BobbyM wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dmh7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:4435DBEC.8000303@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>Chuck was great and influential, but more so than Buddy? I think not:
>>especcially since the Beatles (most obviously especially Paul) were
>>heavily influenced by his brand of melodic rock, and - via the Beatles -
>>he influenced the course of pop ever since. He was also one of the first
>>rockers to grab control of his record production, and to demand a high
>>standard in the studio. He died young, and - it seems to me - had just
>>begun to fully explore the limits of rock and pop. Boring? Hell no!
>
>
> Aren't you overlooking the fact that Berry influenced both Holly & the
> Beatles.
No. But does that - in turn - make both Buddy and the Beatles less than
"great" and "influential"? Are you overlooking the "fact" that every
musician ever was influenced by a caveman who found that beating a rock
against a log made him feel like dancing?
>While Holly may have had an influence on the Beatles' pop side,
> Berry's influence was on the rock side and started long before the
Beatles.
Let me get this: because Buddy "only" influenced" the pop side of the
Beatles, he isn't as im****tant as Berry? What the hell can that mean?
> A larger number of rock (and even country) bands are likely to have a
Berry
> song or two in their repertoire, than a Holly or a Beatles' song.
So?
dmh
|
