@LHoffman:
@Jermofoot:
@FieldMarshalGames:
The Beatles or Led Zeppelin
Dependent on the mood. These are the real founders of Modern Rock, and all that follows.
By ripping off blues and R&B artists?
If you can make that statement, then everyone who followed these two did the same thing, but compounded it by ripping off The Beatles and Zeppelin also.
Umm…no, you can’t. The Beatles and Led Zeppelin got/made popular songs by blacks that were obscure pretty much on racial grounds, although in LZ’s case I believe there were nonblack artists taken from. I deliberately use ripped off because that’s what’s happened with these two in particular in their early careers and the recognition does not go to those who really started it. The British Invasion as a whole was British artists emulating American blues, R&B, and other artists. Anyone that covered the Beatles and Led Zepp original music was recognized as simply a cover, not redefining a new musical genre.
In the Beatles case, it’s not entirely their fault, they were just playing the music. But they made a ton of money and popularity off of it for themselves and record execs. Led Zepp deliberately stole music and lyrics from others and passed it as their own.
The vary nature of early rock and roll was the sharing/using of other’s material. All of the great artists did it, especially the first blues players; which is where rock came from in the first place. Even today, there is very little that is new in Blues and Rock and Roll… it’s recycled material.
1. You’re talking about the tradition of blues, not recording, distribution, and selling of blues.
2. Now you’re also saying that it wasn’t original anyway, so why should the Beatles and Led Zepp get the credit?
The Beatles were so great because 1. they were a very good band (in virtually every way) and 2. because their music, recording and artistry really was revolutionary.
Led Zeppelin was not as revolutionary, but just as influential in the blues rock genre.
I agree that they are both really good bands. I’m just saying give credit where credit is due. And in the Beatles case they were covering other peoples songs and didn’t really hit their own creativity stride until many years and drugs later.
I just think it is unfair to deride these two groups for “ripping off” other artists. Of course they did it. They don’t shy away from admitting that. But so did everyone else: Hendrix, BB King, Clapton, Muddy Waters, Vaughan, The Stones, Elvis, Dylan…
So now you agree with me. I’ve already explained the difference above, I won’t repeat it again. We aren’t talking simply covers here, we’re talking about credit.
But it is not as though even many of their songs are rip offs. Especially the big hits. Both bands are extremely influential and original. Jermo, I don’t see how you can insinuate they are not creative in their own right.
Never did I say they weren’t creative or had their own hits…that’s putting words in my mouth. I simply disagree that either one was a founder of rock on their own merit.
