Apart of what?

the scene they were in. to understand impact, one has to know the scene that spawned them. It is like a person born in 1992, taking about what was impactful in 1966 because they studied it in a book, doesn't work. First hand experience with it is more reliable.

The people were were there would be better able to put to words the impact of The Sonics.

ps. I am not debating that The Monks were the more interesting of the 2...

Then by that logic historians' and scholars' opinions on past events are useless. Now, I'm not a musical historian by a long shot, but I think I can know how revolutionary or important an album or recording is just by looking at its innovation and uniqueness. I wasn't alive in the 1910s and 1920s, but I don't need to to know how revolutionary Russolo's and Varese's recordings and compositions were.

When it comes down to it, all The Sonics were were a garage band who played old rock 'n' roll songs in a loud manner -- influential or not.

No, you are thinking to much into it. Let's just stay within the confines of The Sonics here? what basis do you have to say they were not as influential as made out to be....

"i think I can" is the truth in your statement. that is all you can do, is think you know.

"Their debut is fun to listen to, but it's not nearly as revolutionary as people make it out to be." This statement just says assumption based on personal taste, holds no value.

You didn't like The Steve Howe Album? (For me, from the stand point of a guitar player, that is one the best albums I've heard. I was curious what you thought of it.)

I never said they were not influential... I said their recordings weren't that revolutionary. By that, I mean The Sonics' music didn't break any existing musical barriers of the time.

Honestly, I don't know how influential they are because I don't find them all that interesting, but I certainly don't need to have lived during that period of time to acquire this knowledge.

EDIT: I can definitely see how the word "revolutionary" could be misinterpreted. It was vaguely used in my original statement, and it could have meant a lot of different things.

It is hard for me to listen to any Stereolab album all the way through. I don't know if this is unpopular or not...but considering the praise the band gets here, I figured I'd post it in this thread. I love Stereolab. If you go to my last.fm, you will see they are in my top bands. I just think their albums are too damn long. Chop them in half and I would still be satisfied. If you want to make an 80 minute album...you can't drone on and on for 3/4 of it.

I never think of Wakeman as a Yes solo artist as such, largely because his discography is huge. Jon Anderson`s solo stuff, I`ve always found showed the worst excesses of a prog artist being allowed to go off on his own and do his own inacessible dabblings, I find the stuff with Vangelis to be a borefest as well.

Never liked it really, but I`ll admit haven`t heard it in like 10 years! If somebody on this forum with your amount of posts highly recommends it, I`ll try and listen to it again.

I'm not much of a Stereolab fan but I agree with your overall sentiment. People making overly long albums got particularly out of control in the late 90s and it made me realize how much I prefer 45 minute album that's solid through and through over an 80 minute album that has a bunch of filler.