Influential = good/great?

[WildRanger]

What do you think?
If some bands are influential, do they have to be good/great?

[Crow]

nope. there can be "influential" artists who are totally garbage

[ChuckSteak]

It all depends on the person's taste, which means it is subjective.

[Stadler]

Well, I'm very much in the "taste is subjective, there is no good/bad in music" camp, except when it comes to the degree to which a work meets the artists expectations, but here I think there is an element of objectivity.   I don't think "influence" makes a good band "great", but I do think that influence is one of those standards that we CAN measure, and it can't be ignored.  I think there's something to be said for a band like Van Halen, or Sabbath, or Kiss, or the Velvet Underground that separates them from the Motley Crue's, the Soundgardens or the REMs that come after.   Sure, the Velvets weren't that good of players, not even close, but they DID deliver something new, and they DID tap into a zeitgeist like few bands ever have, and that matters.   I think if there's no Velvet Underground, there is no Sex Pistols, and if there is no Sex Pistols, there are no REM, U2 (at least as we know them), Seattle (at least Nirvana), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane's Addiction, Green Day, etc.   

[TAC]

   I think if there's no Velvet Underground, there is no Sex Pistols, and if there is no Sex Pistols, there are no REM, U2 (at least as we know them), Seattle (at least Nirvana), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane's Addiction, Green Day, etc.

..and the problem with that is?..

[Adami]

.....what?

[King Postwhore]

.....what?

You talkin' bout...

[TAC]

Willis

[Adami]

Bravo.

[TAC]

[Zook]

I'm not a fan of The Beatles at all. I don't think they're any good, yet they seemed to have influenced EVERYONE. So no, influential bands don't have to be good. It all comes down to personal taste anyway. I mean, Dream Theater is great, and they influenced a shit ton of garbage bands. It works both ways.

[Stadler]

I'm not a fan of The Beatles at all. I don't think they're any good, yet they seemed to have influenced EVERYONE. So no, influential bands don't have to be good. It all comes down to personal taste anyway. I mean, Dream Theater is great, and they influenced a shit ton of garbage bands. It works both ways.

But not to pound on you, but under what standard are the Beatles "not good"?  I get it if "you don't like them" - which you admit - but why go one step further and say "not good"?  Are you really saying that Paul McCartney can't play bass very well?   Or sing well?  Or write catchy songs?  I think there's a place for recognizing that just because one doesn't like them that they might offer something unique and special to the rest of the world (I'm thinking of Bob Dylan now, who is to me unlistenable, but I recognize that he is, in fact, the voice of a generation).   

[Cool Chris]

I think if there's no Velvet Underground, there is no Sex Pistols, and if there is no Sex Pistols, there are no REM, U2 (at least as we know them), Seattle (at least Nirvana), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane's Addiction, Green Day, etc.   

I don't disagree with your chain, but I am of the opinion that if there were no Velvet Underground, there would have been another band similar enough to them that would initiate that chain.

I generally do not like when people tout a band's influence when establishing their bona fides but also recognize that if their influence is that significant, they much be doing something right. But let's not automatically equate it with greatness. Toxic Avenger spawned a whole subgenre of low-budget, shock/gory horror movies in the 80s. Does that make it Citizen Kane?

Was reading up on The Smiths recently and saw NME named the Smiths the "most influential artist ever" in a 2002 poll. I mean, holy crap. I get that it is one magazine's poll. But really, The Smiths?

[Adami]

Fine I'll play along.

Great to whom? The people influenced by them? Well yea, or else they wouldn't be influenced by them.

I'm influenced by Metallica, so I think they're pretty great.

I think Nirvana sucks. Surprisingly, they don't influence me at all.



But do I have to like every band who are influential IN GENERAL? Hell no. As I said, I think Nirvana sucks.

[Zook]

I'm not a fan of The Beatles at all. I don't think they're any good, yet they seemed to have influenced EVERYONE. So no, influential bands don't have to be good. It all comes down to personal taste anyway. I mean, Dream Theater is great, and they influenced a shit ton of garbage bands. It works both ways.

But not to pound on you, but under what standard are the Beatles "not good"?  I get it if "you don't like them" - which you admit - but why go one step further and say "not good"?  Are you really saying that Paul McCartney can't play bass very well?   Or sing well?  Or write catchy songs?  I think there's a place for recognizing that just because one doesn't like them that they might offer something unique and special to the rest of the world (I'm thinking of Bob Dylan now, who is to me unlistenable, but I recognize that he is, in fact, the voice of a generation).   

Wouldn't saying a band or singer is unlistenable be implying at least to you that they are not good? Plenty of people think Adele writes catchy tunes, but I think she's unlistenable, and therefore not good. If I don't like something, I can declare it as not good to me. Every member of The Beatles is more talented at music than I am, but the music they made does not appeal to me at all, and therefore I don't think the music they created was any good. Five Finger Death are more talented than me (I can't play any instruments) but they suck donkey dick. That sceamo band that just makes puke noises while the other guys strum the same cord repeatedly over blast beats (I'm sure they exist) technically is more talented than me, etc, etc.

[425]

Great to whom?

Yeah, I just want to underscore the importance of this question and add another worth considering: Great by what standard?

[Stadler]

I'm not a fan of The Beatles at all. I don't think they're any good, yet they seemed to have influenced EVERYONE. So no, influential bands don't have to be good. It all comes down to personal taste anyway. I mean, Dream Theater is great, and they influenced a shit ton of garbage bands. It works both ways.

But not to pound on you, but under what standard are the Beatles "not good"?  I get it if "you don't like them" - which you admit - but why go one step further and say "not good"?  Are you really saying that Paul McCartney can't play bass very well?   Or sing well?  Or write catchy songs?  I think there's a place for recognizing that just because one doesn't like them that they might offer something unique and special to the rest of the world (I'm thinking of Bob Dylan now, who is to me unlistenable, but I recognize that he is, in fact, the voice of a generation).   

Wouldn't saying a band or singer is unlistenable be implying at least to you that they are not good? Plenty of people think Adele writes catchy tunes, but I think she's unlistenable, and therefore not good. If I don't like something, I can declare it as not good to me. Every member of The Beatles is more talented at music than I am, but the music they made does not appeal to me at all, and therefore I don't think the music they created was any good. Five Finger Death are more talented than me (I can't play any instruments) but they suck donkey dick. That sceamo band that just makes puke noises while the other guys strum the same cord repeatedly over blast beats (I'm sure they exist) technically is more talented than me, etc, etc.

No, because - and don't take offense at this, I'm literally just talking about myself, not implying anything about you - I don't think my opinion is so valuable that I can determine who's "good" or not.  Bob Dylan has touched millions and millions of people with his music.  Him not touching me isn't reflective of HIM, it's reflective of ME.   To say he's not "good" is to put it on him. 

Maybe we're just talking semantics; if by "good" or "they suck" just is your shorthand for "I like it" or "I don't like it", well, I guess you're right.  But anything else is, I believe subjecting others to your standards, and I know for me I would hate that.  Plus, part of it is respect; Bob Dylan and (for all I know) Five Finger Death Punch have dedicated their lives to their art, and they've connected to millions of people.  It wouldn't kill me to acknowledge that without telling them "THEY SUCK!" because I'm not a 60's hippy or a 90's sk8R boi. 

[Zook]

It is not my fault I don't like certain types of music. Sure, it's more respectful to simply say I don't like this or that, but saying something sucks is just an exaggeration of my personal opinion. But really, why should art be respected? I don't need to respect The Beatles because they influenced my favorite band. What if they were all misogynistic assholes, but they made some music that ended up influencing other bands I do like? I recognize the importance of bands like The Beatles, but I also am confused how they were so influential because I don't think they're any good. Bob Dylan sounds like a weed wacker, but he has a Nobel prize. Go figure. I get it's for his lyrics, but come on.

And I don't think my opinion is valuable, except to me, because it is my opinion and I have a right to it. When I say something sucks or isn't good, that is according to my own tastes and opinion, and isn't an objective factual statement, but that still doesn't make it my fault that I don't like a certain something.

And finally, no, I didn't have to be there. Pink Floyd sounded like a bad Beatles cover band (which for me is really bad) but they have a few really good albums later in their career. I wasn't alive for those, yet I like them.

[ChuckSteak]

No, because - and don't take offense at this, I'm literally just talking about myself, not implying anything about you - I don't think my opinion is so valuable that I can determine who's "good" or not.  Bob Dylan has touched millions and millions of people with his music.  Him not touching me isn't reflective of HIM, it's reflective of ME.   To say he's not "good" is to put it on him. 

Maybe we're just talking semantics; if by "good" or "they suck" just is your shorthand for "I like it" or "I don't like it", well, I guess you're right.  But anything else is, I believe subjecting others to your standards, and I know for me I would hate that.  Plus, part of it is respect; Bob Dylan and (for all I know) Five Finger Death Punch have dedicated their lives to their art, and they've connected to millions of people.  It wouldn't kill me to acknowledge that without telling them "THEY SUCK!" because I'm not a 60's hippy or a 90's sk8R boi.

Whenever you say something is good or not you are making an evaluation based on YOUR opinion and YOUR taste. Things just are what they are. Bob Dylan is what he is. "Good" and "bad" can only come from you, your perception, your taste, your opinion, your evaluation. It doesn't mean the thing or person you are calling "good" or "bad" is objectively good or bad. There is no such thing.

Whenever you say something is bad or something sucks, you are basically saying you don't like it or that you hate it. Not that the thing is objectively, universally, essentially bad. Because... there is no such thing. If that was the case, then nobody would like the thing/person. And even if nobody liked it, it doesn't mean it is bad. It only means nobody likes it.

[Elite]

I can't help but wonder why the hell WildRanger has the constant urge to either rank music or to call certain music 'good' or 'bad'.

Yes, some bands influenced other bands. Are they good? I don't care - or better yet: that's not for me to decide. Does it matter? No. Obviously the artist influenced by anther artist must have thought it was good, else he wouldn't have drawn inspiration from it. Art influences art and it has happened throughout the centuries. Time will tell which music from the 20th century will become canonised. We're already seeing artists 'disappear' or become mentioned less frequently. In light of this thread: my bet is that the Beatles will be held in high regard for years, maybe centuries, to come.

[Zantera]

To keep my answer simple I don't think influential doesn't have to mean good or great. I think in some cases some bands have taken elements of other bands they like and created something new out of it.

A recent example that just pops in my head is Ghost - a band that's doing nothing new really, but they've taken some elements from different bands (both musically and visually with their costumes) and gotten a pretty good result.

[Zook]

Ghost is another one I don't understand. Nothing I've heard sounds good.  Very boring music.

I'd just like to clarify that I'm not just using this thread as an excuse to shit post, and trash bands I don't like. I'm trying to be constructive.

Ayreon has some very Beatles sounding songs and I like those. I also haven't heard everything by The Beatles, but I've heard enough, and nothing has ever interested me, ever.

[Stadler]

why should art be respected? I don't need to respect The Beatles because they influenced my favorite band.

Okay, whatever.  I can't and won't compete with that.  If you can't look at another human being, acknowledge their emotions and hard work and respect that, well, this isn't about music anymore then.   It's just human decency.   It's like seeing a kid on a beach and kicking over his sandcastle. 

[Zook]

why should art be respected? I don't need to respect The Beatles because they influenced my favorite band.

Okay, whatever.  I can't and won't compete with that.  If you can't look at another human being, acknowledge their emotions and hard work and respect that, well, this isn't about music anymore then.   It's just human decency.   It's like seeing a kid on a beach and kicking over his sandcastle. 

I would never kick over a kid's sand castle, nor would I run up on a street musician and take their guitar and smash it because I didn't like what they were playing. I still don't have to respect them though. That's not a good analogy.

[Stadler]

No, because - and don't take offense at this, I'm literally just talking about myself, not implying anything about you - I don't think my opinion is so valuable that I can determine who's "good" or not.  Bob Dylan has touched millions and millions of people with his music.  Him not touching me isn't reflective of HIM, it's reflective of ME.   To say he's not "good" is to put it on him. 

Maybe we're just talking semantics; if by "good" or "they suck" just is your shorthand for "I like it" or "I don't like it", well, I guess you're right.  But anything else is, I believe subjecting others to your standards, and I know for me I would hate that.  Plus, part of it is respect; Bob Dylan and (for all I know) Five Finger Death Punch have dedicated their lives to their art, and they've connected to millions of people.  It wouldn't kill me to acknowledge that without telling them "THEY SUCK!" because I'm not a 60's hippy or a 90's sk8R boi.

Whenever you say something is good or not you are making an evaluation based on YOUR opinion and YOUR taste. Things just are what they are. Bob Dylan is what he is. "Good" and "bad" can only come from you, your perception, your taste, your opinion, your evaluation. It doesn't mean the thing or person you are calling "good" or "bad" is objectively good or bad. There is no such thing.

Whenever you say something is bad or something sucks, you are basically saying you don't like it or that you hate it. Not that the thing is objectively, universally, essentially bad. Because... there is no such thing. If that was the case, then nobody would like the thing/person. And even if nobody liked it, it doesn't mean it is bad. It only means nobody likes it.

So why not take about two nano-seconds of effort and use different words?   Why not say what you mean instead of taking the easy way out and hoping everyone else in the world understands you?   

I think this is going beyond music now and into personal philosophy.   I don't at all expect the entire world to bow to my way of seeing things.  If Bob Dylan's song doesn't connect with me, it's on ME not Bob Dylan; he  has no obligation to target Stadler with his work; his obligation is to follow his muse and make his statement.  I think there's a courage in that, and something to be admired.   For me to turn around and not have the common human decency to take a second and acknowledge that, and just say "Nope, sucks.   And you know what I mean." is, well, counterproductive and - yeah, I'll say it - selfish.   

I suppose that fat girl ought to just suck it up and take it, because it's your perspective, and your worldview?   

[Stadler]

why should art be respected? I don't need to respect The Beatles because they influenced my favorite band.

Okay, whatever.  I can't and won't compete with that.  If you can't look at another human being, acknowledge their emotions and hard work and respect that, well, this isn't about music anymore then.   It's just human decency.   It's like seeing a kid on a beach and kicking over his sandcastle. 

I would never kick over a kid's sand castle, nor would I run up on a street musician and take their guitar and smash it because I didn't like what they were playing. I still don't have to respect them though. That's not a good analogy.

It's a perfect analogy, because it highlights the difference in point of view here.  YOU'RE determining what that other person should or should not accept and deal with.  And I'm saying in a better world, "it's not your call".   As I've noted above, I'm starting to think this is about a world view, not music.  I don't believe the world should bend to me.  My opinion means nothing except to me and to those that ask me for that opinion.

If you don't mind my asking, do you have kids?   

[Zook]

No, because - and don't take offense at this, I'm literally just talking about myself, not implying anything about you - I don't think my opinion is so valuable that I can determine who's "good" or not.  Bob Dylan has touched millions and millions of people with his music.  Him not touching me isn't reflective of HIM, it's reflective of ME.   To say he's not "good" is to put it on him. 

Maybe we're just talking semantics; if by "good" or "they suck" just is your shorthand for "I like it" or "I don't like it", well, I guess you're right.  But anything else is, I believe subjecting others to your standards, and I know for me I would hate that.  Plus, part of it is respect; Bob Dylan and (for all I know) Five Finger Death Punch have dedicated their lives to their art, and they've connected to millions of people.  It wouldn't kill me to acknowledge that without telling them "THEY SUCK!" because I'm not a 60's hippy or a 90's sk8R boi.

Whenever you say something is good or not you are making an evaluation based on YOUR opinion and YOUR taste. Things just are what they are. Bob Dylan is what he is. "Good" and "bad" can only come from you, your perception, your taste, your opinion, your evaluation. It doesn't mean the thing or person you are calling "good" or "bad" is objectively good or bad. There is no such thing.

Whenever you say something is bad or something sucks, you are basically saying you don't like it or that you hate it. Not that the thing is objectively, universally, essentially bad. Because... there is no such thing. If that was the case, then nobody would like the thing/person. And even if nobody liked it, it doesn't mean it is bad. It only means nobody likes it.

So why not take about two nano-seconds of effort and use different words?   Why not say what you mean instead of taking the easy way out and hoping everyone else in the world understands you?   

I think this is going beyond music now and into personal philosophy.   I don't at all expect the entire world to bow to my way of seeing things.  If Bob Dylan's song doesn't connect with me, it's on ME not Bob Dylan; he  has no obligation to target Stadler with his work; his obligation is to follow his muse and make his statement.  I think there's a courage in that, and something to be admired.   For me to turn around and not have the common human decency to take a second and acknowledge that, and just say "Nope, sucks.   And you know what I mean." is, well, counterproductive and - yeah, I'll say it - selfish.   

I suppose that fat girl ought to just suck it up and take it, because it's your perspective, and your worldview?   

I don't think respect is the right word to use here. If Dream Theater wouldn't exist without The Beatles, fine. Cool, thanks Paul and crew for making music that inspired a future band that would end up being my favorite. Oh, you know which band inspired Jon Schaffer of Iced Earth to play guitar for a living? KISS. Do I like them? NOPE. Not even a little bit. Well, that's not true. Iced Earth has a good cover of Creatures of the Night. I'm not going to fault myself or place the blame on myself for not liking something. Again, I don't think respect is the right word to use. I don't ever say I respect DT or Iced Earth even though I love their music and think the musicians are pretty cool and don't afraid of anything.

[Zook]

why should art be respected? I don't need to respect The Beatles because they influenced my favorite band.

Okay, whatever.  I can't and won't compete with that.  If you can't look at another human being, acknowledge their emotions and hard work and respect that, well, this isn't about music anymore then.   It's just human decency.   It's like seeing a kid on a beach and kicking over his sandcastle. 

I would never kick over a kid's sand castle, nor would I run up on a street musician and take their guitar and smash it because I didn't like what they were playing. I still don't have to respect them though. That's not a good analogy.

It's a perfect analogy, because it highlights the difference in point of view here.  YOU'RE determining what that other person should or should not accept and deal with.  And I'm saying in a better world, "it's not your call".   As I've noted above, I'm starting to think this is about a world view, not music.  I don't believe the world should bend to me.  My opinion means nothing except to me and to those that ask me for that opinion.

If you don't mind my asking, do you have kids?   

I have a step daughter I've been helping raise as my own for 8 years, just to be perfectly clear. Once again, I am not stating my opinion as universal fact. The other guy above said the same thing.

[Skeever]

Words like "good" and "great" are just vague enough to make topics like this a problem. If "great" just means a general excellence in one area or more, sure, the Beatles were "great" in many ways. Their albums were sonic marvels at the time. Their popularity was unprecedented. The legacy has endured. All these things make the Beatles, by definition, "great", if "great" just means something like "surpassing the norms in one area or another". In some areas, I think they fell fall short of great: they were never a good live band, they didn't release very many albums, and even on the albums that I would consider "great", there are plenty of duds. I don't like the Beatles nearly as much as some, and think The Rolling Stones, Dylan, and other of their contemporaries had far better albums and left more impressive legacies. But to say flat out that they weren't great in any way just strikes me as a needless stake in the ground. 

I don't think respect is the right word to use here. If Dream Theater wouldn't exist without The Beatles, fine. Cool, thanks Paul and crew for making music that inspired a future band that would end up being my favorite. Oh, you know which band inspired Jon Schaffer of Iced Earth to play guitar for a living? KISS. Do I like them? NOPE. Not even a little bit. Well, that's not true. Iced Earth has a good cover of Creatures of the Night. I'm not going to fault myself or place the blame on myself for not liking something. Again, I don't think respect is the right word to use. I don't ever say I respect DT or Iced Earth even though I love their music and think the musicians are pretty cool and don't afraid of anything.

To me Iced Earth are a good example of a band who have been very influential in their scene despite being total schlock. I suppose they too were great in the sense that they inspired so many bands who then carried the torch for heavy metal for several years, though. Kiss were schlock too, but at least in a fun way that connects with me more, and their legacy still dwarfs those of many others.

[RoeDent]

Was reading up on The Smiths recently and saw NME named the Smiths the "most influential artist ever" in a 2002 poll. I mean, holy crap. I get that it is one magazine's poll. But really, The Smiths?

What else did you expect from NME readers? They swoon over them like nobody's business.

[Zook]

Words like "good" and "great" are just vague enough to make topics like this a problem. If "great" just means a general excellence in one area or more, sure, the Beatles were "great" in many ways. Their albums were sonic marvels at the time. Their popularity was unprecedented. The legacy has endured. All these things make the Beatles, by definition, "great", if "great" just means something like "surpassing the norms in one area or another". In some areas, I think they fell fall short of great: they were never a good live band, they didn't release very many albums, and even on the albums that I would consider "great", there are plenty of duds. I don't like the Beatles nearly as much as some, and think The Rolling Stones, Dylan, and other of their contemporaries had far better albums and left more impressive legacies. But to say flat out that they weren't great in any way just strikes me as a needless stake in the ground. 

I don't think respect is the right word to use here. If Dream Theater wouldn't exist without The Beatles, fine. Cool, thanks Paul and crew for making music that inspired a future band that would end up being my favorite. Oh, you know which band inspired Jon Schaffer of Iced Earth to play guitar for a living? KISS. Do I like them? NOPE. Not even a little bit. Well, that's not true. Iced Earth has a good cover of Creatures of the Night. I'm not going to fault myself or place the blame on myself for not liking something. Again, I don't think respect is the right word to use. I don't ever say I respect DT or Iced Earth even though I love their music and think the musicians are pretty cool and don't afraid of anything.

To me Iced Earth are a good example of a band who have been very influential in their scene despite being total schlock. I suppose they too were great in the sense that they inspired so many bands who then carried the torch for heavy metal for several years, though. Kiss were schlock too, but at least in a fun way that connects with me more, and their legacy still dwarfs those of many others.

See? If anything can be respected, it's an opinion, even when it's wrong.

[Architeuthis]

   I think if there's no Velvet Underground, there is no Sex Pistols, and if there is no Sex Pistols, there are no REM, U2 (at least as we know them), Seattle (at least Nirvana), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane's Addiction, Green Day, etc.

..and the problem with that is?..

[pg1067]

Well, I'm very much in the "taste is subjective, there is no good/bad in music" camp, except when it comes to the degree to which a work meets the artists expectations, but here I think there is an element of objectivity.   I don't think "influence" makes a good band "great", but I do think that influence is one of those standards that we CAN measure, and it can't be ignored.  I think there's something to be said for a band like Van Halen, or Sabbath, or Kiss, or the Velvet Underground that separates them from the Motley Crue's, the Soundgardens or the REMs that come after.   Sure, the Velvets weren't that good of players, not even close, but they DID deliver something new, and they DID tap into a zeitgeist like few bands ever have, and that matters.   I think if there's no Velvet Underground, there is no Sex Pistols, and if there is no Sex Pistols, there are no REM, U2 (at least as we know them), Seattle (at least Nirvana), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane's Addiction, Green Day, etc.

You've replaced subjectivity with speculation.

   I think if there's no Velvet Underground, there is no Sex Pistols, and if there is no Sex Pistols, there are no REM, U2 (at least as we know them), Seattle (at least Nirvana), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jane's Addiction, Green Day, etc.

..and the problem with that is?..

Exactly.


As for the original question, since "good," as it relates to music, is entirely subjective, and since every band/artist has folks who like the band/artist and folks who don't like the band/artist, the answer is necessarily both yes and no.

In other words, this is Schroedinger's Thread.  All influential bands are both good and not good.

[Train of Naught]

Ghost is another one I don't understand. Nothing I've heard sounds good.  Very boring music.

I'm trying to be constructive.

I don't think you're trying very hard

[Zook]

Ghost is another one I don't understand. Nothing I've heard sounds good.  Very boring music.

I'm trying to be constructive.

I don't think you're trying very hard

Describing something as boring isn't constructive criticism anymore? OK then.


In my own personal individual opinion, Ghost lacks the proper musical endorphins to energize and stimulate my brain palate.