|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
I'd argue that you're comparing the vast array of guitar-based rock of today to the premier popularizers of the genre and pointing out that there are differences 60 years later.
That seems a trivial point, and not really giving credit where it's due.
Of course there are differences 60 years of innovation later. Look at the Beatles' contemporaries and tell me where this vast array of styles within the genre are.
It was mostly copy/paste of the Beatles in form AND content for a while, and then the successes of those experiments were further experimented upon.
My point is that Metallica isn't nearly as viable a band if not for the history of 4-piece guitar pop/rock bands which preceded them. Again... there is an argument that if not the Beatles, then someone would've stumbled upon this formula... but that argument isn't backed up with evidence.
The Beatles didn't revolutionize the human expression of emotion. They showed a rags to riches story that thousands upon thousands have tried to reproduce. Whether or not the reproducers realize they're still riding on the coattails of the Beatles these 6 decades later doesn't change the history.
|
Reply With Quote