Is it correct to atribute the evolution of music to (for example) The Beatles or Elvis.
Did hugely, universal atrisits such as The Beatles really turn the evolution of "popular" music on its head & send it in a totally different direction?
Whether they have relevance in todays music is debatable, even in an inderect way. They "invented" pop/rock or at liest popularised rock & roll. So by this reasonong did they also influence every folk-rock, glam-rock, hard-rock, indie-rock (etc etc...) artist since the 60's? Does every bant that uses a guitar, bass, drums, vocals combo owe a debt of gratitude to the Beatles?
Take Elvis, referd to the world over as simply "The King" was, as I understand, a white man singing black music. He did alot for contemporary music but did he really invent? Or simply popularise/make acessable/open a previously untapped market? Granted he was entertaining, & credit where its due he wrote, like The Beatles, songs that still to this day sound fucking amazing, but does his music still have creative influence?
Jazz: Louis Armstrong
Blues: Muddy Waters
Reggae: Bob Marley
Grunge: Kurt Cobain
Punk: Sex Pistols
Funk: James Brown
The list goes on...
I figure one artists "sound" is influnced by many factors not only the music they listen to/listend to as a kid, I.e. thier influences. Factors as trivial as mood at a certain time, boredom, experimentation, accidental discoveries, recreational drug use, psychological temprament, location & probably most importantly good ol' creativity.
Keep in mind that Im not talking about commercial orentated "fashon"music bucause, in my opinion, pop music today is all style & no substance, created to make money not music.
Also, any Beatles freaks out there, Im not dissing, Im just using them as an example, be it a good one.
So Is it right to put such a weight on the shoulders of "legendary" musicians & If so where is this frequently twisted pyramid effect going to take us now?
P.s. Sorry if I babbled. 