Evolution Of Music Is Based On Influence

Rock music that is


If you have noticed if your an all around music listener, rock music is falling to pieces. But the beginning was so great. What happened? How you play and your style most would say is your influence, but really influence reflects how you think in a way. Rock music started from people like Chuck Berry which evolved from a sort of jazz influence but really no influence at all, playing their own thing. Then comes bands like Beatles, The Who, and Rolling Stones guitarists would be influenced by another guitarist like Chuck Berry or B.B. King but that doesn't influence the whole band so again their on their own thing there. Some of the best music ever with barely any influence. Now Lets take on. Other genders of music progress like Metal and Punk (Real Punk). They are influenced by what they like. Take example of Kirk Hammet of Metallica, a metal guitarist whos influences were Jimmy Page, Hendrix and people around that time. Is Metallica good? Most would say yes, like mwa. Are they better then the influences? No, of course not (Most would say), you can never beat the influences, not at that time. Then people get influenced by him or his band, are they better? No way. What I'm saying is that sooner or later music is gonna start to suck if people only keep on going down this ladder. When is that? Now. So in comes a little band called Green Day which are influenced by The Clash. They better? Self explanitory. So as we go down this ladder, people get influenced by Green Day and this is where everything starts to fall. I'm not saying that GD is horrible but we've too far down this ladder that bands are calling themselves punk when there really should be a gendre stunk to fit them somewhere. So nowadays to find a good band (In an all arounders opinion) you'd have to go up that ladder and get early influences. Or even a mix. Like the band Fighting Instinct. They're influenced by Soundgarden, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and Led Zeppelin. If you like all three of those bands then you'll be sure to like Fighting Instinct (Listen to "I Found Forever" by the way), Because it takes part of their sound. Music is falling because people only listen to music out around now to choose their influences. If they'd expand it a little more they'd be pretty good. Like MCR. Yeah I don't like them much but they have a sense of uniqueness in them from the rest of the emo tribe. Why? 'Cause they listened to a lot of Iron Maiden. No other emo band does.



So what do you think about this theory?

I wish I could give u my opinion but I know anything about rock... I just listen to it while pretending to stab stuff..

I've got a few serious reservations about your theory.

For a start, you're relying too much on the premise that "one bad apple spoils the barrel". You can't judge this entire generation of rock music on one band - Greenday.

Quote:

---

Then people get influenced by him or his band, are they better? No way. What I'm saying is that sooner or later music is gonna start to suck if people only keep on going down this ladder.

---

I don't agree entirely. There will always be musicians who build the foundations of music to come, with new styles and ideas, and they will influence other musicians to build on those foundations and improve the original ideas.

Concept albums came to the forefront of the music industry in 1967 when the Beatles released Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. There's little doubt that it's a fantastic album, but the only thing that makes it a concept album is the intro and the reprise. All the other songs on the album are completely unconnected with the idea of Sgt. Pepper and the Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Though there had been concept albums before Sgt. Pepper, it was the Beatles laid the foundations for this type of album. Sgt. Pepper isn't the best conceptual album ever made, but its ideas influenced much better ones in turn, such as the Dark Side of the Moon, and The Wall.

This theory requires musicians to be infuenced by only one type of music. This is seldom the case.

I disagree, I think that people can be better than their influences. Nowhere was it ever stated that a person's influences will always be better than they themselves. Take Michael Jordan, I'm sure he had influences growing up, but he's arguably the greatest basketball player of all time. Now relate that back to music, everyone has had to have influences somewhere along the way, Hendrix had influences, Led Zeppelin had influences, Black Sabbath had influences. Those people/bands are pretty much some of the biggest and most influential names in rock and roll, if what you state is true, their influences must have been greater than them. But does everyone even know what influenced them? No, but if they were greater you would think that people would, right?

Also, your theory doesn't take into account influences from different genres of music as well.

Basically, an influence is only that, an influence. They don't have to be better than you, only make you think and inspire you.

Of course people are going to imitate their favourite bands when it comes to making music. You can hardly expect people to make music they don't like, can you?

The problem with your argument is that you're working under the misapprehension that an imitation can never match up to or surpass the original. Taking Oasis as a popular example, they stole everything but their name from The Stone Roses, up to and including having an arrogant, tone-deaf moron for a lead singer. Despite this, their first two albums are widely accepted as being classics, and easily on par with The Stone Roses' work.

jrgen is also correct in saying that bands take on a number of influences in their formative years, and that this has the effect of varying their sound. To use your example of Metallica: just how much do they have in common with Led Zep and Hendrix? You'll pick out a few similarities, yes, but the overall sound is really quite removed, the reason being that every member of the band brings multiple influences to the table. You'll be hard-pressed to find a group of musicians with identical taste, so any band will inevitably end up assimilating the styles of more than one group, as well as adding their own input into the mix.

Besides, it's not as if all the great rock and roll legends weren't imitators themselves. Led Zeppelin owe much to the blues; The Beatles started out playing the sort of simple rock n' roll that had already been popular in America for some time (Elvis, anyone?). Sometimes, because of the legendary status of these artists, it's easy to forget that they were/are music fans themselves, and that they wanted to be like their heroes as much as any band of today wants to be like them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach

For a start, you're relying too much on the premise that "one bad apple spoils the barrel". You can't judge this entire generation of rock music on one band - Greenday.

---

I wasn't just basing it off of green day. The whole point is that bands who only listen to others like green day will be off on the worse end and another decade will pass and bands will like that band who was inspired by bands like green day and they will be worse then them and double as worse as bands like green day. When I say a bands name I dont just mean solely them. That'd be stupid. That's the reason I included the words like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Now relate that back to music, everyone has had to have influences somewhere along the way, Hendrix had influences, Led Zeppelin had influences, Black Sabbath had influences. Those people/bands are pretty much some of the biggest and most influential names in rock and roll,

---

If you read correctly I didn't say they never had influences, I said they had minor influences that doesn't effect the whole band so they were doing their own thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cz

jrgen is also correct in saying that bands take on a number of influences in their formative years, and that this has the effect of varying their sound. To use your example of Metallica: just how much do they have in common with Led Zep and Hendrix? You'll pick out a few similarities, yes, but the overall sound is really quite removed, the reason being that every member of the band brings multiple influences to the table. You'll be hard-pressed to find a group of musicians with identical taste, so any band will inevitably end up assimilating the styles of more than one group, as well as adding their own input into the mix.

---

Although you brought up a good point I never said the whole band liked Led Zep or Hendrix. I said that Kirk Hammet (Guitarist) sited them as his influences as a guitarist. Never the whole band. Who knows, maybe the whole band did like Led Zep but I was reffering to Led Zeppelin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cz

Besides, it's not as if all the great rock and roll legends weren't imitators themselves. Led Zeppelin owe much to the blues; The Beatles started out playing the sort of simple rock n' roll that had already been popular in America for some time (Elvis, anyone?). Sometimes, because of the legendary status of these artists, it's easy to forget that they were/are music fans themselves, and that they wanted to be like their heroes as much as any band of today wants to be like them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

Rock music started from people like Chuck Berry which evolved from a sort of jazz influence but really no influence at all, playing their own thing. Then comes bands like Beatles, The Who, and Rolling Stones guitarists would be influenced by another guitarist like Chuck Berry or B.B. King but that doesn't influence the whole band so again their on their own thing there. Some of the best music ever with barely any influence.

---

Barely any influence, not no influence whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Now relate that back to music, everyone has had to have influences somewhere along the way, Hendrix had influences, Led Zeppelin had influences, Black Sabbath had influences. Those people/bands are pretty much some of the biggest and most influential names in rock and roll,

---

If you read correctly I didn't say they never had influences, I said they had minor influences that doesn't effect the whole band so they were doing their own thing.

---

I did read correctly, if you had read correctly you would know that the point I was trying to make is that even the the greatest most influential bands/artists have influences themselves. But according to your argument their influences must have been better, but they're not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

Barely any influence, not no influence whatsoever.

---

I'd say that The Beatles are actually pretty closely related to Presley. Certainly closer than Metallica are to Hendrix, anyway.

I do see where you're coming from, and you're right to say that too much derivation in music can cause a particular style to become stale. All I'm trying to say is that the majority of bands aren't as derivative as you think. Then again, I'd probably disagree with your belief that rock and roll music is getting worse, too. I suppose we're just approaching the premise very differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

I wasn't just basing it off of green day. The whole point is that bands who only listen to others like green day will be off on the worse end and another decade will pass and bands will like that band who was inspired by bands like green day and they will be worse then them and double as worse as bands like green day. When I say a bands name I dont just mean solely them. That'd be stupid. That's the reason I included the words like.

---

Then what about the Manic Street Preachers? A much better band than Greenday, but also stemming from the same influence - Clash.

Same roots, different bands. Is Greenday better than Clash? No. Is Manic Street Preachers better than Clash? Well, that's debatable. For some people they might not be, but for some they might.

A band can be better than their influence. As with the Manics being influenced by Clash, just because one band is influenced by Greenday doesn't mean that they're going to turn out terrible. What you're trying to do is to judge a large chunk of the next generation without even hearing any of it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

I did read correctly, if you had read correctly you would know that the point I was trying to make is that even the the greatest most influential bands/artists have influences themselves. But according to your argument their influences must have been better, but they're not.

---

Nice try but if you noticed at the beginning I said if you look at it from an all arounders point of view. Through out my whole argument I was in that same point of view so from that POV, the influenced barely really touch the influences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cz

Then again, I'd probably disagree with your belief that rock and roll music is getting worse, too. I suppose we're just approaching the premise very differently.

---

You like the mainstream? Ugh. I can't stand it. Only some exceptions though. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach

Same roots, different bands. Is Greenday better than Clash? No. Is Manic Street Preachers better than Clash? Well, that's debatable. For some people they might not be, but for some they might.

---

So, I never brought up two bands with the same likings. I said a band and their idols. Of course everyone can't sound a like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach

What you're trying to do is to judge a large chunk of the next generation without even hearing any of it yet.

---

Actually taking a hypothesis of my theory of how bad it is already, most would say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

So, I never brought up two bands with the same likings. I said a band and their idols. Of course everyone can't sound a like.

---

Exactly. So why can't a band be better than their influences?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

Actually taking a hypothesis of my theory of how bad it is already, most would say.

---

Then...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

I wasn't just basing it off of green day. The whole point is that bands who only listen to others like green day will be off on the worse end and another decade will pass and bands will like that band who was inspired by bands like green day and they will be worse then them and double as worse as bands like green day. When I say a bands name I dont just mean solely them. That'd be stupid. That's the reason I included the words like.

---

...what was the point of all that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

So, I never brought up two bands with the same likings. I said a band and their idols. Of course everyone can't sound a like.

---

Exactly. So why can't a band be better than their influences?

---

Those two statements have nothing to do with eachother. Where are thinking of this? First I said most would say that influenced can't be beat the influence then you bring up two bands with the same roots. Where does all of this come into this? I'm trying to discuss a father-son type of thing and bring up son-son. Yeah they were both from the father but I never tried to compare them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

I wasn't just basing it off of green day. The whole point is that bands who only listen to others like green day will be off on the worse end and another decade will pass and bands will like that band who was inspired by bands like green day and they will be worse then them and double as worse as bands like green day. When I say a bands name I dont just mean solely them. That'd be stupid. That's the reason I included the words like.

---

...what was the point of all that?

---

How is this relevant at all? One statment was that you assumed I was assuming that the new generations gonna suck. Then I say know, it's my hypothesis that it sucks already, most would say. How does this go along with my other statement that the new music only listen to music limited to atmost a decade past. Most of them. I'm too confused to write. Could please explain to me what you mean. In a more detailed way other then connecting to posts of mine with an un helpful sentence, no offense?

I disagree. After a period with a lot of really bad ska bands like Sum 41, Blink 182, as well as those awful, AWFUL Boy Bands, I think music is taking a turn to sound GOOD again. Yes, there are still emo bands, but it's a trend; it won't last long when those kids grow up and realize that there are people worse off than they are. Your parents won't let you dress like you live on the streets?! Scandalous!

I think combinations of some genres are starting to influence other bands already. Take The Killers. They have some techno fused into their music (somewhat), and there are suddenly lots of other bands trying to imitate that sound. One band that I think does it very well is Mobile. Haven't heard of them? They're Canadian; check them out.

Another rock band that's sort of against this angry/emo stuff is The Trews. Again, Canadian band. Released an album in the States recently. Check them out. Their influences? No clue. But that doesn't mean that their music has to be as bad as the music they listened to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

Those two statements have nothing to do with eachother. Where are thinking of this? First I said most would say that influenced can't be beat the influence then you bring up two bands with the same roots. Where does all of this come into this? I'm trying to discuss a father-son type of thing and bring up son-son. Yeah they were both from the father but I never tried to compare them.

---

Because if someone thinks that Manic Street Preachers are better than Clash, it pretty much voids your entire arguement about a band never bettering their influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

How is this relevant at all? One statment was that you assumed I was assuming that the new generations gonna suck.

---

Because if your hypothesis doesn't work for the next generation, then why should it work for the previous generations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpikingZero

I disagree. After a period with a lot of really bad ska bands like Sum 41, Blink 182, as well as those awful, AWFUL Boy Bands, I think music is taking a turn to sound GOOD again. Yes, there are still emo bands, but it's a trend; it won't last long when those kids grow up and realize that there are people worse off than they are. Your parents won't let you dress like you live on the streets?! Scandalous!

I think combinations of some genres are starting to influence other bands already. Take The Killers. They have some techno fused into their music (somewhat), and there are suddenly lots of other bands trying to imitate that sound. One band that I think does it very well is Mobile. Haven't heard of them? They're Canadian; check them out.

Another rock band that's sort of against this angry/emo stuff is The Trews. Again, Canadian band. Released an album in the States recently. Check them out. Their influences? No clue. But that doesn't mean that their music has to be as bad as the music they listened to.

---

Not all music is what I mean like I stated before (Pretty sure I have). Just most of them. Bands with no influence just seem to do it best or even close. Or like I said before, bands with a certain combination of influences to enhance their sound. Like Fighting Instinct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach

Because if someone thinks that Manic Street Preachers are better than Clash, it pretty much voids your entire arguement about a band never bettering their influence.

---

But you didn't say that now did you? And someone is one person. And don't even think of saying then why am I arguing. I said many times I'm basing this off the point of views of the majority of all arounders. And besides opinions are opinions. It's alright if you don't agree. I'm jus trying to make it clear what I'm trying to say so there's no mix ups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach

Because if your hypothesis doesn't work for the next generation, then why should it work for the previous generations?

---

You mean the other way around? If not then, how do you know it won't? And I don't mean music will suck forever. There's gonna be life to it once again but only by bands who extend their tastes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

Not all music is what I mean like I stated before (Pretty sure I have). Just most of them. Bands with no influence just seem to do it best or even close. Or like I said before, bands with a certain combination of influences to enhance their sound. Like Fighting Instinct.

---

Then why is it that bands like Greenday are so popular, if they're no good? Why are they influencing and inspiring more people than a band like Fighting Instinct?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe because Greenday started in the late eighties and Fighting Instinct is new. And money, and fame doesn't mean anything. It's talent. New comers wouldn't know that. Why? 'Cause they don't how simple the stuff they play really is. Not just that but it's not all about how many fans you gain. Greenday could someday be bigger then The Beatles (Never gonna happen) but the majority will tell you Beatles are better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

Gee, I dunno. Maybe because Greenday started in the late eighties and Fighting Instinct is new.

---

The Kaiser Chiefs started in 1997, and aren't doing too badly for themselves.

Greenday's first breakthrough album wasn't until 1994, with Dookie. Their founding in the late eighties barely means anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

And money, and fame doesn't mean anything. It's talent.

---

Greenday have sold over 25.8 million albums in the United States, and over 55.5 million records worldwide. Do you really think that all those people would buy them if they were terrible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

The Beatles (Never gonna happen) but the majority will tell you Beatles are better.

---

Yes, but then does Greenday's 55.5 million records count for nothing?

This debate wouldn't even exist if all of you stopped limiting yourself to crap music.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrgen

This debate wouldn't even exist if all of you stopped limiting yourself to crap music.

---

I have been owned. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

Gee, I dunno. Maybe because Greenday started in the late eighties and Fighting Instinct is new.

---

The Kaiser Chiefs started in 1997, and aren't doing too badly for themselves.

Greenday's first breakthrough album wasn't until 1994, with Dookie. Their founding in the late eighties barely means anything.

---

If you're still comparing to FI then I'm sure there still new. Like this year new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach

Greenday have sold over 25.8 million albums in the United States, and over 55.5 million records worldwide. Do you really think that all those people would buy them if they were terrible?

---

No but a lot of people complain with such words as "sell outs" and others related. Yeah, I'm sure there are green day fans out there but some left after american idiot saying it was complete lame and some stayed claiming that album got them in to GD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach

Yes, but then does Greenday's 55.5 million records count for nothing?

---

It's kind of hard to an artist compare 55.5 million to another who sold 1 billion. But to keep myself true to what I said before, that doesn't matter. It's just the majority will tell Beatles are better. Good point though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

If you're still comparing to FI then I'm sure there still new. Like this year new.

---

If their new album is a breakthrough for them, then why not? It took Greenday five years to make it with Dookie, it might only take FI one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

No but a lot of people complain with such words as "sell outs" and others related. Yeah, I'm sure there are green day fans out there but some left after american idiot saying it was complete lame and some stayed claiming that album got them in to GD.

---

Sellout? What does being a sellout have to do with your music being bad?

When Bob Dylan "sold out" at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965, by playing an electric guitar, people booed and jeered him, calling him "Judas". What he did doesn't make him a bad musician, does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpikingZero

I disagree. After a period with a lot of really bad ska bands like Sum 41, Blink 182

---

Neither of those bands you mentioned are ska. Not even close.

Quote:

---

I think combinations of some genres are starting to influence other bands already. Take The Killers. They have some techno fused into their music (somewhat), and there are suddenly lots of other bands trying to imitate that sound. One band that I think does it very well is Mobile. Haven't heard of them? They're Canadian; check them out.

Another rock band that's sort of against this angry/emo stuff is The Trews. Again, Canadian band. Released an album in the States recently. Check them out. Their influences? No clue. But that doesn't mean that their music has to be as bad as the music they listened to.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf1xIViLofg

Been doing it for years. Better than the rest(Although the sound quality of this video sucks). :spin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

If you're still comparing to FI then I'm sure there still new. Like this year new.

---

If their new album is a breakthrough for them, then why not? It took Greenday five years to make it with Dookie, it might only take FI one.

---

And how would you know that? I don't even know. Have you ever listened to FI? Even wikipedia doesn't have any info on them. Underground music can sometimes do you some good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

And how would you know that? I don't even know. Have you ever listened to FI? Even wikipedia doesn't have any info on them.

---

I haven't listened to FI's music. I looked up their website. Why does this even matter anyway?

Quote:

---

Underground music can sometimes do you some good.

---

And what's that supposed to mean?

It matters 'cause your comparing a fanbase of a band whos been out for years and another who started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

It matters 'cause your comparing a fanbase of a band whos been out for years and another who started.

---

Like I said, if FI's new album does for them what Dookie did for Greenday, then why can't they be as popular?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

Underground music can sometimes do you some good.

---

You didn't answer my question. What did you mean by that?

That has nothing to do with this thing. Sorry bout that. That's just my opinion. But one thing crosses my mind. How did we get from talking about one person says GD sucks and another says they dont when all I said was that going down this ladder will make a downfall soon? I never once said they sucked in my first post. In my personal opinion, I think they do but that wasn't part of the theory. In the theory I said that people who listen to bands like GD, hence the word like, will be going down the ladder. GD is down enough for having influences that were down aswell. So when people get influenced by GD they go lower. Not that GD sucks, it's the way I view this ladder thing. Remember though, not just my point. The majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

That has nothing to do with this thing. Sorry bout that. That's just my opinion. But one thing crosses my mind. How did we get from talking about one person says GD sucks and another says they dont when all I said was that going down this ladder will make a downfall soon? I never once said they sucked in my first post. In my personal opinion, I think they do but that wasn't part of the theory. In the theory I said that people who listen to bands like GD, hence the word like, will be going down the ladder. GD is down enough for having influences that were down aswell. So when people get influenced by GD they go lower. Not that GD sucks, it's the way I view this ladder thing. Remember though, not just my point. The majority.

---

Yeah, we have deviated slightly, haven't we? :D

Okay, back to the original debate about bands not bettering their influence. If the Beatles are the greatest band ever (and the majority will tell you that they are) then they have to be better than their influences, like Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly, and Little Richard. Which isn't possible if rock music folows this downward spiral that you described.

Lol


Hmm, I would call that a minor influence but they did cover a lot of oldies songs. But the thing is that they were on their own with their sound. Most bands out use the sound of their influence but mixed with some others develope their sound. Beatles were on their own thing with uniqueness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shout

Hmm, I would call that a minor influence but they did cover a lot of oldies songs. But the thing is that they were on their own with their sound. Most bands out use the sound of their influence but mixed with some others develope their sound. Beatles were on their own thing with uniqueness.

---

Gahh! I've run out of arguements.

Good debate Shout. I've been defeated. I shall now hang my head in shame... :D

Lol. I argue a lot so it's my way of getting my point viewed. Not that I was trying to fight anybody. You didn't do so bad either. I had to really think sometimes. But I didn't make the thread to argue. I made it to see what people though and you were really the only one who posted so really this should be closed if no one's gonna actually read it.