T1B

Ya know what's scary?

here's a fair chance SC didn't have to google that^^^^^.

smackaholic wrote:Ya know what's scary?

here's a fair chance SC didn't have to google that^^^^^.

Other than The Miami Vice Theme, I've never heard of any of those songs.

That Miami Vice Theme was a dude on a keytar.

Van wrote:You can't truly be this addled, not right out of the gate.

Hopefully AP will check in soon and tell us who is running this shit troll. I'm sure he'll have some ideas.

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:You can't truly be this addled, not right out of the gate.

Hopefully AP will check in soon and tell us who is running this shit troll. I'm sure he'll have some ideas.

Jesus, settle down.

It's not mine.

Van wrote:Yep, MGMT and Air France, the Daily Double of Estrogen-Rich Suck.

Let's not forget Foster The People, that makes it a trifecta.

War Wagon wrote:

Van wrote:Yep, MGMT and Air France, the Daily Double of Estrogen-Rich Suck.

Let's not forget Foster The People, that makes it a trifecta.

When did I ever say I like Foster the People?

Van wrote:Why not just ask her to identify her favorite H.R. Pufnstuf character, or her favorite McNugget?

Witchy Poo and n/a. I don't eat pink slime.

Screw_Michigan wrote:When did I ever say I like Foster the People?

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=38977&p=744360&hil ... le#p744360

that didn't take long.

view it from a socialist perspective, a drummer thanklessly does all the work, a guitarist exploits their labour.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:Name the last top 40 hit that didn't involve a singer.

The answer is: Axel F (The Frog Song) by Crazy Frog, which reached #21 in 2005

Last instrumental top-5:

Theme From Mission: Impossible by Adam Clayton & Larry Mullen #5 in 1996

Last instrumental #1:

Miami Vice Theme by Jan Hammer, #1 in 1985

Smackie, as I'm sure you're well aware, "Axel F" was originally by Harold Faltermeyer, and was indeed a hit.

Other hits from either movies or television shows that charted in the top 40:

"Tubular Bells" (theme from the 'Exorcist') - Mike Oldfield
"Pink Panther Theme" - Henry Mancini
"Star Wars Theme" - MECO
"Mission Impossible" - Lalo Schiffrin (original theme)
"Hawaii 5-0" - Morton James
"Theme from Rocky" - Bill Conti

Other top 40 hits:

"Funeral for a Friend" - Elton John
"Eruption" - Van Halen
"Foreplay" - Boston
"Misirlou" - Dick Dale
"Peter Gunn Theme" - Ray Anthony
"Fire on High" - ELO
"Green Onions" - Booker T & the MG's
"Popcorn" - Hot Butter
"Classical Gas" - Mason Williams
"Wipe Out" - Safaris
"Telstar" - Tornadoes
"A Fifth of Beethoven" - Walter Murphy & Big Apple Band

There are over 200 instrumental hits from 1950 - 2012. Not all cracked the top 40, but they were all singles and hits.

Is that enough Snutz?

Don't forget the theme from S.W.A.T.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:"A Fifth of Beethoven" - Walter Murphy & Big Apple Band

For clarification, you could have included it in your movie entries, or not. It was a hit on the RSO label (Thde disco kings) so was fair game for Saturday Night Fever after the fact.

Dinsdale wrote:

Jay in Phoenix wrote:"A Fifth of Beethoven" - Walter Murphy & Big Apple Band

For clarification, you could have included it in your movie entries, or not. It was a hit on the RSO label (Thde disco kings) so was fair game for Saturday Night Fever after the fact.

From a technicality standpoint, you're correct. However, the movie and t.v. songs were title themes. "A Fifth of Beethoven" was a single from the soundtrack, not the theme, thus its' inclusion in the single category.

Disco still sucks, by the way.

Jay in Phoneix wrote:its'

Tha fuck? I don't even butcher it that badly.

-smackaholic

Van wrote:

Jay in Phoneix wrote:its'

Tha fuck? I don't even butcher it that badly.

-smackaholic

:sigh: Punctuation is not my friend.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
Is that enough Snutz?

I see a lot of novelty. Most of those are non touring acts. And in the realm of things, nobody was ever influenced or admired "Popcorn" by Hot Butter.

Dee Snutz wrote:I see a lot of novelty. Most of those are non touring acts. And in the realm of things, nobody was ever influenced or admired "Popcorn" by Hot Butter.

Fair enough, however your question was, "Name the last top 40 hit that didn't involve a singer." A good number of top 40 hits were named. You mentioned nothing about touring acts or influence in that particular question. And as I said, I could list over 200 pieces of music that qualified as singles and hits. Sure, a bit of fluff like 'Popcorn' didn't light up any specific muse or inspire greatness, but that wasn't the point of your question. Now, if you want to talk about instrumentals that had influence, just start with something like 'Mirserlou' or 'Green Onions' and go from there.

Do lyrics and a vocalist make a song better or more powerful? Sure, but not always. There are plenty of crappy singers out there who have hits. And there is plenty of amazing instrumental music out there that doesn't chart. One doesn't necessarily invalidate or quantify the other.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:I see a lot of novelty. Most of those are non touring acts. And in the realm of things, nobody was ever influenced or admired "Popcorn" by Hot Butter.

Fair enough, however your question was, "Name the last top 40 hit that didn't involve a singer." A good number of top 40 hits were named. You mentioned nothing about touring acts or influence in that particular question. And as I said, I could list over 200 pieces of music that qualified as singles and hits. Sure, a bit of fluff like 'Popcorn' didn't light up any specific muse or inspire greatness, but that wasn't the point of your question. Now, if you want to talk about instrumentals that had influence, just start with something like 'Mirserlou' or 'Green Onions' and go from there.

Do lyrics and a vocalist make a song better or more powerful? Sure, but not always. There are plenty of crappy singers out there who have hits. And there is plenty of amazing instrumental music out there that doesn't chart. One doesn't necessarily invalidate or quantify the other.

I'm a fan of instrumentals. I'm really not attempting to diminish the quality of the composition by suggesting that a singer and lyrics are the only way music should be listened to. But unfortunately, the record buying/downloading consumer doesn't feel the same. That list of yours looked pretty big, and comprehensive. But it really is just a pittance in the realm of all commercial music in the 50 yr or so period it's drawing from.

Dee Snutz wrote:I'm a fan of instrumentals. I'm really not attempting to diminish the quality of the composition by suggesting that a singer and lyrics are the only way music should be listened to. But unfortunately, the record buying/downloading consumer doesn't feel the same. That list of yours looked pretty big, and comprehensive. But it really is just a pittance in the realm of all commercial music in the 50 yr or so period it's drawing from.

I'm not really sure what your point is. You claim all rock fans care about is singers and singing. Really? Name the top 40s for a capella hits for the past 50 or so years. Seems to me everything is of importance, isn't it? Drums, keyboards, guitars, lyrics, voices and whatever. Seems to me the public just likes to hear a full package.

ML@Coyote wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote:I'm a fan of instrumentals. I'm really not attempting to diminish the quality of the composition by suggesting that a singer and lyrics are the only way music should be listened to. But unfortunately, the record buying/downloading consumer doesn't feel the same. That list of yours looked pretty big, and comprehensive. But it really is just a pittance in the realm of all commercial music in the 50 yr or so period it's drawing from.

I'm not really sure what your point is. You claim all rock fans care about is singers and singing. Really? Name the top 40s for a capella hits for the past 50 or so years. Seems to me everything is of importance, isn't it? Drums, keyboards, guitars, lyrics, voices and whatever. Seems to me the public just likes to hear a full package.

My point was that people don't really care anymore. Studios and producers have taken the mystique away from the bands. I can't remember the last time I heard an argument about who's the best drummer from any band from the last two decades because nobody really knows who they are. However, I just watched Led Zeppelin at Royal Albert Hall 1970. That type of band and performance is so far away from what music is today. 3 pieces w a vocalist. Every piece of that band was integral. How many bands today take the stage w just the members we see on their album cover? There's your band and 4 mysterious musicians playing the back-line. Like I said, the few charting rock bands still vital, aren't even the performers on the albums. Anyway, as for your full package assertion. I can't disagree, but we probably have different definitions of what that means.

well, Dees Nuts... I have to give you some props for lasting almost a month here now. I didn't figure you'd last more than a week.

Your post got me thinking. My parents lamented the demise of Big Bands. Benny Goodman and Gene Krupa got shoved aside with the advent of rock. No matter how many times I've tried to get them to listen, my parents can't stand rock. So maybe we now lament the demise of bands like LZ in the same futile way. Yes, now things are different, and I don't profess to know a lot about current popular music. But I suppose fans of today's music will some day be lamenting the demise of their own "bands," however you want to define them, recalling the great ones from their own generation. What I'm saying is that I guess there's a time and a place for everything, and new and different ways of tackling music doesn't necessarily equate to worse.

Papa Willie wrote:
There are certainly bands like that out there. Unfortunately, most people never get to hear about them. With the invention of the auto-tuner, now most record companies can turn their full attention to what somebody looks like as opposed to anybody who has any talent.

And ML's right about one generation's taste changing from another. That's very true.

I can only speak for myself, but my taste in music isn't a generational thing. I love music that's two hundred yrs old, like Bach, Brahms, Beethoven. I think Barber's Adagio for Strings is the most beautiful piece of music ever written. It's from the 1930's. I love 50's Do Wop, 60's British Invasion, 70's southern rock. 80's New Wave. Maybe ML's parents were simply nostalgic for Krupa, Goodman, Big Bands. Maybe it had less to do w the music and more to do w how they spent their weekends dancing and socializing. Kids listened to Pink Floyd alone in their bedroom. And w headphones. I would have no trouble understanding why ML's folks were not going to identify w Careful With That Axe, Eugene.

A thread titled “Beat Off” devolves into a discussion between ML and Dees Nutz about full packages. Well, fancy that.

Dee Snutz wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:
There are certainly bands like that out there. Unfortunately, most people never get to hear about them. With the invention of the auto-tuner, now most record companies can turn their full attention to what somebody looks like as opposed to anybody who has any talent.

And ML's right about one generation's taste changing from another. That's very true.

I can only speak for myself, but my taste in music isn't a generational thing. I love music that's two hundred yrs old, like Bach, Brahms, Beethoven. I think Barber's Adagio for Strings is the most beautiful piece of music ever written. It's from the 1930's. I love 50's Do Wop, 60's British Invasion, 70's southern rock. 80's New Wave. Maybe ML's parents were simply nostalgic for Krupa, Goodman, Big Bands. Maybe it had less to do w the music and more to do w how they spent their weekends dancing and socializing. Kids listened to Pink Floyd alone in their bedroom. And w headphones. I would have no trouble understanding why ML's folks were not going to identify w Careful With That Axe, Eugene.

So you appreciate all forms of music except for the present?

ML@Coyote wrote:
So you appreciate all forms of music except for the present?

A lot of things have happened to music since the 80's. One is MTV. Substance was discarded for image. Great musicians weren't always the best looking people. The best musicians were losers who had nothing better to do than get great at their instruments/craft. Now they can't get signed because they're compromising the bands MTV cred. Then came the CD/indie age. Now EVERYONE could make a cd. And it wasn't just 18 mins on two sides of vinyl. Now it was 80 mins. Which permitted another million more mediocre recording artist to dilute their already mediocre product w their ego. So now here we are in 2012 and it's like the 1960's where bands release a singles. And considering the state of the music industry the last 10 yrs, what young brilliant artist would still enter into a career in music? Until they figure out how to get back to actually selling records, and people can make money, those geniuses can ply their wares in some other creative field. So to answer your question, no, I listen to current music on Underground Garage. But I gotta be honest. They may be playing a song I don't know and I couldn't tell you if it's a new track from some up and comers, or some Velvet Underground deep cut.

Dee Snutz wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:
So you appreciate all forms of music except for the present?

A lot of things have happened to music since the 80's. One is MTV. Substance was discarded for image. Great musicians weren't always the best looking people. The best musicians were losers who had nothing better to do than get great at their instruments/craft. Now they can't get signed because they're compromising the bands MTV cred.

I don't think substance was discarded for image. I think music videos added images to substance. Not necessarily a bad thing. Do they still even make music videos? Is this relevent to a discussion of current music? I thought MTV specialized primarily in adolescence-aimed reality TV these days.

Then came the CD/indie age. Now EVERYONE could make a cd. And it wasn't just 18 mins on two sides of vinyl. Now it was 80 mins. Which permitted another million more mediocre recording artist to dilute their already mediocre product w their ego.

Seems to me the more music the better. It's best to let as many musicians as possible have a chance. Let the cream rise to the top.

So now here we are in 2012 and it's like the 1960's where bands release a singles. So to answer your question, no, I listen to current music on Underground Garage. But I gotta be honest. They may be playing a song I don't know and I couldn't tell you if it's a new track from some up and comers, or some Velvet Underground deep cut.

Don't know much about today's music, except for the Sirius stations I listen to while driving. What is the Underground Garage? Is it new music, or just newly written and played old music. Are you sure you have your finger on the pulse of today's music? How old are you anyway? Maybe we should be asking someone younger than us what they're listening to. Maybe both of us are missing out. Or maybe were at a point of transition, as between big bands and rock. Maybe we're witnessing the end of rock and the beginning of something new.

ML@Coyote wrote:Maybe we should be asking someone younger than us what they're listening to. Maybe both of us are missing out.

By all means, head to the music forum and chat with Screwball. Should be very enlightening.

Goober McTuber wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:Maybe we should be asking someone younger than us what they're listening to. Maybe both of us are missing out.

By all means, head to the music forum and chat with Screwball. Should be very enlightening.

You know what's weird? That fact that 'Spray ever posts in the Cooking Forum...

think about it

Martyred wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:Maybe we should be asking someone younger than us what they're listening to. Maybe both of us are missing out.

By all means, head to the music forum and chat with Screwball. Should be very enlightening.

You know what's weird? That fact that 'Spray ever posts in the Cooking Forum...

It's a Cooking Forum, not an Eating Everything in Sight Forum.

Goober McTuber wrote:

ML@Coyote wrote:Maybe we should be asking someone younger than us what they're listening to. Maybe both of us are missing out.

By all means, head to the music forum and chat with Screwball. Should be very enlightening.

Your probably right about the enlightenment, but one forum at a time, one thread at a time, is about all this tired and hackneyed old soul can handle.

Dee Snutz wrote: Which permitted another million more mediocre recording artist to dilute their already mediocre product w their ego. So now here we are in 2012 and it's like the 1960's where bands release a singles. And considering the state of the music industry the last 10 yrs, what young brilliant artist would still enter into a career in music? Until they figure out how to get back to actually selling records, and people can make money, those geniuses can ply their wares in some other creative field. .

So what's wrong with that? From say, 60-63 there was a huge volume of one-hit wonders, making for a brilliant collection of work. No one was really dominating, why is that a problem? There's no shortage of talent out there and there never will be, all the creative 'geniuses' getting into tech-fields instead of music for lack of money? Fuck 'em, they won't be missed.

I don't see how it's a problem that people are left to their own devices to seek things out, what you haven't got is everything served up on a platter for you.

dees nuts makes a good point. talented musicians tend to be talented people in general who could be successful in other vocations. there is a pretty good chance that jimmy page would have moved on to a paying career by his early twenties had he come along today.

we can only regret what might have been :(

smackaholic wrote:dees nuts makes a good point. talented musicians tend to be talented people in general who could be successful in other vocations. there is a pretty good chance that jimmy page would have moved on to a paying career by his early twenties had he come along today.

I kinda doubt this. For the great ones, even the not-so-great ones, music is a passion. It's not just some alternate talent someone happens to have.

There's a tendency, but not a rule, that jazz involves a high degree of musicianship, but you go into it knowing the pay-scale is on par with.. philosophy. I'll accept that getting laid and drunk is an objective, but that's par for any normal person - unless you're a total Frankenstein monster, you'll succeed no matter how much you make.

A lack of supergroups =/= dearth of talent, that's just a bit weird.