re: Rolling Stones or Beatles?

quote:

---

They didn't serve as a template going forward. If we're gonna try to shove a band into the category of template for bands that followed, then Led Zep works much much better. Way more bands that followed Led Zep sounded like Led Zep, and probably not coincidentally.

---

In the name of God Almighty... Another one that thinks LZ was more influential than the Beatles.

Zep influenced heavy metal. The Beatles influenced pop rock, garage rock, folk rock, psychedelia, and if you want to pursue it, even country rock: Roger McGuinn credits the Beatles' cover of Buck Owens' "Act Naturally" as inspirng the Byrds to explore country music, leading to their classic album Sweetheart of the Rodeo.

quote:

---

And perhaps I'm misreading what you wrote, but did you just give The Beatles credit for popularizing "a band". I'm pretty sure you did, but surely I'm misreading what you wrote. Please pretty please tell me you aren't arguing that but for The Beatles, there would have been no bands.

---

The idea -- and it's not original with me -- is that the Beatles popularized the concept of a band/collective as an end in itself, rather than a temporary way station for an individual performer. Thus the Stones ended up staying together forever, rather than Jagger leaving for a solo career as soon as his contract ran out, as happened with numerous big band figures like Sinatra, Buddy Rich, Harry James, etc...