the value of so-called originality....

[Nico]

...if originality even exists. which you can tackle as well. but i was curious as to how much value you place upon the concept of originality of an artist. if band B puts out a record that sounds a lot like band A, but band B's record is solid in its own right, does it's worth diminish a bit b/c its imitating the sound or what have you of band A? is the "orginiator" (a concept i completely question and have an extremely hard time with) placed upon a higher echelon of that style? are the innovators considered better than the followers who then try to perfect or adapt?

 

[wiseguide]

It's a matter of opinion. Look at the Rolling Stones. Some would say that they just copied Chuck Berry or Chicago blues artists.

Others would call them geniuses.

Personally, I think you should just a band or artist on its own merit. Not its influences. Every artist is influenced by something.

 

[blackwasp]

I guess it depends on how original artist B is...and how much they were influenced by artist A. Tom Petty may not be the most original artist ever, but he sure is good!

 

[KristianJ]

Every band's gonna have been influenced by the stylings of other bands...I don't mind subtle resemblance between 2 different bands, because it gives the newer band a chance to show how innovative and original they can be.

 

[Roo6339]

every style is formed from another style... that's my belief...

 

[RobWW]

Everyone is going to be influenced, and show the influences in their music.When they begin to compeltely copy rhythms or even album art, then I begin to think less of "artist B".

-Rob

 

[blackwasp]

Everyone is heavily influenced by the Beatles, whether they know it or not. That is my take.

 

[nadroj1985]

but i was curious as to how much value you place upon the concept of originality of an artist. if band B puts out a record that sounds a lot like band A, but band B's record is solid in its own right, does it's worth diminish a bit b/c its imitating the sound or what have you of band A? is the "orginiator" (a concept i completely question and have an extremely hard time with) placed upon a higher echelon of that style? are the innovators considered better than the followers who then try to perfect or adapt?

Hmmm... I think it's a little more complex than that. For my own part, I question the ability of someone to "perfect" a style of art. Can we say, for instance, that the Velvet Underground were the "originators" of punk (I question the originator distinction as well, btw), and the Clash "perfected" it? Are the two bands even connected, other than by this nebulous term "punk"? And what does it mean for someone to "perfect" a style of art?

The problem is, in your original example, what does it mean for artist B to sound like artist A? Who thinks they sound like artist A, and in what respects? And what was the nature of artist A's originality, that artist B somehow lacks?

Ultimately, I think music (or at least good music) has to have some element of the personal in it, that others can't really imitate and certainly can't "perfect." Granted, you can see some of the Velvets influence on the Clash's sound, for instance, but have the Clash really imitated what made the Velvets great? Is the reason the Velvets were good the same reason the Clash were good?

Everyone is heavily influenced by the Beatles, whether they know it or not. That is my take.

I've still yet to see evidence of this.

 

[Chilldogg77]

Tom Petty may not be the most original artist ever, but he sure is good!

I concur!

I think you have to respect the originality. They're fun to listen to, because it's exciting to hear things that don't sound very much like other stuff that you've heard. And originality requires a bit more brilliance (is that a word?). I think you should bands by how much you like their work, but originality has got to be considered a plus.

 

[Roo6339]

Everyone is heavily influenced by the Beatles, whether they know it or not. That is my take.

i don't think so...

 

[blackwasp]

I can't think of a band who's sound can be traced back without going through the Beatles.

 

[nadroj1985]

I can't think of a band who's sound can be traced back without going through the Beatles.

You're not thinking hard enough, then That, or you're giving the Beatles too much credit. Just a few (not including ones that came before the Beatles)- The Velvet Underground, Captain Beefheart, Bob Dylan, Sigur Ros, My Bloody Valentine, Neu!, Faust, Patti Smith, Pere Ubu, Tortoise, Sonic Youth, Soft Machine, and the list goes on and on.

The thing is, the Beatles had pretty much nothing to do with punk music, which has been, in one way or another, the dominant force in rock music of the past 25-30 years. When you recognize that, it becomes rather easy to find bands not influenced by the Beatles.

 

[wiseguide]

The Beatles influenced a lot. Possibly a majority of post 60's rock. But not 100%.

Sometimes other bands influenced the Beatles. Bands of the same era.

Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, the Byrds and the Yardbirds were all hugely influential at the same time the Beatles were.

 

[sykotick]

well that is just ignorant to think that the beatls influenced everyone. the beatlyes havent influenced me one bit. what about the skyliners? led zeppelin? jimi hendrix? ac/dc? there is no one band/person that influences everything, everyone has different tastes, and ideas.

 

[blackwasp]

You're not thinking hard enough, then That, or you're giving the Beatles too much credit. Just a few (not including ones that came before the Beatles)- The Velvet Underground, Captain Beefheart, Bob Dylan, Sigur Ros, My Bloody Valentine, Neu!, Faust, Patti Smith, Pere Ubu, Tortoise, Sonic Youth, Soft Machine, and the list goes on and on.

I'm not familiar with all of the groups you listed, but I can hear a Beatles influence in Velvet Underground's music, particularly their later material (ie "Who Loves the Sun"). Some of their music may not have a direct Beatles influence, but if you compare most of the Velvets music that was released at the same time, the Velvets seem to be behind the times as far as the overall sound goes. I'm not arguing that the Velvets weren't important or didn't write groundbreaking songs such as "Heroin", but some of their material seems to sound like late 50s rock. I agree that most of Bob Dylan's songwriting wasn't Beatles influenced in the early 60s, but when he had The Band backing him, I believe that a connection could be drawn.

The thing is, the Beatles had pretty much nothing to do with punk music, which has been, in one way or another, the dominant force in rock music of the past 25-30 years. When you recognize that, it becomes rather easy to find bands not influenced by the Beatles.

This is arguable. I have often heard it stated that the Who were the first "punk" band, not Velvet Underground. If you view the Who to be crucial to punk, then it is impossible to ignore the importance of the Beatles in the history of punk.

Sometimes other bands influenced the Beatles. Bands of the same era.

Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, the Byrds and the Yardbirds were all hugely influential at the same time the Beatles were.

The Beatles may have been minorly influenced by other bands of the time (mainly Bob Dylan), but I do not believe that any band challenged the Beatles and could be seen as having an influence on their sound or songwriting. The Beatles wrote the Rolling Stones first hit single for them.

well that is just ignorant to think that the beatls influenced everyone. the beatlyes havent influenced me one bit. what about the skyliners? led zeppelin? jimi hendrix? ac/dc? there is no one band/person that influences everything, everyone has different tastes, and ideas.

I have never heard of the Skyliners, but the Beatles had a huge influence on Led Zeppelin, Hendrix and AC/DC. Hendrix covered Sgt. Pepper's live a week after the Beatles released it.

 

[nadroj1985]

Well, I shouldn't turn this into a Beatles debate, but I have to respond to this...

I'm not familiar with all of the groups you listed, but I can hear a Beatles influence in Velvet Underground's music, particularly their later material (ie "Who Loves the Sun").

Hard to say; but that's a very small part of the Velvets canon, and the least important part, IMO.

Some of their music may not have a direct Beatles influence, but if you compare most of the Velvets music that was released at the same time, the Velvets seem to be behind the times as far as the overall sound goes.

No, they really don't They actually sound about 10-20 years ahead of their time. The Beatles, on the other hand, were certainly behind the times. But then, this turns into the same debate that we've had millions of times.

I'm not arguing that the Velvets weren't important or didn't write groundbreaking songs such as "Heroin", but some of their material seems to sound like late 50s rock.

I don't know about that, it would depend on which ones you're talking about. I don't see any precedent for Heroin, Venus in Furs, The Black Angel's Death Song, Sister Ray, etc.

I agree that most of Bob Dylan's songwriting wasn't Beatles influenced in the early 60s, but when he had The Band backing him, I believe that a connection could be drawn.

Maybe, but probably the most significant portion of his music (Freewheelin' through Blonde on Blonde) is pretty much free of direct Beatles' influence.

This is arguable. I have often heard it stated that the Who were the first "punk" band, not Velvet Underground. If you view the Who to be crucial to punk, then it is impossible to ignore the importance of the Beatles in the history of punk.

By this reasoning, you could say punk was influenced by Mozart. Come on, man, you can say the Beatles are great and influential and all, but they have nothing to do with punk rock, as a musical genre or as a mindset.

 

[ChrisLockhart]

Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, the Byrds and the Yardbirds were all hugely influential at the same time the Beatles were.

..and also the Beach Boys.

I'm going to think up a list of bands or artists that I think have been very influencial, directly or indirectly, upon the various artists under the large multi-faceted genre of pop/rock. I'll be right back with that..

 

[ChrisLockhart]

Okay, as promised.. Now, this is incomplete, of course. And some would disagree with some of my choices. What I tried to do was think up groups or artists that I felt influenced a lot of other artists or groups either directly or indirectly. Not all of these are necessarily the most original artists, but they, I feel, were the most influencial.

So, this is my list of artists that I feel have had the strongest influence on other artists of pop/rock in the past, present, and future.


Aerosmith, Beach Boys, The Beatles, The BeeGees, Black Sabbath, David Bowie, James Brown, The Byrds, John Cage, Chicago, The Clash, Patsy Cline, John Coltrane, Alice Cooper, The Cure,Deftones, The Doors, Nick Drake, Bob Dylan, Einsturzende Neubauten, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Brian Eno, Faith No More, Genesis, Grandmaster Flash, Bill Haley and the Comets, Buddy Holly, Robert Johnson, Janis Joplin, Joy Division, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Korn, Kraftwerk, The Last Poets, Led Zeppelin, Les Paul, Little Richard, Ministry, Bob Moog, Muddy Waters, New Edition, New York Dolls, Nine Inch Nails, Operation Ivy, Parliament, Pearl Jam, Pink Floyd, Elvis Presley, Rage Against The Machine, The Ramones, The Rolling Stones, Run DMC, Sex Pistols, Skinny Puppy, The Smiths, T Rex, Talking Heads, The 13th Floor Elevators, Tool, The Troggs, The Velvet Underground, Hank Williams, Sr., Stevie Wonder, Yes, Frank Zappa