I'm NOT discrediting blues influences. You're the one not giving credit where it's due.
I understand the blues influence, but I think The Beatles as of now have a broader direct influence on modern rock than Chuck Berry.
You can't credit Chuck Berry as a direct influence on progressive and alternative rock, you can't. But many many many prog and alternative bands owe a lot to The Beatles, even the younger bands we have today. That includes a lot of prog. You can certainly hear The Beatles in Yes, Floyd, Genesis, ELP and Gentle Giant. Even in todays bands like Porcupine Tree.
King Crimson were influenced by The Beatles, they covered Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds in their early days and they even wrote a freaking song about them, Happy Family.
I didn't say anything about Chuck Berry or early rock n roll being insignificant, that was a little straw man you made.
If The Beatles didn't do anything different from what came before them they certainly wouldn't have had the impact that they had, especially on music forms like prog that were all about doing something completely different.
You can talk about the blues influence on Hendrix and Zep, but the point remains they had Beatles influences too. If all they took in were blues influences they wouldn't have been the groundbreaking artists they were. They were mixing blues with the mainstream rock that was around at the time. That is what made them different.
You see, that's what great artists do, they mix influences, thats what The Beatles did. But no, when people hate a band, they don't acknowledge it as influences, it's called "ripping people off".
It's a lousy excuse to discredit artists when you don't have any real good argument to make, that's why according to hipsters all over, RHCP are a complete ripoff of lets say, 50 different bands who have little in common with each other? So The Beatles must be a complete ripoff of god knows how many bands. Lets just say they were a ripoff of everyone.
|