Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
It's easy to dismiss something older and influential as being primitive, but the whole reason it was influential is because the artist did something very much the **** right, and if you open your mind and ears you could find out that there's something you might actually have been missing. First impressions should not dictate how you judge music.
|
Not necessarily: something can be very influential for doing something very much the **** wrong. But, that's not the case here, and I certainly agree about the second part of your post. That's not what I'm asking though: if you listen to something old and it just seems really dated despite how influential it was (say after you've listened to it a few times), should it get any 'bonus points' for being influential in a rating thread like this where we are determining 'classics'?