The Velvets are considered "great" at least in part because they influenced a ton of bands that are or were considered "good."
Many times a band that might be considered "great" winds up influencing a lot of bands that were so far from "good" they couldn't find "good" with the Hubble, a flashlight and a road atlas. Even worse, this group might unwittingly kick-start a trend of many such bands.
Does the legacy of a group change because of its progeny?
I believe, unfairly or not, that a group is ultimately critically evaluated at least in part through, not how far-reaching its influence is, but how "good" those influenced turn out to be.
--- SHOW YOUR WORK ---
Example: Korn.
Influenced: Millions that sucked *and* a horrible trend.
Legacy: ...Okay, maybe a bad example...
Better exammple: Faith No More
Why better: Unlike Korn, they achieved a level of critical acclaim.
Influenced: Millions that sucked *and* a horrible trend.
Legacy: Tarnished, at least in part (probably), because of this.
Exception: The Ramones.
Influenced: Millions that were boring *and* several distinct horrible trends.
Legacy: Untarnished for the most part.
― Brian O'Neill (NYCNative), Thursday, 12 January 2006 10:06 (twenty years ago)
one year passes...
Who did Faith no More influence? All the rap/rock people? And do they have any kind of critical reputation any more anyway? I'm trying to think if "Epic" sounded completely new when I heard it back in the day.
― dr. phil, Monday, 16 April 2007 04:14 (nineteen years ago)
Yeah, I hadn't heard them yet. But maybe DC Talk...
― dr. phil, Monday, 16 April 2007 04:20 (nineteen years ago)
All's I knwo is that I myself am a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to designating credit/blame in this area. I'm always quick to mention worthwhile performers who were undoubtedly influenced by personal favourites of mine, but with my next breath I'll say "But you can't blame them for [insert likewise-inspired-yet-worthless progeny here]."
― Myonga Vön Bontee, Monday, 16 April 2007 05:23 (nineteen years ago)