Eee3, that statement is beyond opinion and you already know that! If not the Beatle than who? One thing is certain, there are bands that have been together and recording for over 25 years and have not come close to the Beatles in global record sales and they stopped recording in 1970. There must be a reason for that! As I said you don't have to like them, but their legacy casts the largest shadow of any performer(s) in the music industry and probably all of show business. |
Unsound...you are surely correct that the cultural impact of The Beatles was enormous in many, many ways.
OTOH, consider Chuck Berry's cultural contribution for a second. For the first time, Berry (along with a few contemporaries) brought black pop culture to white audiences on a mass basis. True, this music needed a white salesman (see Elvis per the OP), but Berry and Little Richard and a handful of peers were the primary force in this major transformation of pop culture. It's easy to forget that jump jazz was considered "jungle music" - and rock n roll was considered literally dangerous. Black cultural impact on mainstream culture was resisted at every turn.
Looking around today, I think that I'd personally argue that the original '50s rockers had the greater influence on contemporary American culture, but I'd agree it's hard to conclusively settle this question. |
Martykl, no argument here, Chuck Berry got Rock Rolling. |
Marty,
Not sure about who had greater influence but otherwise you state some additional sure irrefutable truths regarding the roots of R&R. |
How about this one:
In order to continue to thrive, R&R must continue to evolve but unfortunately it has not thrived very much since probably about the time of Nirvana.
Or have I just become too old to notice since then ( I'm of the late stage of the boomer generation)? |
Thanks, everyone, for playing along! Obviously, I know the difference between fact and opinion, but it was more fun to state my opinions as though they were fact, and see what discussion came of it. After all, who better to discuss music than audiophiles, right? |
A response to comment number 2 by mofimadness is leaving me scratching my head. He obviously doesn't realize that Jeff Buckley died tragically and his version of Hallelujah was his crowning achievement. It is widely understood that his is the definitive version of that song. Maybe he's just never heard it. That is a hard one to argue with...it's simply true. I find it odd that no one seems to care. Who cares???!!!
|
>>04-03-09: Eee3
Anybody that knows anything about Little Richard knows that "Titti Fruity and "Sweet 16 are not the only songs<<
First, it's "Tutti Frutti" not Titti Fruity and second Chuck Berry wrote/performed "Sweet Little Sixteen" not Little Richard.
So much for your extensive "research". Fool
Lastly, I forgot more about rock music/history than you will ever know. Rookie
Case closed. |
Synthfreek, I agree completely. There can be arguments made either way on all but the Jeff Buckley statement. It is the only truly irrefutable statement in the entire thread. |
In the annals of rock and roll, there are The Beatles and everybody else. As for irrefutable truths not in the OP, this qualifies. |
Eee3,
There is a phrase that you would be wise to learn:
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth, (or in this case to put fingers to keys), and remove all doubt.
Apparently you have no need of a calender, as April 1st lasts all year long for you. |
|
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."
Tongue in cheek I'm sure. Boogie Woogie is the real progenitor to rock and roll, not Robert Johnson who is strickly blues, arguably the most influential blues artist of the 20th Century. Chuck Berry, Little Richard are more closely aligned with Louis Jordan who probably made the 1st rock and roll recordings in the late 40's that could be directly linked to the phenomona that was to become R&R. Caldonia sure sounds a lot more like 50's rock and roll than "Crossroads".
R&B kind of melded into the Rock era through the British and American rock groups of the 60's that idolized Johnson, Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker and other Delta bluesman not to mention some of the Motown artists who never seem to get airplay in these discussions. Yeah, along with Sam Cooke and Otis Reading what about Marvin Gaye, or are we now back to R&B, or are they part of rock and roll? Seems like a paradox.
The 60's rockers didn't come close to the raw emotion and style demonstrated by the Masters, a rich boy's take if you will. Yeah they dusted it off and polished it up but you can't duplicate the experience of what blues originated from. Of course this is only one man's opinion but a different take from some of the comments above. I never saw a direct link between blues and early rock and roll. Where does Ray Charles fit into the equation? He is never mentioned in the R&R debate but must be considered the first mainstream R&B artist that can be directly linked to the old bluesmen in both style and content yet unique and original in his own right.
It just seems numerous elements of 20th Century music came together at a certain time and place and a new phenomena came out of the mix. R&B, Boogie Woogie, Swing all contributed to the advent of rock and roll. As much as I love R Johnson, he gets entirely too much credit. |
Audiofeil,(or should I say Audiofool because that what you talk like)what you know about this subject you could put in a thimble, much less what you could remember or forget. Everytime you open your mouth you show just how much you know.
Your smug elitist and I'm smarter than everybody else attitude continues to reinforce all the things I've said.
My point about this subject is simply this(and I'll make it simple for you Kurt tank so you can understand)
If it hadn't been for folks like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Sam Cooke, James Brown creating and shaping this genre, groups like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Elvis(I know he's not a group) and others you didn't name such as Eric clapton, Edgar and Johnny Wynter, Led Zepplin...
None of them would have been able to make the millions that they made and soar to the heights of fame that they did if the artform had not been created by those I just mentioned.
I'm not about to sit by and let anyone diminish, discount and trivialize the great contributions and accomplishments these artist made to the music history of this country and were not able to benefit from it themselves.
Millions of people fans and musicians alike benefitted immensely from the contributions of Chuck Berry, Little Richard and others. The precious Beatles (and they are great) would not even have had the opportunity to as has been been loosely stated, take it to a level bigger and better but I guess that's why they pay such homage to these rock & roll icons, because they have sense enough to know what they did for their careers!!(unlike some folks on this forum; Kurt tank is that you)
Finally, as I have given this much thought,(unlike most folks here) I had to ask myself the question: Is this really about who invented rock & roll or the heritage of who invented it?
Could it be the fact that because Chuck Berry, Little Richard and others are Black(African American) not much credit is given them as has been the history of this country when comes to the accomplishments of African Americans? or is it because white people do it so much bigger and better? mmh
Ah, but what am I talking about, racism doesn't exist in this country let alone here on the Gon.
Kurt tank did I spell everything right? |
Kurt tank, there's also a phrase that says "ignorance is bliss" and it appears to me you're very happy. |
Tube,
Interesting take and I (sort of) agree with a lot of your views (particularly re: boogie woogie), but..."I never saw a direct link between blues and early RnR"?
I'm not sure I understand. Aside from the piano blues forms that inform barrelhouse and boogie woogie itself, Chuck Berry oozes the blues guitar tradition, no? That connection might be even clearer on the early Gatemouth Brown Peacock recordings I mentioned, but it seems pretty clear (to me) on Berry's records, too. And if it's not immediately clear from Berry, listen to Gatemouth, then Berry and I can't believe it won't be clear then. Are you saying something different?
Marty
BTW, I see the structural elements of RnR in Jordan's stuff, but the instrumentation is sufficiently foreign to the RnR convention that I'd hesitate to tag it RnR music (though many others would agree with you on that one). |
Per the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame website:
"While no individual can be said to have invented rock and roll, Chuck Berry comes the closest of any single figure to being the one who put all the essential pieces together. It was his particular genius to graft country & western guitar licks onto a rhythm & blues chassis in his very first single, Maybellene. Combined with quick-witted, rapid-fire lyrics full of sly insinuations about cars and girls, Berry laid the groundwork for not only a rock and roll sound but a rock and roll stance. The song included a brief but scorching guitar solo built around his trademark double-string licks. Accompanied by long-time piano player Johnnie Johnson and members of the Chess Records house band, including Willie Dixon, Berry wrote and performed rock and roll for the ages. To this day, the cream of Berrys repertoirewhich includes Johnny B. Goode, Sweet Little Sixteen, Rock and Roll Music and Roll Over Beethovenis required listening for any serious rock fan and required learning for any serious rock musician. |
Just my opinion, but the Beatles are far from the "greatest" or "best" rock n roll band of all time. Most famous and influential? I'll give you that. But best ever? I was in the supermarket earlier this week, while "Eight Days a Week" was playing. The music didn't stand out, just the singing. And it sounded like "bubble gum music" to me - the sort of stuff 14-yr old girls scream at. Pink Floyd nukes the Beatles IMO. |
Nice work eee3
Jealousy
Rage
Ignorance
In hockey that would be a Hat Trick.
Game over Gretzky
PS
Is it Thanksgiving? I just carved another turkey. |
04-04-09: Joeylawn36111
Just my opinion, but the Beatles are far from the "greatest" or "best" rock n roll band of all time. Most famous and influential? I'll give you that. But best ever? I was in the supermarket earlier this week, while "Eight Days a Week" was playing. The music didn't stand out, just the singing. And it sounded like "bubble gum music" to me - the sort of stuff 14-yr old girls scream at. Pink Floyd nukes the Beatles IMO. Songs such as "Eight Days A Week" must be looked at in context; when they were released, what was going on musically, socially and many other factors. Many Beatles songs were ground breaking at the time, much the way Dark Side Of The Moon was groundbreaking. My 13-year-old grandson likes them both. But as far as "old" music he finds interesting, the Beatles' catalog has much more to offer. I've watched him dig through my cds. As much as I hate to admit it, Rock&Roll is primarily for teenagers. |
Good point, Timrhu. The later Beatles stuff is much better that their early music. |
If you're going to compare Pink Floyd to the Beatles, which is ludicrous to begin with, then you must compare them at similiar stages in their evolution.
For example, comparing "Eight Days a Week" to material from "Meddle" forward is really dumb. That's like equating "Arnold Layne" to material from "Abbey Road"
You don't think the Beatles are the greatest ever? That's your opinion but it goes against the grain of folks who know music, most notably the preponderance of major rock musicians and artists themselves. |
Most influentual - and 'greatest ever' from that point of view - yes, but I don't like the Beatles.
(I feel exactly the same about Mozart. Endless gushing about how great the Beatles and Mozart are in their genres when I dislike both makes the dislike stronger.)
My quip about the Beatles near the beginning of this thread was mainly a joke - in similar vein to "Which Bond: Connery or Moore".... |
Three Dog Night. Top 40 hit machines. Rock or pop? Does it matter?
Great recordings of some great songs by some legendary writers. Why do their CDs sound so good these days when I seem to recall most of their records sounded crappy back in their day? |
Hmm, I never considered singing "Comfortably Numb" or "Echoes" to my kids instead of "Hello Goodbye" " All You Need Is Love" or even "Bad Boy" when they were little...... |
Yeah, "One of These Days" would Not be a good song to sing to kids.... |
"One of these days
I'm going to cut you into little pieces"
Definitely not! |
OTOH, "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" is only marginally better for the little ones. |
Marty,
True, but don't think it is ever said what it is exactly that is being proposed to be done in the middle of the road. You can fill in the blanks based on inference.
That's evidence of a great songwriting. Even in the case of an apparent throwaway like WDWDIITR, it still can mean many different things to different folks. Granted for most, we can infer exactly what is most likely meant. Just another aspect of what made teh Beatles great.
"Come Together" is another Beatles tune I would not sing to children. But there are literally dozens and dozens of Beatles tunes that you can. |
Map,
No judgement of any sort was being inferred, I was merely amused by the thought of WDWDIITR as a lullaby.
Marty
BTW, I believe that the "it", in "do it" is usually well understood to mean "it" (yes, that "it"). |
Do "it" in the road?
Not Cousin It, I hope. Shudder! |
"Come Together" is another Beatles tune I would not sing to children. But there are literally dozens and dozens of Beatles tunes that you can.
I don't have kids, but it may not be such a bad idea, as the lyrics to that song are so silly that they may just get a good giggle out of it LOL.... |
How can the Beatles be so good (I'm not a big Beatles fan, but think they are/were good) and Paul McCartney (as a solo act) be so bad? |
"How can the Beatles be so good (I'm not a big Beatles fan, but think they are/were good) and Paul McCartney (as a solo act) be so bad?"
I hear Paul still puts on a good live show!
Even in their prime, no solo Beatle could be equated with the Beatles as a group. That was a unique synergy that could be emulated but never equaled consistently.
However good or bad McCartney is/was as a solo act really has no relevance to what the Beatles were.
There are a few McCartney albums that are worth mention that can claim some level of artistry approaching that of the Beatles albums. "Ram", "Band On the Run", "London Town" and "Tug Of War" are the ones I would cite personally though opinions will vary widely regarding the merit of much of McCartney's solo stuff.
Can't comment on most of his recent albums though...haven't heard much of them. |
In the Beatles case, the whole is better than the sum of the parts. |
"In the Beatles case, the whole is better than the sum of the parts."
Kinda like the epitome of music and audio itself. |
Fred evidently has missed the recent revisionist view of Macca's solo work. Lots of young, hip indie rockers seem to cite "Ram" as their touchstone. FWIW.
BTW, I liked the answer to this question that was provided some decades back by a rock critic (whose name I long ago forgot):
"John without Paul is sour, Paul without John is saccharine."
Marty |
FWIW there is an all McCartney internet radio station called Maccaradio. Check it out and decide for yourself for free regarding Paul. |
"Rock and Roll" was coined by the late Alan Freed.Freed was a radio disc jockey whom came to NYC from Cleveland in the early 1950's.He used the term Rock and Roll for the upbeat music he spun by artists like Chuck Berry,Bo Diddley,Little Richard Laverne Baker.The slower group harmony sound was called Rhythm and Blues later to be known as Do-wop ie The Harptones,Clovers,5 Keys,Moonglows.It was the first time youth had its own music and not that of its elders.Naturally it was looked upon as being rebellious and a Communist threat. |
"Naturally it was looked upon as being rebellious and a Communist threat.'
It was/is rebellious.
Surely is/was considered a threat to some.
Communist threats are passe though. We've discovered others to take that place. |
Rock And Roll rebellious,well maybe slightly.Nothing compared to the late 1960's.I think the 50's was a naive innocent time and the music spoke to that.The joy of being in love and the heartbreak of being dumped.But as was written in the past "It's All Rock And Roll To Me" |
That new Mac and Youth collaboration is quite good and is the first Mac album I purchased new since Wings Wild Life came out many years ago. |
Just read one of the best quotes about a Rock band (in this case Motörhead):
"Lemmy's(lead singer) stated aim was for the outfit to be "the dirtiest rock n' roll band in the world" and that "if Motörhead moved in next to you, your lawn would die."
LOL |
|
Wow. I always had a hypothesis that any discussion/debate focused on rock and roll would eventually become a discussion about the Beatles.
On a completely different note, someone in the "real" world suggested I had forgotten the following truth:
10) Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone" is the greatest song ever written.
Hmmmmmmm . . . . . .
Thoughts? |
"Like A Rolling Stone" the greatest ROCK song ever?
Personally, I'd be inclined to place it second to "Johnny B Goode".
Note: For me, this one is Chuck Berry vs Dylan, no Beatles involved (until someone - Audiofiel? - involves them).
Second Note: Please, no "Stairway". I get enough of that on the July 4th countdown radio shows.
Marty |
Marty. It's obvious. 'Freebird' is the greatest rock song ever.
(just kidding) |
Seriously though, this whole thing about the Beatles vs anyone else is amusing and boring at the same time. They simply cannot be taken out of the context in which they came from. There was a lot of great music by many great bands during that era. They all fed off of and thrived off of eachother.
I cannot dispute that more people seem to relate to and love the Beatles than most other bands. Same with the Stones, I guess. For me personally, both of them are enormously boring. I find the material from the Yardbirds, The Kinks and The Who far more interesting, raw and engaging.
Then again, my favorite music was born with 'In the Court of the Crimson King', and then 'Black Sabbath' (bastard children both). So what do I know?
I do know that rock is alive and well. Always has been. There is so much good and interesting music out there, from the 50's to today, that it seems a shame to limit it to one particulat sub-genre, let alone one or two bands. |
There is lots of good music always out there.
Irrefutable truths require factual data to back them up though, otherwise they are just opinions, to which all are entitled. There can only be one "best" of anything.
Best song? I won't even attempt to go there.
In the "best rock and roll song that most people never heard of" category, I like "Some People" by Savoy Brown off the classic album "Jack The Toad". |
Just read how Alan Freed indirectly influnenced the Beatles. He recorded a series of shows that had Little Richard and Chuck Berry for broadcast overseas on Radio Luxembourg, which could'nt be heard well in London, but came in really good in Liverpool. |
