[MERIT]

For me, it was a toss-up between The Beatles and Bob Dylan. I went with The Beatles. I've rarely heard an artists say that The Beatles weren't at the very least somewhat influential to them, regardless of genre.

If someone had never heard a single piece of music before and asked "what is music?," throwing on a Beatles album would answer that question.

Anteater

See, artists are often obliged to say The Beatles were an influence on them (even when they aren't) because its a name that all their fans know. People seem to get extra pleased whenever their favorite band mentions John Lennon as a songwriting influence: its like a few extra cool points in the minds of their Pitchfork readers.

On another note, I feel King Crimson are on par with The Beatles and Rolling Stones in terms of influence upon later generations of musicians (many of which would soar to high commercial visibility).

__________________
Anteater's 21 Fav Albums Of 2020

Anteater's Daily Tune Roulette

BastardofYoung

The Beatles here, followed by Hendrix. The rest are just alright.

__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

Blarobbarg

Although I believe older bands/artists than the ones on this list would get my vote if I could, I had to go with The Beatles. They have undeniably inspired more musicians than almost anyone, ever.

The Virgin

Elvis Presley.

Howard the Duck

Dylan, like, invented rap

and social consciousness in music

and divorce songs

and played the blues better than most white dudes could

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

BastardofYoung

Maybe it is the fact that I find Elvis to be the single most overrated music figure in the history of music, and think if you look past his good looks and stage persona, he really had nothing much going on for him. Elvis embodies the performer, he was a showman... but at his core he was an entertainer over a musician. But when looking at his time, he was nothing special.. he was just a glorified cover performer. I hate that he is considered the king of rock n roll to so many, especially when Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and others were doing much better stuff in those days. Chuck Berry deserves the title more than Elvis. Elvis is now just a marketing tool, selling off his image... well, he always did.

I admire Elvis for being an example of an early shock performer, wether or not he wanted to be or tried to be, he was in the eyes of many. His movements were considered obscene... he may of embodied the rock and roll persona and image... but his music doesn't back up that image and quite frankly, is not that good once you get over the hype of it all.


Other band on here I would say about the same is The Rolling Stones, though they were good and wrote the majority of their own stuff in the day. But to me, they do are more about image, The Beatles surpassed them in virtually every regard. I like some early stuff by The Rolling Stones, but their legacy has been overblown over the years. They essentially have 8 good years, to 40 bad years. In the running to me for overrated. But I guess they can be seen as influential. But you ask me and The Stooges were everything the Stones were and much more, when they came out, it was like Rolling who? They to me embodie more of what The Stones tried to be than the Stones themselves. They may of only had 3 albums, but those 3 albums as far as I am concerned are more consistent and more interesting than even the best 3 Stones albums.

__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

TockTockTock

I completely agree with you. I've been digging through their discography recently, and it's amazing what all they did and how much influence they had on future musicians (progressive rock or otherwise). King Crimson were the quintessential band of crossover prog.


I'm almost positive that Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, and The Velvet Underground are more than just alright...


I agree. Elvis was essentially the first pop star in rock music. In other words... mediocrity isn't something to receive praise for.

BastardofYoung

The Velvet Underground, yeah... they are influential. But a far as I am concerned made boring music when all is said and done. John Cale was the most talented member of that band, Lou Reed gets more credit than her deserves. Do I hate VU, no... I understand the impact, but I do not find them to personally be anything more than just average. Their impact is overblown in many ways by people.

Lou Reed solo was the same to me. Too formulalic for my tastes. Just make slight changes to songs while talking over it.

Led Zeppelin, the ultimate plagorists band. While Elvis may of done covers, he at least gave credit to the artists who performed it, while Zep would flat out steal and not do so. I have no respect for them. Yeah, they wrote some decent stuff. But I can't listen to them anymore.

Dylan, yeah... good songwriter, medicore performer. I would gladly take a book of his poetry and lyrics over any of his albums now. I will listen to the occasional song by him. But in the end, I will take Woody Gutherie over him.

__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

TockTockTock

I agree that John Cale deserves more credit than what he receives now, but to say that Lou Reed is formulaic just doesn't make much sense to me. I don't think you can look at his albums Transformer, Berlin, and Metal Machine Music and say they are formulaic. The same can be said about New York (although, it does share a few similarities with his early work) and Street Hassle. I certainly don't consider VU's music to be boring either (this is more of a matter of opinion), nor do I consider them over-hyped. They created/helped create: alternative rock, art rock, noise rock, ambient music, indie rock, punk rock, dream pop, and help bring elements of the avant-garde into rock music. This was all happening in the mid-sixties when rock music wasn't as evolved artistically as it would be in the near future.

For Led Zeppelin, let me say that one of the first things I say to their sometimes eccentric fans is that they stole a lot of music (dick move, I know). They stole music from Spirit, Bert Jansch, and countless blues musicians, but I won't deny the fact that they were talented and very influential. In my opinion, the vast amount of music they released (their own music -- not their plagiarized) makes up for what they stole.

As for your opinion on Dylan, it's really too subjective to argue about. I'm not an avid fan of his, so I won't go on some long tangent (like I did with VU). If you think he's a boring performer, then that's fine. Personally, I think he was a decent one and that his music was emotional, thoughtful, and intelligent (even during his "crazy Christian" phase).