|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
How can this possibly be true?
Because you didn't actually understand what I said is my guess.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If you're telling me that the number of band members and what musical instruments they are playing doesn't effect the sound of the band, then we're truly at an impasse.
Broadly, of course the instruments affect the sound. But only broadly. I don't think anyone would try to argue that a band like Metallica has a 'sound' resembling the Beatles.
Your argument really relates not to 'sound' in that sense, but to how bands were conceived of. The guitar/bass/drums/voice ensemble in rock was pretty much standard by the time the Beatles came around. It's true that when you turned on your radio at the diner in the 50s and heard Bill Haley or Elvis or Buddy Holly or Chuck Berry, that you couldn't name everyone who played on those songs and what instrument they played. But that doesn't mean they didn't have the same basic ensemble of instruments; it was just that the 'band' was whoever was out front, and the other guys were essentially faceless musicians. The Beatles may have changed that, but they didn't in any way create the drum/bass/guitar ensemble.
|
Reply With Quote