smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | rob@splitsville.com |
| Subject | =?US-ASCII?B?UkU6IFJlOiBGYWJzIHZzIEZsb3lk?= |
| Date | Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:35:42 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (3.5 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Agreed... we all know that no one operates in a vacuum. I've always felt a sign of a great artist is being smart enough to choose from the right influences the best and most effective parts. They were certainly influenced by Dylan. And Dylan was influenced by the Beatles, no doubt.
One of Elvis' great weaknesses (and failures) was that he refused to be influenced by anyone except his formidable influences of his early years (that statement is a bit severe and rigid, I know). Think about how many great artists in the 60's would have given their soul to work with Elvis in the studio and have him sing one of their songs while their band backed him? Imagine for one double-sided single Elvis fronting the Beatles or the Who, performing songs written by J&P or Pete?
An your earlier point about this 'moment in time' which will pass is a good one. At this moment, is PF more important? There have been periods of time when not only were the Beatles not particularly influential (but much more than they were given credit for), but also considered outright unfashoinable. I'm thinking of that glorious period post Fabs, the early 70's leading up to and through punk. I meant glorious, sarcastically, by the way.
You could look at this like a stockmarket. Fab stock may go thru some peaks and valleys, but if you average it out since 1964 their stock has risen higher and higher, and a slope probably greater than anyone else.
Hell, it's been through the roof.
>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: :audities@smoe.org
>To: audities@smoe.org
>Sent: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:06:14
>
>rob@splitsville.com wrote:
>
> Nice article Sam...very insightful. And yes, you
>can certainly make a c=
>ase for the Floyd, as their reach and legacy are
>tremendous.
> =20
> I read a quote about the Fabs, Elvis and Dylan,
>and I think you could s=
>ubstitute PF for Dylan. I wish this quote were
>mine, 'cos I think it sums=
> it up perfectly. (Wish I could remember who said
>it, too!)
> =20
> "Elvis changed the world from the neck down.
>Dylan changed the world fr=
>om the neck up. The Beatles did both. And that's
>the crucial difference."
> =20
> That's why, I think anyway, they continue to lead
>the field.
> =20
>
>And you really sort of suggest an important point
>here - the role of
>influence. Where would The Beatles have been
>without the influences of
>Elvis and Dylan to draw on? They clearly GOT Elvis'
>performative/charisma
>genius, and I can't imagine that they would have
>sought such a broad
>political relevance without Dylan's shadow looming
>over the entire
>decade.
>
>Freud wrote about it. Eliot wrote about it. And
>anytime you hear the
>phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants," this
>is what you're talking
>about. If a band like a Floyd or a U2 were to
>surpass The Beatles in the
>same way they surpassed Elvis and Dylan, it would
>likely be because of
>the power of their own art as influence. If I were
>to insist that U2 is
>now greater than The Fabs were, your immediate best
>response might be
>that even if it were true, it would only increase
>the stature of the
>Beatles legacy, because U2 could never have been
>what they were without
>John, Paul, George and Ringo.
>
>I'm really aware of how The Beatles paved the way
>for Floyd - do we
>really think Dark Side of the Moon would have been
>the production
>landmark that it was without Sgt. Pepper's (and Pet
>Sounds)?
>
>--
>
>_______________________
>
>Sam Smith, PhD
>
>[TABLE NOT SHOWN]
>
>=A0
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.