Matt Wilson wrote:I'm not the one arguing, you twat!
But since you're pulling me back in - someone needs to tell G the Beatles weren't the first UK band to release a psychedelic song.
Matt I do know my UK psych, but go ahead I'm all ears.
Count Machuki wrote:G, Matt says the Beatles weren't the first UK band to release a psychedelic song.
Matt Wilson wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapes_of_Things
Matt Wilson wrote:And you'd be right about that. The Beatles' stuff was always a game changer. My point was that they weren't the first to do anything.
Hightea wrote:yeah the Beatles were not important to rock. They never did anything original, didn't reinvent the wheel, didn't change rock music, weren't important to rock music, everyone who came after and before them were better and more influential, didn't influence any rock musicians, didn't have three top flight song writers and basically are unimportant to rock and roll.
Goat Boy wrote:Oh, do fuck off, prog boy.
The Modernist wrote:Matt Wilson wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapes_of_Things
Yes I do know it Matt. I don't need a wiki page. Actually I thought you were going to come up with 'See My Friend'.
It's a matter of debate how psychedelic 'Shapes of Thing' is -it's relatively conventional in many ways. There were many quasi- psychedelic things utilising drone or distortions from around 66 onwards (see stuff that now gets categorised as freakbeat), but they don't create the full on psychedelic sound picture in the way The Beatles did on something like 'Tomorrow Never Knows'.
Mason Cooley wrote:Worried about being a dull fellow? You might develop your talent for being irritating.