I keep getting off track. My original point: The whole notion that "this band" couldn't have existed without "that band" is total horseshit. Maybe Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have been if it weren't for Pet Sounds. Maybe it would have been something better or just all together different. I'm constantly bombarded with the whole "punk started in American" "no it started in England" crap. Research the bands! In a very similar way to pyramids in Egypt, Mexico and Mesopotamia, it just happened. They built them because it was time for them to be built with no knowledge of the others having been built. Punk was created in many places simultaneously because it was time for punk to exist. I know 100s of people who have never met each other who were all part of the first hip crowd to call McDonalds "Mickey D's". I just thank God I wasn't one of them. If two cavemen hadn't come up with the idea to hit each other with sticks at about the same time, there would have only been one tribe left. OK, I think I've made my original point now.
RJFait said:
And if The Beatles denied the influences of other (mostly American bands) they'd have been liars. But, they didn't "Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been Elvis, there would not have been the Beatles." -John Lennon. McCartney lists The Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" as one of his biggest influences. "Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened ... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds" -Paul McCartney. Johnny Thunders is one of my biggest influences. I may have played slightly different without him, but I would have played... and it would have been dirty rock 'n' rocll. So, everything I've said (other than the Backstreet Boys exaggeration) still remains true. The 'scene' would have happened - with or without The Beatles.


