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.
Some prefer Ludes over Reds. Some feel that they are the best to ever come down the pike. Then again, they weren't any better than any of the others! To each his/her own ...
1. No, it was the Beatles. 2. Who cares. 3. Agreed 4. Don't agree 5. Don't agree 6. I like John Mayer 7. Agreed 8. Agreed, but only if played by capable people. 9. Agreed...Duran Duran, a band so nice, they named it twice.
Hmm number 5, hmmm...gee I don't know about that... Are You Experienced, Led Zeppelin, Boy, Outlandos d'Amour, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, The Clash, Black Sabbath, Kill'Em All, Rush, Bleach, Please Please Me, Van Halen, Creedence Clearwater Revival...
In that company, yeah, Stone Roses is great but not necessarily the "best" debut rock album ever. By the way I must disqualify myself simply because I detest the word "best" and our culture's obsession with it.
Love the list - especially the point about too loud / old. I already imagine a day when I'm decapacitated in most ways, but can still hit the volume button on the remote and want to crank up the Joe Satriani of 2049 when I'm in my 80's and annoy the hell out of everybody else at the home.
The Beatles are sorely 'underated', especially by those who have little appreciation of they're context in history. The Beatles will continue to touch people because they spoke fearlessly, and were the centre of a cultural phenomenon.
1) Chuck Berry invented Rock and Roll with that one guitar riff that starts Johnny B. Good 2)May very well be true, cannot comment but I did enjoy "Dead skunk in the middle of the road". 3)Aerosmith 4)True 5)Debatable, I have not yet heard this album but I'm inclined to believe that "history of ever" might be an overstatement. 6)Word. 7)Very True. 8)Even Better. 9)True. Nicely Done.
I'd insert "odd opinions" for "irrefutable truths".
Not necessarily "wrongheaded", just odd.
Marty
PS Johnson played the blues. He clearly inspired many of the early rockers who followed. Who was really first? Many say Louis Jordan's big band. I'd call that a stretch. The earliest recording that I'd call rock n roll would be Gatemouth Brown's Peacock recordings from 1951-1955 (ish). Just my take.
The 'irrefutable truth' is that everything associated with Rock and Roll is over rated. Classical music may not be everyone's 'cup of tea', but compared to Rock and Roll it's in a different stratosphere. The master composers had more creativity and excellence to share on a bad day then the best R&R artists have in a lifetime. A good thread for AudioGon might be 'where is the line drawn between music and noise?'. I have to admit that sometimes I like to hear noise from my 'reference system'. I just hope I have the courage to admit to what it really is!!
I understand your point, but that's a pretty narrow view of art (and life). Rock is a minimalist art form and, as such, it's easy to dismiss as simplistic. Particularly when you compare it to the structural complexity of most (Western) classical music. However, simplicity often has its own power.
I'm not gonna argue that Chuck Berry achieved more than Mozart. Merely that -IMHO-it's kind of misguided to compare the two. Some may regard Joel Robluchon or Thomas Keller (or fill in the blank) as the greatest chef in the world. There's no arguing the creativity and mastery of technique that these guys posess, but that doesn't diminish the appeal of a perfect pizza.
Okay...I have been holding off for a long time. This does not apply solely to this thread – it’s all over the place here…..THEN is THEN and THAN is THAN. Use the terms correctly! Sorry….sorry…I just couldn’t bear it any longer….no offense really. Good grammar is important (okay, now go look through my posts so you can point out my bad grammar and call me a hypocrite). It’s just that the then and than thing is really annoying!!!!!
I basically agree with you Martykl. It's just that when 'rock stars' get idolized and Joshua Bell can play for a full hour in a New York Subway (yes, this really did happen) and hardly get noticed; there's something wrong with this picture. Garbage in...garbage out. Fill our world with noise and we can't even recognize a true genious when he's standing right in front of us!!
I'm with Audiofeil. As much as I've tried to convince myself otherwise over the years, no other rock and roll act is/was in the same league as the Beatles.
It's sad but true.
Maybe rock and roll has finally truly died. Maybe still it will be resurrected someday soon.
Or maybe I'm just an old geezer now and rock and roll as it was is less relevant nowadays and something new, different and more relevant is on the horizon?
Rock and roll was not invented. It evolved from its roots of rythem and blues, gospel, jazz country etc. The term was invented by Allan Freed with the greatest influence being the appearance of the electric guitar. The other "truths" are just opinions.
Madhf is exactly right! In fact, it seems like we dropped the "roll" a long time ago and it is usually referred to as just "Rock". BTW, I listen to classical music as well, but some of these classicalphiles sound like my grandparents!
I see that they're some very misinformed folks here. I suspect that most folks who believe the Beatles invented rock & roll were born after 1965. The truth is the Beatles would have starved to death if it hadn't been for Little Richard. Chuck Berry and Little Richard, were playing rock & roll in the middle to late 1950's before the Beatles were old enough to even go to clubs to see them.
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.
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!
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.
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!!
>>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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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
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!!!!!
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.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
