Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteater
Yeah, he raped my furry arse with that post. Goddamn...
So then, would The Beatles be considered the most influential group due to direct or indirect influence? Say, for example, a band starts doing music becaused there were inspired by The Silver Apples's S/T debut and Contact. Does that mean The Beatles have an influence over this band also because they pioneered techniques that the Silver Apples made use of in their own music?
|
As I say, my opinion is that the only pertinent question is that of direct influence, that is to say, that there should be a genuine causal link between one band's influence and another band's music. This is because it would be possible to say, 'if band X did not exist, then the music of band Y would have been substantially different'.
If The Beatles were wiped out of history, I think it stands beyond any reasonable doubt that the history of rock music would have been substantially different - and this is due to the direct influence they had upon so many acts. Sure, you're right that they may have simply taken ideas from the underground and even the avant-garde and gave those ideas a popular audience, but it's presenting to a popular audience that constitutes being influential.
Take the analogy of academia: many eminent scholars merely rip-off ideas from their students! But when those ideas become popularized, surely it would be ridiculous to attribute the influence to the unknown students who originally conceived of them. The influential one is the one who makes them well known. It's an elementary matter.
Linear Mode
