So the following question arises and forces one to address it if one is to determine their attitude towards the Byrds - "Does what was innovative and experimental once have any relevance to culture decades after the fact?" The gist of this argument, in my opinion, can be further reduced to the following queries - "Which is more important - the way an artistic achievement holds up on an 'absolute' scale against all art both before and after it, or the difference of itself and what came before?" and "Do originality and quality have anything at all to do with one another?" I know very well that both points can serve as major sources of contention, and by going into this I'm just taking away from valuable time to talk about the band itself, but hey, it's my site, I'll go off on whatever tangents I want. I think few would make a significant argument against their importance in the history and development of rock and pop into a 'legitimate' genre of art, but I also look around and see some that say, "Yeah, they're innovative, but that does nothing to mitigate that they sucked and were boring as hell." Among the various giants of 60's rock, the Byrds are one of those that have dated (in some ways) more than many others, both in respect to their early "jangle rock" days and their "psychedelic" days. If They're So Great, How Come They Can't Spell Their Name Right?!! HUH?! HUH?!īest as I can tell, The Byrds are the best group to serve as a litmus test for both one's attitude towards 60's rock and regarding one's attitude of the importance of originality and experimentation within rock as a whole. Byrds Completely confused by the rating system? Go here for an explanation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |