this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
825 points (98.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
6036 readers
2202 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The aspect of this that really bugs me is that people never get how revolutionary something was. Like taking your example of music, people listen to songs by The Beatles or Nirvana or David Bowie and think "Their fine, but I don't know what's so great about them - 100 other bands sound the same." But the thing is, at the time, no other bands sounded the same, they were just copied like crazy.
You see it with movies, too. Gone With The Wind, Citizen Kane, Double Indemnity, Blade Runner - all really good movies in their own right, but putting them in the context of the movies of the time shows how influential they were. All highly copied afterwards.
I don't think the Beatles are bad because many others copied their style, I just think that, besides for a few specific songs, I don't really like their style.
Oh, that's fine, music is subjective. I think Jimmy Hendrix was an amazing musician who could make a guitar do anyone he wanted, but I don't enjoy a lot of what he choose to do with one. My point is issue is that it's hard for us to understand how influential something was if we weren't around when it came out. All the cliches started with something that did it first.
It's called "shifting baselines."
I've never heard a band that sucked like the Beatles sucks.
based