Who were the big rock bands of the 2000s decade?
Which bands will be remembered, many years from now, as the rock music of the decade from 2000-2009? I'm thinking of this: http://www.cracked.com/article_19423_roc... It's an amazing work of art, but I take exception to it because there was a lot of great music from 2000-2009 that the decade deserves to be remembered for. 60s had The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix 70s had Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd 80s had Van Halen, Guns n Roses 90s had Pearl Jam, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nirvana Who did the 00s have? (Linkin Park? The White Stripes?)
Will there ever be a band as big as the Beatles?
I’m going to start by saying….yes, I think it’s possible. Forever is a long time, and culture changes very quickly these days. But no, I don’t think a band could be as big as the Beatles right this moment. In order for that to happen, a lot of things in our society would have to change.Here’s the thing. Yes, the Beatles really were that good. And yes, the Beatles on Ed Sullivan was one of the greatest moments in television. But also, what else were you going to do that night? Check your Facebook? Play your Xbox? Binge watch your favorite show on Netflix?People have a bad habit of comparing today’s society to a world where there’s three channels on the TV. It just doesn’t work. Part of the reason there hasn’t been a band that big again is because there’s too many other things competing for our attention.Not just that, but any band playing today is also competing with a million music genres that didn’t exist before. A band that’s going to be as big as the Beatles would have to appeal to fans of pop, rap, country, electronica, all forms of rock, punk, and metal, and whatever else is floating around out there. All at the same time.On top of all this, rock isn’t receiving much major label support in general. Not in America at least. This is due to a wide variety of changes within the music industry centered around the fact that people don’t buy records anymore. But the result is, rock doesn’t get much radio play anymore, and you don’t see it on TV anymore. This makes it hard for a band to build any kind of mainstream fanbase. And it causes people who don’t no any better to scream “Rock is dead!” at the top of their lungs. The truth is, there’s so much out there that you’ll never be able to listen to it all…..but that’s a different answer to a different question.So in order for a band to be as big as the Beatles, they’d have to be really really really good, and also, everything I just mentioned would have to change .I’ll leave you with this last thought. Do we really need a band to be as big as the Beatles again? I guess it’d help shut up the “rock is dead” crowd. But the Beatles were dangerously big. Any bigger, and Beatlemania might’ve turned into a legitimate religion. Personally, I’m happy with rock n’ roll being in the Wild West, which is essentially where it is now. We’ve always wanted to be in the Wild West anyway, and here we are.
What is the difference between swing and big band music?
Big Band refers to the size of the band, Swing music is a style of music which a band can play. Big Bands are associated with swing music because they were most popular when swing music was most popular. I've seen big bands range from 10 members to over 20, depending on the band and the sections involved. A big band doesn't have to just play swing music. During the popular days of big bands, they were expected to play slow romantic tunes, waltzes, and Latin numbers as well. Swing music, on the other hand can be played with just a trio. Essentially swing is a fusion of traditional jazz and blues. Swing has a very staccato rhythm normally played on the bass or rhythm guitar (something like "chug, chug, chug, chug" on every count). This gives the music a driving force forward, while the drums play "in the pocket" which gives the music a laid back feeling (playing "1, a2, 3, a4, etc."). Swing music also normally follows blues lyrical phrasing (like AABA, or AAAB, or AABC for example), and most songs have lyrics even if they were recorded without lyrics. MUSIC EXAMPLES: Big Band Swing: "Jumpin' at the Woodside" - Count Basie Orchestra http://www.amazon.com/Jumpin-At-The-Wood... Big Band, Not Swing: "Brazil" - Xavier Cugat and His Orchestra http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00138I... Not Big Band, but Swing: "Oh, Lady Be Good" - The Benny Goodman Trio http://www.amazon.com/Oh-Lady-Good-1996-... I hope that helps!
How big had the Beatles gotten while Pete Best was still in the band?
They wouldn’t have been the global sensation that they became.Why? Largely because of George Martin. Their demos had already been shopped around, and been passed on repeatedly. George Martin was vastly more sophisticated in the worlds of classical music, recording production and arranging than any of The Beatles, and he was not taken with Pete’s drumming. For that matter, Martin had session drummers lined up to replace Ringo as well on the earliest songs, but Ringo proved he could handle the job, and the session drummers were dropped.Without George Martin in their corner, they would have been much less likely to have found the kind of global market and acceptance that they found relatively quickly with his help. They were right to let Pete go, given that the alternative would probably have been that they’d never get their Parlophone record contract in the first place, without the clout and skill of George Martin.
Were there other bands at the same time as The Beatles that could have been as big as them but weren't?
No. The Beatles didn't suck up the oxygen of other groups and overshadow artists who could have been big without them, they actually had the opposite effect and took bands to big heights in their slipstream.Before the Beatles came along, America didn't pay any attention to UK music at all. Americans bought music from the USA and exported their rock and roll without ever really importing any from anywhere else. When the Beatles finally broke America (it didn't happen right away) they began what we now refer to as The British Invasion. Suddenly Americans weren't ignoring music recorded in England, they were eagerly embracing it. The Stones, The Yardbirds, The Animals and other bands like them were suddenly able to crack the American market because the walls had come tumbling down. It's no exaggeration to say that bands became bigger because the Beatles were so big. Of course there are those who argue that if The Beatles hadn't broken in America then another band like the Rolling Stones would have but that's ignoring the Beatles influence on music in the UK. The Stones didn't start their career playing Satisfaction. Their early albums and live shows were entirely made up of blues covers. They didn't see themselves as songwriters, they saw themselves as a blues band. It was only when Andrew Loog Oldham, their manager, saw the massive success of the Beatles original material (and the increased royalties) that he encouraged Jagger and Richards to write their own songs (he even locked them in a room until they had). If the Beatles hadn't pioneered the idea of groups recording original material, The Stones might never have been anything more than just a band making a living playing blues classics to white English audiences.
How big were the Beatles?
They were the most in demand entertainers of their time. Kids that were in their teens when the British Invasion hit, were screaming for John, Paul, George and Ringo, like my generation did for Elvis. I never thought with their long mops of hair and their boyish looks they would really take America by storm. But that they did. Especially when they began their tour of American cities. Everything possible was made with their images on them for young girls to buy. Soon their hair styles caught on with the young guys here, and the revival of the turtleneck sweater was reborn. They didn't outlast Elvis however, but they did make a huge splash when they arrived. And made the young girls swoon and cry.
What's the difference between Big Bands in New York City and Kansas city?
Kansas City jazz developed in the 20's and 30's by territory bands of the southwest and those of KC and St. Louis. Because of its strong traditions of ragtime and rural blues, Kansas City jazz evolved along different lines from the urban jazz of New Orleans, Chicago, and New York. Notable among the differences are the prevalence of 8 and 12 bar blues forms and an emphasis of the use of saxophones in KC jazz. KC bands generally avoided complicated arrangements and preferred spontaneity, giving more freedom to the soloists and and to allow the musicians to concentrate more on the rhythmic drive for which KC jazz is noted. The riff is virtually a trademark of KC jazz, along with a walking bass techinque not developed in other areas of the country, The vocal blues of the south are also a big influence in KC jazz.