Origination vs. Popularization

Rocket2RussiaRocket2Russia Road Warrior
edited June 2010 in History of Rock
Which is more important? Is the band who created a style or technique or sound the influential artist, or is the band who popularized the style or technique? The first example that comes to mind is The Ventures vs. The Beatles, but please don't turn this into ANOTHER thread about the Fab Four.

Comments

  • neckermanncjneckermanncj Washed Up
    edited June 2010
    rocket2russia;3749974 said:
    but please don't turn this into another thread about the fab four.
    too late!
  • FizzelerFizzeler Washed Up
    edited June 2010
    I think they are both important, but I would think Origination would be more important than Popularization
  • afterstasisafterstasis Washed Up
    edited June 2010
    origination obviously requires far more admirable skill and creativity (at least to a music-lover and not a businessman), but i think neither are as important as some folks insist.
  • overcookedbaconovercookedbacon Road Warrior
    edited June 2010
    It's just like stasis said, but I'd go one step further and say that often times the most important (or influential) bands to a particular genre or style are neither the originals, nor the ones who popularized it.
  • Soror_YZBLSoror_YZBL Road Warrior
    edited June 2010
    The ones who did it best are more important.
  • darkwinterbeast8darkwinterbeast8 Headliner
    edited June 2010
    Origination I think would be the more important of the two. Sure it would be convenient if the Originators of a music style ended up being the ones that popularized it but there are many variables in being in a band that could and would derail them while a band that starts out a cut from a similar cloth but has more of a mainstream viewpoint gets popular.

    Although, if the originator wasn't popular enough with fellow musicians, nobody would try that style. So yeah, Origination is the important one.
  • darkwinterbeast8darkwinterbeast8 Headliner
    edited June 2010
    Soror_YZBL;3751723 said:
    The ones who did it best are more important.
    Works in theory, but people have different opinions. At best, this is a very subjective notion where 40 people can be into the same style of music but you'll get 40 different answers about who does it the best.
  • Soror_YZBLSoror_YZBL Road Warrior
    edited June 2010
    What you're asking is a relative question. More important to whom?
  • OldFogeyOldFogey Road Warrior
    edited June 2010
    afterstasis;3750751 said:
    origination obviously requires far more admirable skill and creativity (at least to a music-lover and not a businessman), but i think neither are as important as some folks insist.
    Not necessarily -- people can come up with original ideas completely by accident (Ike Turner's amp getting wet and playing distorted) or because they don't know any better (any number of examples of untrained musicians or artists doing things that "break the rules").
    Soror_YZBL;3751723 said:
    The ones who did it best are more important.
    This.

    Which leads to another point -- it's not necessarily originator vs. popularizer. It may be originator vs. perfector. The original maybe very crude. And then it took someone else to make it polished.
  • Alaskan_PipelineAlaskan_Pipeline Unsigned
    edited June 2010
    pretty much both are great especially bands like green day who started a lot of new punk stuff and then even popularitized it
  • CommonCriminalCommonCriminal The Stork Whisperer
    edited June 2010
    Alaskan_Pipeline;3807068 said:
    pretty much both are great especially bands like green day who started a lot of new punk stuff and then even popularitized it
    :confused:
  • Rocket2RussiaRocket2Russia Road Warrior
    edited June 2010
    CommonCriminal;3807473 said:
    :confused:
    I hate posts like "+1", but there is no better time than this.

    +1
  • CEEDZ13CEEDZ13 Road Warrior
    edited June 2010
    Alaskan_Pipeline;3807068 said:
    pretty much both are great especially bands like green day who started a lot of new punk stuff and then even popularitized it
    Yeah, and bands like Blink 182 who made Punk popular. :rolleyes:

    But seriously, Originality is the key to being great imo. The Sex Pistols popularized punk rock and made many people "like" punk because it was cool. Bands like the Ramones started the movement and then got little to no credit. I'm not saying that popularization is a bad thing, but it makes people think that if they like "Anarchy in the U.K." or "God Save the Queen," they automatically are fans of the genre. This is one of the (few :p) reasons why I hate bands like Atreyu and Bullet for My Vallentine.
  • Rocket2RussiaRocket2Russia Road Warrior
    edited June 2010
    CEEDZ13;3807611 said:
    The Sex Pistols popularized punk rock and made many people "like" punk because it was cool. Bands like the Ramones started the movement and then got little to no credit..
    What? Sex Pistols were basically banned on radio, and Ramones (as far as I know...) weren't. I'd argue they got similar credit in the punk scene and the latter probably got a bit more commerical/mainstream credit/success.
  • CEEDZ13CEEDZ13 Road Warrior
    edited June 2010
    Rocket2Russia;3807628 said:
    What? Sex Pistols were basically banned on radio, and Ramones (as far as I know...) weren't. I'd argue they got similar credit in the punk scene and the latter probably got a bit more commerical/mainstream credit/success.
    Not trying to start a fight here (just said that because I send that vibe sometimes :p) but the Ramones were one of the originators of punk rock, while the Sex Pistols came out a few years later. For all we know, the Sex Pistols may have put "bad werds" in their songs to get banned from the radio, thus making them more popular because if someone wanted to listen, they had to buy the record instead of waiting for it to come around on the radio. Ok, maybe not. The Sex Pistols and the other "original" punk bands from Europe (UK? Not sure.) were the popularizers (thats a word right? :P) of the punk scene and then everyone started liking it. Idk, it's kinda like the Pop-Punk genre, but it isn't. Hopefully you understand what I meant.
  • Rocket2RussiaRocket2Russia Road Warrior
    edited June 2010
    CEEDZ13;3807739 said:
    Not trying to start a fight here (just said that because I send that vibe sometimes :p) but the Ramones were one of the originators of punk rock, while the Sex Pistols came out a few years later. For all we know, the Sex Pistols may have put "bad werds" in their songs to get banned from the radio, thus making them more popular because if someone wanted to listen, they had to buy the record instead of waiting for it to come around on the radio. Ok, maybe not. The Sex Pistols and the other "original" punk bands from Europe (UK? Not sure.) were the popularizers (thats a word right? :P) of the punk scene and then everyone started liking it. Idk, it's kinda like the Pop-Punk genre, but it isn't. Hopefully you understand what I meant.
    http://punkmusic.about.com/od/punk101/a/punkhistory2.htm

    The Sex Pistols were after the Ramones, yes, but this does not immediately make them "popularizers" of punk and the Ramones originators. The entirety of both scenes laid some more on the foundations set by the New York Dolls, MC5, The Modern Lovers, etc.

    As far as either "popularizing" punk rock, I'd say within the scene, both had the same credibility and popularity, and the Ramones had a slight upper hand on the mainstream side, as they weren't effectively banned from the airwaves. Obviously, neither was hugely popular when they were really in the punk scene.
  • Rockbandfan23467Rockbandfan23467 Headliner
    edited June 2010
    I just created the first Celtic Death Opera. Am I important for doing it before others had the same idea?
  • acdcrockacdcrock Road Warrior
    edited June 2010
    CommonCriminal;3807473 said:
    :confused:
    He's right, he said new punk...he means pop punk. Green Day, blink-182, Sum 41 and No Doubt (kinda pop-punk/ska depending on the song)
  • CommonCriminalCommonCriminal The Stork Whisperer
    edited June 2010
    acdcrock;3809111 said:
    He's right, he said new punk...he means pop punk. Green Day, blink-182, Sum 41 and No Doubt (kinda pop-punk/ska depending on the song)
    :confused:
  • Rocket2RussiaRocket2Russia Road Warrior
    edited June 2010
    acdcrock;3809111 said:
    He's right, he said new punk...he means pop punk. Green Day, blink-182, Sum 41 and No Doubt (kinda pop-punk/ska depending on the song)
    no
  • JukeBoxHeroJukeBoxHero Headliner
    edited June 2010
    acdcrock;3809111 said:
    He's right, he said new punk...he means pop punk. Green Day, blink-182, Sum 41 and No Doubt (kinda pop-punk/ska depending on the song)
    None of those acts are pop punk and what tiny, tiny bit of punk sound they do have is not enough to make them punk at all.
  • Rockbandfan23467Rockbandfan23467 Headliner
    edited June 2010
    They wouldn't exist without punk, though.
  • 40FootWolf40FootWolf Opening Act
    edited June 2010
    Importance is a bit of a loaded term, but in that regard, you can't really popularize something that doesn't exist, right? So I'd go with origination.
Sign In or Register to comment.