Longevity Vs Short Huge Impact

[The Beatles]

I may be in the minority but I don't care about impact period! Screw anyone's claim to a legacy period from my point of view. It validates nothing because music is a personal experience. I listen to any artist as if in a vacuum or bubble and couldn't care less whether I shared that love with one person or the whole world! I believe way too much time is spent trying to back up why music artist are so great outside of our own personal experiences with the music!

This is a good argument.

 

[CREAM'd]

Equally Impressive

In my opinion it doesn't matter wether a band is around for 2 years or 20 years,i judge a band solely on the quality of the work within that period. What Cream and Jimi Hendrix achieved in such a short period was pretty special,some great live and studio albums produced by both. I cant really add anything more about the beatles as The Beatles has already said what i would have said within his/her posts about the subject.

In order for a band to warrant a place up there along with all the other greats (in my eyes) like Bob Dylan,The Who,Rolling Stones,Black Sabbath,ACDC(going solely from what they achieved from a musical point of view), that music portfolio would have to amount to more than 38 minutes 25 seconds worth of music that i can sit down and listen to? or am i just bein silly?

 

[aeroplane]

Re: Longevity Vs Short Huge Impact

I could go either way but I'm going to argue for longevity.

Whether it is an artist like Alice Cooper, AC/DC, Journey or Motorhead, when you are talking about a group or a performer who has had a very long career, it usually means they are still consistently making music that is at least decent, if not good or great. Otherwise nobody of importance would pay them a dime to go in the studio. Sometimes decent is all you need. Nobody expects AC/DC to reproduce Back in Black or Alice Cooper to reproduce School's Out. And they most likely won't, but that doesn't mean you stop recording and retire.

When artists of the ilk I've listed above have long careers as I've described, it also means they are most likely a pretty good live act and have been for a long time, minus the effects of aging.

What that also means is that one or more people involved with a group, whether it is original members or "new" members, care about the band and want to keep it going.

You say your buddy wants to see ZZ Top live in a few months? All he's gotta do is buy a ticket. Let's take it one step further than that. Sure, Lynyrd Skynyrd may be full of imposters to some people but at least a person who wants to see the band called "Lynyrd Skynyrd" play live next summer will have no trouble doing so. Meanwhile, the guy who wants to see Led Zeppelin or Black Flag live anytime soon is shit outta luck.

What does it say about the likes of Guns N' Roses, The Sex Pistols or other bands who had tremendous but fleeting success if they key members of the band don't give a damn about the group enough to keep it together?

At some point, a fan has to ask him or herself if the musicians who are in the group don't give a hoot about their band then why should I?

A good example of longevity for me, and somebody who supports my vote for longevity, is Ronnie James Dio.

Dio made the most of a very long and successful career. He died earlier this year, back in May I believe. The guy kept on going up until his death and never really took a break from performing. He continued to record and tour one year to the next.

Because of that, I have happier memories of him than I would if he had quit performing 10-15 years ago.

 

[aeroplane]

Nice to see you trying to be sublte. Didn't work. Grow up.

Dude, I wouldn't let it get to you.

Getting into an argument that concerns The Beatles with a forum member who has a user name of "The Beatles" is sillier than a rodent running on a hamster wheel for an hour thinking he's getting somewhere. No different than arguing about Lynyrd Skynyrd with a guy who calls himself "FreebirdVanZant."

Honestly, I think he made a few more valid points than you from where I'm sitting, which is just my opinion and I'm not saying it is wrong or right. But at the same time, he said exactly what you'd expect from a music fan naming himself after the Beatles. Not really a level playing field.

If you're going to argue with the guy, argue with him about Pearl Jam, Steppenwolf or Def Leppard.

You're both knowledgeable guys, why don't you just shake on it and call things even?

 

[gregjohnson1229]

Never Mind The Bollocks changed music and honsetly there has never been anything like it before and really there's never been anything quite like it since. The closest album that had that type of impact was probably Nevermind which was made a band very heavily influenced by the Sex Pistols, Nirvana.

Lets see your negative views based on your bias opinion. Whether you like it or not both albums had huge impacts on music quite unlike anything else since.

I can name a shit load of bands that infuenced Nirvana but does that make them more influential then Nirvana? No. I can name a shit load of bands that influenced Black Flag, but does that make them more important or influential then Black Flag? No. Black Sabbath influenced Black Flag, but does that mean Black Sabbath is more influential on the hardcore punk scene? No.

Sex Pistols played a huge role even outside the punk scene. Alternative Rock, NWOBHM, Thrash Metal, Hardcore Punk.

Yes people think they suck, but that is based on taste which is subjective. That does not diminish their influence and impact on music which is a fact.

are opinons are biased. opinions and bias go hand and hand.

 

[0000]

Thread Closed...
It's a shame to see a thread with potential have to be closedrolleyes:

 

[0000]

open.. again..

If this thread goes off track again.. the member(s) who cause the disruption will be dealt with accordingly..

 

[Sunny]

I may be in the minority but I don't care about impact period! Screw anyone's claim to a legacy period from my point of view. It validates nothing because music is a personal experience. I listen to any artist as if in a vacuum or bubble and couldn't care less whether I shared that love with one person or the whole world! I believe way too much time is spent trying to back up why music artist are so great outside of our own personal experiences with the music!

Took the words right out of my mouth Sooty!

 

[Soot and Stars]

I think Sooty's take on it all is equally as impressive as the three choices given.

This is a good argument.

Took the words right out of my mouth Sooty!

Thanks guys! Either I was wrong about being in the minority or we are the minority itself! Either way it's good company and I'm glad that others share this perspective!

 

[Džedaj]

Short huge impact. They stay remembered by their best work which is almost everything they made (if they had already huge impact), without getting in danger to fade out during years of playing and recording. For me, two artist that you count in logevity is best remembered by their early years in 60s and 70s.