Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo
The Beatles are one of the most cited influences on the development of progressive rock.
|
That they are frequently "cited" doesn't make it true that they were particularly significant to either its existence or its development.
Quote:
|
Yes, and that was all going on around the same time. That dosen't strip The Beatles of any originality, they had that to spare. OMG they took ideas from other bands?
|
Am I criticizing them for that?
Quote:
|
Because thats unacceptable. Sure its not at all common for all bands to do that. Surely it isn't.
|
Again, I wasn't criticizing them for it.
Quote:
|
You take ideas from your influences, thats normal for any artist. The Beatles took their influences ranging from rock n roll to pop to psychedelic rock and made something out of it.
|
Fine. Who are you arguing with anyway? Me, or somebody else? I wasn't disputing any of that.
Quote:
|
And that on its own, is an original idea.
|
Not really - parody had become a rock form much earlier, what with The Fugs and Mothers Of Invention etc. in 1966.
If I need to state the case a bit clearer, then I will. The point here is that The Beatles were not in any way shape or form the be all and end all of music in the 1960s and had very little in terms of pioneering musical invention compared to the likes of the big players in the underground. They were a great band, yes, but a truly cutting edge one, no WAY. Anybody who claims otherwise is in a state of denial.
And it is in that sense - the sense of claiming they were the greatest musical innovators of the rock era and the be all and end all of 60s music - that they are overrated. Such claims are so far from the truth, they're almost criminal. The great sonic revolutions were happening in entirely different corners of the map; compared to the underground creative standard of 67-69, the Beatles sound retro.