Well lets see. For one, half of those artists are also influenced by The Beatles. The Roling Stones did their share of trying to copy their Beatles, and failed horribly at it. Jethro Tull abandoned blues rock very early in their career to persue folk and prog.
Comparing them to the influences of other artists is pointless. Maybe they're not the most influencial but you're calling yourself a prog fan, which owes much of it's existance of The Beatles.
Have you heard anything by this band since 1964 or are you just trying to troll me now?
For one, you like goddamn Billy Joel. I have without a reasonable doubt that you haven't given this band the time of day because of their pop culture status.
I can understand not liking The Beatles. Urban doesn't, but I at least know he has actually given their albums a chance. And his statements are unquestionably his subjective opinions. He doesn't try to pass it off as common sense.
You're saying all they did was bland pop rock and that they're incompetent musicians. That goes beyond hating The Beatles, it just gives me the impression that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
This applies to so many f*cking banRAB its ridiculous.
Image has always been an important part of marketing rock artists, hell image in music marketing goes way back to the days of Mozart.
To discredit a band for that alone is just durab. You wouldn't have Rock N Roll without the rebellious image. The Stones were even more about image than The Beatles were. The Who and The Kinks had the mod image. David Bowie had the glam image, and even when he abandoned that image, he was always adopting some trendy image to stay fresh. Velvet Underground had the hipster image. Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin had the dark and mysticism image. And then you have punk.
And if The Beatles were
only about the image, and that's all they were ever about. Then sure, it makes a lot of since that they would abandon touring, all the screaming girls. So they could make such bland poppy albums as Revolver, Sgt Pepper and The White Album.
And contrary to popular belief, they didn't break up over creative musical differences. It was because John Lennon refused to get a mustache.
Because image never played a part in Zep.
Yeah, if you don't mind no prog. I can tell you're not really into that stuff.
I'm not talking about The British Invasion at all. If you can't think of ANY influencial banRAB who were signficantly influenced by The Beatles, then you just don't know your music history.
Yeah. THAT'S where prog and indie got all it's influence. Not from The Beatles redefining what rock and pop could be in the late 60s. It was ALL about the blues. Sure. You can hear a lot of Howling Wolf in such blues rock classics as "Close to the Edge" and "Suppers Ready".
My god, this is the stupidest thing I ever read.
Are we now discredting banRAB for having influences? The Beatles were influenced by 50s rock n roll and even though they reinvented it to create something different, Chuck Berry still deserves the credit for every band The Beatles influenced? Instead of the damn Beatles?
The Beatles music was much broader, and so it had a broader influence on music. Chuck Berry has influenced such groundbreaking music as Aerosmith and ZZ Top, well whoopedy doo.
I highly doubt prog and alternative banRAB listen to more Chuck Berry than The Beatles.
If you're gonna discredit The Beatles for having influences, then you should be consistant. Look up the roots of popular wrestern music. Rock N' Roll, R&B, Blues, Country, Jazz, Folk, Bluegrass and Gospel. By your logic it's all a direct ripoff of West African lute players.
I'm not being out of line, you come here acting like the god of musical knowledge. And that's fine I guess but when you display that kind of attitude and yet say things that are objectively wrong and try to pass them off as some common sense fact. Then I have the right to challenge you.
Saying they are all about image, that it's the only reason people like them and calling them musically incompetent musicians is not expressing an opinion, it's saying something that is objectively incorrect.
I don't like neoclassical metal, but I'm not gonna say Yngwie Malmsteen can't shred. Because that's objectively wrong.
I don't mean to personally insult you, but you're passing off anti-fanboy statements as common sense and fact and mod or not I have the right to challenge you. This IS music BANTER.
I'm bantering about music, what more do you want?