Re: Least Influential

New topic to chew on, everyone!

Suppose, just for discussion's sake, that one of the unquestionably great & influential artists of rock history had never made it. What would've been the result?

Suppose, for example, that Elvis had never been heard or recorded by Sam Phillips, and had spent the rest of his days as a truck driver. Or suppose that John and Paul had experienced a huge falling-out when they were still playing at the Star Club in Hamburg, and as a result, The Beatles had split up in 1960 or so. Or suppose that Dylan had received & accepted a scholarship to Julliard.

What would've been the consequence to rock, had such a key figure in its development been absent? Would rock have been diminished and impoverished, perhaps even to the point where it lost its vitality and faded early? Or would another artist, perhaps with similar ideas, have filled the breach?

Consider the "Merseybeat sound," for example. It's a well-understood term, referring to the artists who appeared in the wake of The Beatles, playing a similar style of rock. Would one of those imitators have ended up being the innovators, had The Beatles never existed? Would one of them have ended up being acknowledged as the "inventors" of that sound and style? Would rock fans be talking about "the Sheffield sound" or "the Edinburgh beat" today, as a widely recognized, hugely influential part of rock history, and a generally understood part of the music's lexicon? Or would the whole British Invasion never have happened?

(Props to Paganizer: His recent post regarding the Stones gave me the inspiration for this one.)

I'm a big believer in the "if not (fill in the blank), then someone else" theory. If not Dylan, well, maybe Donovan and Phil Ochs - yeah I know they weren't the same (even compared to each other), but you can see where their work could have inspired similar subsequent developments even if their art isn't of nearly the same quality. If one of the big acts didn't happen then it's a combination of acts that makes up the difference in influence that the landmark artist encapsulated alone.

No Dylan? Hmmm, maybe the Donovan/Jimmy Page/John Paul Jones recording axis would have pre-empted Yes?!?

I've read one (1) of Harry Turtledove's exhaust(ing)ively researched Alternative History books and if that's what you like, go for it. My own favorite moment is a concerned John Hammond bucking up Robert Johnson backstage before the Spirituals to Swing concert at Carnegie Hall in one of Jack Womack's books. Talk about what if...

What if there had been no Bryan Ferry? see: Quiet Sun.

Larry Kirwan of Black 47 wrote a play and book called Liverpool Fantasy (I think) that was along those lines, that the Beatles broke up before they got famous, and Paul McCartney went on to become an Englebert Humperdink type or something.

I've got the book lying around somewhere, but have never read it.

Calling late night dorm room flashback....

If music never happened (see Motorhead, Hawkwind, etc.)
Dylan could not have been stopped but momentarily.
As much as the cognoscenti relish Brian Wilson, it's the Beatles that caused pop music's fandom, widened lyrical content, expansion in song length and LP format shift. Would someone else have done this? Yes, it was a cultural paradigm shift already in the making. But without that igniting spark, hmmm.
(Maybe it would have waited for Brain Salad Surgery...egads)



Post Edited (06-02-05 09:24)

Was thinking about this topic and realized that it's mainly a different take on the whole "who is the most influential?" question - who would leave a gigantic hole in music if they were removed from its history?

Which made me wonder, who is the LEAST influential "major" artist? I don't mean nobodies like Splodgesnessabounds or one-hit wonders, but people who are considered to be important and major artists, but if you took them out of the picture, the only thing missing would be themselves - no one else important was ever influenced by them, nor did they set the course for music for any amount of time, etc.

Least influential bands that really matter.

Butthole Surfers (though they did have a few imitators back in the day)
Meat Puppets
Replacements (any band influenced by the Mats would instead be recognized as having previous influences)
B-52s (did they actually influence other bands?)
Yo La Tengo

Who in indy has spawned the most imitators?



Post Edited (06-04-05 11:56)

It was hearing the B-52s (and Lene Lovich) that caused John Lennon to decide to come out of retirement. Which is most likely what killed him. Oops.

Most imitators - Kraftwerk spawned much of disco, most of new wave, all of techno, a good chunk of hip-hop, industrial - anybody who used a synthesizer or other electronic instrument after Autobahn and Trans-Europe Express was at least partly lifting from Kraftwerk.

Surprised by the mention of my namesakes! The 'Mats are influential I think and not only for their music. They inspired a still current sensibility, in persona and performance (they practically invented the ironic/non-ironic live goofball cover version thank you very much !). I hear them as a significant musical influence in Emo, New Garage, Grunge and Alt Country. Not influential is Bruce Springsteen who is preceeded and surpassed by his iconic precursors (Dylan, Cash, Presley), he's too amorphous on his own and indebted to them to be truly influential although of course that's not an assessment of the quality of his work in and of itself.

i was thinking the same thing - springsteen is a major force to his fans, but has had no profound influence on musical culture.

I think I keep going back to The Minutemen and PiL's "Metal Box" because they were so brilliant, yet so singular - too weird/unique to be influential. And, in the case of the Minutemen, it would require technical skills beyond the pale of most self-taught punk types..

The reason the RRHF did a better job with artists from the 50s and 60s is simply because the early decades provided a link between artistry and popularity. It wasn't always the case that the best artists were the most popular - not even in the 1960s, but once the music became "codified" as part of a cultural product that could be replicated and controlled, the disconnect between artistry and commercial viability became enormous. Somewhere in the early 70s is where it became noticeable and it's grown larger ever since. The RRHF would do well to treat the music like Jazz - as a once popular art form that has become a niche art form, and celebrate those working in the corners rather than in the football stadiums. It's going to be painful when Bon Jovi gets in (and they will) and Husker Du does not (and they won't).



Post Edited (06-06-05 20:02)

Looking at the inductees' list at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame's website, you can find plenty of "important, major artists" that can't really be said to be all that influential. This has been increasingly true the past ten years, as artists from the '70s have been inducted.

I think it was Paganizer who posted here that the RRHF did a great job honoring the artists who were a vital part of rock & roll's creation and development in the '50s and '60s, but it's fallen way short on recognizing and giving tribute to artists who were part of the music's *growth* in the '70s.

(My apologies. I just checked, and it was scratchie who posted that.)



Post Edited (06-07-05 10:20)