Some irrefutable truths about rock and roll
Timeless Troubadours I've read this. Written by a respected and reputable author in his field apparently, not a music critic or media guy. Definitely a lot in there to dispute the notion that all rock music is bad. |
GEof/Judy/Tort, Schubert stands firm in his beliefs about right and wrong, which I admire. He is critiquing the music and how he perceives it as affecting people in a way that is negative or harmful to people. There is no doubt it has in many cases, though not all. So I agree with his stand based on principles. Maybe you've been listening to too much evil rock music? I find your posts callous and condescending and actually might even help substantiate Schubert's point. A little more spiritually uplidting music might do you some good. |
I highly recommend Nick Tosche's "Hellfire," about Jerry Lee Lewis at his peak. Lewis was raised in that fire and brimstone deep southern version of religion, and Tosche's writing alternates between dark, mock biblical passages and the sheer exuberance of Lewis' stagecraft (and lunatic offstage antics). This book captures the good v. evil theme of rock and roll in a way peculiar to its time and place; to me, the so-called 'dark side' of much later acts like Black Sabbath and Alice Cooper were more schtick than reality (much as I love certain of those albums). I would feel a real loss without some of the music that grew out of the early rock and roll era, including late 60's- early 70's psychedlia. Just to name one album that has been a constant for me since it was released: Spirit's 'Dr. Sardonicus.' Or the soaring jazz inflected drive of the Allman's when Duane was still living. I won't judge Schubert- his tastes and views are his own. I doubt it has much to do with age. Look at some of the music greats: Chris Blackwell, who brought us so much on Island in the early days, now in his late 70's; the late Phil Ramone, whose discography of production and engineering spanned many generations of great music making; Clive Davis, Ahmet Ergtegun, Mo Ostin and so many others of a 'certain age' who were (and still are) making great music possible. |
Schubert makes many clear and articulate points on many threads and they are generally respected and well received. Making ignorant and blanket "right and wrong" statements about a genre of music so varied, pervasive, and intertwined with nearly every aspect of global culture will diminish his otherwise valid and welcome observations on audio. As for callous responses from me and some others...well...act like a troll, get piled on. |
I don't see rock musicians as all that different in basic makeup from the great classical composers, or most people in general. Many had their "demons" and music helped to "exorcise" them. Different times, different places, different experiences is most of the difference, case to case. Some are able to overcome their demons and adversity better than others. All, in different ways. In the end, its a balancing act. I am grateful for the fairly stable upbringing and life I have had and that I have not had to experience the evils to the extent perhaps that some like Shubert have, like the evils of war and battle directly. That I am sure of. My musical tastes would be different I am certain under different circumstances. I understand completely how ones choice in music can help provide balance in life. I only wish more were in a better position to be able to absorb many of the negative or destructive things society throws our way without harm. It goes way beyond merely rock or music alone, that's for sure. |
The thing about rock about is that it's designed to make you look inward, navel-gaze if you will, old men do not warn of it because they wish to be young again, that is a terrifying thought to anyone with any wisdom at all, but because they fear for you, knowing that to look inward is the worst possible road in life. |
I think Schubert hits a nerve with many with his assessment of rock music. Ironically, these days, rock is mostly dead and other forms of pop music and culture in general continue to push the limits of what is acceptable to publish or not. My view is the only way to know about what really goes on in the world is to remove barriers and let what was buried prior be seen. Where are the limits though? Anyone can say or publish most anything on the internet these days, like in this forum and these things remain on record for others to read, use or ignore as they please. There is a downside to everything I suppose. That seems to be the way things work. Rock music is no exception. Now, off to listen to some super raunchy Led Zeppelin..... |
The only quibble I have with Schubert's assessment (apart from the fact that I like early R & R and what followed from it) is S's observation, on the one hand, that R& R is visceral, not intellectual ('hits you in the crotch' to paraphrase him) and on the other, that it invites introspection and navel gazing, which seem to be contradictory. I think the genre comprehends both- from the rowdy hillbilly-turned-'race' music of Sun Studios through the heavy, searing or distorted guitar-centric stuff of the late 60's (extroverted) to the singer-songwriter material of psych-folk, country rock and 'pop' music that focused on a narrative (navel-gazing). I'm good with all of it. |
The problem with telling anyone not to do something (or listen to something) that they might not seem as potentially harmful, is that the end result is most likely that they will, and perhaps not even realize the harm. Especially kids. My approach has been to call a spade a spade so that my kids know how to recognize it all for what it is. THen they are in a good position to act accordingly. THat is the approach that seems to work for me. So calling rock or pop music bad or evil at its core does not bother me in that there is some truth to it. Despite perhaps knowing that there is more to it than just that, listening to it will do nothing for some, like Schubert, whose interests and likes reside elsewhere. Personally, "I know its only rock and roll....but I like it!" |
I don't want to put words into his mouth, but my take from following Schubert's posts over the years is that he simply doesn't have room in his life for for vulgar art. That's not limited to rock music, by the way, IIRC he's no fan of Stravinsky, either. Schubert seems to prefer noble art both aesthetically and for its value statement to society (and possibly the behavioral effects it may inspire, as well). Rock music (well, most good rock music, anyway) is IMHO vulgar by design. Most of the rock musicians that I admire would likely embrace that description. I find value in art that explores (okay, maybe celebrates) the vulgar (animal) side of human nature, while Schubert seems to reject it. If I've gotten it right, I'd say that I don't agree with his viewpoint, but I understand it completely. |
One side note: there is such a thing as noble rock music. I'll cite The Moody Blues example from above again as an example. A lot of Yes as well. Progressive rock is probably the category of rock that one is most likely to find noble works. Symphonic rock, the subarea of prog rock that demonstrates the greatest influence from classical music, perhaps the most along the lines of pure classical music. |
The album "Fear Of a Blamk Planet" is an interesting case study for the potential merits of rock music. This is a very dark though not vulgar theme album with the noble goal of bringing out some of the issues that face youths these days. The music is fabulous, the theme and lyrical content haunting. I view the artist's intent with this work as one of the most noble I can think of in recent rock music. |
Actually Schubert, my moniker is Shubertmaniac [ unfortunately when I signed in I misspelled; should have had the "c" and you forgot the "c" at the end, which makes a world of difference] Actually, I wish I was 18 years old again. I did get my car....1968 Dodge Charger R/T [ rip roaring good time with it, and the back seat was put to good use as well!] But when I could no longer feel my youthful suburban middle class pain of alienation, I lost interest in rock music. Not totally, but the passion was gone. I trudged off to college and found classical music. Now I never look back to rock music as an aesthetic experience, but a trip down memory lane as fun and loads of good times. It is nothing more.....but then again nothing less.......and rock as good and/or evil???? As Mick put so succinctly....."it's only rock and roll". Ah yes...one more thought....how many of you danced to rock? And how many times did a cover band play "brown sugar" a night in 1971 at the Stone Balloon in Newark, DE or Tony Mart's in Somers Point, NJ; at least once a set....had to get the people moving.....what's the point.....by 1975-76, if your band was not playing funk or party music...you were not going to get a gig. |
Yeah, well tell me which current rock band or former one for that matter, that has put out rock records that compare to Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, Let it Bleed, Exile on Main Street and Some Girls? 5 in a row that most rock bands would give their left nut to have created even one as good. Granted they haven't put out a great record for quite a while but I don't think they have too much to prove anymore. History has already decided this fact, so your opinion doesn't really change it. |
Ah,,,,,,,,,,agree with Wildoats......."THE" greatest rock and roll band, the greatest garage band, absolutely, the Rolling Stones....... Only Link Wray and the Yardbirds trail the Rolling Stones for 60s American Rock inspiration. I have over 10,000 45 rpms from the 1960s. Of course, Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley influenced them, Which in turn where influenced by Muddy Waters, which in turn were influenced by Robert Johnson.....which was influenced by the work songs of the South....along with Steven Foster.... let us not forget Stephen......and let's not forget the greatest garage band song of all time, the Keggs.....;-)) |
Ah....let me digress a little......I saw the Rolling Stones in 1965 1966 1968 and 1971. Of the 4 1971 was the best. The 1968 concert was OK, but Mick Taylor was just getting into the groove.....I mean......is there a greater song then Gimme Shelter in 1971 with Mick Taylor on lead......???? An anthem like no other???? |
The Stones are a purist's choice, for sure. I admire them more with each passing year. However, the form has become so broad over the years that "greatest" labels have really become meaningless. What The Beatles were trying to do is only marginally related to what The Stones were trying to do, so - for me - a comparison is pointless. It will come down to semantics (What is really Rock n Roll?) and, as mentioned above, the purists probably come down on The Stones side of the fence while those with a broader definition might choose The Beatles, et al. Reasonable mainstream cases can also be made for guys as diverse as Dylan, Jimi, and Zappa. Reasonable esoteric cases can be made for hundreds of other artists. Maniac, I would point out that there's quite a stylistic leap from Muddy Waters to Chuck Berry in your lineage. I might insert Louis Jordan in there and I suspect that Gatemouth Brown was also an influence on Berry. But your point is taken...it's a long and winding road to any of these artists. |
Shubertmaniac, old folks who were interviewed in the 60's or so said that Robert Johnson borrowed much of his material from predecessors (some, such as Blind Lemon Jefferson, were recording in the "teens"). As great as he was, I think too much is made of what he actually contributed. You should consider hearing the Stones once with Ron Wood, then you'll have the complete set. I haven't seen them live in over 30 years, but judging from the Scorsese film they're still alive and well. |
You do know about Ron Wood, no Mick Taylor. Basically they wanted someone who would more or less conform to the basic tenets of the Rolling Stones. No more guitar riffing like Mick. In fact from what I understand, Ron's contract states how much face time he has in a video or movie. How much time he gets to show off his guitar licks in a show, etc etc. They no longer wanted a free form guitarist like Mick Taylor. Though Keith as much said, " he was the best". I have a bootleg copy of Gimme Shelter from 1971-72, unbelieve-able, Mick free wheeling with Keith trying to match him......sort of did..... |
Again, from my other posts.....Rock and Roll is purely a mode of self identification, at least for me. Case in point loved the Beach Boys, saw them 1964 at U of Del campus. Could not wait to hear Shut Down 409 Little Deuce Coupe I Get A Around, loved it. It was all about me identifying with what I wanted in life at 14. Fast Cars and Surfing. After 1965, I could not identify with them anymore. I do not care for Sloop John B or Wendy, or Brian's latest, Smile, could not relate at all.....but Under My Thumb, Last Time.....well..... being 16..... |
