2. music
  3. 1238620414

Some irrefutable truths about rock and roll

1) Robert Johnson invented rock and roll, and is the rightful King of it. Elvis Presley's title should be amended to "Poster Boy of Early Rock and Roll."

2) Jeff Buckley's version of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" is infinitely better than the Rufus Wainwright version and is the definitive version of the song.

3) The Rolling Stones were and are the most overrated band in the history of rock and roll.

4) If it's too loud you are, indeed, too old.

5) The Stone Roses' self-titled debut is the best debut album ever in the history of ever.

6) John Mayer needs to stop that right now.

7) A good song is a good song, whether it's played on an Audiovox tape deck and a single factory speaker in a 1976 Buick Skylark or a complete Linn Klimax system.

8) A couple of Les Pauls, a Fender Precision bass, and a decent set of drums sound every bit as good as the most disciplined orchestra.

9) There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the occasional urge to crank "Hungry Like the Wolf" from time to time, so long as it doesn't become a habit.

Did I forget anything?

*yes, I realize everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, and this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
theraiguy

Showing 2 responses by loomisjohnson

loomisjohnson
1,974 posts
 
martykl, we agree on many things. peter green is godlike, "then play on" is a stone classic, etc. as for lindsay buckingham, i respect his craftsmanship and he probably is a genius of sorts, although as a guitar player he doesn't grab me on the same visceral level as a green, or danny kirwan or jeremy spencer. purely subjective.
as for the stones/beatles we may disagree. clearly, the stones had nowhere near the melodic sophistication of the beatles and worked a much narrower bloozrock idiom, although i always preferred mick/keith as lyricists. as for songcraft, however, i think the stones gave up nothing--beggars banquet or sticky fingers are, in their own more primal way just as crafty as sgt. pepper. again, purely subjective--they were both great
loomisjohnson
1,974 posts
 
mkl:
1. i'd very much enjoy hearing your songs if you care to share.
2. i've only recently come around to fully appreciate chuck berry. dylan, elvis costello, or other such verbal freaksofnature excluded, he's probably the world's greatest lyricist--the guy invented his own language, for chrissakes. i never worshipped his guitar playing, but his piano player is really, really, really good,
3. fully concur on the beatles guitaristics. george never sent me; the only truly transcendent guitar work on their records, "i want you, " was, as i understand it, by eric clapton. paul was, by the widest margin imaginable, the best drummer/guitarist/musician in the band, but like most lefties, wasn't a natural lead player.
4. likewise agree on the stones songcraft--they didn't, and probably didn't want to, go beyond the triedandtrue four-chord structure--they were, first and foremost, a live band, which the beatles never were. they also never had a producer as visionary as george martin (who i believe should be as revered as johnpaul). however, within the self-imposed constraints of their chosen genre, i think they're every bit as crafty as the beatles--"no expectations" isn't a lesser work than "yesterday" or "strawberry fields" just because it doesn't aspire to such melodic grandeur.
5. don't hate me just for this, but brain wilson and his many acolytes have always seemed a bit overrated to me; i appreciate the obsessiveness and frequent melodic beauty, but as a rock-and-soul guy tend to respond to it on a more intellectual than visceral level. stated another way, it doesn't rock.
6. which brings me to (brian wilson acolyte) lindsay buckingham and guit-art. he's a manic player; he knows a lot of chords and has fast hands, but at core he doesn't make me weep when he stretches out in the same way as all the solos on "bare trees" or "future games." does he rock?
as ever, i very much appreciate your thoughts and insights.
More to discover