Your missing my point again. I already mentioned three times that I don’t deny their skills, talent, importance, whatever. As this a comments section I am commenting on the Beatles and stating my attitude towards, them. I don’t care how important they were, the fact is that their music and their mentality does not appeal to me. As well, I think it is important to note that pop and rock are not the only musical styles around, so the Beatles’ influence, though quite significant, is not ubiquitous; especially lately, when so many “underground” movements are becoming more and more recognized, things like hardcore electronica, post-rock, even turntablism. So it is not surprising that the modern generation takes Beatles songs out of context. In fact there are not many artists making “rock” music anymore, and the ones that do tend to suck more often than not. Thus I think the importance of the Beatles is fading, are there Beatles influences in the works of Massive Attack? Squarepusher? As a matter of fact, Radiohead (who I am very fond of) stated that Aphex Twin was a major reason for changing musical direction, and Aphex twin is most definitely not at all influenced by the Beatles. Look, I obviously don’t have the fraction of knowledge about 20th century music that you do, but what I do know is: the Beatles were very important, still are pretty important to some genres, are not important to most types of music I like, and most importantly, I know that I don’t like them.

  • fantastic duck

    forgive the many spelling mistakes

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    Oh, I don’t discount your personal taste in the matter.  We like what we like, and that’s about as far as that can go.  I was addressing your point that the landscape of music would be the same had the Beatles not exerted such a massive influence.  To address your point, yes, I do think that in some ways Aphex Twin and Massive Attack are in ways influenced by The Beatles, if only because it’s pretty inescapable to not be influenced by what they did.  Just like with any artform, music is built upon the works of previous generations and are thusly influenced by them, even if that’s not readily apparent from the surface.

  • fantastic duck

    You really think so? No doubt later works are based their predecessors, absolutly, no question. But to say that Richard James or Tom Jenkinson (squarepusher) draw upon the works and advances of the Beatles? I just can’t see that. Even Massive Attack, their music differs from greatly from the more traditional methods of a “band” even in such basic things as composition. Where the more traditional musician composes music based on scales, theory, etcetera (i am not an expert), the pioneers of electronica, the real hardcore stuff( not the dumb elevator trance that any kid can put together from software “toolboxes” and all sounds the same) are pioneers and innovators specifically because they devise new ways of making music; their “music” is contained more in the actual production than the composition, so much so that their composition is in fact largley production. Alec empire, air liquide, oval, all these guys are interested in actually MAKING sounds and putting them together not so much through practice, as one would on an instrument, but through… i’m not even quite sure how to express this… through almost engineering these sounds together into an elegant system which becomes the track.

    Their work is very mathematical, technical, and yet still and as a result artistic in a different sense. It is fundamentally different from the works of the Beatles.

    Perhaps the influence is indirect, the artists may not have actually drawn on the Beatles specifically but on other artists who in turn drew upon the Beatles? I guess it’s possible, but is that significant? I don’t know, this is really the first time I have considered this specific aspect of music, the connection on some level of such opposite genres, and persons. If the beatles had not existed, would we have the genres of music and the artists we have today? Probably not the rock and pop artists, and in that respect the Beatles were giants. But Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream, hell even Philip Glass, to say that they would not have become who they did if they never heard a Beatles song? It just doesn’t sit well with me. I think the influences that made these artist who they were were other than, and of much greater gravity (if at all) than the Beatles.

Previous post:

Next post: