Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: pdq
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:26 PM

"If I was an American lawmaker I would make listening to Funkadelic compulsory."

Perhaps you are confusing George Clinton with Bill Clinton?

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 26 May 09 - 07:19 PM

If I was an American lawmaker I would make listening to Funkadelic compulsory. Just sayin'...

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Azizi
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:56 PM

Ricky Nelson was the second most popular star of the R 'n' R era.

??!!

Popular to [or is it "with"] whom?

And where does R&B fit in this discussion?

**

Neil, I think that Hip-Hop/Rap influenced R&B more than Reggae did, but dancehall Reggae is definitely in the mix.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: pdq
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:49 PM

Dec 6, 1965 the Beatles released Rubber Soul. It was not a Rock 'n' Roll album. It was Rock.

May 30, 1966 Ricky Nelson jumped off the sinking ship and released his first Country Music record.

Ricky Nelson was the second most popular star of the R 'n' R era.

Either of the above dates will do, but about that time Rock 'n' Roll died.

Sha Na Na and others were "revival artists". Punk and Reggae are art forms of their own.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:47 PM

Free your mind and your ass will follow!

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:10 PM

The Beatles killed rock and roll way before either the "White Album" or Sgt. Pepper, because rock and roll was dance music, and The Beatles played "listening" music. Granted, the fans would scream and jump up and down while listening, but they, and the bands that followed, played for audiences, not for dancers.

Understand of course, that this was just for white people--R&B was still hot, with Johnnie Taylor and Tyrone Davis, and the Godfather of Soul himself, among others.

And, though reggae, punk, and new wave were entertaining diversions, Funk was really the most innovative movement, and, over time, has proved to have the most lasting impact--like it or not--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Tootler
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:06 PM

As to any suggestion that there was nothing good in Rock after Sgt. Peppers I'd point out that Led Zeppelin wasn't even formed till two years after that album. Pink Floyd's entire career, except for one album featuring Sid Barrett, came after Sgt. Peppers as well.

Not to mention Dire Straits or Queen.

It should not be forgotten that R&R/Rock music were popular styles aimed at a mass market. A great deal of it was and still is utter dross, but among the dross, were a number of creative originals who produced music that will last and these were not confined to any period, though some periods seem to have been more productive than others.

That said, my wife recently bought the Dreamboats and Petticoats compilations which comprise pop music from the late 50's & early 60's, a period which is generally held to be one of bland pop music with a very high proportion of dross. Yet among the tracks featured are a surprisingly high number that I have fond memories of and enjoyed listening to again, largely, I suspect because they are from my teenage years.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:36 PM

Come to think of it, in the same sense that the beatles destroyed R&R, the Weavers destroyed folk music.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Neil D
Date: 26 May 09 - 03:44 PM

The most innovative movement after the Beatles was not Punk Rock, it was Reggae. While Reggae may not be specifically rock and roll it did influence the rock and roll that came after.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Will Fly
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:26 AM

Peter T - I couldn't agree more with your comments on the "White Album". I bought it at the time (1968) and immediately thought it was self-indulgent and self-referential (as you say). I'd never sell it, by the way, as it's an interesting production in many ways - but it demonstrates the beginning of the end of them as a group.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:14 AM

Actually, I think (not having read Elijah's book, though I've read others, and enjoyed them a lot) that there is a different related point.   I put the shift at the "White Album". You can see by the time of the White Album that the Beatles had not only assimilated all the relevant styles, but were portraying these styles to their mass public one after another ("Happiness is a Warm Gun", "Yer Blues", "Helter Skelter", "Back in the USSR", "Revolution",etc.). -- the White Album is one pastiche after another. There is a movement into irony which is different from the way in which the Beatles had been absorbing previous styles before. I mean, the great thing about the Beatles starting out was the huge absorptive capacity they had, and how it fueled their own innovation. They borrowed from everyone -- but it was done as a way of getting close to the music, that deep thirst they had. "The White Album" is different: the musical form is now something that can be put on or taken off at will. After that, every subsequent movement comes "pre-framed". The most innovative movement after the Beatles was Punk Rock -- and that was deliberately framed as let's "Get Back" to the early R&R. It is as if after The Beatles, nothing comes without quotation marks. So (and again I haven't read Elijah's book) there is something to the notion that they killed naive, pure R&R.

Exactly the same thing happened with Joyce's Ulysses, and Matisse's Bonheur de Vivre.

I think the interesting thing is that by the White Album it is clear that the Beatles had essentially wrung everything out of the tradition into which they were born, and were floundering around, trying to move the whole enterprise. Musically, it is a pity they all went into mutual hell at that moment -- and I have little doubt that this impasse was a big contributor to why they broke up.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Neil D
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:45 AM

The book title is an attention getter and as best as I can tell from the review Mr. Wald doesn't mean any disrespect to the lads. I personally feel that R&R has been destroyed many times...and recreated just as often. This is what keeps it vital even today. The Beatles themselves led one of these rebirths after the genre had nearly succumbed to the conscription (Elvis), imprisonment (Berry), disgrace (Jerry Lee), conversion (Litle Richard)and death (Holly) of its greatest stars and innovators, as well as the payola scandal that ended the career of its greatest advocate (Alan Freed).
The common opinion of Rock and Roll in the early 60's was that it was dead. The Beatles certainly changed that perception, maybe forever. If anything I would say that The Beatles destroyed pop music as we knew it. I would also give a nod to PDQ's differentiation between R&R and Rock. I have always had that image in my own psyche of "Rock" music as a unique later style of R&R. As to any suggestion that there was nothing good in Rock after Sgt. Peppers I'd point out that Led Zeppelin wasn't even formed till two years after that album. Pink Floyd's entire career, except for one album featuring Sid Barrett, came after Sgt. Peppers as well.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 May 09 - 06:09 PM

Hey look, let's not get totally wigged out here Will......I sure as hell wasn't going to mention it and as you noticed I also skipped past Bobby Goldsboro. Tell ya' though, if Ron can prove the Beatles created Bobby then I might have to put some more credence in his opinions................

See the tree, how big its grown
And now you're dead
I can't get blown
I've got an itch.
When you were alive
It cost twenty-five
Why did you always charge so much
You fuckin' bitch

Our tree grew large, it fell on you
Now you're gone, my balls are blue
I can't get laid.
So now I've started shagging sheep
And sometimes chickens in their sleep
But they want paid.


Oh Honey I miss you
Cause when you were alive
I could at least get a hand job
For a buck fifty-five.


Spaw

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:45 PM

Nobody's mentioned Freddy and the Dreamers.

Good.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:45 PM

"I don't like that surfin' shit......Rock N' Roll's been going downhill ever since Buddy Holly died."
                  
                ......"John Milner" (the greaser in the Deuce Coupe) in "American Graffiti" (set in '62)


Spaw

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 May 09 - 04:40 PM

Nobody's mentioned Freddy and the Dreamers.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: SSlug at Home
Date: 25 May 09 - 03:54 PM

I thank The Beatles because without them I'd probably still be walking down the street trying to imitate the sound of Hank Marvin's guitar! (My apologies to those of you in the US who are lucky enough to never of heard of Cliff Richard and The Shadows.)

Pop music in the UK in the very early sixties was dire. The Beatles came on the scene they had a sound which was new, exciting and tuneful. They opened up the US market to a plethora of UK groups, some of whom opened eyes and ears of the white population to music which was largely ignored or unknown in it's Mother country, i.e. The Blues. I think

As for the 31st December 1966 being the end of good music, absolutely no way! For instance, Fairport Convention, Pentangle and what I call Folk Rock didn't happen until 1967.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: pdq
Date: 25 May 09 - 03:51 PM

"Every day I will hear good, dynamic, recently written and recorded rock and roll. Is Elijah telling me I hear dead people?

This is my opinion only, but Rock 'n' Roll lived a useful life as an original art form from about 1954-65. Then it was replaced by Rock.

The Beatles were doing some Chuck Berry and some Carl Perkins songs in 1964. They showed a great deal of evolution in Hard Days Night, and by Rubber Soul, they were doing a new art form: Rock.

No music really dies, it just loses it's status as "cutting edge" and receeds to the background. Older forms are kept going as "revival arts".

Somewhere in the U.S. on any given night, you can hear fine performances of Traditional Jazz, Old Timey Music or Rock 'n' Roll. Now they are done by revivalists.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Darowyn
Date: 25 May 09 - 03:21 PM

If Rock and Roll was killed by Sgt Pepper, and the wave of psychedelic stuff that followed on immediately, then what have I been listening to for the last forty years?
Time did not stop at Altamont, you know.
Dozens of musical sub genres have arisen and disappeared since then. Psychedelia has been and gone at least twice!
I have an insatiable appetite for new songs, and I like to judge and assess them most days- I used to do it as part of my job, now I do it for pleasure.
Every day I will hear good, dynamic, recently written and recorded rock and roll.
Is Elijah telling me I hear dead people?
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 May 09 - 02:12 PM

Mmmm... I'll just mention two of the greatest albums of all time, by one of the greatest bands of all time (IMHO!):

Music From Big Pink - 1968
The Band - 1969

Rock'n roll never dies - it just slides into different shapes.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 May 09 - 01:01 PM

Maybe someday, Ron, when we next meet, I'll treat you to my VU medley--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 May 09 - 12:54 PM

A funny coincidence here that Ellijah Wald's new book should come up here when I was just thinking about buying his book on Josh White--

I've always maintained that, in a way, The Beatles actually did kill rock and roll, because up until then, Rock and Roll was dance music, and it was damned hard to dance to their records.

That said, Ron Davies may not be old enough to remember, but Sgt. Pepper and Psychedelia opened the door to free radio which meant that it was suddenly possible to listen to all kinds of music, and not just the top 20 pop hits in a tight rotation.

And psychedelic music was just folk music plugged in, anyway--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 25 May 09 - 12:29 PM

So what is your point Ron? That any progression of the music beyond the basic three minute pop song is somehow reprehensible? That any music that might in anyway be associated with use of drugs should be condemned outright? Is this a morale or musical crusade? And how can you not like Astral Weeks?

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 May 09 - 12:21 PM

Yup ,it's taste.   I guarantee, you can OD on " In a Gadda da Vida"--no drugs necessary. And it don't take long.   But it's a bad--and boring--trip.   Somehow it's light-years from "Won't Get Fooled Again".   Maybe it's because "Won't Get Fooled" has lyrics that mean something.


As for Velvet Underground, etc, I hold to my above opinion: self-indulgent "artists" mistaking their overblown whims for the creative process. And the floodgates opened with Sgt. Pepper.


I gather this is also the point of the author of this book. And he's right on.
Say it, brother.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 May 09 - 11:16 AM

and I admit it!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 25 May 09 - 11:15 AM

Yes Ron, opinions are indeed like assholes................

you said it ....

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 May 09 - 11:10 AM

Yes Ron, opinions are indeed like assholes................

Spaw

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 25 May 09 - 11:04 AM

1968

Frank Zappa - We're Only in It for the Money

Small Faces - Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake

Pink Floyd - A Saucerful of Secrets

Iron Butterfly - In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida

The Velvet Underground - White Light/White Heat

The Zombies - Odessey & Oracle

The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society

Van Morrison - Astral Weeks

The Band - Music From Big Pink

Pretty Things - SF Sorrow

13th Floor Elevators - Easter Everywhere

Incredible String Band - The Hangman's Beautiful Daughter

Dr John - Gris Gris

United States Of America - United States Of America

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 May 09 - 10:31 AM

Also a few more things:

1966

Some more good items

Sam the Sham--will live forever

Paul Revere--what can I say, I liked them--"Kicks" one the first anti-drug hits.

The Seekers--I liked Georgie Girl. --again creative harmonies. No dial-twisting or overproduction.



Also: 1966--end of December--Monkees "I'm a Believer" #1--they will plague the airways for 1967, etc. Manufactured music--but Monkees craze came at very end of 1966. Damage was done in later years.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 May 09 - 10:19 AM

1968


1910 Fruitgum Co--are you kidding?

Hey Jude--already dealt with

Bee Gees--Get a Message--interminable whining, which they perfected

Piece of My Heart--what happened to real blues?

Blue Cheer--Summertime Blues--can't hold a candle to the original. Elephant rock, here we come.

Eric Burdon-Monterrey--more self-indulgence


Cream--incredibly overrated group

Deep Purple--Hush--nowhere near as good as "Smoke On the Water"

5th Dimension--good stuff--creative harmonies, jazz influence--no elephant rock here.

Aretha--OK, this was her peak. One classic after another. But N.B. the influence is gospel, not drugs.

Marvin and Tami--great stuff

Bobby Goldsboro--oh c'mon

McArthur Park--the first instant self-parody

Sergio Mendez--great, but again the influence is Brazilian, not drugs--and not twisting dials in the studio

Diana Ross--the group is past its peak--which was, guess when--1965 and 1966

Steppenwolf--again, ridiculously overrated

Dionne Warwick--San Jose--fine song--but again her best stuff in general is in the past. Did you like "Valley of the Dolls" theme?




Sgt Pepper led straight to elephant rock, with self-indulgent overproduced offal the order of the day.

There were certainly good rock songs after 1966. The Stones (mostly) kept the faith--stripped-down aggressive rock. Creedence went back to basics--and showed there was still a market. Aretha's high point was 1967-1968, when her pounding high-energy gospel-based anthems rocked the airwaves.   Dire Straits--again the essence of rock--and their biggest hit even lauded jazz.

And for my money the best rock song of all time was also after 1966--Won't Get Fooled Again. The Who in this even made some art-rock ideas work-like distortion of the organ.
Won't Get Fooled Again has everything--insistent beat, hard-bitten cynical lyrics--and even a primal scream. I wouldn't take out one beat--even in the long version.

But these are bright spots in an increasingly bleak landscape, with rock showing more and more sclerosis. And it has not improved since.

Fascination with technology has not served rock.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Azizi
Date: 25 May 09 - 09:56 AM

According to the hyperlinked online review, chapter 6 of this book is entitled "King of Jazz" and identifies Paul Whiteman as the King of Jazz.

Fwiw, I started this thread about Paul Whiteman and Jazz music in general:

thread.cfm?threadid=121107&messages=9

Your comments are welcomed.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: john f weldon
Date: 25 May 09 - 09:37 AM

When the world of pop really started to screw up... ...the Monkees.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:49 AM

De gustibutts non est disputandum. You can go on forever with I like this, I hate that. Personally, in my ever so humble, but uncontravertible, opinion, music went downhill from the early 70s with glam rock as the marketing men went for the teenybopper market. Piglets indeed!

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:39 AM

My favourite album is their first, and I have listened to all the available outtakes for this - quite a lot, and what struck me is that although their instrumental prowess at that time was bordering on the very poor (compared with say Lord Sutch's Savages, The Big Three or Johnny Kidd's Pirates for starters) their vocals were superb - absolutely spot on, right from take 1 in every case. Their slant on rock n roll was to take it in a different direction.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peace
Date: 25 May 09 - 01:30 AM

BTW, I don't think R and R is dead. Just different.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peace
Date: 25 May 09 - 01:29 AM

I heard somewhere that SPLHCB was the first million dollar (cost) record in history. The Cleopatra of the vinly if you will.

It got kinda hard to take the music on the road, but likely by that time the group was tired of that, anyway. In retrospect, they taught everyone a good lesson. And I thank them for it.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Artful Codger
Date: 24 May 09 - 11:37 PM

It's always the public, not the artists, who is to blame for the amount of tripe generated in any musical era or genre. The Beatles were ground-breakers in many respects. Only certain aspects of their explorations were embraced by other artists and by the public. The public always gets what it demands--and must accept sole responsibilty for the consequences.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 May 09 - 10:41 PM

Ron, while I agree there is some crap (personal opinion) on the list I posted, I will guarantee that EVERY year will have its share. I can find trash in 64 or 58 or 52 or 48 or 38 or..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Ken Brock
Date: 24 May 09 - 10:34 PM

"Those Were the Days" had previously been on a Limeliters lp circa 1963 Folk Matinee. Paul took out some of the minor in his arrangement. Theo Bikel and Geula Gill had recorded the Russian folksong it was based on a couple years earlier on an Elektra Lp "Folk Songs from Just About Everywhere".

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 May 09 - 09:30 PM

There were some good things after 1966--Rod Stewart, Linda Ronstadt, --(what can I say, I love her voice--and some of her material), Joni Mitchell, Eagles.

And 1968 did have Those Were the Days--I sang that forever--and it sounded like it had been around forever.

But I'll stack the quality of 1966 up against 1968--or any other year in the rock era after 1966. Even Simon and Garfunkel were better before 1967--and I believe the album Parsley Sage Rosemary and Thyme came out in 1966.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 May 09 - 09:24 PM

I can't begin to tell you how indebted I am to the poster who linked to the "Elevators". Yup, I listened to it.   Hell, I even listened to Manilow when challenged to do so--in the interests of total fairness. "Elevators" is indeed a sterling example of psychedelia.   Which chemical enhancements would you recommend to get the full value from it?

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 May 09 - 09:21 PM

How sad, to be so closed off to anything after a certain date...that's a lot of years in the desert, Ron.:-)

Spaw...thanks for the list. I have the 45 of 1910 Fruitgum Company' Simon Says, but the flip side is much better.

The very first cassette tape my then husband and I bought, for our brand-new tape player, our first, was Sgt. Peppers! Loved it then, love it now, as do my kids. And, the WHITE ALBUM, wow!

Elijah, nice of you to stop by. Your book does look very interesting. Thanks!

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 May 09 - 09:09 PM

Psychedelia not bad, just different?   Actually if you're not chemically enhanced at the time you listen, you might disagree.
   
And perhaps if you are "enhanced" you don't notice things like absurd repetitions ad nauseam--say the last half of "Hey Jude", to pick a pure theoretical example. Now one guess as to if " Hey Jude" was before or after 1966.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: john f weldon
Date: 24 May 09 - 09:06 PM

Musical revisionism is great fun; better than the military variety, because it doesn't mean anything...

...however, I remember (and may even have saved) an article from the now-defunct "Weekend" magazine, titled "The Unlamented Death of Rock and Roll".   The date was 1957.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 24 May 09 - 09:04 PM

Slip inside this house

Ron, just for you. Get yer headphones on...

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 May 09 - 09:04 PM

And don't forget the Ohio Express.   And I expect you particularly enjoy the la la la's at the end of The Boxer--for half of the song.

Sgt Pepper was the beginning of self-indulgent "artists" mistaking their overblown whims for the creative process.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: pdq
Date: 24 May 09 - 09:02 PM

Fact is, psychedelia happened. Hard to say it was bad, just different.

I can't think of a more powerful and creative group (at least from 1969-1978) than Jethro Tull.

Juthero Tull made the Marvelettes obsolete. How sad.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 May 09 - 09:00 PM

Spaw--look at your own list. Start with the Fruitgum Company.   I think you can answer your own question.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 May 09 - 08:59 PM

Callow youth that I am, I've never even heard of, much less heard, the 13th Floor Elevators or whatever wondrous group you mention.   I can't imagine what I've missed.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 24 May 09 - 08:59 PM

go spaw!!!