Justin wrote:
Yeah, I don't think that list was all songs for wedding music for old people.

The statement was made that Beatles songs haven't left much of a legacy. I provided a counterpoint.

And a fair attempt: it does do that. But not much very radical apart from the exceptions of Siouxsie and The Damned and Echo and The Bunnymen who I have addressed. What we are left with is commercial music and MOR stuff. Yes; this is the Beatles legacy. Wedding and elevator music. Popular but not involved in anything edgy unless appropriated and subverted.

Eliza C wrote:
And a fair attempt: it does do that.

Hey, thanks. But it wasn't an attempt. The statement was made about not much of a legacy. I thought that was a curious statement, Googled "Beatles covers" or something like that, and was instantly rewarded with a wide-ranging cross-genre splash of cites.

For all I know, the other cites that I didn't have to go to carried even more. But that one cite was enough to satisfy my curiosity. A bonus was that link to "Uncut" that commented on the Beatles' impact and legacy.

Justin wrote:
Hey, thanks. But it wasn't an attempt. The statement was made about not much of a legacy. I thought that was a curious statement, Googled "Beatles covers" or something like that, and was instantly rewarded with a wide-ranging cross-genre splash of cites.

For all I know, the other cites that I didn't have to go to carried even more. But that one cite was enough to satisfy my curiosity. A bonus was that link to "Uncut" that commented on the Beatles' impact and legacy.

I have always throughout this debate pointed to the cutting edge of art music and fashion as where legacy counts. Tretchikoff has left a legacy in car boot sales and charity shops and old people's houses but that doesn't mean he is as important as Vorticism which as not left much popular legacy but it has in terms of art and arhcitecture even today 100 years later.

So there is a difference in what I mean by legacy and I thought I had made that difference clear. I realise I am challenging a scared cow here to many but I think the time has come where that needs to be done if we are talking about the history books of 500 years time. Punk invenred an aesthetic and philosophic construct (or was first to apply that from Dadaism and surrelaism to music) that has uses and is likely to have uses 500 years from now.

So in terms of 'covers' by bands there is a difference to paying nostlagic homage and still having application to create new. Nobody would for example cite Siouxise's cover of the Lord's prayer as paying homage to it: it's a subversion to make an emotive statement. That is not to say of course the Beatles were not important at the time or still are to the general population; or that people won't continue to subvert their music. They are important to popular music; just perhaps not so important to have a continuing creative edge.

Eliza C wrote:
So there is a difference in what I mean by legacy and I thought I had made that difference clear.

Well, it's clear that what you view as having lasting import is different than what I might view as having lasting import.

I was using legacy to mean something handed down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past.

Justin wrote:
Well, it's clear that what you view as having lasting import is different than what I might view as having lasting import.

I was using legacy to mean something handed down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past.

And I have all through used legacy in terms of what that is NOT to general populace but to current art music and fashion. As I said Tretchikoff has left a legacy but it simply isn't important in the history of art or art now despite his unquestioned pouplarity with the masses. That could be seen as elitist perhaps; but we are dealing with the way the world is not how it should be: and as I said like it or not Vorticism is considered by historians as important and Tretchikoff isn't. Likewise I would say while the Beatles legacy to the masses is wide, it isn't important as the continuing infleunce among radical artists designers and film makers etc. of The Sex Pistols and I doubt the former will carry more than a fleeting mention  in the history books of 500 years time.

Eliza C wrote:
Likewise I would say while the Beatles legacy to the masses is wide...

OK. Thanks.

Justin wrote:
OK. Thanks.

As Tetchikoff is to the masses. It doesn't make him important to history!

I am not entirely alone in this view that The Beatles are over rated either:

"The Beatles are what they always were - the safe, money-spinning, housewives' choice. Their albums are easy listening (fine for 50-somethings, but the Beatles were cardigan-wearing duffers in their 20s). Sgt. Pepper, their much-trumpeted "psychedelic" album was as mindbending as an Asda mushroom pie. Give or take Helter Skelter, they never even rocked, really. Next to the Stones, the Who or the Troggs, the Beatles are the low alcohol lager of the 60s."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2003/no … popandrock

More humorously:
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/wiedmann/ … tles_suck_

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-meh … 50700.html

Justin wrote:
ETA: Whoops. I composed and posted this before I saw the post immediately prior.

No worries, wasn't trying to be a mod or the be all end all of it, just it's gotten derailed with no hopes of going back on track.  FWIW I like how Eliza stated the Beatles are the Monkees, yet it was Sid Vicious who she puts on her rock pedestal.  A guy who couldn't play an instrument & was a hired gun into the band for his looks & personality.   ???  Who else did that, oh yeah, Mickey Dolenz.

If anyones going to try to say The Beatles won't be one of the 3 it's ridiculous.  However, I think The Stones aren't the band to claim, they just pushed the envelope further.  I do think a case can be made for Bob Dylan and I would be curious to see how his career & further effect on pop culture would have went had the Beatles never exploded.

Eliza C wrote:
Joan Jett was The Runaways as far as I am concerned.

Please give me a citation re Sid Vicious saying that. He was one of the original fans of the Pistols before they were well known and he joined. If they wanted to make money on the US tour they could have gone about it in rather a more organised way.

LMAO, I'm sure Cheri Curie and the rest of the Runaways would be amused to hear that.

Btw, the Runawys formed in 1975. Same year as the Sex Pistols. It is impossible for Joan Jett to have performed with the Sex Pistols two years before the Runaways. Once again, you blew it.

As for the Sid Vicious quote, ask the Dolls. They were there.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

LMAO, I'm sure Cheri Curie and the rest of the Runaways would be amused to hear that.

Btw, the Runawys formed in 1975. Same year as the Sex Pistols. It is impossible for Joan Jett to have performed with the Sex Pistols two years before the Runaways. Once again, you blew it.

As for the Sid Vicious quote, ask the Dolls. They were there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Rock_'n'_Roll

"Joan Jett saw Arrows perform "I Love Rock 'n' Roll" on their weekly television series Arrows.[1] when she was touring England with The Runaways in 1976. She first recorded the song in 1979 with two of the Sex Pistols: Steve Jones and Paul Cook."

Joan Jett was a founder member of the Runaways and I don't think there is any doubt she is the best known of the line up.

So it seems it is your recollection of history that has been blown.

37photog wrote:
No worries, wasn't trying to be a mod or the be all end all of it, just it's gotten derailed with no hopes of going back on track.  FWIW I like how Eliza stated the Beatles are the Monkees, yet it was Sid Vicious who she puts on her rock pedestal.  A guy who couldn't play an instrument & was a hired gun into the band for his looks & personality.   ???  Who else did that, oh yeah, Mickey Dolenz.

If anyones going to try to say The Beatles won't be one of the 3 it's ridiculous.  However, I think The Stones aren't the band to claim, they just pushed the envelope further.  I do think a case can be made for Bob Dylan and I would be curious to see how his career & further effect on pop culture would have went had the Beatles never exploded.

I wouldn't dispute Bob Dylan but left him out of calculations for the same reason I left Elvis out: we were asked for bands.

I have not put Sid Vicious on any pedestal. My point about the Sex Pistols was the revolution they represented in questioning music art and fashion sacred cows and society in general which opened the floodgates to a massive wave the presence of which is still being felt now. But you appear to have missed the point of punk if you think it is about proficency in playing musical instruments. In fact that was one of the reasons for the explosion: music had become stagnated by technical ability above raw energy. We do not judge art movements or artists on tehnical ability alone and if we did the beatles would probably have to take a back seat to to 'prog rock' bands of the mid seventies. It is also akin to judging art movements and artists by proficiency in painting. I have cited Tetchikoff (an exceptional technician) several times to point out the fallacy of such.


For Justin:
I have already criticised Rolling Stone magazine as a judge. It has a liberal bent but very conservative view on music. This has been pointed out by other observers.

The following quote is from "Rolling Stone Magazine: A Gasping Dinosaur" by Palash Ghosh:

"In addition, if one peruses the Rolling Stone website, one will find a plethora of lists, such as “100 greatest albums,” or “500 greatest rock songs,” or “100 greatest guitarists”, etc. Each of these lists pretends that nothing much happened in pop music after 1977 or so, there's such a heavy emphasis on 1960s and early 1970s artists. Conversely, Rolling Stone acts like nothing important happened in music before, say, 1962.

It still has an extremely narrow view of what qualifies as "good music."

Moreover, based on its political coverage, Rolling Stone appears to serve as a propaganda arm for the Democratic party, while repeatedly castigating the Republicans. This is hardly surprising, but it underlines what is perhaps the most maddening and pathetic characteristic of Rolling Stone -- it pretends to represent the underclass, the oppressed and the voiceless as an “outsider.”

In reality, rock-and-roll music is as mainstream as one can get -- virtually everyone in the Western world (and many parts elsewhere) loves rock music and owns dozens of albums. The genre's immense and enduring popularity has enriched thousands of musicians, singers, producers, arrangers, company executives, as well as publishers like Wenner and his ilk.

It's a multi-billion dollar industry that has no remote connection to the “counter-culture” whatsoever. Indeed, it is impossible for middle-age (and now elderly) gazillionaires to remain "hip," "cool" and "cutting-edge."

Also, I must wonder what the near future holds for Rolling Stone. What will they do after the last 1960s rocker dies? Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Pete Townshend, Dylan, Bowie, etc., have less than ten years left on this earth.

What then? Will Rolling Stone exhume their corpses and place them on the cover?"


http://www.ibtimes.com/rolling-stone-ma … ur-790208#

So. If you do not wish to discuss it further don't. If anybody addresses me I shall reply. Otherwise I shall leave it to you guys. I have made my point but dissent it appears is not tolerated. It's you guys who have kept it going by insisting on talking to me about it. And I was going to call it a day as I don't want to crash your Beatles party any longer. I just thought it worth pointing out that not everybody shares your view. A view which if challenged has been met with personal abuse in absence of rational argument by some here. 

Eliza C wrote:
For Justin:
I have already criticised Rolling Stone magazine as a judge.

I don't even read it. But I acknowledge that it's well-read and has influence.

In reality, rock-and-roll music is as mainstream as one can get -- virtually everyone in the Western world (and many parts elsewhere) loves rock music and owns dozens of albums.

Well, there you have it. That would seem to be what makes the history books.

So. If you do not wish to discuss it further don't. If anybody addresses me I shall reply. Otherwise I shall leave it to you guys. I have made my point but dissent it appears is not tolerated. It's you guys who have kept it going by insisting on talking to me about it.

I've only seen disagreement, not anyone being muzzled. The "insisting" has been a two-way street.

Cherrystone wrote:
What I've learned in this thread.

Some people have tin ears or no palpable training/taste in music.

Queen only had one good song.

Sex Pistols should be remembered forever.

Ok, what did I miss?

Carry on....

Sex who?


-Koa-
www.borikenwarrior.com
www.facebook.com/borikenwarriorstudiosmodels

Justin wrote:
I need to conduct an experiment.

I'll ask my grandkids with the mohawks if they can hum any Beatles songs. I'll ask them if they can hum any Sex Pistols songs.

I will bring no bias to the queries. I'm honestly interested in what they have to say. I'll report back.

I don't know one song by the sex pistols. One member. Anything.

The Beatles, are history.

My 9 year cousin would say the same. With the exception that he jus knows the name the Beatles and a few songs of theirs. But the point is, they made history. They won't be forgotten any time soon.

Eliza C wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Rock_'n'_Roll

"Joan Jett saw Arrows perform "I Love Rock 'n' Roll" on their weekly television series Arrows.[1] when she was touring England with The Runaways in 1976. She first recorded the song in 1979 with two of the Sex Pistols: Steve Jones and Paul Cook."

Joan Jett was a founder member of the Runaways and I don't think there is any doubt she is the best known of the line up.

So it seems it is your recollection of history that has been blown.

No, I just can use the English language accurately. Which it seems you can't. You claimed that Joan Jett performed with the Sex Pistols two years BEFORE the Runaways. She didn't. She performed the song with the two members of the Sex Pistols 4 years after starting the Runaways. She NEVER performed "I Love Rock 'n" Roll" as a Runaway.

You seem to be confusing the Runaways and the Blackhearts.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
No, I just can use the English language accurately. Which it seems you can't. You claimed that Joan Jett performed with the Sex Pistols two years BEFORE the Runaways. She didn't. She performed the song with the two members of the Sex Pistols 4 years after starting the Runaways. She NEVER performed "I Love Rock 'n" Roll" as a Runaway.

You seem to be confusing the Runaways and the Blackhearts.

Yes it was the Blackhearts. But it was one of Joan Jett's most well known songs and she was the most well known member of the Runaways. I said she recorded the song first of all with the Sex Pistols (or two of them)  to show that they were a major influence. I also showed you Joan in the Pistols t shirt.

The Sex Pistols song of course that was covered by The Runaways was in fact "Black Leather" in 1978 so my basic point is still valid: the Pistols were an influence on them. Perhaps more valid because Cook and Jones wrote that and it most certainly was covered by the Runaways not The Blackhearts. That isn't to say they weren't going before that date of course they were; or they weren't bigger in Japan than the Sex Pistols at the time. What it does show is that The Pistols were an influence on them as well as Joan Jett.
Pistols Black Leather
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bpz2Zvr8Lg
Runaways Black Leather
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6lmuK-jJqY


Guns n Roses also covered it btw on a whole album of punk covers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixkgg0IyIwA

Presley ONeil wrote:
I don't know one song by the sex pistols. One member. Anything.

The Beatles, are history.

My 9 year cousin would say the same. With the exception that he jus knows the name the Beatles and a few songs of theirs. But the point is, they made history. They won't be forgotten any time soon.

We aren't talking about soon we are talking about 500 years time.

In history books.

We don't need to know much about something for it to have had or be having a profound influence on history. Most teenagers do not know much about the two world wars that had such a profound influence on our lives and probably couldn't name the dates or deciding battles of them. That is not to say they are not among the most important events of the twentieth century.

My argument is based on the fact that while the Beatles were a symptom of social and musical changes that happened in the 1960's; the Sex Pistols were the catalyst of the changes that happened in the late seventies the effects of which are still reverberating now at the cutting edge. I have cited this in fashion art and music earlier in the thread. I have shown how the Pistols image is still influencing many modern fashion collections , that Vivienne Westwood is the leading iconic UK fashion designer; that style manifestations like steam-punk and cyber-punk influence creatives and young people; and I've metioned Art like Jamie Reid etc but would add to that the leading British artist, if not the world, Damien Hurst is strongly influenced by them.

http://www.damienhirst.com/the-sex-pistols

It doesn't matter that you may not know Damien Hurst either for him to be important to history.

Further quote from the wiki entry on the Sex Pistols:

"According to the Trouser Press Record Guide, "the Pistols and manager/provocateur Malcolm McLaren challenged every aspect and precept of modern music-making, thereby inspiring countless groups to follow their cue onto stages around the world. A confrontational, nihilistic public image and rabidly nihilistic socio-political lyrics set the tone that continues to guide punk bands."Critic Toby Creswell locates the primary source of inspiration somewhat differently. Noting that "[i]mage to the contrary, the Pistols were very serious about music", he argues, "The real rebel yell came from Jones' guitars: a mass wall of sound based on the most simple, retro guitar riffs. Essentially, the Sex Pistols reinforced what the garage bands of the '60s had demonstrated—you don't need technique to make rock & roll. In a time when music had been increasingly complicated and defanged, the Sex Pistols' generational shift caused a real revolution."
Along with their abundant musical influence, the Sex Pistols' cultural reverberations are evident elsewhere. Jamie Reid's work for the band is regarded as among the most important graphic design of the 1970s and still impacts the field in the 21st century. By the age of twenty-one, Sid Vicious was already a "t-shirt-selling icon". While the manner of his death signified for many the inevitable failure of punk's social ambitions, it cemented his image as an archetype of doomed youth. British punk fashion, still widely influential, is now customarily credited to Westwood and McLaren; as Johnny Rotten, Lydon had a lasting effect as well, especially through his bricolage approach to personal style: he "would wear a velvet collared drape jacket (ted) festooned with safety pins (Jackie Curtis through the New York punk scene), massive pin-stripe pegs (modernist), a pin-collar Wemblex (mod) customised into an Anarchy shirt (punk) and brothel creepers (ted)."Christopher Nolan, director of the Batman movie The Dark Knight, has said that Rotten inspired the characterization of The Joker, played by Heath Ledger. According to Nolan, "We very much took the view in looking at the character of the Joker that what's strong about him is this idea of anarchy. This commitment to anarchy, this commitment to chaos." Ledger's costar Christian Bale has claimed that Ledger drew inspiration from watching tapes of Vicious."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Pistol … _influence

I'd even go as far as saying that the styling and art of modelling has changed forever because of the Sex Pistols. Many modern modelling stances, vacant looks etc did not exist prior to the Pistols in fashion modelling.

Incidentally :




Now I have made my point take it or leave it but please do not involve me in the conversation further if you want me to stay out of it!!!

Eliza C wrote:
My argument is based on the fact that while the Beatles were a symptom of social and musical changes that happened in the 1960's; the Sex Pistols were the catalyst of the changes that happened in the late seventies the effects of which are still reverberating now at the cutting edge.

Continuing to demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of the Beatles or what they did, and completely at odds with the great majority of music historians.

Eliza C wrote:
But you appear to have missed the point of punk if you think it is about proficency in playing musical instruments. In fact that was one of the reasons for the explosion: music had become stagnated by technical ability above raw energy. We do not judge art movements or artists on tehnical ability alone and if we did the beatles would probably have to take a back seat to to 'prog rock' bands of the mid seventies.

I think your missing the point.  Sid Vicious could not play bass.  AT ALL!!  Not that he wasnt good at it, or was bad, or one of the worst.  He literally couldn't play the instrument he was posing as playing. A poser basically. Name one other person in music history who did that?  The Monkees & Milli Vanilli are all I can come up with.

Come to think of it, Milli Vanilli might be an act spoken about for a very long time to come, as compared to alot of this eras contemporaries.

Eliza C wrote:
My argument is based on the fact that while the Beatles were a symptom of social and musical changes that happened in the 1960's; the Sex Pistols were the catalyst of the changes that happened in the late seventies the effects of which are still reverberating now at the cutting edge.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Continuing to demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of the Beatles or what they did, and completely at odds with the great majority of music historians.

I have to totally agree with you Al.

Eliza - you seem to have latched upon a few catch phrases and tidbits from somewhere, and continue trying use them to justify your opinions.  Most of us are just NOT impressed.

Besides, my OP was about who do you think will be in the history books - not who can you absolutely prove will be in the history books.  None of us can say for sure who will be there...we can all just make our personal predictions, and give some cursory reasoning behind it.  Much of what you are saying proves nothing (or is, in fact, not necessarily true).

I'm seriously not trying to make this a personal attack on you, but you are not doing yourself any favors by continuing with your particular line of reasoning.  Anyone who was at least 10 years old in 1964 knows that much of what you are saying about The Beatles is simply not true.

DGCasey wrote:
Wow.  No mention of Aerosmith?

Not one post about the Grateful Dead?

Then there was also Deep Purple, The Who, Cream, Yes, Rush and Chicago.

Almost any one of those I'd place above The Doors.

Actually some of those bands have been mentioned...but we're not talking about just good bands or popular bands - we're talking about bands that we think will be in the history books in a few centuries.

I think a good example of a band we've seen very little mention of is Journey...a band that is totally great, one that has many, many rabid fans (and for good reason).  However, not many people have mentioned them here as being likely to be in the history books because I don't think many people see them as being "historically significant"...as having a really big impact on our culture.

I would be torn to say which band I thought was a "better band" - Journey or Doors...but the Doors had a more significant impact on our culture - IMHO.  [For pure talent...Journey was probably better.]

There are very few significant films about the 60's that don't include a hefty dose of the Doors...and for that matter, even films made in the 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's often have generous servings of music from the Doors in them.  AND - significantly I think - when you hear a Doors song in the soundtrack of a movie, more often than not it's in there for cultural reasons (ie: to convey a certain feeling about the times and circumstances).

That's the reason I think the Doors should be included here over other bands, even some other BETTER bands...because the Doors (especially Jim Morrison) was a frickin' cultural ICON for the second half of the 20th century.

Think about it - looking at a different but related field, art...you could easily say that Andy Warhol was one of the most significant artists of the latter half of the 20th century, even though there were MANY artists that people would rate as BETTER artists than him.  But Andy Warhol was a cultural ICON and will likely make the history books for years to come...just as I think the Doors will.

Gary Melton wrote:
I have to totally agree with you Al.

Eliza - you seem to have latched upon a few catch phrases and tidbits from somewhere, and continue trying use them to justify your opinions.  Most of us are just NOT impressed.

Besides, my OP was about who do you think will be in the history books - not who can you absolutely prove will be in the history books.  None of us can say for sure who will be there...we can all just make our personal predictions, and give some cursory reasoning behind it.  Much of what you are saying proves nothing (or is, in fact, not necessarily true).

I'm seriously not trying to make this a personal attack on you, but you are not doing yourself any favors by continuing with your particular line of reasoning.  Anyone who was at least 10 years old in 1964 knows that much of what you are saying about The Beatles is simply not true.

Justification of opinion using citations and evidence from a variety of sources is what counts Gary.

You have for example used the fact that those who were there at the time have a better understanding. This of course carries some validity but I can counter it by pointing to the fact that a quaternary scientist can understand what was happening in the Pleistocene period with the benefits of hindsight over an extended period of time whereas those there at the time would not have understood the mechanisms responsible for those changes . Historians would point to the same in their field. While it is true eyewitnesses testimony of the time is a valuable primary source we must also be aware that their experience will be subjective. In this case I suggest the charge that you had to be 'there' to understand or have a valuable input therefore should be tempered when making objective criteria and  conclusions. Which to answer your op question needs to be done.

A case in point is the musical proficiency point. While it is true that the Sex Pistols may not have been able to play their instruments as well as the Beatles; there is no doubt that in turn the Beatles were nowhere near as good instrumentalists as prog rock groups of the 70's such as say Focus or Yes. Yet I do not see them in your lists. So we do not just use the criteria of instrumental proficiency. My point about the Sex Pistols and crucial to any understanding of them is the fact music does not have to be proficient to make powerful artistic expression. Guitars were tuned badly on purpose to get a new noise if you like that carried with it a new artistic philosophy. Now you can ignore that if you wish but you will not understand it if you do not try. I have also cited things like brocolage in understanding the aesthetics of the fashions and art which again were the invention of the Pistols/McClaren/Westwood which have brought into society a revolutionary new aesthetic whose reverberations are still being felt now at the cutting edge of cultural manifestations. I have supported these observations with evidence.

I was not there at the time of the Sex Pistols either and I have not included for seclection any of the bands that I enjoy because I think that would not be objective. I have attempted to answer your question and as I said while the Beatles were important in terms of general social and musical changes in society in the 1960's and undoubtedly popular I would see them as a symptom not a catalyst. Social and musical changes that had within ten years become part of the establishment. The idea of 'imagine all the people living in harmony' was thoroughly rejected by what the Sex Pistols stood for which was a celebration of dischord, individuality and dissent.  By contrast the Sex Pistols were a catalyst whose reverberations are still being felt now across the cutting edge of art fashion music and society and I have given many examples to show it.

In conclusion I think if one is going to judge anything in terms of historical significance one should consider a sound criteria on which to base it. As I said while eyewitness input is valuable; and while popularity is something you may wish to include; I have furthermore shown that these are not the only criteria we use in judging the importance of any art movements or artists to history. I fail to see why similar criteria as those on which we judge art history should not be used to judge music.
Thankfully history books of 500 years time will not be written by out of touch old establishment Rolling Stone magazine journalists with a naroow view of what constitutes good music  being cited as music historians. 

Now if you do not wish to discuss it further I suggest you do not address me or what I have said any more. Please continue with your partisan observations on the importance of the Beatles by all means and just ignore me and my input.

photoimager wrote:
...but they did not actually innovate or make a significant breakthrough for their genre.

I dunno. Their movies presaged music videos. They were a pioneer for the concept album, rather than an album simply being a collection of songs. You ask any number of music artists back then and continuing to today, and they'll say the Beatles were a major influence. Their studio work was cutting-edge for multitracking and electronic manipulation and sent any number of other bands scurrying to emulate. They introduced different abstractions to rock that were positively avant-garde at the time.

Even "Eleanor Rigby," dismissed here earlier, was something new and unmatched - a song that had no drums, no guitar, no keyboard, but relied completely on orchestral strings (strictly violins, violas, and cellos) and had a melancholy theme that was decidedly atypical for the music at the time. Actually, I suspect that lyrical and orchestral blend is decidedly atypical for most of pop music then and now.

photoimager wrote:
they did not actually innovate or make a significant breakthrough for their genre.

Actually, they certainly did. And earlier in this thread I have posted some of their innovations. The Beatles were a cutting edge innovative band from Rubber Soul through Abbey Road (which is their last album). Those who know the band well know that. Those who think they didn't innovate or make multiple significant breakthroughs within their genre (and actually redefine the genre) simply haven't actually bothered to pay attention to what the Beatles did and when.

Koryn Locke wrote:
No one would give a flying fuck about Big Brother and the Holding Company, if they hadn't been fronted by Janis Joplin.

Still don't...

Gary Melton wrote:
That's the reason I think the Doors should be included here over other bands, even some other BETTER bands...because the Doors (especially Jim Morrison) was a frickin' cultural ICON for the second half of the 20th century.

So, are we saying that the Dead DIDN'T have a significant impact on our culture?

Sorry, I just never was a fan of The Doors.  I grew up in the sixties and seventies and was drawn more to the music of Deep Purple, The Stones, LZ and Aerosmith when they came along.  Throw in every album by Billy Joel and Elton John and you'd have my entire record collection.

Cherrystone wrote:
Beatles, Led, Floyd.

Ditto