Influence

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 11-20-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

When I read what you wrote, you're basically saying that because of the way things happened along our timeline, that only certain bands could have come up with the ideas they had to have made the type of influence we have. My question is, why wouldn't all musically inclined human beings have that capacity? Even if it were slightly different? In fact, I'm pretty sure a huge margin of a lot of creative and groundbreaking musicians existed outside the fame that catapulted the stars we know into the musical history books and created influence for future generations of musicians. How do you know that if the unknowns had gotten a lucky break like the one's we know, that they wouldn't have met or exceeded the standards we're used to?

Not to mention the fact that these musical time periods had pretty specific influences from what was happening around them. It's a pretty safe bet that out of the multitudes of musicians and bands forming at any given time, at least a few of them would be both influenced by their surroundings and lucky enough to get signed and spammed across the world in order for other people to ever refer to them as some of our most enduring influences.

I think maybe you're looking at this too specifically. No one is arguing that a specific band comprised of specific people would or would not be here had their influences been different people. The real question is, would it really matter?

I don't think it would. The spark can come from anyone. If it's bright enough, it will catch.

I won't disagree, since it's essentially the point I was getting at.

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 11-20-2010, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AwwSugar

That's from How The Beatles destroyed Rock 'n' Roll. I haven't read the whole thing but I've read the first chapter and my father has heard the author talk before so I've heard a lot about it that way. I think it's interesting.

I guess you can read it on google books too.
How the Beatles destroyed rock 'n ... - Google Books

Yeah, I'm not really an Elijah Wald fan. I've read some of his stuff and quite I honestly I think he talks a lot out his ass. The title of this particular book, for example, is just an eye catcher, I've heard most of the book is just the history of lesser known musicians. Not that there's anything wrong with exposing people to a different side of popular music (the real innovators behind the scenes and the influential artists who never got the fame they deserve), but discrediting people just because of their popularity is is equally as dumb as buying into the bandwagon pitch.

Zaqarbal · 11-20-2010, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alpha

Sure, I'm there there are all kinds of external factors that must be taken into consideration. Market pressure for a "new sound" would certainly have been one of them. Evolving technology is another.

I agree. External factors are important. For instance, now you mentioned A. Graham Bell, what about Meucci (the real inventor of the telephone?)? And then Edison, the diverse circumstances of the sound-recording inventions, etc.

And yes, we have to see the industry's pressure, according to the decade in question (for instance, now, at the "Internet Age", it is less effective, etc...). There are many things to consider.

VEGANGELICA · 11-22-2010, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

If the Beatles hadn't existed maybe Ray Davis would have got the credit & success he deserved.

I think you are probably right, because I've known of the Beatles and listened to them almost my whole life, but I've never even heard of Ray Davis.

And now that I look him up, I don' t even know if you mean Ray Davis of The Parliaments from South Carolina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Davis_(musician) or Ray Davies of The Kinks! Ray Davies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Either way, I'd never heard of Ray before you mentioned him.

So I still feel that if you negated the Beatles, we would end up with slightly different music traditions and perhaps eventually even different genres that *would never have arisen* had this particular group not become popular, just as many potential languages would have never existed if a language (such as Latin) were negated.

Human inventiveness can take many alternate routes, leading to very different end results.

mr dave · 11-22-2010, 04:21 PM

it's SOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo easy to look back on what an influential person or group did in the past and say, 'pfft yeah, i could do that, or i'm sure other people would have eventually figure it out, it seems so obvious now. they weren't THAT influential really.'

except it's never that obvious before it actually happens and it's impossible for anyone who wasn't there and an active participant in said social change to really have anything more to say than just another fart in the wind.

Arya Stark · 11-23-2010, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conan

Yeah, I'm not really an Elijah Wald fan. I've read some of his stuff and quite I honestly I think he talks a lot out his ass. The title of this particular book, for example, is just an eye catcher, I've heard most of the book is just the history of lesser known musicians. Not that there's anything wrong with exposing people to a different side of popular music (the real innovators behind the scenes and the influential artists who never got the fame they deserve), but discrediting people just because of their popularity is is equally as dumb as buying into the bandwagon pitch.

Right, I completely agree with that. It's the other side, the other extreme. I think I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm not going to give the Beatles all of the credit and say they're the best things that ever happened and such, especially due to the fact that what they did either would have been done or HAD been done. But I'm not going to completely disregard them as a HUGE leading influence in music at the time and music now. What they did has strongly shaped music and I completely agree with that, but there is so much more to music than the Beatles and I they're not the only influence. This isn't an argument against you, by the way, just letting out my opinion in the form of a response to your quote.

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 11-23-2010, 10:22 AM

No yeah, I share the same sentiment exactly.

11-23-2010, 10:22 AM	#37 (permalink)
~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,538	No yeah, I share the same sentiment exactly.