The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Most unique albums of all time Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 11th September 2011
  #31
Lives for gear
 
hasbeen's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMauce View Post
Nooo ofcourse not is not only what they did. Yes they were great musicians and yes they where "groundbreaking" for alot of moments. But you know well that there m usic don't have a "unique" sound. YES they created the mainstream pop sound. But it ain't psychodelico lunatique sounding stuff.
I would have to argue that the Beatles were indeed themselves psychedelic.

And beyond that, pioneers in the meaning of psychedelic production technique and, verily I say to you, the first band to use the studio as an instrument.
Old 11th September 2011
  #32
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yfoiler View Post
Anyway, perhaps subjective and to each his/her own, but the M&P's were the ones in awe of the Beatles and the direction they were taking it. Funny, they wanted to know how the Beatles always sang so "in tune" all the time! That used to crack me up, because like it or not the M&P's had some serious pitch problems, and more than once in a while too. In fact, California Dreamin' comes to mind, but they kept it in. Jay Lasker was screaming $$$$! tutt
I didn't quote your whole post only because it was long but thanks for sharing! I checked out your group too, good stuff!

-Danny
Old 11th September 2011
  #33
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by hasbeen View Post
I would have to argue that the Beatles were indeed themselves psychedelic.

And beyond that, pioneers in the meaning of psychedelic production technique and, verily I say to you, the first band to use the studio as an instrument.
Strange thing for a guy with Phil Specter as his avatar to say.
Old 11th September 2011
  #34
Lives for gear
 
FossilTooth's Avatar
 

I'll add almost anything by Sonic Youth, Bjork, or Tom Waits.

Same goes for Wire, and for Wipers. Even Harry Nihlsson. Later Blonde Redhead records. Boards of Canada, Mouse On Mars. The first Wu-Tang album. Run DMC, Tribe Called Quest, De La Soul. Pixies. Joy Division, New Order. Almost anything by James Brown, particularly Sex Machine. Any of Beck's first several albums. Robert Fripp's League of Gentlemen. Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Bobby McFerrin, Vince Guaraldi.

In some cases, it's hard to name albums because these artists put out careers worth of work that was inimitable.

I can't really think of the point of listening to an artist that's not unique, or listening to the least unique albums from an artist that is.
Old 11th September 2011
  #35
The Byrds: "Sweetheart of The Rodeo" There would have been no Eagles or any other country rock stuff without that. Sounded like nothing else in country or rock at that time.
Old 11th September 2011
  #36
Gear Maniac
 

Enigma's first 4 albums.
Old 11th September 2011
  #37
181483
Guest
Ween - 12 Golden Country Greats
Radiohead - Kid A
Naked City - Torture Garden
Shudder To Think - Pony Express Record
Tori Amos - From The Choir Girl Hotel
Tool - Ænima
Minutemen - Double Nickles On The Dime
Peter Gabriel - So
Hüsker Dü - Zen Arcade
Leo Kottke - 6 & 12 String Guitars
Beck - Mutations
XTC - Skylarking
Emenem - The Slim Shady LP
Fiona Apple - When The Pawn...

oh jeez i can't stop!
Old 11th September 2011
  #38
Lives for gear
 
hasbeen's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRobb View Post
Strange thing for a guy with Phil Specter as his avatar to say.

Agreed, but I did say "BAND" and not producer. Cheers!
Old 11th September 2011
  #39
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Hayat View Post
Led Zeppelin (1969) - that was unique.
No, it wasn't. And at the danger of being pedantic, it was released in '68.

I'm a HUGE Zep fan but as far as 'innovation' or 'being there first' is concerned, they are the wrong example:

- The first Jeff Back album 'Truth' came out at practically the same time shared a lot of things with 'Zep I', they both did versions of 'You shook me' for example. I love both albums but given the fact that they share so many stylistic traits and in many ways were an extension of the Yardbirds sound, it would be a stretch to call either album 'unique'.

- The Yardbirds were a truly innovative band and I would go so far as to say that they created both heavy and psychedelic rock. This is especially true of the time that Jeff Beck was in the band and of course he was followed by Jimmy Page who also did great and innovative things then (despite some very questionable song choices by the producers).

- Page first did 'Dazed and confused' with the Yardbirds and in many ways this was a test run for Zeppelin, especially since he found the musicians then that really could deliver the stuff whereas the Yardbirds were very limited especially in the drum and vocal department.

There's no doubt that 'Zep I' was a much heavier sounding album that 'Truth' and it led to even greater things whereas the original version of the Jeff Beck Group soon imploded but again, Jimmy Page especially was a master at blending and maximizing influences and ideas therefore 'unique' doesn't seem appropriate.


If you want to hear something truly unique, then listen to this. It was recorded by Terry Manning and became an important influence on Big Star.

Amazon.com: Christopher Idylls: Gimmer Nicholson: Music
Old 11th September 2011
  #40
Lives for gear
 
John Suitcase's Avatar
 

I was watching TV last night, and a commercial came on for some 3 CD set of 'Rock' hits. As they went through the songs, I was amazed at how every track sounded, basically, the same. Same basic rock guitar tones, same drum tones, even the vocals were treated in very similar ways. Now, of course, the commercial was being compressed, but it was amazing how similar these artists all sounded. I compare that to music from the 80's, even the 90's (and before, of course) when there were radical differences in tone from artist to artist. I love to see more chances taken by artists and engineers, but the business is kind of in 'factory mode' in a way, everyone wants to sound like what's successful today.

That may have been the case in years previous, but it isn't as obvious as it is today.

As far as records that were unique to me, hearing the early PJ Harvey stuff was ear-opening, as was a lot of the Steve Albini recorded stuff in the 80's and 90's.

Jimi Hendrix was probably the artist that sounded unlike anything else, moreso than anyone else in my youth. When a Hendrix track came on the radio, it just sounded completely different from the other songs (this was in the 70's FM radio-era.)

I like Konono No1's 'Congotronics'. That's pretty unique!
Old 11th September 2011
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Vocalvoodoo's Avatar
 

Aphrodites Child - 666
Old 11th September 2011
  #42
Lives for gear
 
timtoonz's Avatar
Enough of the Beatles debate... get yer own thread.

My 'top of head' list from what's in my collection:

Beatles 'White Album' - from Honey Pie, I Will and Rev. #9 to Helter Skelter... pretty out there for its time, and pushing boundaries in several different directions at once.

Kate Bush - 'The Dreaming' all her albums are unique sounding, but this one sticks out to me

Zappa - Only In it For the Money, Joe's Garage...

John Martyn - One World

Bonzo Dog Band - Keynsham, Gorilla

Godley & Creme - Consequences, L

Bjork - Vespertine

Beastie Boys - Paul's Boutique (the Dust Brothers brought a very different perspective to hip-hop with this record)

Talking Heads - Remain in Light

Devo - Are We Not Men

Joni Mitchell - Mingus, Don Juan's Reckless Daughter

Tom Waits - Bone Machine, Rain Dogs...

The Turtles - Battle of the Bands

XTC - English Settlement

Ry Cooder and Manual Galban

Genesis - Foxtrot

?? and a bunch of others I'll do doubt remember the second I get back to work and stop wasting time on GSlutz!
Old 11th September 2011
  #43
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
John McLaughlin would prolly disagree, blow by blow was beck's take on Mahavishnu for sure

but not as much as a rip off as wired which he even hired the Mahavishnu drummer and kyb player write all the stuff. Which makes it sound like a Mahavishnu Orchestra record through and through
I don't agree at all.

Of course, Jeff Beck was heavily into Mahavishnu by that time but it came out very differently and certainly neither album was a rip-off! His takes on 'She's a woman' and 'Cause we've ended as lovers' are certainly very unique even when he tributed both author Stevie Wonder and the sound of Roy Buchanan on the latter.

And it's interesting to note that Ken Scott engineered what IMO is the greatest Mahavishnu record - 'Birds of Fire'. Well, the same Ken Scott did the Jeff Beck Group's 'Truth' a few years earlier so if seems that Mc Laughlin was probably specifically looking for an engineer/producer that could capture that kind of power.

And Mc Laughlin's guitar sound certainly went much more into a Hendrix/Beck 'violin' direction by that time than in his earlier work.

IMO, the Dixie Dregs 'What If' was a much closer take on the Mahavishnu sound, again with Ken Scott at the helm. As good as it is, I do prefer the first two Mahavishnu records, 'Inner Mounting Flame' was great but I think that Ken Scott had a lot to do with making 'Birds of Fire' the masterpiece it is.

The Beatles seem to be the common thread though: What with George Martin producing 'Blow by blow' and 'Wired', Geoff Emerick engineering the latter and Ken Scott working with both Mahavishnu and Beck?

o.k, I'm getting carried away here but one last thought: Could it be that I always loved the early Mahavishnu stuff so much because there was a 'pop' production approach beneath all that strange,beautiful sonic assault?

I recently was listening to Shakti's 'Natural Elements' and the production is stunning. Even though this is as far away from 'pop' as you could possibly get, there are productions techniques (panning, sonic treatments, etc) that clearly come from a pop/rock perspective and not a 'jazz' mentality.
Old 11th September 2011
  #44
Gear Nut
 
netomtz88's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Buckley View Post
If you don`t get Metallica, I don`t know what to tell you. Most likely you are 50+ years of age and still listen to the Beatles religiously, thinking that nothing else will ever compare to them.

I am 38 and do not have the same associations with the Beatles. I appreciate what they did for popular music and the "artsiness" they brought to music but I also see the silliness in their music at times. I often get into debates about this with Beatles lovers but the truth is, many bands have come along since and revolutionized music in ways that the beatles did not. Metallica is one of those bands.
I appreciate both bands for being different but The Beatles are The Beatles dude you wish you had the women they had, the money, the drugs, the things they got and never asked for! So yeah, do the math.

As for damn albums I think sound unique are:

Kid A: it's funny cause a lot of bands try to sound like Radiohead.

High Violet from The National just because the album sounds so fat, so vintage, and the songs are not songs, they are paints.

Exciter from Depeche Mode, now why? Because it's so different from what they've done, nobody has done anything like that and even if they try to emulate the sound of Exciter it'll just be impossible, there's a new sound every 5 seconds, they really took their tine to program everything and make it sound as one whole album.

Those are 3 examples of unique albums but I'm really sure that there are many many more that we will just never listen to.
Old 11th September 2011
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Jeff Hayat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker View Post
And at the danger of being pedantic, it was released in '68.
Nope - '69. It was recorded in '68, but released in January of '69.

Cheers.
Old 11th September 2011
  #46
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Hayat View Post
Nope - '69. It was recorded in '68, but released in January of '69.

Cheers.
I stand corrected!
Old 11th September 2011
  #47
Here for the gear
 

some albums I've thought were very unique and left an impression on me:

nine inch nails -- the fragile
mr. bungle - california
florence and the machine - lungs
david bowie - low
health - get color
kanye west - my beautiful dark twisted fantasy
the tea party - the edges of twilight
Old 11th September 2011
  #48
Lives for gear
 
MarcB's Avatar
Jarre - Zoolook : So that's what you can do with a sampler!
Jeff Wayne - War of the worlds : Ultimate story album
King Crimson - court of crimson king : First time I was blown away the mood of a record
Mike Oldfield - Tubular Bells : First album I liked which didn't have sing-a-long bits
Portishead - Dummy : I discovered sub bass
Man Machine - Step into Time : Denkimi Shakuhachi - amazing
Tony McPhee - 2 sides of : First time I heard something musical with a drum machine
Old 11th September 2011
  #49
Lives for gear
Love - Forever Changes
Old 11th September 2011
  #50
Kraftwerk - autobahn?
Rage Against the Machine - Rage Against the Machine?
D'Angelo - Voodoo?
Miles Davis - Kind of Blue and Bitches Brew?
Old 11th September 2011
  #51
Lives for gear
 
depulse's Avatar
Prince - Sign O the times

Pet Shop Boys - Please

Depeche Mode - Black Celebration

Frankie Goes to Hollywood - Welcome to the Pleasuredome
Old 11th September 2011
  #52
Here for the gear
 

Vincent Gallo's "When" is a definite contender. I haven't heard anything like it, and it sounds amazing. Recorded entirely on very old vintage equipment.

If anyone has heard other records like it then please let me know, as I'd like to hear them!
Old 12th September 2011
  #53
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yfoiler View Post
Your attempts at cynicism aside, I would have to agree with you. Metallica, Pantera, Sabbath really cannot say they owe much to the Beatles musically. If you analyze there compositions from a harmonic standpoint, they are nothing but quite primitive and musically lacking in sophisticated harmonic content. How many power chords and pentatonic scales can one really put up with before the tears of boredom stream... It is what it is. But more to the point of this thread, where is their uniqueness? I mean seriously, rushing pentatonic scales for days backed up by bar chords with no third bores one to tears. Some of this nonsense is admittedly assembled with flair and contrived towards excitement, and It appears that to the young and musically uneducated it might indeed be exciting. Perhaps this is why their crowds are full of middle school pubescent males, I don't know, but... if you had mentioned Hendrix I might have agreed with you for that particular genre...for HE was completely unique, groundbreaking, and to this day still is. So while the groups you mention surely have their followers that would disagree with me, I fail to see anything they did as worldly ground breaking, or even unique musically for that mater. I'll give you Elvis as being unique, but he never grew beyond his "fluff". In fact when his career died, my ex-boss of 13 years had to write songs for him to get another hit. And luckily Elvis made a comeback with them. (Thanks Mac! In the Ghetto, Don't Cry Daddy, Memories...fluff? your call)

As far as the Mamas & Papas being world class unique? Surely you jest. I have some personal observations on this one. I was there. Google "The Lamp of Childhood". Yeah, we hung out with them. Our lead singer, James Hendricks was married to Mama Cass, and he, Denny and John were totally in awe of the Beatles, and I mean totally, but admittedly couldn't come close. The M&P's were really just a very good studio vocal group doing vanilla Laurel Canyon hippie folk music. Though I am glad you call it meaningful stuff. Perhaps to you it was, and there's nothing wrong with that. We were doing that too, but we never happened---meaningfully that is. Heck, the M&P's didn't even play any instruments except for John. They had to rely on Larry Knectal, Joe Osborne and Hal Blaine (and others in the Wrecking Crew) to back them up and how the heck are you going to be ground breaking and worldly unique with friggin' Jay Lasker (VP at ABC Dunhill) screaming "you HAVE to cut three backing tracks in three hours!!!" Budget!! Budget!! Budget!! Sorry...but that was the way they had to work. And not to take anything away from the studio cats, I think the tracks they cut for Dunhill show it. So there was no unique recording technique going on with the Mama & Papas and Bones Howe's engineering was as stock as it comes in those times. At least the Beatles (for the most part) played their own axes and anyone with a musical education can certainly see the very high level of their totally unique harmonic compositions and that couple with unique production was indeed world class and ground breaking for it's time. I am reasonably certain a guy named George Martin had a hand in their education too!

As slight digression on my part here but perhaps of interest to M&P fans; I worked at Gold Star Recording Studios during that period and was also with the group The Lamp of Childhood. We spent a lot of time in Studio 3 at United Western with Bones Howe (M&Ps engineer) more times than I can remember, and seriously, during the time of that fluffy Beatles HELP album the M&P's just wanted to go hide, and it wasn't long after that that Sgt Pepper laid waste to all of use trying to be "unique". I got the feeling it was a mini-version of Brian Wilson's reaction to hearing Sgt. Pepper's, but I may have been reading more in to it at the time.

Anyway, perhaps subjective and to each his/her own, but the M&P's were the ones in awe of the Beatles and the direction they were taking it. Funny, they wanted to know how the Beatles always sang so "in tune" all the time! That used to crack me up, because like it or not the M&P's had some serious pitch problems, and more than once in a while too. In fact, California Dreamin' comes to mind, but they kept it in. Jay Lasker was screaming $$$$! tutt
I don't have time to read this, but in a nutshell I was simply saying the Beatles didn't invent music. Or rock music or pop music or any genre. They were as influenced as they were influential............ but to say all bands since the Beatles owe it all to the Beatles is shortsighted. Blues , Jazz and classical artists prior to the Beatles laid the foundation everyone works from. the Beatles were great, but so is Motorhead and Slayer. Athe later were trying to be different in their own ways as the Beatles tried to be and were. As great as the Beatles were if everyone sat around since and copied them, music would be pretty boring. I'm glad bands like Metallica and Rush or Jeff Buckley or whoever dared to be different. Anyone can copy something but being unique is a different ballgame. In their own way Metallica was as unique as the Beatles just because you don't think so doesn't change anything. To be fair I'm glad band a band like the Beatles dared to be different too. But they were not the last band to be different.

Lastly, many claim 'the Beatles did everything first'

no they didn't.
Old 12th September 2011
  #54
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker View Post
I don't agree at all.
ok

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker View Post
IMO, the Dixie Dregs 'What If' was a much closer take on the Mahavishnu sound, again with Ken Scott at the helm. As good as it is, I do prefer the first two Mahavishnu records, 'Inner Mounting Flame' was great but I think that Ken Scott had a lot to do with making 'Birds of Fire' the masterpiece it is.
Steve morse eats JM for breakfast. Dregs were much tighter and more polished than MO but they both wrote good stuff. Plus rod was in winger. How cool is that? Cobham and Walden can't brag they played in a hair metal band with a singer named kip


Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker View Post
Shakti's 'Natural Elements' and the production is stunning.
yeah check out the first album, it's live and incredible
Old 12th September 2011
  #55
Lives for gear
 
hasbeen's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
I don't have time to read this but in a nutshell I was simply saying
the Beatles didn't invent music. Or rock music or pop music or any genre.
They were as influenced as they were influential............
Or any genre? On what information do you base this statement? This is after all just one fellow slutz opinion correct? Or do you really have some insight that you would like to share regarding the British Invasion that would render the Beatles unqualified to lay claim to the originators of this non genre?
Old 12th September 2011
  #56
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by hasbeen View Post
Or any genre? On what information do you base this statement? This is after all just one fellow slutz opinion correct? Or do you really have some insight that you would like to share regarding the British Invasion that would render the Beatles unqualified to lay claim to the originators of this non genre?
when I think of genre I think of things like
'rock&roll' , 'pop' , 'hiphop', 'metal', 'Classical', 'punk', 'blues', 'tribal', 'folk', 'country', 'country&western', 'gospel' and 'Jazz'

did the Beatles come up with any of those? I'm not sure. just because you have your own style does not make it a genre. I suppose the british invasion is like 'the Seattle sound' or the 'LA hair metal' sound....... but those are just 'rock&roll' as far as genre. The Beatles are a 'rock&roll' 'pop' band
Old 12th September 2011
  #57
Lives for gear
 
hasbeen's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
when I think of genre I think of things like
'rock' , 'pop' , 'hiphop', 'metal', 'Classical', 'punk', 'blues', 'tribal', 'thrash', 'folk' and 'Jazz'

did the Beatles come up with any of those? I'm not sure. just because you have your own style does not make it a genre.
Argumentative, but that is just your opinion correct?
Old 12th September 2011
  #58
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by hasbeen View Post
Argumentative, but that is just your opinion correct?
so by your definition, then bands like badfinger or oasis or other Beatle ripoffs
are actually 'British invasion' genre? even though they came out years later?

I'm just trying to understand your point of view before I answer your question about opinion
Old 12th September 2011
  #59
Lives for gear
 
hasbeen's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
so by your definition, then bands like badfinger or oasis or other Beatle ripoffs
are actually 'British invasion' genre? even though they came out years later?

I'm just trying to understand your point of view before I answer your question about opinion
The point I am making is that you are arguing for the sake of argument. What is the point? Do you want everyone to say, OH YES you are correct? The Beatles did suck after all? Or do you just want to argue?

A genre is is the term for any category of literature or other forms of art or culture, e.g. music, and in general, any type of discourse, whether written or spoken, audial or visual, based on some set of stylistic criteria.

The bands you bring up "Oasis, Badfinger or other Beatle ripoffs" sounds to me like you just made the Beatles themselves a genre, correct?

Is it intellectual stimulation you seek here by defending your original statement against other peoples opinions as if they have no right? What is it you seek?

I'm just trying to understand your point of view when I read your posts.
Old 12th September 2011
  #60
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by hasbeen View Post
The point I am making is that you are arguing for the sake of argument.
Am i really? no I am simply referring to this post

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/7019650-post8.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yfoiler View Post
Anything by the Beatles. Everything since then has just been microcosmic "spin-offs"...
sorry but this is opinion too and I think a wrong one. BlackSabbath or Thrash metal and rap or rap rock owe nothing to the Beatles. They are not 'spinoffs'. Led Zep is not a Beatles spinoff neither were the Who.
Maybe stuff like early Pink Floyd or the Byrds

that's all I'm saying

Quote:
Originally Posted by hasbeen View Post
What is the point? Do you want everyone to say, OH YES you are correct? The Beatles did suck after all? Or do you just want to argue?
now you are making stuff out of thin air. I never said anyone 'sucked'

Quote:
Originally Posted by hasbeen View Post
A genre is is the term for any category of literature or other forms of art or culture, e.g. music, and in general, any type of discourse, whether written or spoken, audial or visual, based on some set of stylistic criteria.
oh

Quote:
Originally Posted by hasbeen View Post
The bands you bring up "Oasis, Badfinger or other Beatle ripoffs" sounds to me like you just made the Beatles themselves a genre, correct?
no they a ripoffs, copycats, cloners

Quote:
Originally Posted by hasbeen View Post
Is it intellectual stimulation you seek here by defending your original statement against other peoples opinions as if they have no right? What is it you seek?
I want the truth!!! in my Tom Cruise voice

DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by hasbeen View Post
I'm just trying to understand your point of view when I read your posts.
as I am trying to understand you sir...........


any way the Beatles didn't invent music. That is the point here. We would have still had unique music since it music existed (even rock & rock existed..as hard as it is to recall) before the Beatles
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump