'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!

Subject: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 04:55 AM

30 odd years ago, I saw Fairports at The Rainbow ( what's it called now, btw) in London. At the end of the evening they finished with a rock'n'roll medley. This received the best response of any piece from the whole performance. Such audience reactions bother me. Time and time again, I've seen an artist giving a wonderful performance of what they are renowned for, but they get the biggest cheer for the " novelty" number at the end.

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: GUEST,Cecil Flat
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 05:04 AM

Sounds like a really, really "old git" mentality to me.

"I sowed the seeds of bigotry, so early in the thread..."

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: GUEST, Mikefule
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 05:09 AM

But that's tradition and ritual. Isn't that what we're supposed to like? :0)

A good show builds up to a climax. People want to leave on a high. That's why Morris teams usually finish on a big stick dance, rock concerts end with lots of power chords and drums. Motorhead always leave Ace of Spades until last; the Stones don't normally open with Satisfaction.

The time for the good quality/arty/sentimental stuff is part way through the concert.

But is your objection to the Rock and Roll, rather than the medley?

Rock and Roll is the real folk music of our era. The golden age of Rock and Roll was just long enough ago that there has been time for the the dross to be filtered out, and for a canon of greats to be agreed on. Almost everyone knows the words, at least to the choruses. Real "folk" (as opposed to "folkies") relate more to rock and roll than they do to historical gems about farmers' boys, tailors and mill girls. What most people refer to as "folk" music is in fact only a niche market.

Accept music on its merits. A personal experience: in the 70s, I was well into 50s rock and roll. There was quite a lot of low level rivalry at the time between devotees of rock and roll, punk, new wave, mod and heavy rock. (Notice that sea shanties and hunting songs don't appear in this list of music beloved of the working class masses.)

Recently, for mid life crisis reasons, I've been buying CDs of music from that period and to my surprise, I find that the similarities between the different genres are more noticeable than the differences. Just some of it's louder.

By being prejudiced against a category of music, all you are doing is limiting the amount of enjoyment that you can get from the experience of listening to music.

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: kendall
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 07:07 AM

How do you learn to like something that irritates the hell out of you? Furthermore, WHY would you? To me, rock & roll is not music. That's my problem. Rock is to music what graffiti is to literature.

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: GUEST,satchel
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:03 AM

Yes kendall, that IS your problem--a closed mind. Just because you personally don't like it doesn't mean that that it's not worthy of recognition. I personally hate "Leave her Johnny, Leave her," but it's still part of the pantheon of important traditional music.

Rock and roll, like it or not, has far more cultural relevance than folk at this point. Mikefule is correct. By definition, rock is the new "folk" music. What most of y'all consider folk should really be called old time, traditional, Appalachian, Irish, roots music, etc.

Consider this "Franklin D. Roosevelt's Back Again" (Bill Cox and Cliff Hobbs, 1936) was considered to be folk music a mere 25 years after it was written when the New Lost City Ramblers rerecorded it on Songs from the Depression in the late 1950s. Early rock and roll has longer legs than that at this point.

Moreover, lots of rock and roll, especially the Beatles, Yes, Grateful Dead, King Crimson, et al. is far more musically complex than the beloved folk songs everybody loves so much. It's pretty hard to make a case that music that is more technically demanding is "grafitti."

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 10:29 AM

Satchel, I was 110% with you until you committed the basic error of confusing 'Rock' with 'Rock & Roll'. Not the same thing old lad (lass?). Rock & Roll was a very specific form, and the end of Rock & Roll pre-dated the rise to fame of the Beatles in 1963 by several years.

But in every other respect I agree with you and Mikefule.

Kendall, I don't like Modern Jazz - sounds like musical diarrhoea to me, but I don't question it's relevance as a musical genre, nor do I question the virtuosity of those who play it. Just because a particular musical form isn't to your taste is no reason to show disrespect for it, or for those who play it. They're fellow musicians, not vandals or hooligans!

I'm preaching again! Sorry, I'll get back in me cupboard.......

Johnny :0)

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: kendall
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 11:31 AM

To accuse me of having a closed mind is a judgement. It's not a matter of having a closed mind. I have tried many times to find out what the attraction is, I feel left out because I just don't get it.
What I said was an opinion, not a judgement. There is a big difference.

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 11:50 AM

My point seems to be lost here! If, for example, I went to classical recital of 18th century baroque music, first, I wouldn't expect the performance to end with say, for example, a punk number, and secondly, if it did, I would hope it wouldn't get the most enthusiastic response of the evening. I'm not criticising Rock'n'Roll - Chuck Berry is one of my musical heroes - but...

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 08:14 PM

Hey, when you take the amplification off lots of rock songs, most of them are folk songs so lets get beyond this us v. them thinking here.

What, do you really thought that Elvis wrote "Hound Dog"? Wanta buy a bridge?

Back in my pre-blues days I used to occasionally finish out with a medley ofr the Beatles "I'm a Losser" going into Buddy Holly's "Peggy Sue" and into an original "Amtrak Blues" and letting it fold back into the Beatles song. Worked fine and allowed for a little improvising as to get from one to another seemlessly...

Bobert

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: Once Famous
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 08:22 PM

Yes, Kendall, it is an opinion.

My opinion is that you haven't got a clue.

I don't know all of the history behind it all, but I wonder if your disdain for the artform known as rock or even broader, rock and roll is because of it's immense popularity.

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 03:39 AM

Hey Kendall, did I say you had a closed mind? Read my post again - no mention of closed minds. And I wasn't being judgmental - precisely the opposite I thought! I was simply making a suggestion (a very reasonable one IMO), that the fact that you and I don't care for particular musical forms (R&R for you, Mod. Jazz for me) doesn't make those forms rubbish, and that all forms of music, and their exponents, are deserving of respect from other musicians.

What's offensive about that?? I thought this was a discussion forum - you're too touchy pal! :0)

Johnny :0)

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: Gurney
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 04:42 AM

I'm with Mikefule and Satchel. Their musical opinions coincide with mine, that 'folk music' is an untenable category.
I've been in clubs that had folk in one room, rock groups in another, and had the thought that theirs was live folk music, ours was dead folk music. Here we go again, 'what is folk music.'
I have given it some thought. I used to know, but the older I get.....
My personal songbook contains over 200 Trad English songs, all of which I've sung, but I'm not so bigoted these days, and the songbook is almost a document of my changing taste and opinion.

Please note "their musical opinions..."
No social opinions implied on my part.

Nice to get guests who aren't trolling asses.

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: Jeanie
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 05:05 AM

Tunesmith: I see what you are getting at here: a concert by a performer of a particular style throughout (any style), ending on an item in a totally different style (any style) and getting the biggest applause for the latter. I think the reason for this is that people *love* to see a performer (in any performing field or style) doing something totally "out of character": e.g. the generally stiff and starchy BBC newsreaders, who have done song-and-dance routines (very well !) for "Children in Need" charity programmes on TV and so on. It's just plain fun !

- jeanie

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 07:24 AM

Jeannie: The opposite to my point would also probably work i.e. a rock band ending their performance with a frantic Irish reel!

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 08:02 AM

Hmmmmmm.. Lots of points of view here. One thing I'd add is that the last song has a special prominence because it's what you leave people with. The song that's most frehly in their heads. The first song of the first set and the final song of the evening are the bookends of a performance and each have their separate and different place. How we chose those songs is a matter of personal preference, even if we think that there is some higher "rule" that must not be broken. Roak and Roll "rules" are different than folk rules, and jazz rules, and gospel rules. And like all rules, they itch to be broken. I've always been told that you start the first set with an upbeat, reasonably high-energy song, and that makes sense to me. It's a way to pull people into the music and get them up to speed. I think that "rule" applies fairly commonly to rock and roll, jazz, folk, bluegrass(if you consider it a separate category from folk) and gospel.

Now, the last song has a different function, depending on the kind of music and audience. A punk rock band and a mosh pit aren't going to finish with a reflective ballad. They want to pump up the volume and the adrenaline and send their audience out on a real high. Same with rock and roll, because they are mostly high-energy forms of music. I'm not a bluegrass musician and don't attend a lot of bluegrass concerts, but my limited experience makes me believe that a knock-out finish is more likely with a bluegrass band than an unaccompanied ballad singer. When I am doing folk, I've fallen into a pattern of doing a more reflective song at the end. For a long time, I did Handful of Songs, because it seemed to sum up, and bring to a closure an evening of songs. Partly, that's laziness on my part, though. An upbeat song or country blues would work fine, too. With my gospel quartet, we go both ways... sometimes ending on the most refelctive song of the evening, and sometimes with the most energetic, rocking song of the night. Both work. Sometimes it depends on the mood of the musician (or musicians) and sometimes it's driven more by the audience. At one time or another, just about anything might be "right."

I don't ever remember a group or performer finishing an evening of music with something uncharacteristic of their repertoire, so I suspect it's not rampant. I ran a concert series for 27 years, so I've head a lot of concerts with a variety of music. Sometimes, I think that folk music audiences need a little shot of adrenaline every once in awhile before they lapse into preciousness or hushed reverence. Echhh!!!! I've felt ornery enough on occasion to slip Blue Monday or Searchin' into a folk festival, just to revive the audience. And, I've always gotten an enthusiastic response. We ain't farmers or mill workers. We grew up in a contemporary world, and even though we all find something of value in older music, that doesn't mean that it is inherently any better than contemporary music. (I gulp, saying that because I can't find a lot that's of value in much of current music, whether it's country, rock and roll, rap, hip hop or even in mass choir gospel music.) It all feels to corporatized, with the only reason for it's existence to be to make money. But then, we are all in danger of slipping in to old fartdom.

Me included.

Jerry

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 10:12 AM

Tunesmith: I've noticed the same thing, and it irritates me, too. But it doesn't happen often.

I think the one that annoyed me was when The Battlefield Band did Bad Moon Rising. I think that was about 15-20 years ago. It wasn't egregiously awful, but it wasn't what I came to hear, either. And it was especially annoying that they put it at the end of their concert and that it got the biggest applause of the evening. It made me suspect that most of the audience were mainly rock/pop fans who were only pretending to like folk music, or who were experimenting with a genre that was outside their main line of interest--which might not be far from the truth. It's as if the band were saying, "Thank you for your patience in sitting through all this boring stuff. Now we'll give you something you'll really enjoy."

You know what similar thing also irritates me? Public television stations, in the US, when they have their semi-annual fund-raising drive, will put on programs that are totally different from what they show the rest of the time. But I suppose that's a topic for a different thread.

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 11:19 AM

Hmmm now the difference between rock and roll, and rock?

The difference between folk and rock and roll is where we started.

Perhaps the two differences have some similarities.

Rock and roll can range from Elvis Presley to Buddy Holly (two very different styles indeed) to The Sex Pistols, Motorhead, or the Buzzcocks. It's to do with attitude and context as much as with sound.

And folk... was Whiskey in the Jar folk music when played by Thin Lizzie? When I saw the Pogues at Rock City, was that folk? It sounded a bit like folk, but I don't think it was, because the attitude and context were wrong. It was rock and roll.

Folk is about participation. Folk is about being on a level with the performer, taking part, feeling a sense of ownership of the songs and tunes. So Rave On, or Leader of the Pack, can be folk music, if sung for fun by a group of mates in the pub; but Whiskey in the Jar, played to an audience of 10 000 is rock and roll.

Question: is it an activity (folk) or a product (rock and roll) or a slightly more arty product (rock)?

So what don't you like about rock and roll? Is it the electric instruments (would they sound better playing traditional 48 bar reels?), or the lyrics (often about love, separation or death - oh, sorry, that's folk!), or the simple repetitive format with a limited number of chords and a predictable sequence of bars (oh, sorry, that's traitional music), or is it that it's very loud?

We're all entitled to preferences, and we're all entitled not to broaden our outlooks to encompass other genres of music. Seems to me, though, that context is a real thing, but labels only promotye prejudice.

If you're paying to go to a big concert, with a live band up on stage, playing through amplifiers, it might just be rock and roll, even if the songs are 200 years old. If you hear a song on a Saturday night in the pub, beware: it might sound like folk, but I could have written it last week...

And it couldn't possibly be folk if it was recently written by a working class bloke on the basis of his own life experiences, and using techniques and sounds he'd picked up by ear, with no formal musical training, and only sung in the pub to a few like minded friends, could it?

Subject: RE: 'Rock'n'Roll medley' mentality!
From: GUEST, Mikefule
Date: 12 Apr 04 - 02:26 PM

Sorry, didn't mean to post anonymously. That last one was me.