Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 10:37 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 10:18 AM

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."

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 31 May 09 - 02:40 PM

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!

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Midas
Date: 31 May 09 - 10:59 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 31 May 09 - 03:10 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 May 09 - 09:48 PM

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"--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,Midas
Date: 30 May 09 - 01:00 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Art Thieme
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:45 PM

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 ;-)

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 May 09 - 09:08 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 May 09 - 08:55 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 09 - 05:56 PM

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.

---

Please note that anonymous posting is no longer allowed at Mudcat. Use a consistent name [in the 'from' box] when you post, or your messages risk being deleted.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 May 09 - 05:50 PM

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--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 09 - 04:35 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 29 May 09 - 03:25 PM

The White album is a good double album with a REALLY great single album buried inside.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: PoppaGator
Date: 29 May 09 - 03:13 PM

"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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 May 09 - 03:03 PM

Never understood the reverence for Pet Sounds. Apart from one or two cuts, it seems to me to be sophomoric.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 May 09 - 02:56 PM

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--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 May 09 - 10:28 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,RS
Date: 29 May 09 - 04:27 AM

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..

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: John P
Date: 28 May 09 - 10:55 PM

Oh, I should mention that I love rock and roll, and still play it and listen to in around the house.

JP

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: John P
Date: 28 May 09 - 10:53 PM

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?

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 May 09 - 10:14 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego
Date: 28 May 09 - 11:56 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 May 09 - 07:09 AM

So Ron, what's your favorite sixties rock and roll tune? You will be graded;-)

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Will Fly
Date: 28 May 09 - 06:52 AM

Or possibly Elvis doing 29 takes on "Heartbreak Hotel" and almost wreching his voice to get the perfect take he wanted.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 28 May 09 - 06:45 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 28 May 09 - 03:54 AM

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

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 28 May 09 - 12:45 AM

After 40 years, still sends chills up my spine.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 May 09 - 12:28 AM

Actually, Ron, the real "Rock and Roll" tended to come from independent labels--the big labels came into it later, if at all.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: number 6
Date: 27 May 09 - 11:31 PM

Long live bossa nova!

and thank you Joao Gilberto

biLL

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: irishenglish
Date: 27 May 09 - 11:23 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 09 - 11:04 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: irishenglish
Date: 27 May 09 - 09:49 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 May 09 - 09:31 PM

If you're bored by three chord progressions, you should stay away from folk music.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: John P
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:32 PM

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?

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Will Fly
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:08 AM

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!

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Azizi
Date: 27 May 09 - 07:06 AM

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)

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:35 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Will Fly
Date: 27 May 09 - 04:55 AM

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... :-)

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Azizi
Date: 27 May 09 - 04:44 AM

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."

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Azizi
Date: 27 May 09 - 04:34 AM

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

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Will Fly
Date: 27 May 09 - 03:56 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Neil D
Date: 27 May 09 - 03:40 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 May 09 - 10:53 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Art Thieme
Date: 26 May 09 - 10:26 PM

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

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 May 09 - 10:01 PM

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--

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Rol
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 09 - 09:53 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 26 May 09 - 09:50 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 May 09 - 09:36 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Review: How the Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll
From: Joe_F
Date: 26 May 09 - 08:27 PM

Would that they had! The atmosphere would have been far less foul for most of my life.