Do "it" in the road?
Not Cousin It, I hope. Shudder! |
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"). |
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. |
OTOH, "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" is only marginally better for the little ones. |
"One of these days
I'm going to cut you into little pieces"
Definitely not! |
Yeah, "One of These Days" would Not be a good song to sing to kids.... |
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...... |
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? |
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".... |
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. |
Good point, Timrhu. The later Beatles stuff is much better that their early music. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 Berry’s repertoire—which includes “Johnny B. Goode,” “Sweet Little Sixteen,” “Rock and Roll Music” and “Roll Over Beethoven”—is required listening for any serious rock fan and required learning for any serious rock musician. |
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). |
Kurt tank, there's also a phrase that says "ignorance is bliss" and it appears to me you're very happy. |
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? |
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. |
|
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. |
In the annals of rock and roll, there are The Beatles and everybody else. As for irrefutable truths not in the OP, this qualifies. |
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. |
>>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. |
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???!!!
|
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? |
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)? |
Marty,
Not sure about who had greater influence but otherwise you state some additional sure irrefutable truths regarding the roots of R&R. |
Martykl, no argument here, Chuck Berry got Rock Rolling. |
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. |
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. |
irrefutable truth - Little Richard was an early r&r innovator and widely acknowledged as a major influence to a lot of other influential artists. |
The Beatles are a remarkable influence in culture. They transcended genres with a positive progession of music both artisticaly and technologicaly with out sacrafising the roots, they extracted and expanded different cultures with out sacrafising the origins, they matured with their audience, both directing and reflecting an era, they challanged the standard business practices of using art for money to using money for art, and perhaps more importantly in our ever increasing pace of change, have stayed relevant. |
|
The yardstick that others are measured by, says who?
Again that's an opinion. |
Excellent response Marty, I see that you have some knowledge an understanding about the genre.
The problem here is that as usual, folks have gotten away from what the original post stated which was who invented or created rock & roll? not who was the greatest rock & roll group(Audiofeil)
Nobody's not saying that the Beatles aren't and weren't one of the greatest groups in the history of the genre but they didn't invent it!!!!! |
Drivel Audiofeil? that's your opinion just like everything else you say and talk about, you are not the resident expert on rock roll! and you don't decide when "nuff is said"
Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. I stand by what I said, I've already done the research so I don't need to take my own advice that's why I make the statements that I make. You however obviously haven't as is witnessed by the statements you make!
Anybody that knows anything about Little Richard knows that "Titti Fruity and "Sweet 16 are not the only songs he made and is famous for but again that's what limited knowledge does for you. (I digress.)
Maybe one day when you and others increase your knowledge about the subject, then we can have an intellegent discussion but right now obviously you're working at a deficit.
Nhff Said |
The Beatles vs Chuck Berry?
It's a variation on my comment to Brauser on classical music vs rock music. These are apples and oranges. Or, in this case, maybe apples and pears.
As noted by Ee3, The Beatles themselves often contended that the highest point of Rock n Roll came from Chuck Berry. Berry's achievement was minimalist, primativist art. When The Beatles added their craftsmanship, mastery of melody and harmony, and expanded the structure and vocabulary (remember the sitar?) of Berry's music, they created something different; more varied, more nuanced, and much more universally admired. OTOH, it's also fair to observe that, for the purist, they merely diluted the original.
Some prefer The Stones precisely because they never strayed as far from the "pure" RnR ethos as did The Beatles. When they expanded their vocabulary, they tended to look more towards Country and Funk - other tributaries in the minimalist musical stream. I always figured that this was the basis of The Stones vs. The Beatles debate through the last 40 years or so. At heart, it's the same argument.
It's also worth mentioning that Berry, Little Richard, et al. had their own antecedants. Louis Jordan and Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown were working the blues side before Berry and there was a rockin' Gospel movement prior to Little Richard. So maybe some of the credit should stretch back further in time.
You might also want to consider Brian Wilson's (acknowledged) contribution to the evolution of rock music. He, too, brought the same innovative approach to structure, harmony and vocabulary (remember the theremin?) that The Beatles provided. Even though his body of work can't IMHO touch that of The Beatles, he should get credit for much of the musical innovation that forms the basis for a lot of Beatle worship.
In short, the evolution of rock music had a number of touchstone artists. Berry, Little Richard, Brian Wilson and The Beatles (and surely some others) all qualify. I just think people tend to rank them according to their own priorities, rather than on the priorities of the respective musicians who created the music. The Beatles had a firm grasp of that principle when they lavished praise on Berry, et al.
Marty |
"The Beatles have become the yardstick that others are measured by. IMHO, "
No doubt.
Over the years, as I listen to all kinds of new, old and different music, and then re-visit those Beatles songs that still resonate all these years after the fact, I realize just how true this statement is.
In Western Societies at least, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Ellington, Beatles.....these are the cream of the crop as determined by quantity and quality of output plus popular longevity compared to their peers. |
No matter how you feel about them, The Beatles have become the yardstick that others are measured by. IMHO, they were and still are head and shoulders above everyone that preceded and succeeded them. Their influence transcended far beyond the music alone. Keep in mind, the Beatles stopped touring after about 3 years, which probably would have been suicide for most artists. |
Eee3 "Also, just to let you know Chuck Berry at the age of 80+ when he performs in London still sells the place out and Tina Turner as well. In fact anywhere they perform in Europe
they sell the place out!!"
If the four Beatles were still with us and put together a reunion tour, would there be any empty seats? |
>>04-02-09: Eee3
All the guys you named including the Beatles and especially the Beatles will tell you that they worshipped the ground Little Richard, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Sam Cooke... walked on.<<
Nobody's denying that as most artists have mentors. However, there is more to rock and roll than Tutti Frutti, Sweet Little Sixteen, and It's a Man's World.
In that regard the Beatles took rock music to levels far beyond their predecessors and actually beat the masters at their own game. Often the originals are NOT the best; such is the case here.
You should take your own advice and research the genre before spouting all that drivel.
Nuff said. |
Chuck berry played the '100 club' located on Oxford Street in 2008?, perhaps aptly named because it barely holds 100 people. |
Kurk tank it would do you good(and a few others) to read and research the history of rock & roll in this country. You might find out just how misinformed you are.
All the guys you named including the Beatles and especially the Beatles will tell you that they worshipped the ground Little Richard, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Sam Cooke... walked on. That's all they listened to growing up.
The first thing they did when they got to this country was look these guys up, so they could meet them and play with them and learn how they played, so they could follow in their footsteps and be like them.(again imitation is the highest form of flattery!)
You could not get one of the Beatles living nor any of the other groups you named to agree to what you said. They would call you crazy. They idolized these guys and have said that they could never be as good as them.
Read some of their biographies and other related material.
Then give me your two cents worth.
Also, just to let you know Chuck Berry at the age of 80+ when he performs in London still sells the place out and Tina Turner as well. In fact anywhere they perform in Europe
they sell the place out!! |
Lovely that there is still nostalgia here, alive, kicking and being discussed, when undeniably the best producers of rock music, that being the UK has indeed moved on musically with the times.
No one talks about the Beetles back in blighty.
Real back to the future stuff on here. |
the only rock n roll truth....'what a drag it is, getting old'-jagger/richards |
Eee3,
Bill (Audiofeil) is not the only one that feels that The Beatles were better than anyone, before or since, as you can count me in that same category! And The Beatles were WAY better than the ones who you say created it. (I like Chuck Berry, but no way is he in the Beatles category, and Little Richard isn't even that close.)
The only ones, IMHO, who give the Beatles a run for their money are Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin, and on a good day, maybe The Stones, back in their hey day of course!
My two cents worth anyway. |
Audiofeil,if you read mofimadness's response, that is exactly what he said! and as far as them doing it better, you're right that is your opinion and you're about one of the only folks I've heard ever say that the Beatles have done rock & roll better than the guys that created it!
I have heard however, that imitation is the highest form of flattery. |
I don't recall anybody saying the Beatles "invented" rock and roll.
They just do it better than anybody before or after them.
IMO |
The only requirement for a "hardcore metal" band is to have a lead singer that sounds like Cookie Monster. |
