|
Baddog or someone who actually lived in 1964 come in here.
The Beatles were rugged, the beatles were it.
Bands that followed, even 3 years after? Were the brain children of the beatles. On a calendar, or in retrospect ___ band coming out two years after "Revolver" may seem minute - may seem as if this "band you treasure" were going to be it, make it, mass audiences would enjoy those guitar rifts/notes/style, regardless of the beatles fames years predating? But fact is, Rock after Elvis went into arming? Was dying...without the beatles, without revolver, and all their other albums - without that catalyst, no way to know what would have happened. Beatles pwn your favorite band's favorite band.
Butterfly effect. Jazz, Sinatra, etc. Rock music #1? ha.
Yet the beatles made it so, which allowed for a lot.
Velvet Underground - one great album VU with Nico, but that was in 67' - so much was down well before and after, far far vaste. By many, The who to name one. So to compare them to the beatles? Ehhh, trendy. And the doors were the most pretentious, fake group known to man. I laugh at Morrison's lyrics and faux attempt at depth. Albeit some rhythms are decent. Them being influential/great/etc? riiiiight.
|