Which bands have had a large yet non-destructive influence on music?

Kraftwerk?

Model 500

Sly and the Family Stone?

most artists that promoted minimalism and repetition had a good influence

Chuck passingly mentioned Black Sabbath and Black Flag, both who have been watered down countless times since, but not in a way that I'd say was destructive; while the good bands who've ran with what they started have done some bangers for all time

should say - Chuck passingly mentioned Black Sabbath and Black Flag *on the other thread*

some great bands here

It is true that the Longpigs have not had a destructive influence on music

AC/DC

Also, Babe Ruth.

And Frank Zappa has mainly seemed to musically influence bands that are better than he ever was.

Grandmaster Flash?

Uh that Duran Duran covers album, Nate.

beatles, stones, yardbirds, the who, the byrds, the animals, them, pretty things, small faces, um, lots more probably. though some people might find those bands destructive. i don't. i like lots of bands that sound like them. even some bad ones.

Scott Walker
Neu
King Tubby
King Jammy
Oum Kalthoum

Afrika Bambaataa
Ennio Morricone

Though maybe Morricone has influenced lots of shitty film music than I know nothing about, come to think of it.

I think any film music that's inspired by Morricone is infinitely better than a nu-metal "hits" soundtrack.

severed heads

Neu! otm

VU

Fela Kuti

Throbbing Gristle

James Brown

lol i just read the other thread:

James Brown obv. Followed by Sex Pistols and Sugarhill Gang.

-- Geir Hongro, Sunday, June 1, 2008 3:25 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Link

weee

The Beatles

"Uh that Duran Duran covers album, Nate."

I did not know that.

Rather liberal use of the term "large" here, methinks

'AC/DC'

WRONG. see: Jet. amongst others.

I gotta say, this thread is turning out to be an embarrassingly obvious list of "artists that are safely unimpeachable for rock critics to namecheck with a clear conscience while conforming to rockcrit orthodoxy". The way things are going, you could practically make a template of it, to hand out to new writers:

1. Kraftwerk and/or Neu!
2. Velvet Underground
3. Black Sabbath and/or AC/DC
4. Sugar Hill Gang or Grandmaster Flash
5. Lee Scratch Perry or (insert dub artist here)
6. James Brown and/or Sly and/or Fela
7. David Bowie and/or Brian Eno
8. Miles Davis and/or Ornette Coleman
9. something punk or post-punk, or The Fall
10. Public Enemy or N.W.A.
11. etc.

NB these are all artists that I like, sometimes love! But it's amazing how suffocating and predictable it feels. Maybe the thread concept guarantees it, because it's so normative and "safe"-making. And this, too, feels like a reflection of orthodoxy -- though I feel like a dick singling it out, because in some ways I agree with it:

most artists that promoted minimalism and repetition had a good influence

By the way:

And Frank Zappa has mainly seemed to musically influence bands that are better than he ever was.

Phish are/were the biggest Zappa acolytes out there, so I'm curious about whether you'd still hold this stance in light of that.

Nah, not if Phish count -- do they really ever sound like Zappa, though? I dunno, maybe they sound like his boring parts. I was thinking the Tubes, Tin Huey, MX-80 Sound. But yeah, if Phish count as Zappa disciples, get him the hell off this thread already.

But there's plenty of minimalist/repetitive (and Krafwerk influenced, for that matter) music that's even more boring than Phish are, for crissakes.

And Sabbath don't sound much like AC/DC (and they've influenced way different bands, too.) I still want to hear what horrible music AC/DC have insfluenced.

(Jet are fine, by the way.)

How about 'which bands have had a minor/obscure but awesome influence on music?' I think that would have more interesting answers.

"I gotta say, this thread is turning out to be an embarrassingly obvious list of "artists that are safely unimpeachable for rock critics to namecheck with a clear conscience while conforming to rockcrit orthodoxy"."

The LARGE thing in the title kind of dictates that it has to be obvious.

The "Large" thing in the title basically dictates that correct answers are impossible. (But I disagree that "minor/obscure" would make choices more intersting. It would just mean any good bands that almost nobody ever heard would qualify, big deal.)

Not necessarily, xhuxk. It could be a well-known band who had a minor or obscure influence.

I'm just saying; large influences will always be somewhat obvious. Minor influences (from small bands or large bands or whomever) make for more interesting conversation.

do they really ever sound like Zappa, though?

Definitely, especially "Inca Roads" and stuff like that.

there's plenty of minimalist/repetitive (and Krafwerk influenced, for that matter) music that's even more boring than Phish are, for crissakes.

Well, sure, but it seems like the idea that minimalism and repetition are inherently positive traits has way more traction than it deserves. They have a lot going for them, but a critical vocabulary that deals with music of that kind, while ignoring or sneering at stuff that's more quote-unquote "ambitious", seems hamstrung to me.

And Sabbath don't sound much like AC/DC (and they've influenced way different bands, too.)

I agree, though (to be a little cynical here) they both tend to serve as "not-Led-Zeppelin" tropes for many of the same folks. And they have a fair bit in common.

You know what I noticed the other day? Steve Winwood sounds like Ozzy's little brother sometimes. They both have that I've-got-orange-juice-phlegm-in-my-throat quality now and again. They should do a concept album with Alan Rickman.

xpost fair enough on the large thing, it's more the kind of stuff that's being posted than the fact that it's obvious.

xp But I mean, the idea that the VU or James Brown (say) have never influenced any shitty music is just plain laughable. (Okay, maybe AC/DC too, then.)

minimalism and repetition are inherently positive traits

Er, no.

You've never heard lousy music that was repetitive??

inherently. inherently. inherently. inherently. inherently.

a well-known band who had a minor or obscure influence

Isn't there a thread somewhere asking "What is the most famous band that has never influenced any subsequent music?" (I feel like the answer was the Zombies, or somebody like that, though I bet they've inspired some pretty tedious stuff too, by now.)

(Actually, I took "minimalism and repetition are inherently positive traits" -- an idea that Charlie was actually criticizing -- totally out of context.)

You've never heard lousy music that was repetitive??

Of course I have! The idea I mentioned was what I'm opposed to: I don't think they're inherently positive traits. But the fact that almost every artist on the traditional "safe" list is involved in music that's particularly minimal or repetitive is kinda telling.

I mean, AC/DC is more minimal and repetitive than Mercyful Fate, right? Black Sabbath more so than Led Zeppelin? The Velvets more so than the Beatles? Kraftwerk more so than...well, pretty much all krautrock has that strain going in it.

xpost got it

Actually, I just realized that the correct answer to this thread is ? and the Mysterians.

And maybe Jefferson Airplane (or maybe not.)

Oh wait, even better answer, duh:

RIP Bo Diddley

Did Bo ever badly influence anybody? Ever?

I suppose the problem is if you're going to be talking about "non-destructive", you have to define your terms -- and I feel very uncomfortable with any kind of consensus on that issue.

xpost Did the Airplane have a big influence, though? They're wildly underrated to this day, and no one really followed up on what they were doing -- they get persistently misread as Summer of Love hippie-dippies, "Up against the wall, motherfucker" notwithstanding.

Bo Diddley, yes, though he's very much in the continuum I was describing -- as opposed to, say, Little Richard.

I mean, "Bo Diddley" is basically the source of all one-chord jams ever!

Did the Airplane have a big influence, though?

Well, they may well have influenced Heart, Fleetwood Mac, the Shocking Blue, X, and, uh...the Zarkons, I guess. Maybe one or two other bands. Probably even a couple stray disco singers.(But that was my point -- a well-known band with limited but awesome influence.) (On the other hand they undoubtedly also influenced Jefferson Starship, but maybe that shouldn't disqualify them. The Starship stuff that sounds Airplane-like is sometimes pretty good!)

As for Bo, I can't think of any songs with the Bo Diddley beat that would be better without it.

(Jefferson Airplane also invented, in "Crown of Creation," the beat that Sabbath later used in "Children of the Grave" and Blondie in "Call Me" and the Butthole Surfers in "Dum Dum," etc; like Bo's beat, it's never made any songs worse.)

Slade's influence has been pretty awesome through history, too -- gang shouts from AC/DC to the Clash to oi! to '80s hair metal etc. (to the idea that non-joke songs can be sung in British accents, and hard rock men can sing like Janis Joplin, and hard rock bands can incorporate New Orleans r&b rhythms.) (I'm stealing all those ideas from Frank Kogan, btw.) (On second thought, there are lots of bands who shittily wear their Britishness on their sleeve, so maybe not. Or maybe they're the Kinks' or the Jam's fault.)

the idea that non-joke songs can be sung in British accents

Syd Barrett is often credited with this. He's another quasi-canonical figure who could be added to this list.

(Bowie: "Along with Anthony Newley, he was the first guy I'd heard to sing pop or rock with a British accent.")

xp

Nah, Syd inspired Robyn Hitchcock bigtime, right? Totally disqualifies him right there.

Maybe Slade were the first people to sing hardrock in a British accent, though? (An idea later picked up by Johnny Rotten, among other people.)

And have ZZ Top ever influenced anybody in a bad way? If not, I guess they deserve a nomination, too.