I think you are going a bit overboard if you think half of alternative rock is based on Black Sabbath. Led Zeppelin, Neil Young, and punk rock were just as influential on Grunge as Black Sabbath. Some of the early British Invasion bands, and Power Pop had some influence on grunge especially on bands like Nirvana.

Across the pond the alternative to grunge was Brit-pop. It's much more influenced by the early British Invasion bands than Black Sabbath. Anything that is pop related in alternative music will not have a huge Black Sabbath influence. I agree that Black Sabbath influence on heavy metal is ubiquitous. Heavy Metal has expanded too many subgenres so it's quite large. I can think of large subgenres of rock where the influence was as ubiquitous as Black Sabbath is on heavy metal.

A - I see NOTHING wrong with pressing the skip button. You are listening for yourself for your own enjoyment, not to validate any artist's work. If you go to a buffet line and one of the items is something you don't care for or don't feel like eating right then, you skip that too.....no matter how well it was prepared by the chef. Why listen to a recording you don't particularly want to hear right then?

B - I listen to the three hit singles from "What's Going On" all individually as part of my 100 favorites from 1971. They either come up at random or in reverse order of the list, and none are next to each other. Never once did it ever make me want to listen to the entire album. In fact, that is one example where I would really cringe to have to listen to songe that sound that similar all in a row. It would almost be like hearing one 35-40 minute song. Since I don't pay attention to lyrics it would really seem like one very long song.

To each his own, I guess. Albums bore me. Listening to an entire album of one artist is like eating a dinner of nothing but french fries instead of having a burger, baked beans, cole slaw, some fries, and some sliced tomatoes and then some pie.

Corrections, I’m probably more familiar with Miles Davis than you but that is not the point is it? Gershwin rock music? The Beatles borrowed a lot of harmonic tools from pop music of the previous generation and applied them to a rock idiom when most groups were still rooted in the blues at the time. Certainly Bach, Beethoven etc knew and understood every trick Gershwin used before them. The point is their not rock music. However, in the context of 60's rock/pop music what Zappa and the Beatles were doing with time signatures was pretty much innovative.

The Beatles for example like everything else they did with their use of the bridge was very annotative would change time signatures on the bridge say 'We Can Work It Out". Or the innovative use of compound time signatures on the bridge 11/8 + 4/4 + 7/8 on "Here Comes the Sun". Or they would use metric modulations something that alternates time signatures from verse to bridge and back throughout the song on "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". What kind of description is "Good Morning Good Morning" has time signatures varying almost from bar to bar.

When you are expanding the parameters of your genre or being innovative you are influencing the overall sound and songwriting of your genre. You don't have to have a song that has six different meters in the first twenty one bars to show influence.

Bill Bruford of King Crimson

MD: What sparked that original creative spark that became prog rock?

Bill: The Beatles. They broke down every barrier that ever existed. Suddenly you could do anything after The Beatles. You could write your own music, make it ninety yards long, put it in 7/4, whatever you wanted

Well actually thanks for knowing I meant it in a rock context. Of course there were people using time signatures in rock and roll other than 4/4 in rock and roll. Smokey Robinson and Doo-wop music use a lot of time signatures in 12/8 and 6/8 time signatures. What I was getting at the Beatles and Frank Zappa used metric modulations, polyrhythm, switching time signatures from bar to bar or using compound signatures on the bridge. Burt Bacharach varied his time signatures also. As for progressive rock was and still is a hugely influential subgenre in rock music.

I know many people will disagree with me here. IMO to be considered a great rock artist you need to create great albums. The artistic acclaim by the likes of Dylan, Stevie Wonder, The Doors, The Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson etc.. was because they did create albums whole "albums" as a unified artistic statement. IMO that is one of the reason they set the bar much higher than Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley, Carl Perkins, Little Richard, Roy Orbison, Eddie Cochran and others.

You are right many rock acts with pop inclinations broke through because of having a hit. But they made more money and received more acclaim by having a great album worth of music.

Michael Jackson having Thriller as the highest selling album of all time meant more to him than having a number one hit song.

At least you're right about one thing in this post.



So in your (fucked up) opinion Elvis, Chuck Berry and Little Richard should not be considered great rock artists.

None of the artists that you mentioned as making albums ever even approached the greatness of Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry and Little Richard.

Repeat after me.

There is no such thing as a unified artistic statement. A album is just a bigger record that happens to have 8 or 10 or 12 or whatever number songs on it.

When you can show us what is unified about "Honey Pie" and "Helter Skelter" or what is unified about "Yellow Submarine" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" than we'll revisit this horseshit theory of yours.

Elton John having "Candle In The Wind" as the highest selling single of all time meant more to him than having a number one hit album.

You don't think albums can be a cohesive statement by the use of studio, lyrics, music and songwriting as one artistic statement? You don't think the Beatles on Revolver were fusing the elements of emerging psychedelic music, avant garde, classical music, and classical Indian music into a whole artistic statement? The Beatles viewed Sgt. Pepper as one long single of course this is reinforced by the linking of the songs together with fade ins with title track and the reprise at the end. Frank Zappa 'Absolutely Free” is basically a whole album of hard edits of one song after another. Paul McCartney definitely planned the Abbey Road medley as one long track.

"Upon first hearing Rubber Soul in December of 1965, Brian Wilson said, “I really wasn’t quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs…that somehow went together like no album ever made before".

Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys

IMO they upped the ante Dylan, Stevie Wonder, The Doors, The Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson etc in terms of making of complete albums compared to Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry and Little Richard. Please don't get me started with Elvis Presley again. Also I never said that Chuck Berry or Little Richard were not great artists. I said the people after them upped the ante in terms of how they viewed the album format.

You are probably right about that and a great achievement. I like Elton John a lot. Still it’s harder to have a collection of great songs in a short period of time the album format than having one great song.

No, that's just marketing hype to get people to spend more money on songs that they don't really want.



No - Yellow Submarine - Tomorrow Never Knows - Two of the most unrelated songs imaginable.



"Within You, Without You" and "When I'm Sixty-Four" are as unrelated as can be, as are other songs on the album. It only "seems" related because you are used to it.



The medley is good, but what does it have to do with "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" or "Something?"



Upon first hearing Rubber Soul for the first time Bruce Grossberg said, "Why do people believe that these songs belong together?" What the fuck does "Michelle" have to do with "Drive My Car?"

Who are you gonna listen to, a mental case drug addict like Brian, or me?

If the songs fitting together were so fucking critical why would the record companies choose to change the grouping and the order of the songs in different countries? Answer - the entire thing is just a record company marketing ploy.



You certainly did. Here's your quote:



That means that anybody who did not create what you consider to be "great albums" (plural) can't be considered a great rock artist.

Interesting George Harrison viewed Rubber Soul and Revolver as like Volume One and Volume Two of the same album. They were definitely thinking in those terms of creating unified pieces of music. You might view "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Yellow Submarine" though they both use musique concrete techniques. I said the album were the sounds of psychedelic music, with classical music, classical Indian and the avant garde as an artistic statement. So we disagree that's fine.

I said to be a great artist you need to create great albums. I said the acclaim of many musicians of those artists were because they created whole albums that are perceived to be unified statements. When I say this I didn't mean to say Chuck Berry was not great artist. The idea or what people view the rock album changed a lot after the mid 60's. The parameters changed.

As for Sgt. Pepper most of the songs are unrelated but the Beatles consciously had most of the album connected directly or without conventional pauses because they viewed the whole album as one artistic statement. Well that was Paul McCartney view of the album.

By the way I always viewed albums like The Who "Sell Out" and “Tommy" as a unified artistic statement for example.

You fell for the hype.

I don't even agree that creating great albums is a requirement for a rock artist from the 60s to be considered a great artist. People like Wilson Pickett, the Temptations, the miracles, Solomon Burke, The yardbirds, the hollies, The Dave Clark 5, and many others were great artists who did not get much acclaim for any of their albums.

And Elton John is not in Buddy Holly's league in influence, and also not in Buddy Holly's league when it comes to the respect and admiration of rock artists that I believe falls into the category of musical impact.



That is so wrong. It's not only because of his death. It's also because of the body of work that he produced. Is Eddie Cochran as revered as Buddy Holly? Is Ritchie Valens? No. Not even close.