This debate is not even worth starting, your thinking on the subject is far specific to appreciate how music is interlinked and symbiotic, it extends far beyond an artist signature 'sound', until you appreciate that it's not worth continuing.
You may think you are sounding erudite but your poor typing makes your high faulting phrasing even more ridiculous. Anyway, we re talking of how someone was influenced by another artist no one had heard of when he started recording. Hendrix played in Little Richard's backing band. On your logic Little Richard was influenced by him.
I'll apologise for predictive text, the lack of effort in the proof reading and excessive ale but once again you've missed the point. What does the time someone started recording have anything to do with influence? Sure they may not have been the first influence or even a major influence but to discredit a potential influence purely in chronology is bullshit. As long as they (or the people they worked with) were making music, at the same time its enivitable there would be an overlap.
http://m.noisey.vice.com/en_uk/blog/britain-needs-to-pull-the-plug-on-the-indie-rebel Slightly unrelated but a great assessment of modern indie!
Yeah I watched that, also the 2-tone one and the American deep south sludge metal. The British Masters interviews are excellent with John Doran. The Mark E Smith interview is my favourite clip on the whole internet I think.
The point is in this instance Prince Buster's style had evolved before anyone had heard of Hendrix. It never altered. His recordings showed no sign of a Hendrix influence after Hendrix burst on the scene.you can't be influenced by someone no one has heard of when you are recording something unless you have psychic powers and a crystal ball. Was Frank Sinatra influenced by Led Zeppelin or vice versa?
The problem is they're completely talentless. They're no different to the mainstream dummies - just peddling an image with no decent songs to back it up.
Love them or hate them, the Arctic Monkeys came up with a style and sound that was different to everything else around at the time and as Party says, they are talented(particularly Turner, who's actually a very good guitarist) and they're a great live band. Their biggest problem is that Turner has such a distinctive voice, that it tends to make a lot of their stuff a bit samey.
They didn't start off boring. They've got progressively more boring as they've gone on. They're a big bland superband now. Is Alex Turner still in them? I thought Shakin' Stevens was singing these days?
Not sure they did, they sounded like a Milburn tribute band when they first formed, they've since evolved a bit but their early stuff was certainly wasn't original.
Milburn tribute band I presume you haven't listened to them much. Did you base that on them both playing indie rock and both being from Sheffield?