|
24 May 09 - 02:19 PM (#2639946) Subject: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Mark Ross My old friend Elijah Wald has just published this new book, subtitled "An Alternative History of American Popular Music". Has anyone seen it yet? I'm looking for a copy this week. It looks fascinating. Here's a link to his website page; Elijah Wald –How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll Mark Ross |
|
24 May 09 - 03:11 PM (#2639972) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Amos What a terrific summary the review is!! Sounds like a first-rate read. Love those links! A |
|
24 May 09 - 03:56 PM (#2639985) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies Sounds like a good book, on a cursory glance. I'm probably not an unbiased observer, since I've said for decades that 1966 was the peak year for pop music-- (in the rock era--actually the 30's and 40's had the best pop music ever). Since 1966 it's been just about straight down, and now the slide has become just about a vertical fall. And "Sgt Pepper" was the first absolutely clear sign of the problem. The Beatles got into a studio, and fascinated by all the dials, started getting "creative". The kiss of death. Up to 1966, the Beatles clearly acknowledged the debt to American R & B. Then in 1967 the overwhelming success --and absurdly overpraising and overparsing ---of "Pepper" encouraged every other 2-bit group with access to a studio to twist dials to create their own "masterpiece". And everybody, even groups that had no need whatsoever--( since their original sound was far better than the tripe coming out of studios)-- like the Temptations, jumped on the bandwagon. Then it was a race to the bottom, with technopop and other abominations just around the corner. I may well buy this book. Always nice to have your opinions published. Even if you didn't write the book. |
|
24 May 09 - 04:23 PM (#2639995) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Bonzo3legs Actually if you break Sgt Pepper down it's very very ordinary and simple. George's solos had perhaps improved from appalling to just useless by then! |
|
24 May 09 - 04:56 PM (#2640012) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. Phooey. The Beatles saved Rock and Roll - it was dead, dead, dead, before they came along. It had degenerated into Elvis knockoffs and tripe. I remember that period with a shudder. If they killed it in the end (which is nonsense), it was because they had given it spectacular new life. I would give you one "She Loves You" for everything written between 1958-1963. yours, Peter T. |
|
24 May 09 - 05:15 PM (#2640024) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: catspaw49 First, I'd like to read it as it seems an interesting study in POP music and the American culture. I'd have to see how he tied the Beatles into that because I agree with PT......except I'd say "What fuckin' horseshit" instead of "Phooey." As far as the Beatles and the studio......That's a long subject and I think many might agree that the "movement" was more started by Buddy, not the Beatles. Spaw |
|
24 May 09 - 05:31 PM (#2640033) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST YOU GO PETER THE BEATLES MADE ROCK AND ROLL AND WAS A WONDERFUL GROUP. AND STILL POPULAR TODAY SO THEY MUST BE PURRTY DARN GOOD!! |
|
24 May 09 - 06:32 PM (#2640071) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Allan Connochie Surely some of the post Sgt Pepper material by the Beatles was pretty stripped down to the basics. I'm thinking of much of the White Album in particular |
|
24 May 09 - 06:59 PM (#2640082) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: McGrath of Harlow Have we had a "What is Rock and Roll?" thread yet? I don't really care too much about labels, except as a convenient way of finding music. What matters is the music, not the label. |
|
24 May 09 - 08:06 PM (#2640113) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST Actually, despite the title, my book is not anti-Beatles... the title comes from a parallel I draw between them and Paul Whiteman, who is widely condemned for almost destroying jazz by turning it from black dance music into white art music... |
|
24 May 09 - 08:07 PM (#2640115) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,elijah Sorry, should have put my name on that last post... |
|
24 May 09 - 08:30 PM (#2640127) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies Tracks played backward. Slowed down to incomprehensibility--on purpose. Addiction to echo chambers. All of these may have been done before. But "Pepper", possibly because of a slight problem with remembering anything about music-- due to chemical enhancement of the "artists"-- put all the above "improvements" together at the same time---on some tracks, not all. And its roaring success commercially was the starting gun for everybody else to do the same. Consider what happened in 1967 and succeeding years with "psychedelic music". Anybody here think "psychedelia" was an improvement for music? And consider what the charts were like in 1966--before "Pepper". Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Beach Boys, Mamas and Papas, Lovin' Spoonful, Simon and Garfunkel, Four Tops, Supremes, Temptations, Miracles, Gladys Knight, Marvelettes,( and the list goes on) all had big hits that year. The creative ferment in types of music was stunning--for the last time. |
|
24 May 09 - 08:34 PM (#2640130) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies Obviously I'm only talking about US charts. I have no idea what the situation was in the UK. |
|
24 May 09 - 08:46 PM (#2640135) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Spleen Cringe Anybody here think "psychedelia" was an improvement for music? Abso-fucking-lutely. Outside of my abiding love of traditional folk, most of my musical A-list is either psychedelic or influenced by psychedelia. It's what turned rock and roll from the mundane to the sublime. Thirteenth Floor Elevators. I rest my case. |
|
24 May 09 - 08:55 PM (#2640141) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST Okay Ron......Here's a list of pop hits from 1968. I guess all these folks were trash after the Beatles fucked everything up....... The 1910 Fruitgum Co. - 1 2 3 Red Light - 09-68 - Buddah The 1910 Fruitgum Co. - Simon Says - 02-68 - Buddah Herb Alpert - This Guy's In Love With You - 06-68 - A & M Amboy Dukes - Journey To The Center Of The Mind - 08-68 - Mainstream The Association - Everything That Touches You - 03-68 - Warner The Beatles - Hey Jude - 09-68 - Apple The Beatles - Lady Madonna - 04-68 - Capitol The Beatles - Revolution - 09-68 - Capitol The Bee Gees - I've Gotta Get A Message To You - 09-68 - Atco Archie Bell & The Drells - I Can't Stop Dancing - 08-68 - Atlantic Archie Bell & The Drells - Tighten Up - 04-68 - Atlantic Big Brother & The Holding Company - Piece Of My Heart - 10-68 - Columbia Blue Cheer - Summertime Blues - 04-68 - Philips The Box Tops - Cry Like A Baby - 04-68 - Mala Tommy Boyce & Bobby Hart - I Wonder What She's Doing Tonight - 02-68 James Brown - I Got The Feelin' - 04-68 - King James Brown - Say It Loud-I'm Black And I'm Proud - 10-68 - King The Buckinghams - Susan - 01-68 - Columbia Eric Burdon & The Animals - Monterey - 01-68 - MGM Glen Campbell - Wichita Lineman - 11-68 - Capitol Clarence Carter - Slip Away - 09-68 - Atlantic The Chamber Brothers - Time Has Come Today - 09-68 - Columbia The Classics IV - Spooky - 01-68 - Imperial The Classics IV - Stormy - 11-68 - Imperial Judy Collins - Both Sides Now - 12-68 - Elektra Arthur Conley - Funky Street - 05-68 - Atco The Cowsills - Indian Lake - 07-68 - MGM The Crazy World Of Arthur Brown - Fire - 09-68 - Track Cream - Sunshine Of Your Love - 08-68 - Atco Cream - White Room - 11-68 - Atco Creedence Clearwater Revival - Suzie Q. (Pt. 1) - 10-68 - Fantasy Deep Purple - Hush - 09-68 - Tetragammaton The Delfonics - La-La Means I Love You - 03-68 - Philly Groove The Dells - Stay In My Corner - 08-68 - Cadet Derek - Cinnamon - 12-68 - Bang Georgie Fame - The Ballad Of Bonnie And Clyde - 03-68 - Epic The Fifth Dimension - Stoned Soul Picnic - 07-68 - Soul City The Fifth Dimension - Sweet Blindness - 11-68 - Soul City The Fireballs - Bottle Of Wine - 02-68 - Atco Dion - Abraham, Martin And John - 11-68 - Laurie Donovan - Hurdy Gurdy Man - 07-68 - Epic The Doors - Hello, I Love You - 07-68 - Elektra José Feliciano - Light My Fire - 08-68 - RCA The First Edition - Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In) - 03-68 - Reprise Eddie Floyd - Bring It On Home To Me - 12-68 - Stax The Foundations - Baby Now That I Found You - 02-68 - Uni Aretha Franklin - Chain Of Fools - 01-68 - Atlantic Aretha Franklin - I Say A Little Prayer - 09-68 - Atlantic Aretha Franklin - See Saw - 12-68 - Atlantic Aretha Franklin - (Sweet Sweet Baby) Since You've Been Gone - 03-68 - Atlantic Aretha Franklin - Think - 06-68 - Atlantic Aretha Franklin - The House That Jack Built - 09-68 - Atlantic Friend And Lover - Reach Out Of The Darkness - 06-68 - Verve Marvin Gaye - I Heard It Through The Grapevine - 12-68 - Tamla Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell - Ain't Nothing Like The Real Thing - 05-68 - Tamla Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell - If I Could Build My Whole World Around You - 01-68 - Tamla Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell - You're All I Need To Get By - 08-68 - Tamla Gene & Debbe - Playboy - 04-68 - TRX Bobby Goldsboro - Honey - 04-68 - UA The Grass Roots - Midnight Confessions - 10-68 - Dunhill Richard Harris - MacArthur Park - 06-68 - Dunhill Mary Hopkin - Those Were The Days - 10-68 - Apple The Human Beinz - Nobody But Me - 01-68 - Capitol The Impressions - We're A Winner - 02-68 - ABC The Intruders - Cowboys To Girls - 04-68 - Gamble The Irish Rovers - The Unicorn - 05-68 - 05-68 Tommy James & The Shondells - Mony Mony - 05-68 - Roulette Gladys Knight & The Pips - The End Of Our Road - 03-68 - Soul The Lemon Pipers - Green Tambourine - 01-68 - Buddah The Lettermen - Goin' Out Of My Head/Can't Take My Eyes Off You - 02-68 - Capitol Shorty Long - Here Comes The Judge - 06-68 - Soul Mama Cass - Dream A Little Dream Of Me - 08-68 - Dunhill Manfred Mann - Mighty Quinn - 03-68 - Mercury Martha & The Vandellas - Honey Chile - 01-68 - Gordy Hugh Masekela - Grazing In The Grass - 07-68 - Uni Paul Mauriat - Love Is Blue - 02-68 - Philips Sergio Mendes & Brasil '66 - Scarborough Fair - 12-68 - A & M Sergio Mendes & Brasil '66 - The Fool On The Hill - 09-68 - A & M Sergio Mendes & Brasil '66 - The Look Of Love - 06-68 - A & M The Monkees - Valleri - 03-68 - Colgems Hugo Montenegro & His Orchestra - The Good, The Bad & The Ugly - 05-68 - RCA Johnny Nash - Hold Me Tight - 11-68 - Jad Cliff Nobles & Co. - The Horse - 06-68 - Phil L.A. of Soul The Ohio Express - Chewy Chewy - 11-68 - Buddah The Ohio Express - Yummy Yummy Yummy - 06-68 - Buddah The O'Kaysions - Girl Watcher - 09-68 -ABC People - I Love You - 06-68 - Capitol Gary Puckett & The Union Gap - Lady Willpower - 07-68 - Columbia Gary Puckett & The Union Gap - Over You - 10-68 - Columbia Gary Puckett & The Union Gap [aka Union Gap Feat. Garry Puckett] - Young Girl - 03-68 -Columbia The Rascals - A Beautiful Morning - 05-68 - Atlantic The Rascals - People Got To Be Free - 08-68 - Atlantic Otis Redding - (Sittin' On) The Dock Of The Bay - 02-68 - Volt Jeannie C. Riley - Harper Valley P.T.A. - 09-68 - Plantation Johnny Rivers - Summer Rain - 01-68 - Imperial Smokey Robinson & The Miracles - If You Want - 04-68 The Rolling Stones - Jumpin' Jack Flash - 06-68 - London Diana Ross & The Supremes & The Temptations - I'm Gonna Make You Love Me - 12-68 - Motown Diana Ross & The Supremes - Love Child - 11-68 - Motown Merrilee Rush - Angel Of The Morning - 06-68 - Bell Sam & Dave - I Thank You - 03-68 - Stax Simon & Garfunkel - Mrs. Robinson - 05-68 - Columbia Simon & Garfunkel - Scarborough Fair/Canticle - 04-68 - Columbia Percy Sledge - Take Time To Know Her - 05-68 - Atlantic Sly & The Family Stone - Dance To The Music - 03-68 The Small Faces - Itchycoo Park - 02-68 - Imediate O.C. Smith - Little Green Apples - 10-68 - Columbia Status Quo - Pictures Of Matchstick Man - 08-68 - Cadet Concept Steppenwolf - Born To Be Wild - 08-68 - Dunhill Steppenwolf - Magic Carpet Ride - 11-68 - Dunhill The Stone Poneys - Different Drum - 01-68 - Capitol Johnnie Taylor - Who's Making Love - 11-68 - Stax The Temptations - Cloud Nine - 12-68 - Gordy The Temptations - I Could Never Love Another (After Loving You) - 05-68 - Gordy The Temptations - I Wish It Would Rain - 01-68 - Gordy The Troggs - Love Is All Around - 05-68 - Fontana The Turtles - Elenore - 10-68 - White Whale Vanilla Fudge - (You Keep Me) Hangin' On - 08-68 - Atco Bobby Vinton - I Love How You Love Me - 12-68 - Epic The Vogues - My Special Angel - 10-68 - Reprise The Vogues - Turn Around Look At Me - 07-68 - Reprise Dionne Warwick - Do You Know The Way To San José - 05-68 - Scepter Dionne Warwick - (Theme From) Valley Of The Dolls - 02-68 - Scepter Mason Williams - Classical Gas - 07-68 - Warner Stevie Wonder - For Once In My Life - 11-68 - Tamla Stevie Wonder - Shoo-Be-Doo-Be-Doo-Da-Day - 05-68 -Tamla Take your hat away from your face cause you're talking through it. Spaw |
|
24 May 09 - 08:56 PM (#2640143) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: catspaw49 Guest was me..... Spaw |
|
24 May 09 - 08:59 PM (#2640146) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Spleen Cringe go spaw!!! |
|
24 May 09 - 08:59 PM (#2640147) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
24 May 09 - 09:00 PM (#2640148) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies Spaw--look at your own list. Start with the Fruitgum Company. I think you can answer your own question. |
|
24 May 09 - 09:02 PM (#2640150) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: pdq 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. |
|
24 May 09 - 09:04 PM (#2640153) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
24 May 09 - 09:04 PM (#2640154) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Spleen Cringe Slip inside this house Ron, just for you. Get yer headphones on... |
|
24 May 09 - 09:06 PM (#2640156) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: john f weldon 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. |
|
24 May 09 - 09:09 PM (#2640161) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
24 May 09 - 09:21 PM (#2640167) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: katlaughing 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! |
|
24 May 09 - 09:24 PM (#2640170) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies 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? |
|
24 May 09 - 09:30 PM (#2640174) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
24 May 09 - 10:34 PM (#2640198) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Ken Brock "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". |
|
24 May 09 - 10:41 PM (#2640201) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: catspaw49 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 |
|
24 May 09 - 11:37 PM (#2640218) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Artful Codger 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. |
|
25 May 09 - 01:29 AM (#2640244) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peace 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. |
|
25 May 09 - 01:30 AM (#2640245) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peace BTW, I don't think R and R is dead. Just different. |
|
25 May 09 - 05:39 AM (#2640295) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Bonzo3legs 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. |
|
25 May 09 - 05:49 AM (#2640303) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Paul Burke 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! |
|
25 May 09 - 09:37 AM (#2640409) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: john f weldon When the world of pop really started to screw up... ...the Monkees. |
|
25 May 09 - 09:56 AM (#2640418) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Azizi 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. |
|
25 May 09 - 10:19 AM (#2640435) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
25 May 09 - 10:31 AM (#2640440) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
25 May 09 - 11:04 AM (#2640455) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Spleen Cringe 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 |
|
25 May 09 - 11:10 AM (#2640457) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: catspaw49 Yes Ron, opinions are indeed like assholes................ Spaw |
|
25 May 09 - 11:15 AM (#2640458) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Rifleman (inactive) Yes Ron, opinions are indeed like assholes................ you said it .... |
|
25 May 09 - 11:16 AM (#2640462) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: catspaw49 and I admit it! Spaw |
|
25 May 09 - 12:21 PM (#2640502) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
25 May 09 - 12:29 PM (#2640509) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Spleen Cringe 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? |
|
25 May 09 - 12:54 PM (#2640533) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted 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-- |
|
25 May 09 - 01:01 PM (#2640537) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted Maybe someday, Ron, when we next meet, I'll treat you to my VU medley-- |
|
25 May 09 - 02:12 PM (#2640587) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Will Fly 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. |
|
25 May 09 - 03:21 PM (#2640650) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Darowyn 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 |
|
25 May 09 - 03:51 PM (#2640674) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: pdq "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. |
|
25 May 09 - 03:54 PM (#2640676) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: SSlug at Home 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. |
|
25 May 09 - 04:40 PM (#2640710) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Paul Burke Nobody's mentioned Freddy and the Dreamers. |
|
25 May 09 - 04:45 PM (#2640714) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: catspaw49 "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 |
|
25 May 09 - 04:45 PM (#2640715) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Will Fly Nobody's mentioned Freddy and the Dreamers. Good. |
|
25 May 09 - 06:09 PM (#2640790) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: catspaw49 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 |
|
26 May 09 - 05:45 AM (#2641044) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Neil D 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. |
|
26 May 09 - 06:14 AM (#2641054) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. 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. |
|
26 May 09 - 06:26 AM (#2641059) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Will Fly 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. |
|
26 May 09 - 03:44 PM (#2641337) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Neil D 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. |
|
26 May 09 - 05:36 PM (#2641414) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: dick greenhaus Come to think of it, in the same sense that the beatles destroyed R&R, the Weavers destroyed folk music. |
|
26 May 09 - 06:06 PM (#2641437) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Tootler 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. |
|
26 May 09 - 06:10 PM (#2641443) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted 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-- |
|
26 May 09 - 06:47 PM (#2641469) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Spleen Cringe Free your mind and your ass will follow! |
|
26 May 09 - 06:49 PM (#2641474) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: pdq 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. |
|
26 May 09 - 06:56 PM (#2641480) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Azizi 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. |
|
26 May 09 - 07:19 PM (#2641509) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Spleen Cringe If I was an American lawmaker I would make listening to Funkadelic compulsory. Just sayin'... |
|
26 May 09 - 07:26 PM (#2641515) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: pdq "If I was an American lawmaker I would make listening to Funkadelic compulsory." Perhaps you are confusing George Clinton with Bill Clinton? |
|
26 May 09 - 08:27 PM (#2641555) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Joe_F Would that they had! The atmosphere would have been far less foul for most of my life. |
|
26 May 09 - 09:36 PM (#2641580) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. I should have been slightly clearer: I meant in R&R. Punk was really R&R. Hiphop is arguably the most influential musical form (apart from punk) that arose in the post-Beatles era, but has nothing to do with R&R. Of course just because something is dead, doesn't mean it isn't around. Blues is still around, and it died a long time ago. Symphony orchestras keep playing Beethoven. Folk music is totally dead and kicking on Mudcat. yours, Peter T. |
|
26 May 09 - 09:50 PM (#2641587) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Lonesome EJ Janis Joplin wasn't singing real blues??? Ball and Chain is one of the best blues performances I have ever heard. And I have heard a lot of em. |
|
26 May 09 - 09:53 PM (#2641590) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies Hey Spaw--great job on Bobby Goldsboro--is that yours? As I see it, the difference between 1966 and the years after is that in 1967, with Sgt Pepper, rock started taking itself too damn seriously---(specifically in a musical sense, not just a social protest sense, which had obviously been going on before.) Bad mistake. Starting in 1967 many rock "artists" (and many listeners) started believing rock performers were actually creating something which could stand as serious music. And not on the basis of complex vocal harmonies, which is a legitimate goal, but on the basis of electronic enhancement and what can only be called absurd overproduction. To the degree that pretentious elephantine rock and studio-generated effects dominated the market at the expense of the human element, rock declined. And it is a legitimate thesis to assert this started with Sgt Pepper. You may argue that Phil Spector's wall of sound (leaving aside the question of whether he was responsible for it) was a studio-generated effect. But reading the lyrics of his creations, it's hard, to say the least, to claim these songs were meant to be taken seriously. After 1966, the lyrics were, by and large, just as shallow, if not more so--(check the lyrics for Inagaddadavida). But an amazing number of people asserted, and continue to assert that rock creations should be taken seriously--both in lyrics and even in musical structure. Rock is just not a serious art form. And it's much better for rock when "artists" and fans realize this. After Sgt Pepper, the sky was the limit for pretension. And, not having read the book, I would guess this is at least close to the author's message. |
|
26 May 09 - 10:01 PM (#2641595) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted I think that Ricky Nelson actually did better as a touring act than Elvis did--though that had to do with the fact that Elvis was more associated with the "negative" image of Rock and Roll than Ricky was-- For those who doubt Nelson's popularity, remember that he was the star of a popular TV , and when he released a new record, it was on the show-- |
|
26 May 09 - 10:26 PM (#2641605) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Art Thieme I love it! Wald is a brilliant guy. (If this was an actual folk muic forum, 2/3 of the posts in this thread would be deleted by the moderator.) Art |
|
26 May 09 - 10:53 PM (#2641609) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted Ron--rock music is "entertainment" for millions of people, and they spend billions of dollars on it--that money is food means food clothing, and shelter for thousands of people. That means that the artistic decisions are made by executives, lawyers, and boards of directors. No art form should be *that* serious. |
|
27 May 09 - 03:40 AM (#2641666) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Neil D Neil, I think that Hip-Hop/Rap influenced R&B more than Reggae did, but dancehall Reggae is definitely in the mix. Azizi, I meant the most innovative influence on Rock, but if you want to expand that to R&B I would say that Reggae had a very big influence on Hip-Hop. This is from the Wikipedia article on Hip-Hop: Hip hop arose during the 1970s when block parties became common in New York City, especially the Bronx. Block parties were usually accompanied by music, especially funk and soul music. The early DJs at block parties began isolating the percussion breaks to hit songs, realizing that these were the most dance-able and entertaining parts; this technique was then common in Jamaica[9][10] and had spread via the substantial Jamaican immigrant community in New York City, especially the "godfather" of hip hop, the Jamaican-born DJ Kool Herc. |
|
27 May 09 - 03:56 AM (#2641672) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Will Fly Azizi: I think that Hip-Hop/Rap influenced R&B more than Reggae did, but dancehall Reggae is definitely in the mix. Mmm... perhaps we ought to define "R&B" here. The modern music defined by R&B is quite different from the original meaning of R&B - "Rhythm and Blues" - which was music largely created by black Americans - and which term was coined by Jerry Wexler. It then came to define music which incorporated blues as well as gospel and soul music - Stax in the 60s is typical of this. This particular period of American music had a big influence on Jamaican Ska... which led into Reggae. Modern "R&B" is an entirely different musical style to the old R&B. |
|
27 May 09 - 04:34 AM (#2641693) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Azizi Well even though I asked the question about R&B, I refuse to get into a muddy debate about the precise definitions of that music genres and others. My stance is to each his or her own when it comes to definitions. As for me, I will continue to call "modern R&B" R&B even if that music has experienced some changes. Heck, I've experienced lots of changes, but I'm still me. (That said, I did change my name. Never mind that) :o) However, I will quote this comment: "A musical genre does not simply appear, it gradually evolves to a point in time when some event-performance, publication, or recording allows listeners to perceive its unique qualities and apply a label. Wyonnie Harris' 1947 recording of "Good Rocking Tonight" was one of many "rhythm records" made during the late 1940s, however when it was recorded by Elvis Presley in 1954 it seemed like a new and different approach. What made it seem new and different was its context. Without exploring the history of black popular music, country and western music, race relations, technical developments, and the music business one can be led easily to the conclusion that rock and roll was some new and different music which appeared suddenly. This page begins with the African musical traits brought here beginning in 1619 and attempts to trace their fusion with the European music brought here by the colonists. The story of this musical interaction is also the story of American popular music and includes the plantation songs of Stephen Foster, the ragtime of Scott Joplin, the blues of Bessie Smith, the jazz of Count Basie, and the jump bands of Louis Jordan. The knowledge of the stream of American popular music allows one to understand that rock and roll was a natural result of the combined forces that affected the music. http://www.history-of-rock.com/indx.html Rock and Roll-The Golden Decade 1955-1964 |
|
27 May 09 - 04:44 AM (#2641699) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Azizi I said I wasn't going to get into definitions, but I feel the need to say this-the term "rhythm records" which is used in that quote I posted is a euphemism for "race records". And "race records" is a euphemism for "Black American non-religious music". See this excerpt from this Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_music "Race music is the term used in the first half of the 20th century for the kinds of African American music of that time, like jazz, boogie-woogie, blues, jump blues, and rhythm-and-blues. Robert Palmer described it as "urbane, rocking, jazz based music with a heavy, insistent beat". From 1942 to 1945 the Billboard category for this music was called the Harlem Hit Parade, and was changed in 1949 to Race records. In 1948 RCA Victor was marketing black music under the name Blues and Rhythm, but it was not until 1958 that the term Rhythm and Blues replaced the Billboard category Race records." |
|
27 May 09 - 04:55 AM (#2641705) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Will Fly Azizi - no, I'm not into muddy definitions either. I was merely making a slightly oblique comment on the circularity of musical influences. Reggae may have had an influence on modern R&B (for example), but earlier versions of R&B had an influence on Ska. It all comes round again eventually... :-) |
|
27 May 09 - 06:35 AM (#2641756) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. Janis Joplin singing "Ball and Chain" is a law unto itself, it is blues transmogrified: it is life lived as a jet exhaust, woman as Delphic monster, a performance that is perhaps the best evidence we know of -- apart from Bach's Well Tempered Clavier -- that human beings are worth something on this planet. yours, Peter T. |
|
27 May 09 - 07:06 AM (#2641781) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Azizi Will, I heard where you're coming from and totally agree with what you're saying. I just wanted to add a little bit more pepper to the salt. :o) |
|
27 May 09 - 07:08 AM (#2641784) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Will Fly I just wanted to add a little bit more pepper to the salt. :o) Welcomed - there's too much salt in my hair and beard at the moment! |
|
27 May 09 - 06:32 PM (#2642275) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: John P Has anyone noticed that rock and roll really needed to change into something else? Don't you get bored with the same three chords in the same progression over and over? |
|
27 May 09 - 09:31 PM (#2642373) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted If you're bored by three chord progressions, you should stay away from folk music. |
|
27 May 09 - 09:49 PM (#2642379) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: irishenglish Ah-a hypothetical. The Beatles destroying rock and roll. Funny thinking that. Lets just skip from circa 1968, my birth year to 2009. Coldplay, Kaiser Chiefs, Killers, Green Day, U2, Radiohead. Yeah, they REALLY must have destroyed it. I think the Stones and the Kinks and the Who might have something to say about that premise. |
|
27 May 09 - 11:04 PM (#2642408) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies Yes, M Ted, regarding "art form". But the boards of directors, etc were there in 1966 as well as 1967. What changed was a whole bunch of fans--and journalists--suddenly thought they were seeing art in rock. Hence "art-rock". And more fascination with twisting dials and creating non-human sounds. My assertion, and I believe, that of the book's author, was that this --taking rock as an "art form"-- started with Sgt. Pepper--and was not good for rock. |
|
27 May 09 - 11:23 PM (#2642423) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: irishenglish To which Ron, the repetitive chord structure of rock as "dance" music surely would have killed it as well? I also don't buy the fascination with twisting dials and stuff when one considers what Les Paul did throughout his entire career as an inventor (never mind as a musician). Carl Perkins in his '85 tv special explained how he recreated Les's echo sound in the 50's. So we're talking 50's rocker Carl Perkins arguably twisting dials and stuff to get different sounds and textures. Far cry from "art rock" and Sgt Pepper's I know, but the point must be made-there were plenty of people who fiddled around in the studio at the same, most notably the Beach Boys with Pet Sounds. |
|
27 May 09 - 11:31 PM (#2642426) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: number 6 Long live bossa nova! and thank you Joao Gilberto biLL |
|
28 May 09 - 12:28 AM (#2642441) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted Actually, Ron, the real "Rock and Roll" tended to come from independent labels--the big labels came into it later, if at all. |
|
28 May 09 - 12:45 AM (#2642445) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Lonesome EJ After 40 years, still sends chills up my spine. |
|
28 May 09 - 03:54 AM (#2642510) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Spleen Cringe Ron, if you want to talk about knob twiddlers, there's specialist sites for that. No, seriously, what about Joe Meek? He was the proto-knob twiddler extraordinaire, yet he was already dead by the time Sgt Pepper came out. Telstar |
|
28 May 09 - 06:45 AM (#2642586) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. Nothing ever like Janis anywhere. Its funny how something so primal could be -- and I use the term deliberately -- so classical in its purity. It must be the all out "up against life" quality of it -- like it's purged of all dross, of everything except energy. I can only think of two or three other examples: Son House singing "Death Letter Blues" comes to mind. John Lennon (while we're on the Beatles) singing "Twist and Shout" (famously at the end of the long one day session that made an entire album). yours, Peter T. |
|
28 May 09 - 06:52 AM (#2642592) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Will Fly Or possibly Elvis doing 29 takes on "Heartbreak Hotel" and almost wreching his voice to get the perfect take he wanted. |
|
28 May 09 - 07:09 AM (#2642604) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted So Ron, what's your favorite sixties rock and roll tune? You will be graded;-) |
|
28 May 09 - 11:56 AM (#2642799) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego I was in high school in the mid to late 1950's. It was the Eisenhower era in the U.S. Popular music was in transition. Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly and the Crickets, The Coasters and a host of other, very diverse stars emerged. It was also an era of "one-hit-wonders," where someone would be on the charts one month and disappear forever afterwards. Marty Robbins, Don Gibson, Billy Grammer and other country artists crossed over with pop hits. Audience tastes were eclectic, with a lot of studio choral and orchestral backup elements from the forties and fifties still in evidence. Folk groups, notably the Kingston Trio, emerged out of this mishmash of styles and began a new trend. I was returning from the army when the Beatles hit the U.S. My buddies and I were astounded that our women were going ga-ga over these guys with bowl haircuts. Their music, though, was something else. They brought interesting melodies and a whole new sound to the table. Others followed. I don't know to this day if all of this meant things were "improving," but they were certainly evolving. If I have a criticism, it is that more recent pop music seems to have become more about life style, effects and electronic studio manipulation and less about music itself. When I grew up, even in rural schools such as mine, we had music. We had a school band, we were taught the rudiments of classical, choral and orchestral music, folk music, etc. We were given a foundation on which to build, should we choose a musical path in life. I think the absence of that foundation is apparent in a lot of what I hear today. |
|
28 May 09 - 10:14 PM (#2643293) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies Sure, if you read my posts, I am aware dial-twiddlers existed before Sgt Pepper. But as I noted earlier, Sgt Pepper used backwards-playback, echo chambers, distortion etc---and it was a gigantic commercial hit. If it had fallen far short of earlier Beatles commercial success, do you think it would have been emulated? As it was, as both a critical and commercial triumph, it was the starting gun for a stampede of other groups trying to match or better it commercially--and "artistically"--which they thought went hand in hand. Which was in turn the start of "art-rock". Sure there were groups which (mostly) fought the tide--which I've also noted earlier. Stones (mostly)---(they admit Satanic Majesties was a blatant attempt to copy the Beatles)--but afterward went back to straight-ahead rock. CCR. Dire Straits. I've already said what my all-time favorite rock song is--and why. And yes, I'm aware the Who used distortion in "Won't Get Fooled". But the song worked-- maybe the distortion heightened the rage of the message--hell I don't know. It does help if the song means something--as again in Pink Floyd "Another Brick". My favorite 60's song--somebody asked. Probably "California Dreamin'". Loved the idea of a song in a minor key extolling California. And I suppose I'm just a doo-wopper at heart. California Dreamin' is one you can do totally a cappella--and it's a real kick to do it. Also I loved the flute in it--(which you can whistle). But there were a hell of a lot of vapid--but pretentious--lyrics after 1966. Backed up by vapid--and pretentious arrangements. Before Sgt Pepper the lyrics might possibly be vapid--at least once in a blue moon--well maybe twice. But the arrangements didn't try to assert: "this is art". That's the difference---and that's what Sgt Pepper inaugurated. I have nothing against cryptic lyrics. CCR in "Who'll Stop the Rain" is plenty cryptic. But the song is straight-ahead rock. Cryptic lyrics and pretentious arrangements just makes it laughable--and not worth my time. And again that's what started--in a big way--with Sgt Pepper. And some rock groups even realized this problem--what do you suppose Dr Hook was aiming at in "Cover of the Rolling Stone"?--another of my nominees for best rock song of all time--a sense of humor in rock is always a huge plus. And a lot rarer than rage. |
|
28 May 09 - 10:53 PM (#2643317) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: John P Ron, on Sgt. Pepper: As it was, as both a critical and commercial triumph, it was the starting gun for a stampede of other groups trying to match or better it commercially--and "artistically"--which they thought went hand in hand. Which was in turn the start of "art-rock". Hi, I was a rock musician when Sgt. Pepper came out. Me, and every other musician I knew, didn't give a shit about the commercial success of anything. Oh, we had to conduct business rationally to stay in business, but it was ALL about the music. And it just kept getting better as art rock evolved. King Crimson, Yes, Tull, ELP, Genesis, Gentle Giant, etc. We were artists and new vistas of artistic expression were opening. Even Iron Butterfly -- lots of people were stepping away from what had, for us, become a dead-end street musically. Not only that, but any half-assed musician can pull off rock and roll with fair credibility. We were young, and we took pride in the use of skill. Skill which was, frankly, wasted on r&r. Perhaps the biggest thing was that Sgt. Pepper and others removed the need to conform to an established musical form that, while there is lots of room to do things with it, is confining to musicians when compared to everything that came after. And it wasn't just the art rock. Led Zeppelin started a whole genre, even though the genre apparently never really got what Zeppelin was doing. Cream did a lot of sub-par music, but their good stuff is as good anything. Hendrix, The Band, Santana, Queen, the list goes on and on. Yes, I think all of this killed rock and roll, if you define rock and roll as a separate entity from rock. Rock and roll was limited, limiting, and had been done to death by masters. Sgt. Pepper and its peers showed us that we could play music -- simply music, any kind we wanted -- in a rock band format. As for the knob-twisters and strange effects folks, I don't see what possible difference there is between that and playing through a simple electric guitar. One you introduce electricity, amplification, and instruments that don't make any noise without it, why stop at the first baby step? |
|
28 May 09 - 10:55 PM (#2643318) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: John P Oh, I should mention that I love rock and roll, and still play it and listen to in around the house. JP |
|
29 May 09 - 04:27 AM (#2643432) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,RS Seems to me that rock'n'roll is aimed at a teenage audience, generally for dancing to - as they grow older, the dancing gives way to sitting/listening, so more complexity comes in...the 60s (IMO) also reflects a shift from un-self-conscious to very self-conscious, the music reflects that - then again, I preferred Captain Beefheart, so that shows what I know.. |
|
29 May 09 - 10:28 AM (#2643596) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. Following on from John's remarks it's worth repeating that the greatest gift the Beatles and Dylan gave people was to keep pushing and changing and reinventing themselves in public. This put everyone else on notice. (That is why endlessly replaying the 60's is such a bore: people in the 60's hated their parents endlessly saying why can't you be like Sinatra.) yours, Peter T. |
|
29 May 09 - 02:56 PM (#2643768) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted Sgt. Pepper was really influenced by "Pet Sounds"--if you are so inclined, listening to PS, followed by SP is quite an eye opener-- A curious thing about Sgt. Pepper, given it's popularity, and the importance that it is generally acknowledged to have-- the songs from it are not played very much--and they never were played very much--there is the Joe Cocker version of "With a Little Help From My Friends", but that really took the song out of the Sgt Pepper setting, and of course, we all play "When I'm 64' for birthdays and such-- |
|
29 May 09 - 03:03 PM (#2643774) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. Never understood the reverence for Pet Sounds. Apart from one or two cuts, it seems to me to be sophomoric. yours, Peter T. |
|
29 May 09 - 03:13 PM (#2643779) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: PoppaGator "Pet Sounds" was remarkable and ground-breaking in regard to the sound it created. Listeners primarily interested in lyrical content, and/or even melodic creativity, are sort of missing the point. It was all about the sonic atmospehre that Brian Wilson was able to create. My nominee for most atmosphric recording of all time, incidentally, predates the "knob-twisting" art-rock era by at least a full decade: "I Only Have Eyes for You" as performed by The Flamingos. |
|
29 May 09 - 03:25 PM (#2643782) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Rifleman (inactive) The White album is a good double album with a REALLY great single album buried inside. |
|
29 May 09 - 04:35 PM (#2643823) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST Sgt Pepper was not really the first album by the Beatles to experiment studio as an instrument. Rubber Soul which influenced Brian Wilson was the first signs by the Beatles starting to experiment in the studio and then Revolver. BUT...the commercial success of The Beatles, coupled with their progressiveness - because, let's face it, "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper" were huge leaps - created an industry environment in which experimentation and exploration were encouraged, with regard of course for the bottom line but maybe (?) a little less blatant regard than today. (Maybe?) They really went way beyond the restrictions of two guitars, drums, and bass sound. Even their use of strings was way different than say what Buddy Holly was doing in the 50's You can't dismiss the Beatles on how they recorded their music and it's impact on popular music. I agree the music is what matters but you can't dismiss what the Beatles did in the studio. Pet Sounds is a continuation of Phil Spector though the music is more complex and it influenced loads of musicians. The Beatles had influences as everybody else but the studio as an instrument for creating psychedelic effects via tape speed manipulation, backward music, and pre- recorded loops was different than what Brian Wilson and Phil Spector did. Any doubters should go listen "Tomorrow Never Knows" immediately. There wasn't anything in 1966 that even resembles it. As nuts as Freak Out! and The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators probably were at the time, they're still essentially live-instrumental, blues-influenced records. They were not touching the sounds on that track. Nobody else was doing that stuff back then. Much of pop music is based on loops and an up-front bass & drum sound. |
|
29 May 09 - 05:50 PM (#2643865) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted I'm not dismissive of Sgt P, or the Beatles, but they are only part of the story, and I would hold up "Good Vibrations", recorded in early 1966--as proof that Brian Wilson was leading, rather than following-- |
|
29 May 09 - 05:56 PM (#2643868) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST Well "Good Vibrations" was finished in October of 1966 months after Revolver was released and by the time "Good Vibrations was finished it was influenced by the Beatles Revolver. Then again Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys "Upon first hearing Rubber Soul in December of 1965, Brian Wilson said, "I really wasn't quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs…that somehow went together like no album ever made before". Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys said that "Strawberry Fields Forever" was partially responsible for the shelving of his group's legendary unfinished album, Smile. Wilson first heard the song on his car radio whilst driving, and was so affected that he had to stop and listen to it all the way through. He then remarked to his passenger that The Beatles had already reached the sound The Beach Boys had wanted to achieve.
Thanks. -Joe Offer- |
|
29 May 09 - 08:55 PM (#2643958) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted Revolver was released well after the main recording sessions for GV were completed--but Brian and Sir Paul are members of the Mutual Admiration Society, so it's all good-- The story about what happened to "Smile" is considerably more complex, and interesting, than that, there is a book for die hard fans--when I finally got to hear it, I was pretty amazed, and not just because it was finished. I suspect it is much different than it was, or would have been back in 1967--it would have lost the audiences then, but now that they've grown up, I think it speaks to them. |
|
29 May 09 - 09:08 PM (#2643967) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted I think that you can make fairly credible arguement that Sgt Pepper led a lot of performers to aspire to create things on a scale that they ultimately couldn't manage. Ultimately, Rock has tended to work best as a three minute single, with a very few exceptions, SP being one--even the holy grail of pop music, the "concept album" needed to have a strong single to succeed, and, as Michael Jackson established, the more singles it has, the better the album. |
|
29 May 09 - 09:45 PM (#2643984) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Art Thieme I think everything derived from Ray Stevens' seminal arrangements for "Deep Purple" and Misty." Everything before those two, and after them as well would never have happened---if not for Ray. (ART THIEME ;-) |
|
30 May 09 - 01:00 AM (#2644024) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Midas In all honesty the Beatles were more radical with their style than the Beach Boys. Like the statement above me the Beatles went away beyond the normal two guitar, bass, drums, and keyboard sound. It sounds like revisionist history but the facts are "Good Vibrations" was finished way after tracks like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Eleanor Rigby" was recorded. "Good Vibrations" was finished in October of 1966 and the Beatles tracks was finished in April of 1966 about a half year earlier. The Beach Boys were more like "Baroque Pop rather than the psychedelic experimental nature of the Beatles songs. "Tomorrow Never Knows" has pre-recorded loops, and drones from Indian instruments, Norwegian Wood" would include modes like Mixolydian and Dorian Modes in one song. "Love You To" is clearly based on Indian modal practice: the tamboura drones sa and pa (tonic and dominant notes of the mode), the tabla sets forth a sixteen-beat tala (rhythm), the introductory improvisation in the alap follows Indian melodic practice, and as Harrison stated, he was trying to express himself in Hindu terms. "I'm Only Sleeping" has backward guitar solos, "I Want To Tell You" with it's flat 9th dissonance is derived from diminished harmony actually a few of the Beatles tracks combines dissonance with a keen sense of melodies in which "Strawberry Fields Forever" takes that to great lengths. This was a new turn for the Beatles and for rock music in general and we have not go to Pepper yet. |
|
30 May 09 - 09:48 PM (#2644581) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted Please don't trot out all that stuff on my account--I went to music school, studied Shoenberg, Harry Partch, and played Balkan and Middle Eastern music to boot, so modes, and dissonance, and even playing music backwards are pretty much business as usual--and none of it was new in 1966- The truth of the matter is that the "psychedelic" effects in 60's music tended to be used for the "wow" effect, and they got old awful fast. Bottom line on it is, say what you will, "Tomorrow Never Knows" will never beat "California Girls"-- |
|
31 May 09 - 03:10 AM (#2644662) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. Well, "A Day in the Life" alone beats all of Pet Sounds. What would you recommend of Harry Partch's? I always wanted to hear some of his stuff. yurs, Peter T. |
|
31 May 09 - 10:59 AM (#2644842) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Midas Hey Ted for what rock bands were doing no one was using backwards guitar solos and using thick sitar soundscapes in fact jazz musicians or rock musicians were not doing anything like "Love You To" or "Tomorrow Never Knows". I think your love of the Beach Boys is blinding your opinion of what the Beatles were doing musically. The Beach Boys were still sounding like Phil Spector while the Beatles were pushing the boundaries of pop music. "A Day in the Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" makes Pet Sounds sound dated. |
|
31 May 09 - 02:40 PM (#2645022) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Tunesmith Of course, the UK perspective on the Beatles is very different than the USA view. In Britain, the Beatles are seen as delivering us from soft teeniebopper pop music( Adam Faith etc). Also, in the early 60s in Britain, access to American pop/rock/soul etc was very limited. The BBC virtually refused to acknowledge rock music, and simply hoped it would go away. And,in those days, there was only one radio broadcaster in the UK: The BBC. There were no regional pop/rock stations, and no independent radio stations. Dire times! |
|
01 Jun 09 - 10:18 AM (#2645550) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted Midas--you've got a a bad case of perserveration. Wake up. Smell the coffee. Love to You and Tomorrow Never Knows are not the Alpha and Omega of Rock music nor even of the Beatles music. I actually like the Beatles, a lot. But there are a lot of other, and sometimes better, things out there. I doubt, for instance, that any of the fab four could have held their own with John Coltrane. And, though their music is highly creative, extremely listenable, and has remained popular over the years, it hasn't been the primary driving force in pop/rock music over these last forty years. As far as Brian Wilson goes, there is, and always has been a kind of melodic and harmonic development in his music that no one else in rock had. And the dance beat, which is really what rock and roll is all about, is never far away. PeterT-- It is kind of hard to find any Harry Partch stuff, so don't pass anything up that you come across. Beyond that, "Barstow" is probably the most accessible, and I've always been fond of "Daphne of the Dunes"--however, the master work is "Delusion of the Fury" which is available both as a CD and as a DVD- Here's the decription from the Innova catalog: "Delusion of the Fury is a 72' totally-integrated, corporeal, microtonal, elemental work of ritual theater, incorporating almost all of Partch's hand-built orchestra of sculptural instruments. Using mime, dance, music, vocalizations, lighting, and costume, Partch presents two tales concerning reconciliation of life and death, one after a Japanese Noh drama, the other after an Ethiopian folk tale." |
|
01 Jun 09 - 10:37 AM (#2645564) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST Again, Ted I don't dislike the Beach Boys but they were barely rock and roll after they started out being a surf rock band. The Beatles were commented early on for their melodic and harmonic development. As for a song like "Love You To" maybe it's not great to you or compares to Coltrane. Then again at least the Beatles attempted in "Love You To", a genuinely Indian-styled usage of mode, melody, rhythm and instrumentation. I hardly think anyone has been more influential to pop music or rock music than the Beatles. I don't hear any influence in the modern rock scene by the Beatles mentors like Elvis or Chuck Berry. Roger McGuinn of the Byrds As I said, we were influenced by The Beatles, and we wanted to be a band like that, and when I was working with Bobby Darin, and then in the Brill Building, my job was to listen to the radio, and emulate the songs that were out there. I had already been working on mixing The Beatles' music with folk music in Greenwich Village, and I had noticed that they were using folk-influenced chords in their music. They used passing chords that were not common in rock'n'roll and pop songs of that time. I remember listening to them, and thinking that the Beatles were using folding chord construction. That comes from their skiffle roots, they will have learned those chords in their skiffle days, and just brought them into their own writing." Bob Dylan "They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid. They were pointing the direction music had to go. |
|
01 Jun 09 - 02:33 PM (#2645745) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Les from Hull The main effect of the Beatles was that record companies started looking out for musicians who wrote their own songs, rather than relying on songwriters. Obviously, the songwriters weren't happy with this... Anyway, the main influence on the Beatles was Buddy Holly and the Crickets. Even their name was a homage. So blame Buddy Holly! |
|
01 Jun 09 - 03:16 PM (#2645776) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted Worth pointing out that The Beatles had Phil Spector produce "Let it Be", and that he then worked with John on "Imagine", and George on "All Things Must Pass" and "The Concert for Bangladesh"--clearly, they didn't have a problem with sounding like Phil Spector-- And, not withstanding Roger's comment, The Byrds, first hit single, Dylan's "Mr. Tabourine Man" featured Brian and Phil's Gold Star Wrecking Crew, and if you think about it when you're listening, you realize that the Folk/Rock Backbeat is the Beach Boys backbeat-- On top of that, I was recently reading a quote from Henry Diltz, about recording "This Could Be the Night", the Modern Folk Quartet's hit-that-never-was, and talking about how Brian Wilson was sitting in the control booth, wearing his famous bathrobe. The point being that, whatever our perceptions, these guys all knew each other, shared ideas, worked together, and supported one another--George and Roger both played Rickenbacker 12-strings--coincidence? I think not! (PS-Both those guys are on my short list of great guitarists, and I periodically rue the day I walked out of a music store in South Jersey without buying the Rickenbacker 12 that I'd playing for 20 minutes--it was gone when I went back the next week, and I've never seen another one that I could afford) |
|
01 Jun 09 - 03:58 PM (#2645805) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Rifleman (inactive) "In Britain, the Beatles are seen as delivering us from soft teeniebopper pop" They also saved us from some pretty dire stuff that was coming out of the U.S.A. at that time. Revenge is so sweet.... |
|
01 Jun 09 - 04:12 PM (#2645823) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. I don't think the main influence on the Beatles use of different chords was folk or skiffle. In Hamburg they found themselves learning tunes like "Besame Mucho" and "Till There Was You," and others, so as to service the servicemen. If you listen to the Beatles "Live at the BBC", they were magpies. (Thanks M.Ted, you are sure right about Harry Partch records, no one has them anywhere -- have to get them online. But thanks for the tips.) yours, Peter T. |
|
02 Jun 09 - 01:52 PM (#2646666) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Bill "Art is not a sack race." -Jim Harrison I love The Beatles AND The Beach Boys. I agree 1966 was a peak for pop-rock, BUT I love a lot that came after (The White Album, Philly soul, reggae, The Clash, etc.) I don't feel the need to choose one group or album over another or say "this is definitively better than that." Yes, popular music today is mostly horrible and robotic, but if you ignore top 40 and look for obscure stuff by musicians who actually play instruments and sing you'll find quality. Not like '66 but it's no fun living totally in the past. Besides, there's a world of good pop out there if you go beyond English-language music. What I most hate about American media is the boring provincialism. There'a a lot of fantastic music that we never hear on radio or see performed on U.S. television. For example, Brazilian pop, especially since 1968 and the psychedelia-inspired Tropicalia movement, is often brilliant. Check out the best albums from the 1970s by Caetano Veloso, Gilberto Gil, etc. Then there is Afro-pop. And rock en espanol artists from Latin America like Julieta Venegas, Cafe Tacuba, Los Fabulosos Cadillacs, who represent the true heart of rock music after 1990. |
|
02 Jun 09 - 02:48 PM (#2646724) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. Actually lots of recent world music is pretty dire -- as if they took the worst of western music instead of the best. Traditional world music is amazing, ear opening, creative -- and then, voila, submerged in derivative ghastliness (my opinion). yours, Peter T. |
|
02 Jun 09 - 03:46 PM (#2646782) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted Commercial music always has the same problem--they find something good and when it catches on, they need more and more, so they start creating "product" for their "market" and then it gets scary-- |
|
03 Jun 09 - 07:18 AM (#2647237) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies As I noted in my last posting, "Cover of the Rolling Stone" was a devastating satire on rock of that era. And there was a reason. Shel and Dr Hook knew what they were doing-- overblown pretentious rock was perhaps the dominant feature of the scene at that point (1973, approximately.) And the real plague started with Sgt. Pepper. (Though I'm also not a big fan of the backwards loops, and other technological "creativity" in Rubber Soul either). There's nothing wrong with sitar and other actual instruments--Norwegian Wood is an excellent use, as I recall. And Rubber Soul has some absolutely wonderful songs. Sgt Pepper has far fewer. "Fixing a Hole", "Good Morning", "Within You Without You", "She's Leaving Home", all have very weak melodies, if any. Geschmacksache (matter of taste), obviously. But Led Zeppelin, (except Stairway, which has a discernible melody), Cream, ELP, Genesis, Hendrix, Yes, all leave me totally cold. I'm not in the least impressed by pyrotechnics in rock. (Just like I'm not smitten with bluegrass virtuosi who think the person who gets to the end of the song first wins.) The apocryphal comment on Mozart, which does not fit Mozart, does fit every one of these in my judgment--too many notes. If I want pyrotechnics in music I can easily go to Rimsky-Korsakov, Wagner overtures, Verdi overtures, Orff (Carmina) etc. Making a guitar scream and moan can't hold a candle to these and other real composers, as far as I'm concerned--even for color and spectacular effects. Maybe it's because I'm actually far more vocally and harmonically oriented--and even more towards co-operation in music rather than showing off. Being in a good group singing the Brahms Requiem, or Tallis Lamentations etc, for instance is an unearthly experience. I never found Hendrix, Cream etc, to be anything of the kind. And by the way, I would not lump Santana in with the rest--Latin influence makes a huge difference and Santana has more atmosphere than the rest of the above rock groups can dream of. Also, the Band (Big Pink) is great stuff--and actually down to earth and singable--which makes a huge difference. If the author dates the onset of serious hardening of the arteries in rock to Sgt Pepper, I think he's on solid ground. |
|
03 Jun 09 - 10:32 PM (#2647881) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies Obviously it also depends on what you're looking for in popular music. I completely agree with PoppaGator that "I Only Have Eyes For You" is just a wonderful song. The echo chamber or whatever they used just adds to the dream atmosphere---but doesn't detract in the least from the great melody. It's also just great fun--and fun to sing. That's probably another thing I have against Sgt. Pepper. Starting then, the songs which are fun to sing became harder and harder to find. And Rubber Soul was the last album with mostly songs the Beatles themselves tried to do out of the studio. After that, there were more and more which could only be done in the studio. Fun pop songs--songs you can sing if you can carry a tune-- are lopsidedly concentrated before Sgt Pepper. There are some after, but the overwhelming majority are before. I suppose this is partly a lament for the sunnier, more upbeat world we had before the Vietnam war heated up. And it's of course ironic that during the whole time pop rock was so sweet, we were under the shadow of nuclear annihilation. Of course there were some really fun songs after 1966. Foundations--Baby, Now That I've Found You, and Build Me Up Buttercup--were fun to belt out. Beyond bubblegum but still fun. But there weren't many. A steady diet of pop music reflecting the chaos and hopelessness of modern life isn't really that attractive. Just like it isn't in modern classical music either--yet it's what lots of modern composers seem to think is what they need to do. By the way, MTed, I'll be glad to listen to your VU medley--if you're willing to listen to my 10 CD collection of George Jones/ Melba Montgomery--accompanied by autoharp and ukulele, of course. |
|
10 Jun 09 - 03:14 PM (#2653369) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Nelson The Beatles on one hand influenced loads of musicians to write and play their own songs. The problem is there hardly anyone who could combine great songcraft with experimental music. |
|
10 Jun 09 - 03:40 PM (#2653389) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,M.Ted George Jones is actually one of my favorite singers, but I like Tammy Wynnette way more than Melba Montgomery-- |
|
11 Jun 09 - 09:51 AM (#2653938) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted I do agree with the idea that music lost it's sense of humor with the advent of the Vietnam war--and this was true across the board--pop, rock, folk, jazz, and classical--and it continues to this very day--the only bright spot is polka music-- |
|
11 Jun 09 - 03:35 PM (#2654232) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. Oh, I don't know -- a lot of hiphop and rap is full of fun. yours, Peter T. |
|
12 Jun 09 - 09:33 AM (#2654805) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted Rap started with The Last Poets, who prove my point--but I know what you mean-- |
|
13 Jun 09 - 05:00 AM (#2655459) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Paul Burke Cookieless I don't know: Bonzo Dog Baron Knights Freddie and the Dreamers Tiny Tim Gary Glitter Leonard Cohen... The Beatles' problem was finding out that they weren't pop musicians, they were Artists. |
|
13 Jun 09 - 06:25 AM (#2655481) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. we should all have such problems. Peter T. |
|
13 Jun 09 - 06:34 PM (#2655822) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Eve Goldberg Personally, I want to be remembered as a pop musician. That's why my next album will consist of one 45-minute symphony created by using the sounds of electric kitchen appliances looped backwards, combined with multiple tracks of wine glasses and sitar. The symphony is a meditation on the kitchen as a metaphor for the temporal nature of gender identification in a post-modern dialectic. We expect it will get massive amounts of airplay on commercial radio and that I will make me a household name all over the world. And you'll all be able to say "you knew me when..." |
|
14 Jun 09 - 02:19 AM (#2655945) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted You're just joking around, Eve, but they're not--Recycled Appliance Music |
|
14 Jun 09 - 07:45 AM (#2656034) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies OK M. Ted, then you can hear my 20-CD collection of George/Tammy duets, accompanied by autoharp and ukulele. |
|
14 Jun 09 - 07:51 AM (#2656036) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: Ron Davies "..l nature of gender identification" And don't forget, according to one feminist thinker, Beethoven's 9th illustrates the pent-up rage of a frustrated rapist. So evidently, this phenomenon has been around for quite a while. We only needed intellectuals to explain it to us. |
|
14 Jun 09 - 10:19 AM (#2656098) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Eve Goldberg Wow, thanks for posting that M.Ted, love it! Actually, to be serious, I have heard some amazing music with "found sound" and/or industrial sounds-- including kitchen appliances. As for the Beatles, I have absolutely no perspective because I love them too much. I love all their early pop stuff, I love SPLHCB, I love Abbey Road and the White Album and Let it Be. I have a hard time listening to those later releases of outtakes and alternate versions because they just sound WRONG to me, and my brain does not accept them. There was certainly a lot of hype around them, but I don't think you can deny they were boundary-busting musicians whose music stands the test of time. I teach guitar lessons, mostly to adults, but the few kids that I teach all know and love the Beatles. I can't think of any other music from the sixties that so many teenagers will still listen to and like. |
|
14 Jun 09 - 01:19 PM (#2656194) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. Eve, if you do write that music to acclaim. you'll be the "Toaster of the Town". yours, Peter T. |
|
14 Jun 09 - 04:33 PM (#2656339) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Eve Goldberg GROAN!! |
|
14 Jun 09 - 04:35 PM (#2656342) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. how did the Riverdale gig go? Peter T. |
|
14 Jun 09 - 04:39 PM (#2656346) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Eve Goldberg Riverdale Farm, you mean? It was great! I have played with Debbie a bunch of times and it's always fun to accompany her. We brought our little friend Eric and we met up with another friend and his son. Debbie and I only played for a couple of minutes but there were a whole bunch of storytellers, and we walked around and looked at the chickens and the sheep. I love Riverdale Farm! |
|
14 Jun 09 - 06:52 PM (#2656432) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: McGrath of Harlow This is feeling a bit like a musical version of kids squaring up to each other with "MY Dad is bigger than YOUR Dad". To step away from that for a moment, can anyone explain what "folding chord construction" (in GUEST Date: 01 Jun 09 - 10:37 AM) actually means? |
|
15 Jun 09 - 01:04 AM (#2656616) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted I had that same question, McGrath--and it was reinforced by a feeling that I'd had that our poster didn't know anything about music--I did a bit of digging and found that a lot of the commentary posted here was really lifted from a thread that is about the roots of psychedelic music Last FM Psychedelic Music The "Folding Chord Construction" comment is there, in a quote attributed to Roger McGuinn--I usually understand everything Roger is talking about, and I suspected that it was a misprint or something like that--I did a search and found an interview with him here McGuinn Interview, Modern Guitars Magazine, 2.15.06 Here is what he really said: "The Beatles came out about that time and I got really jazzed by the Beatles. I loved what they were doing and they were doing a lot of passing chords. Like instead of just going like G, C, D, they'd go G, Bm, Em, C, Am, to D. So, the minor and passing chords I liked and, I thought these are really folk music chord changes. I kind of got it from what they were doing, I guess because they'd been a skiffle band." So it was not "folding chord construction" it was "Folk music changes". My guess is that the English language text was translated to another language, and then that was translated back to English-- |
|
15 Jun 09 - 07:29 AM (#2656790) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Peter T. G, Bm, Em, C, Am, to D? I-iii-vi-IV-ii-V? Seems doubtful. (But I get the point) Peter T. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 08:53 AM (#2656842) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted With a bit of rearranging, those are the chords to "Help!"-- |
|
15 Jun 09 - 07:30 PM (#2657292) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: McGrath of Harlow That sequence doesn't sound like any skiffle group I ever heard... "Folding chord construction" has such an impressive sound to it. Even if McGuinn never said it, it deserves to have a meaning invented for it. Perhaps it could be where you play a chord as an arpeggio, and then close it up and play it as a chop... |
|
15 Jun 09 - 08:00 PM (#2657311) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted I think you're right--the "folding chord contruction" is a great technical term,and our sort of music here is a bit short on technical terms. |
|
15 Jun 09 - 08:07 PM (#2657315) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: McGrath of Harlow Perhaps it might be the kind of chord that could only be played on a squeeze box... |
|
15 Jun 09 - 10:16 PM (#2657380) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol From: M.Ted I think it would be some sort of musical structure that opens up like those pop-up tents. |
|
18 Aug 10 - 06:41 AM (#2967735) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Betsy The thread should be entitled How the Beatles broke the stranglehold of American and Texan music in Britain. The B eatles were never Rock and Roll anyway - they were Original Popular Music. At the age of 8 in 1955 and for my formative next few years - all I knew from the radio (Luxembourg), fairgrounds and wherever music was played, was American music - I didn't realise 'til the Beatles came along that I was from England / Britain. God save the Beatles - we owe them SO much in the UK. |
|
18 Aug 10 - 05:01 PM (#2968118) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Johnmc Bonzo asserted Pepper was pretty basic; I would cite For The Benefit of Mr Kite as an example of the originality and musical sophistication of the group. An then the lyrics, of course ! Try coming up with those chords sitting with a guitar. |
|
18 Aug 10 - 09:45 PM (#2968309) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Ron Davies It's true anybody who likes rock owes the Beatles a lot. They really shook up the charts--against possible creeping Vegas-itis. Their high-energy approach, wit, introduction of new instruments, and good harmonies were a real tonic on both sides of the Pond. My thesis however, and it might be shared by the author of the book which is the origin of the thread, is that all of this had been accomplished before 1967. Starting with Sgt Pepper, and continuing with some exceptions (e.g. Maxwell's Silver Hammer), they turned more and more away from music and wit, and succumbed to the temptations of twisting dials in a studio. Paul Burke puts it wonderfully well: "The Beatles' problem was finding out that they weren't pop musicians, they were Artists" . That says it all. |
|
19 Aug 10 - 12:11 AM (#2968359) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,josep >>Paul Whiteman, who is widely condemned for almost destroying jazz by turning it from black dance music into white art music...<< BS. He turned it into white DANCE music. Don't you white people flatter yourselves that it was art. The only reason white people say "art" is because they can't dance. I saw a clip of James Brown playing live in front of a white audience. He stopped the song halfway through pissed off that they were still sitting in their seats. You don't go to a James Brown show to sit in your seat. He made everybody get up. "Get off your ass! Get Up!!" And what destroyed rocknroll was Elvis. Real rocknroll was Fats Domino & Dave Bartholomew, Lloyd Price, Percy Mayfield, Al Hibbler, Johnny Ace, Joe Turner & Pete Johnson, Todd Rhodes, Ruth Brown, Wynonie Harris, Arthur Crudup, Billy Ward & the Dominoes, Roy Brown, Little Richard, Amos Milburn, Paul Hucklebuck Williams, The Clovers, Roy Montrell, B.B. King, Bobby Blue Bland, Louis Jordan, Ray Charles, LaVern Baker, Peppermint Harris, T-Bone Walker, The Ravens, Sticks McGhee, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Young John Watson, Nolan Strong & the Diablos, Howlin' Wolf, John Lee Hooker, Muddy, Wild Bill Moore, King Porter, Tiny Bradshaw, Jimmy & Joe Liggins, Ike Turner & His Kings of Rhythm, Red Allen, Professor Longhair, Little Junior, Hank Ballad, Little Willie Littlefield, Shifty Henry, Chuck Willis, Guitar Slim, Little Willie John, Big Mama Thornton, Billy Davis, Earl Palmer, Shirley & Lee, CLyde McPhatter, Bill Doggett, Roy Milton, Lionel Hampton, etc. THAT was rocknroll. When Alan Freed started his Moondog Radio Show in Cleveland in 1951, it was all black R&B, boogie-woogie and jump blues. It's theme song was "Blues for the Red Boy" by Todd Rhodes. They called it rocknroll as a code phrase for R&B pedaled to white kids. The phrase, although dating back to the late 10s or early 20s, was probably taken from Billy Ward & the Dominoes' "60 Minute Man." When white artists saw the money being spent--out they came to do the same music. Elvis was at least original. Pat Boone and Georgia Gibbs were thieves. They were shameless. They were the perfect antidote to all the racial and social barriers rocknroll was smashing. Just put out the rocknroll hits redone by clean-cut white artists with all the sexuality removed (basically the same thing Paul Whiteman had done with jazz) and white kids felt safer buying those. As original and brilliant as Fat Domino was, he couldn't outsell Boone's covers of his material. Not hard to figure out when many of the white stations refused to play "race" records and would only play the white rip-off versions. Then came payola which nailed the coffin shut on rocknroll. Small labels pushing black artists--like Duke/Peacock--couldn't outpay big labels as RCA, Decca or Columbia to play their artists even though they had better artists and who mostly of not entirely black. So you see, rocknroll is ONLY the black jump and R&B stuff and nothing else. Everything that followed called itself rocknroll but it was not. Rockabilly was country with a blues backbeat, for example. By the time the Beatles came along, it was long over. |
|
19 Aug 10 - 12:44 AM (#2968364) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: mousethief Maybe it's because "Won't Get Fooled" has lyrics that mean something. And 17 minutes of self-indulgent melody-free synthesizer crap. All of the doors' output came in 1967 and later. I think that the studio phase of the Beatles' output was a continuation of the earlier phases -- they did what they thought was fun, and when they found the whiz-bang behind-the-scenes circuitry, they found out how much fun it could be to twiddle with it. John of course, under Yoko's influence, was interested in making avante garde "art" and that ended up with dreck like Revolution 9. But he also made Revolution, which is nothing if it isn't straight unpretentious rock and roll. And hardly a pastiche of anything. The Beatles did a hell of a lot after SPLHCB that was very straightforward and not technical jiggery-pokery. A lot of Let It Be was very down-to-earth and homey. "Two of Us" is almost folk. "Get Back" is very simple and unpretentious rock with a wry smile. I'll stand Harrison's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Here Comes the Sun", and "Something" against 2/3 of anything in the same genre in 1968-1970. Anybody who looks at post-MMT Beatles and only sees dial-twiddling has a very selective memory. Overblown pretentious rock? 1973? Are we talking about the same 1973? The height of Jim Croce's fame. Beginnings of Bruce Springsteen's rising star (before his navel-gazing post-BitUSA phase). The height of funk, and the four-black-guys-in-satin-suits R&B sound. Elton John's early "fun" (if you will) phase. Houses of the Holy. Aerosmith's eponymous first. Piano Man (now there's a folk-structured song). Tull's Passion Play. BTO. Poco. Houses of the Holy. Doobie Brothers. Cat Stevens. Steve Miller (post-Space-Cowboy phase). ZZ Top. Steely Dan, master puncturers of pretension. Sure there was pretentious stuff as well. ELO, Yes, Moody Blues (actually "I'm Just a Singer in a Rock and Roll Band" is one of their least pretentious songs!), Dark Side of the Moon, King Crimson, ya-da. But the mass of what you heard on the radio in those days was not overblown pretentious rock. I listened to the radio a lot in 1973. AM and FM both (back when that meant something!). And there's no way the majority of what was played was pretentious, overblown rock. That's just selective memory. Quoting somebody from last year: Maybe it's because "Won't Get Fooled" has lyrics that mean something. Oh dear. What a bad example. "Won't Get Fooled Again" was an overblown self-important rock "message" song interspersed with far too many minutes of totally melody-free Moog masturbation. It makes "Kashmir" look like a 2.5-minute dance record. |
|
19 Aug 10 - 03:50 AM (#2968408) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Patsy How the Beatles destroyed Rock 'n' Roll, I think is an over reaction. They were the first of a kind and it was the first time that kids could have something of their very own until they were packaged and chocolate boxed for the masses which is why they had to experiment with unique sounds and be more creative. Perhaps if they had been managed differently from the start things would have been different, or maybe the kids might not have understood their creativity at that point making them a disaster who knows? Every one in Rock has an important place, the genius of Buddy Holly or the jamming of Chuck Berry which incidently was an great influence to the early Beatles. When the Beatles split and they decided not to ever get together again it was the right thing to do there were other good if not better musical talent on the horizon so getting out while the going was good was wise. At least we can praise the good stuff and criticise the stuff that wasn't quite so hot without hating them completely. What is killing Rock 'n' Roll is the media selling pop pap to the young, Stock, Aitken and Waterman comes to mind from a little while back. Although sleazier (matter of opinion) Pussy Cat Dolls and the Saturdays, Lady Gaga and the like are packaging sex pop to the pink wearing pop pap youth which is, no matter how they dress it up (or undress) is still pap at the end of the day. |
|
13 Sep 10 - 05:10 PM (#2986060) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Jim When you look beyond The Beatles, you can see how far they are away from everything else, beyond The Beatles !!!!! |
|
13 Sep 10 - 06:30 PM (#2986122) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Joe_F Would that they had! |
|
14 Sep 10 - 06:09 AM (#2986417) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Slag Just lightly scanned this thread. I promise I be back and give it a careful read later. At the time of the Beatles' first appearence I thought they were novel but I was not wild about them. I was into the surfing scene, loved the music, the beach, the sport everything about it. The Beatles kind of chenged the direction of everything and that I didn't like. My age and limited perception made me dump all the blame on them. They were a shaping force but so many things were going on in the early 60's, it was a tsunami of cultural upheaval and they were just a part of it. The gave popular music a new direction. What is amazing is they were so off key most of the time and they were NOT accomplished musicians and yet look at the impact they had! A real phenomena. Yup, they killed the Elvis and 50's style rock 'n roll or rather re-ordered it and added a dynamism to it that was, until then, unimaginable. In a way they opened up the genre to reveal it full potential as a music form. It would be interesting to do something like a genealogical tree and identify different individuals and groups who have had a profound and shaping effect on the creation and direction of the various branches of music genrea. The Moody Blues were a very powerful forces when the launched Days of Future passed. That was new and it was a synthesis with classical music and added a legitimacy to rock that invited all generations to come and have a second listen. The oldsters were beginning to realize that rock wasn't just kid-stuff. Subject for a new thread? Sounds interesting to me and sure to generate much disscussion. |
|
19 Sep 19 - 11:35 PM (#4009673) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Gerry The Beatles destroyed rock 'n' roll, The Weavers destroyed folk music, Whiteman destroyed jazz..., Verdi destroyed opera, Bach destroyed classical music, and don't get me started on Hildegard von Bingen! |
|
20 Sep 19 - 12:36 AM (#4009677) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch The book's title had a job to do and it did it well. The subtitle how-ev-er: "An Alternative History of American Popular Music." American pop is a monster. The bibliography would run 336+ pages. An "alternative history?" No way. Wald is a complete miss on American popular music in general and Paul Whiteman's jazz or Belafonte's calypso, in particular... by a country mile. Paul Whiteman-King of Jazz? Between Wald & Ken Burns one might think Paul Desmond was born & raised in a sterile test tube and Paul Whiteman licked jazz off a rock somewhere. |
|
20 Sep 19 - 12:45 AM (#4009679) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch Mobettahclicky: Paul Whiteman-King of Jazz? |
|
20 Sep 19 - 01:13 AM (#4009680) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Stanron GUEST,Gerry wrote: Bach destroyed classical musicThat's really funny. |
|
20 Sep 19 - 09:17 AM (#4009705) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Gordon Jackson Difficult to destroy something before it actually exists ... |
|
20 Sep 19 - 02:59 PM (#4009736) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Dtm Nobody killed R'n'R. We're still playing Chuck Berry. |
|
20 Sep 19 - 04:43 PM (#4009747) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: Joe_F https://come-to-think.dreamwidth.org/31821.html |
|
21 Sep 19 - 02:12 AM (#4009776) Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll From: GUEST,Gerry OK, I was mistaken. Bach destroyed baroque; it was Mozart who destroyed classical music. Bradman destroyed cricket, Phar Lap destroyed horseracing, Jesus destroyed religion, and Newton destroyed mathematics. Any questions? |