![]() |
€uromeinke, FEJ. and Ghoulish Delight RULE!!! NA abides. |
![]() |
#10 |
I Floop the Pig
|
Interestingly I've had many people argue that the Beatles were, in fact, NOT influential at all. Just a pop band that recycled old music. Not surprisingly it comes out in those conversations that the person doesn't like their music.
I don't particularly like Michael Jackson's music. Nor Elvis's. They both have a few songs I like, but on the whole it doesn't interest me. But I recognize that they had musical talent, and, possibly more germane to the discussion at hand, were skilled entertainers. As such, I am not much of a fan of most people who are heavily, directly, influenced by them, but appreciate the talent of those that do it well (Timberlake, Beyonce, Madonna, or Elvis Costello to throw one in for Elvis that I can think of). As is the case with ANY great artist, most who they influence will be pale echoes because great ones are few and far between. So while the influencer will be appreciated by anyone who can appreciate top-level talent, the influencees will, by and large, remain within the world of the genre. But whether one appreciates the various results of the influence is measure of personal value of the influence, not a measure of the magnitude of influence. Besides, is what Michael Jackson reduced top-40 entertainment to that much worse than what Elvis reduced Vegas entertainment to?
__________________
'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |