Are you a denier of how influential they were?

No.

/thread

fpbp

File: 0592850156.jpg (12KB, 182x330px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 182x330px

They where a meme band

>>72345871
>They where a meme band

File: 1491862324002.jpg (27KB, 326x326px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 326x326px

>>72345903
ah fuck

>>72345831

THE FACT THAT

No, seriously, Scaruffi's arguments convinced me.

the beach boys were more influential

>>72345831
Influential? yes
Overrated? just as much

>>72345831
>Influential
Meme word that has no value, the better question is, have they brought something new to the table?

>>72346710
>A W A R D W I N N I N G

>>72345831
They were good at what they did

>>72346710
I agree. Scaruffi's article is meme as fuck, but he does make valid points.

>>72345831
they were very influential, yes.
BUT you cannot deny how heavily they themselves were influenced by others.

>>72346710
What arguments?
It's just a rant with no evidence to back its claims

Influence is objective. The first to do something is the one that influences, not the most popular; that is, you do not get to decide who influenced you. The Stones did not put an artist or album name on the cover of their 1964 English debut album, an innovation always attributed to the Beatles' 1969 Abbey Road.

Who are those guys?

>>72346903
well im not sure if there is ever a 100% original idea ever, every idea is influenced by something

>>72346726
it depends on what you mean by "influential". for instance, without "pet sounds" i doubt Sgt Peppers would have even happened. But on the other hand, Sgt Peppers probably influenced a wider range of musicians (especially in US) than pet sounds.

you also have to take into account what genres they influenced. if we're talking about punk and post punk and alternative and experimental music, the velvet underground was way more influential. but overall it would probably be the beatles

people act like the question is so cut and dry