According to another site, the Supremes were greater than Bob Dylan, and the Stones*

The Beatles CD sales would disprove that Kevin. From reading different5 forums it seems that for the last 40 years new generations have been discovering the Beatles and turning on to their music. Not all of those youngsters grow up to be musicians but some do and whose to say that they are not somewhat influenced by their music and their diversity? And from what I can see this is a continuing process. I can't think of one other band from the sixties, or even seventies, that gets rediscovered by each new generation to the extent that the Beatles do.

And one other thing, there is sunch a thing as hereditary influences (I know cos i just made it up ) But if The Beatles influence Band A who influence Band B who influence Band C, then Band C has been influenced, at least indirectly, by The Beatles.

So there.

 

Listening to music and enjoying it is absolutely no proof of "actual" influence on a group from the last 20 years. I have some musician friends that have VERY wide musical tastes, and listen to hundreds of acts throughout the years and I can tell you for SURE, by the music they create, im almost certain that 90 percent of what they listen to has no similarity to what they record or play. Im talking about acts as differing as Dolly parton, John denver, Frank sinatra, Can, Bob marley, Supremes, Monkees, Smiths, U2, Nirvana and so many I cant even think of most of the stuff one guy told me.

His music is almost in no way indicative of what he listens to with perhaps the exception of a bit of nirvana, and a bit of a couple of other 90s alternative acts. Yes he has all the beatles stuff, Elvis, tangerine dream, tons of motown and reggae, country and even jazz, but his music is Hard death metal with a somewhat alternative sound.

 

Wow. That's some list of rock artists.

 

I dont think many are actually understanding the term when we say "Influence". Saying they are well known and still sell recordings is ONE thing, saying they are actually influential in practice on current groups is totally different.

Bob marley, elvis and frank sinatra and bing crosby all still sell quite big sums of recording and are all very well known, but as far as being influential on todays music??

They are seen as enjoyable music from a simpler time. Great music that is entertaining and fun to listen to. Influences can not travel over several generations. Once a group influences its contemproraries or peers, its influence stage is over. after about 10 years that said group is no longer directly influential at all. It may have some indirect influence, but overall something such as music can only be influenced one time. After its influenced this ONE time, it is permanently changed and it cant be "re-permanently changed again over and over".

Being "discovered" by younger generations is great, but it only implies they are enjoying the music in the given historical context it was created in. I love many groups from even before i was born and when i was a small child. That in no way means if I started a group today id go back to 50 year old music for my inspiration or ideas. Otherwise my musical group would basically sound like a throwback or an imitation of years ago and not be taken seriously. Pop music by its exact nature and definition is of the times and influenced by the times and its contemporaries, NOT an extension of olden days and styles.

Look at the "Stray cats" as an example. VERY influenced by certain 50s rock and roll acts, and quite obvious. Not a lot of originality in being influenced by old music..eh?

 

Why don't you try "Tomorrow Never Knows" the sampled loops, distored vocal over a loud up front drum & bass sound. That sound is all over pop music right?

Again I didn't make this to be a Beatles topic. I was talking about the Rolling Stones, Dylan and the Supremes. The Beatles have nothing to do with this topic.

 

It's the SHF - ALL topics are Beatles topics!

 

If you are going to say I like rock music better than R&B than you're right. If you think I'm putting it down than you're wrong. Then again rock music to me is a poorly defined genre. Also the Supremes and the Funk Brothers are not the same band or group. So I don't get why people act like the Supremes and Funk Brothers are the same group as to make an excuse that the Supremes didn't play or write their music.

 

I find it frustrating to be on this forum sometimes honestly. I wanted to talk or compare the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan to the Supremes. Yeh, I love the Beatles. When someone ever is compared to someone else the Beatles will eventually be mentioned. It kind of shows that in many ways the Beatles are considered the measuring point but that wasn't what this thread was really about.

 

That's right - rock is derivative of R&B and other forms and they continued to develop intertwined. Some rock snobs like to pretend that's not the case.

As far as playing and writing their own music - Motown was unique as a music factory of writers, players, vocalists and vocal groups. Stax was similar but different; Philly had a similar deal. There's no "excuse" to be made - their *collective* music was as valid of an musical/artistic expression as any other R&B or rock act of the time. If it makes you respect their music less, or if you can't listen to their records without an asterisk next to them, that's your personal preference/hangup.

 

I appreciate this thread. I've always had it in the back of my mind that I need to go deeper into the Supreme's catalog (all I have currently is on the Motown Gold set). This thread pushed me over the edge and I ordered Diana Ross & The Supremes Anthology from the 80's. I know this wasn't the intention of this thread, but all's well that ends well.

 

So somebody has a different opinion, on the internet, no less.

 

Thats all the proof I need

 

Bad site!

*Smacks naughty site on bottom repeatedly

 

I've got no values, I've got nothing to say . . .

Time to assemble a lynch mob, is what I say.

 

Correct, they are considered the measuring point to several on this forums music section, but in the real world, their importance is not "over-stated" as it is many times on here.

Reality check: they were simply a very hugely popular pop/rock group in the 1960s, No more no less. Where the issues come in, is that many other groups that were just as popular and many that were in the long run more influential on todays and the last 20-30 years of music are all but ignored in favor of discussing an older group that had huge influence on the mid 60 till perhaps the late 70s. A great accomplishment for sure and no one is trying to diminish their historical revelance, but what is happening is we are discussing them to death at the expense of a lot of genre breaking and influential stuff that occured throughout not only the 70s, but the 80s and 90s also.

 

Meet the Threetles

Good job.

Seriously, in terms of all the metrics of the pop charts, crossover influence, long-term influence—Michael Jackson, Hello!!!!—the Supremes are at least as important as the Stones and Dylan. And if these three artistic entities seem to always include THE BEATLES in their company, you have to admit that these musical entities had beaucoups musical cross-pollination. There's more cross-pollination between the Motown machine and the top 40 charts of the sixties than rocksters would willingly admit.

And the Supremes came up with a hell of a lot of good tunes.

 

I agree.

 

That's a legitimate position. If anything, I find it odd that they are ranked below James Brown and the Beach Boys. In many ways, they were more influential than Dylan or the Stones. In the US, they were everywhere during the 64-67 period, they ruled the Ed Sullivan show, and they were certainly heard on the radio more than any other act except (and this is debatable) the Beatles. Anyone who disputes this wasn't there, or doesn't remember.

That said, they were done by the end of the decade.

 

yes and I think many that are offering the Beatles as such a huge influence are people that mainly listen to music of a very limited style and genre. Rock music as we knew it from the 60s and 70s is all but dead and gone. So much more is based on beats, electronic stuff, hard rock, alternative, R+B and soul styles, that the Beatles never even knew existed.

Id say Michael jackson, Nirvana, Kraftwerk, Madonna and a slew of R+B artists, and several key artists in the 80s that changed music more into the new wave and punk sound styles we find common now.

 

Here is proof we are all wrong.....

http://rock.about.com/od/rockmusic101/tp/bands.htm

 

I am not sure what "new wave and punk sound styles" you are referring to. And you may be right that much of what you listen to may be more based on beats, electronic stuff, alternative, R&B and soul styles, etc. The only problem is that what you listen to may be different than what the rest of America is listening to. Here's the best selling albums of this past week.

http://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200?tag=chscr1#/charts/billboard-200?tag=chscr1

 

It's a grunge grunge grunge world

 

Kevin, there are many people outside of this forum who think the Beatles are greatest pop or rock band or whatever they were. The latest VH1 Greatest Poll verifies that many musicians and people feel that way. Yes from a recording, songwriting, lyrical point of view and the albums they created they weren't just a popular band that is dismissing what they did when you say that.

What I find frustrating is it wasn't my intention to bring the Beatles into this topic.

 

Well...the Supremes themselves did not come up with the tunes. I think that may be the problem with lists like these. The individual artists and groups were great performers (although Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye who, as time went on, contributed more) and deserve to be high on the list as far as sales. But if you just said Motown which would also include the writers, arrangers and session musicians and included influence as a part of the criteria along with sales, then Motown would be #1 easily I would think.

 

OK but how do you compare something as huge as Motown to a single entity like Bob Dylan or the Rolling Stones? How does that make the Supremes greater than Bob Dylan or the Rolling Stones?