Hello everyone,
Hope you all had a great labor day weekend! Most of us voters have been laboring over studying for finals, so lucky you, for having a summer. We are now down to four! It's hard to believe, but after all these months it's finally come true. Did some results surprise me? You bet they did! Did we make "bad" decisions? Maybe, depending on your point of view. But that's what I expected from Summer Psychosis when only drawing from a pool of five voters. It makes it a lot more interesting, that's for sure. At least we didn't pick Nine Inch Nails over The Beatles, right? Oh wait, one of us did...anyway, that's behind us. Behold, the final four!
Did you know we have a Facebook page? http://www.facebook.com/FrogsOnALog
"Everyone knows that these two bands are among the best of the best. It’s just comes down to taste when one has to choose. The harmonizers or the bad boys? But now I have to pick one, so I’ll share this. My favorite album of all time is "The White Album". Where the Stones are amazing, they just don’t hit as close to home as the Beatles. "Hey Jude", "I Am The Walrus", "A Day in the Life", "Abbey Road" medley…those are only some of the moments that still slay me. Hard to think of anything that’s better." - John
"If you couldn't tell by my vote on the blog’s poll (sorry John!), I love me some Beatles. I hinted at my vote last time too, if you read my write up on the Stones vs. Marvin Gaye (you should totally read that if you haven’t). I like this matchup, because I use it to explain my previously mentioned feelings of “selling out”, however loose and vague that term may be. You see, once The Beatles got famous, they did whatever they wanted, because they were The Motherfucking Beatles. They didn’t tour, they released one of the first concept albums, made songs with sitars, and made fun of The Beach Boys. The Rolling Stones, on the other hand, found a formula that worked, and have ridden that sound to the $943 trillion dollars their band is worth (that number may or may not be made up). Now, do they care about their music? Are they fantastic musicians, lyricists, and songwriters? Do they put on a great show? Yes, oh god yes, and are-you-kidding-me of course. But they just didn’t have that desire to deviate from their normal sound and drastically experiment like The Beatles did. And that’s why The Beatles are The Beatles, and the winner here." - Eric
The Battle Royale was a scrum for sure, but it looks like we have a winner! And with two all-time great artists going head to head, I wouldn't have it any other way. I will be celebrating the Beatles shortly, but first a bit about the Rolling Stones. While embracing experimentation (musical or otherwise) while keeping the core sound is the mark of a great band such as the Beatles, I think it can be just as impressive that a band can refine their sound to a tee until it becomes legendary in its own right. The Stones started out great, but it was naturally rooted in the British Invasion. But from "Beggars Banquet" to "Exile on Main Street"--1968-72--they tightened up, expanded in different ways and broke novel sonic ground. In essence, they became the Stones. And truthfully, they did their fair share of experimentation. Multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones added lots to mid-60s Stones, including the sitar on "Paint It, Black" and the marimba on "Under My Thumb". Oh, and did you know "Start Me Up" was originally written as a reggae song? Sorry for all the critiquing, but I had to get back at Eric for messing up my poll somehow...Abbey Road Medley!
The Doors 4, Beastie Boys 1
"The tough thing with both of these bands is that they are both so freaking unique. NOBODY sounds like The Doors or Beastie Boys, and that is for a reason. The Doors and the Boys both have a style that no one else can mimic. Beastie Boys sit there and dare you to tell them that their music is not good. It is a lot of shouting over simple music, yet it is sooo much more then that (for one, it is actually incredible). Meanwhile, The Doors have this mystique that makes them special, like Morrison is cursed by some native american priest. He is standing there on stage channeling spirits of the dead (or just whiskey). So I am going to have go with The Doors because in the words of Jim Morrison: "Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding, ghost crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind". Seriously...who the hell comes up with lines like that?" - Elliott
"For me this is another band I have to look at the musicianship. Obviously Morrison was probably the most important cog in the machine, but the musicians he surrounded himself with provided the environment for some of the best albums ever. Beastie Boys did what they do best, probably better then almost any other band in their genre, but sometimes it’s a matter of a big fish but in a much bigger pond." - Mark
While Beastie Boys weren't too shabby musicians themselves and even started as a punk band, The Doors clearly have won in that department. And not just that The Doors had great musicians individually, but that they worked together to back Morrison's beat poetry in astounding ways. One could also argue that Beastie Boys had great chemistry, just in a different way. Deciding on who's better just depends on one's definition of musicianship. Then again, The Doors are going to get more artist points for things such as the aforementioned lines in "Peace Frog" than a group who references White Castle on five separate songs from their first album.
David Bowie 3, Jimi Hendrix 2
"Catalogue strength…that’s it. Both these guys made great songs, great musicians, great performers, and great collaborators. However, Bowie’s albums just stack up when you compare them to the 3 amazing ones Hendrix put out before unfortunately, calling it a day." - Mark
"Damn, well this is one for the books. Jimi Hendrix and David Bowie. Damn. If you were to look at live performances you would have to give it to Jimi Hendrix. In fact, if you were to look at live performances you would have to give it to Jimi Hendrix no matter who he was up against. But I guess the love stops there. You could define this matchup in terms of careers, that Bowie had one of the longest most successful careers of all time, whereas Hendrix packed so much into such a short time. But if you look at this matchup like that, you have got to give it to Bowie. There is no evidence that Hendrix would have been able to maintain the career he had, evidenced by the fact that 1) he didn’t, and 2) that he recorded enough subpar material to make over fifteen albums after his death. What's more is that Hendrix is easy to understand; there is nothing particularly dynamic about his character or music. On the other hand, Bowie is and has been an enigma. There is so much uncertainty in all of his best songs, from the helplessly isolated Major Tom to the vague questions asked by "Life on Mars?". He was sexually ambiguous before sexual ambiguity was cool. Bowie has redefined himself time and again, making him in my eyes the better artist." - Steve
Hendrix does have the better live legacy here. Who can forget Woodstock or Monterey Pop? Not to say that Bowie was a slouch, but that is one thing Hendrix had going for him. I knew this matchup would be very close, and it shows how every voter was feeling the pressure. Steve even cursed twice! However, it came down to the numbers. Here's what I mean:
Hendrix Classic albums: "Are You Experienced?", "Axis: Bold as Love" and "Electric Ladyland"
Bowie Classic albums: "Hunky Dory", "The Rise & Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars", "Aladdin Sane", "Station to Station", "Low", "'Heroes'" and "Scary Monsters"
That's seven to three in favor of Bowie, and when it came to this matchup, discography won the day.
Bob Dylan 5, Nirvana 0
"Should Nirvana beat Dylan here? NOoOoOooO0Oo0o0o0O0! But seriously, Bob Dylan is among one of the chief powers in the singer song writer pantheon. He has changed the way people play, think about, and listen to music multiple times throughout his career and in no way deserves to be beaten here by Nirvana. While Cobain certainly had a noteworthy career, that note probably will end up as a footnote in a chapter about singers who aren’t as good as Bob Dylan in a book about Bob Dylan." - Steve
"This was the hardest of all of the matchups this week. Two completely separate genres and time periods, and yet we have to somehow compare them and decide who was more influential and talented than the other. I can’t even use my usual tie breaking method of whose sound I like better. I’m going to be sad no matter who wins this battle of greats. However, I have to go with Bob Dylan. It sucks to have to make a decision, especially for the worst reason I could think of – the fact that he’s influenced more people. The main problem with that argument is that he’s been around longer, so he’s had a much better chance of influencing people. But, I have to make a decision, and that’s the only thing that gives Bob Dylan an edge in this matchup, at least in my book. Sorry Dave Grohl, Kurt Cobain, and Bassist for Nirvana, you’ll be able to make it into the Final Four in the future." - Eric
Both Nirvana and Bob Dylan can be pretty enigmatic songwriters, but yea...that's about the only real similarity between these two disparate artists. If someone told me that there would be a sweep in the Elite Eight, I'd be shocked. Then again, it's no secret that this matchup was the most lopsided of this week. Nirvana was the "young upstart" of the Elite Eight, releasing their debut album "only" 23 years ago. On the other hand, Dylan has been going strong for 50 years and releases his 35th studio album in six days. Perhaps one day, decades down the road, Nirvana would win this matchup. But until then, Dylan shows he can win on influence alone. Nirvana will be second fiddle to an artist revered by his greatest peers (including you know who) and touted by some as the greatest influence on pop culture in the history of pop culture, period. Oh and one last thing for the record: The bassist for Nirvana is named Krist Novoselic!
So apparently, only half of the Elite Eight matchups in Summer Psychosis resulted in major disagreement. Who knew? Sure, the random placements within seeds carried inherent risk, but I was happy to take that chance. There were going to be incredibly tough matchups anyway, so I guess I just didn't want it to feel premeditated. Yet here we are with a sweep and a near sweep (trust me, it was close). This bracket will certainly surprise me until the very end. Of course, this means that there are slim pickings for the BMO this week with only five minority opinions total. So, who of the four other guys had the best...oh, there's not much to choose from...and my explanation of why I voted for Hendrix was pretty good. Anybody else? Please, anyone. Send it right now and I'll put it in. Ughhh...fine, I give.
"I was gonna save this for later on, but since it’s do or die I might as well say it now. Hendrix had a technicality and timbre all his own. It’s too awe-inspiring for anyone to duplicate entirely. That ability translates into incredible artistry, regardless of how long the person was around to show it. Sure, you’ve got to have the discography as well, but Hendrix has that, though not to the extent of Bowie. Still, though it surprises me to write this, discography isn’t everything (I’m really into that stuff). Bowie’s got the goods in so many ways, but to me Hendrix is an artist’s artist who remains largely unmatched."
I really strayed away from my roots here. Heck, my love of numbers and brackets is what got us into this mess, so how can I change now? I don't know. I just started talking about the timbre (meaning how it sounds) of Hendrix's guitar. Like I said, this bracket continues to surprise me.
Best Minority Opinion, Runner Up: Mark
"Look, I don’t really want to talk about it. There are aspects of both bands that I don’t really care for. What it came down to was the musicianship. I’ve just always admired and related to Keith Richards as a guitar player. George is certainly a phenomenal guitar player, and the rest of the four could certainly never be counted out, but what Richards did with the guitar…man. Songs like “Honky Tonk Woman,” and “Can’t You Hear Me Knocking,” those songs are pretty impressive to play let alone write. The Beatles are known as pioneers, and they certainly are, but there are certainly some aspects that the Stones brought to the table that I feel often get overlooked when talking it over…or I could just be wrong."
I've probably said this before, but sometimes the best way to decide a matchup is to draw on something personal. It's hard not to get personal with Keith Richards on the axe. A legendary figure in his own right, Richards defines the Stones' crafty songwriting as much their excesses. He was able to conjure unique sounds and riffs at will, developing an impressive and inspiring legacy. That's why Beatles vs. Stones is such a Battle Royale. When you remember the true depth of the Stones' musicianship, you need to start the debate all over again.
No comments:
Post a Comment