HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » The DU Lounge (Forum) » 'How the Beatles Destroye...

Fri Oct 27, 2017, 11:57 PM

'How the Beatles Destroyed Rock-n-roll' Has anyone read this book?

It poses some interesting ideas chiefly that rock-n-roll started out with black and white performers and black and white fans but separated around the time of Sgt Peppers into white rock music and black soul music.

The book states that rock-n-roll was dance music that emphasized rhythm and that the Beatles started out in this tradition, But that changed in 1966 when the Beatles stopped touring and concentrated on recording in the studio. Sgt Pepper, the book argues, is good music but not rock-n-roll since it is not dance music and has little to no connection to rock-n-roll's black roots. James Brown started out as a rock-n-roller but was reclassified as soul as a reaction to these changes. Since that time, there haven't been very many black rock performers or fans and a white artist could have soul but still won't fit in that category. Essentially, the book states that the Beatles resegregated popular music. Billboard had dropped the separate pop and r&b categories in 1962 because they were nearly identical but brought them back by 1967 because black people were listening to soul music and whites to rock.

The author does not portray the Beatles as doing anything wrong or lacking talent and they don't really get mention until the last chapter. Most of the book details the history of American popular music before the Beatles and the cross-pollenization between black and white musicians that happened.

I look forward to reading this book in it's entirety because it's a refreshing change from the normal rock music group-think mentality of the Rolling Stone Magazine types.





42 replies, 2853 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply 'How the Beatles Destroyed Rock-n-roll' Has anyone read this book? (Original post)
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 OP
DonaldsRump Oct 2017 #1
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #2
unblock Oct 2017 #4
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #5
unblock Oct 2017 #10
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #16
DonaldsRump Oct 2017 #6
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #8
DonaldsRump Oct 2017 #11
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #17
malthaussen Oct 2017 #19
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #23
malthaussen Oct 2017 #24
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #38
LWolf Oct 2017 #33
unblock Oct 2017 #3
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #7
brush Oct 2017 #9
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #13
Cartoonist Oct 2017 #12
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #14
brush Oct 2017 #15
whathehell Oct 2017 #29
Still Blue in PDX Oct 2017 #34
wasupaloopa Oct 2017 #18
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #21
caraher Oct 2017 #20
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #22
malthaussen Oct 2017 #25
Chasstev365 Oct 2017 #26
DBoon Oct 2017 #27
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #39
rzemanfl Oct 2017 #28
Zen Democrat Oct 2017 #30
sofa king Oct 2017 #31
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #41
Mike Nelson Oct 2017 #32
maxrandb Oct 2017 #35
WinkyDink Oct 2017 #36
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #40
WinkyDink Oct 2017 #42
Wolf Frankula Oct 2017 #37

Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 12:07 AM

1. Nuts!

Just listen to the post-1967 stuff like the White Album, Get Back, or the One after 909 to understand how the Beatles were supremely premiere rock 'n rollers.

I have no doubt that the people who were inspired by the Beatles did their own stuff that might have been weak (because they were not the Beatles), but to say the Beatles destroyed rock 'n roll is positively insane.

They are the quintessential rock band. They are the quintessential ballad band. They are the quintessential pop band.

Etc. Etc. F'///'ing Etc.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonaldsRump (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 12:20 AM

2. 'Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Who, none of us could do as good as 'Whole Lotta Shakin Goin On' so we

decided to do something different.' John Lennon

The author does not argue that the Beatles were bad, just that they weren't rock-n-roll. Beatles started out as a rock-n-roll band playing Chuck Berry and Carl Perkins songs but by the end of their run they were recording rock music meant to be listened to instead of rock-n-roll meant for dancing.

Black people were an essential part of rock-n-roll as performers and fans but they did not transfer over to rock music with the beatles and white performers and fans.

NOBODY said they weren't talented. Beatles ceasing touring in 66-67 marks the transformation from rock-n-roll meant for dancing to rock music meant to be art and split rock-n-roll into white rock music and black soul music.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 12:32 AM

4. Except that many, many white artists continued to make dance music

It's not as if all white artists instantly cranked out pepper's imitations and stopped rocking or performing or makes no dance music.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 12:33 AM

5. True but disco is not rock-n-roll either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 12:59 AM

10. I wasn't talking about disco, I consider that a brief blip, but then again

Disco had plenty of both black and white performers. Donna summer, Barry white, kool and the gang, the o'jays, etc. all black. And of course The Bee Gees were white. I'm not sure what the point is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #10)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 02:11 AM

16. There was a pretty long break between Joey Dee and acts like KC and the Sunshine Band or disco era

Bee Gees. What white acts were playing dance music in the late 60s? There was a lot of psychedelic music, hard rock, folk rock but not much dance rock.

Remember the Beatles were the most influential so naturally they led the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 12:35 AM

6. My point is that the Beatles were EVERYTHING....

Rock n' roll, rock, hard rock, love songs, folk songs, ballad, pop etc. It is insane to think they were not rockers from the start. They were just so much more than that.

As Rolling Stone said, they were the "perfect" rock band. This isn't/shouldn't be a black v white thing....they were fab, James Brown was fab, Chuck Berry was fab, Elmore James was fab etc - they were all great.

The Beatles, however, were the greatest, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonaldsRump (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 12:52 AM

8. They were rock-n-rollers from the start, even sporting leather jackets and pomps!

But at some point rock-n-roll became rock music. The Beatles made that change. Nobody said they weren't great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 01:08 AM

11. Maybe for those who emulated the Beatles, they were limited to just rock

But the Beatles were rockers, rock n' rollers, balladeers, hard rockers etc. And they did this most especially after Sgt. Pepper's.

Indeed, the whole point of the 1969 "Get Back" sessions that led to the 1970 album Let It Be was to "get back" to their rock 'n roll roots and get rid of all the studio enhancements. Watch the Beatles last live "concert" on the roof of Apple Records on 3 Savile Row in London doing "The One After 909". This is pure rock n' roll and it is an exceptional live performance.

Why they were so great was that they could excel at all music, and rock n' roll was just one of the genre that they excelled at. That's what separates them from pretty much anyone else.

I guess we are kinda' saying the same thing in that we both agree that the Beatles were far more than just rock n' roll. However, to be very clear, the Beatles were always 100% forthright that they were part of a natural progression of music and that they borrowed from all sorts of music, including, but not limited to, rock n' roll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonaldsRump (Reply #11)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 02:20 AM

17. Let it Be is a pretty good album but I can't dance to it like I can the 50s and early 60s stuff.

I consider it rock music just like most everything Sgt Pep and after. Maybe they wandered back into the genre a time or two but for the most part they abandoned rock-n-roll in favor of creating new art. I don't care for them instead preferring black music and whites playing black music (even early Beatles!). IMO and in the opinion of the author the Beatles drifted a good distance away from that influence. I have no problem with everyone thinking they were the greatest and most influential etc. Numbers and trends do indeed back that up. My taste is different and I'm glad for that because if everyone was exactly the same it'd be a really boring world!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonaldsRump (Reply #11)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 10:39 AM

19. I'd point out that "909" was written in '62 or '63...

... it was part of the Beatles repertoire for years. They just didn't record it until '69.

If the point of the "Get Back" sessions was to get back to their roots, then it must follow that they themselves thought they had strayed from them. Or some of them, anyway -- the whole point of the breakup was that the group had different ideas on how to shape their music.

Saying that the Beatles broke rock and roll, though, may give them more agency than they deserve. It seems that the branching of pop music into rock and rock 'n roll camps proceeded concurrently with their development, but correlation is not causality. The fact that the Beatles had so much success moving into harder rock from the "Please Please Me" sort of tune may have (probably did have) a big impact on imitators who came later, though.

It's interesting to me that so many who claim to be Beatle fans almost always claim to prefer "late Beatles" to early Beatles, as if the original Rock and Roll material that the group wrote and performed were some kind of embarrassment. Given that they earned their early success based on the merit of those early embarrassments, it seems a bit disingenuous, to me. Without "She Loves You," we're never going to get to "I am the Walrus."

I think the social conditions of the '60s had a lot more to do with the segregation of pop into "black" and "white" genres than the appearance of the Beatles on the scene. And anyway, R&B also become harder and lest "dancy" in the latter part of the decade than it was when Chuck Berry was cranking out the same tune every six months.

I think if you look at music history from the beginning of recorded music until many decades later (classical music excepted), you can see a cycle of dance tunes giving way to more "serious" musician's music as a new generation begins to take itself more seriously than an earlier. Swing gives way to bop, rock and roll gives way to harder rock and then swings back to Disco, which while not rock, is definitely dance-oriented, rather than oriented towards virtuosity. The Beatles were able to straddle both trends, and so were a few other acts (hell, the Bee Gees were balladeers before they started doing dance music).

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #19)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 03:18 PM

23. You make some great points malthaussen.

The hot jazz of the 20s and 30s swing eventually gave way to jazz that was more arty and for listening rather than for dancing. It's the same for rock-n-roll and rock music.

James Brown was the one 1950s performer who survived all of the changes, made music HIS way (everybody in the band did it just how JB wanted it to be done or adios!) and was never tagged as an 'oldies' act like pretty much all of his 1950s contemporaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Reply #23)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:05 AM

24. I expect anyone who chooses "Milton Brown" as a handle...

... knows something about swing. I think that musicians start to take themselves seriously after a few years, and start feeling contemptuous of "commercial" musicians who are just a few years older. Both Bird and Miles, in their ways, were arrogant SOBs. It's not a big jump from virtuoso to prima donna, although some people -- Pops, eg -- seem to have avoided it.

One thing about the Beatles was that they preferred to think of themselves as a *group*, not one front man and his supporting cast. They are actually a bit pioneering in that respect, although jazz had that tradition for years (but none of the rockers knew or liked jazz, then).

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #24)

Mon Oct 30, 2017, 09:53 PM

38. Yes I dig the swing music! Had an epiphany many years ago and have been exploring and enjoying

American music from around the turn of the century through the 1960s ever since. My ears have judged Milton Brown and his Musical Brownies as the best I've heard. Just like so many Beatles fans believe they were the greatest, I believe Brown was the greatest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 11:42 AM

33. Music, like everything else,

evolves. Rock music? There are many different kinds of rock, and rock is not rock & roll. Rock & roll, and then rock, owes a great deal to the blues, country, folk and others it sprang from. There wasn't any "destroying." Just evolving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 12:28 AM

3. I don't see how he can blame that segregation on the beatles

Certainly the pre-pepper's beatles was heavily influenced by black artists, and they've stated such in interviews.

Pepper's was certainly a highly significant work, but how did it cause white audiences to go one way and black audiences to go another?

Mostly it's known for raising the bar on production techniques and quality. People stopped just trying to record live music in the studio and started creating carefully planned and crafted tracks mixed to perfection. That doesn't mean one style of music over another or any audience over any other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 12:46 AM

7. The early Beatles songs were often covers of American rock-n-roll or at least in the same style.

By the time of Sgt Pep the Beatles music was vastly different from rock-n-roll and it's black roots. Black people don't worship the Beatles or rock music like whites but they were fans of rock-n-roll, black and white artists alike. White performers mostly followed in the Beatles footsteps and left the black, rhythm oriented rock-n-roll music for it's successor rock music.

It's just a fact that rock music is white oriented with few black performers or fans. What is rock music if it's not the Beatles and their successors almost all of whom are white?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 12:58 AM

9. Black folks were listening to Atlantic, Motown, Stax and other R&B labels before the Beatles...

Last edited Sat Oct 28, 2017, 02:24 PM - Edit history (2)

even came here on Ed Sullivan. White rock and rollers were considered derivative in the Black community as they covered black hits and got all the credit and publicity and money from music industry/media — Pat Boone and that ilk—even the Beatles too with their cover of the Top Notes and Isley Brothers hit "Twist and Shout".

R&B and Rock and Roll split long before the Beatles stopped touring and the alleged evolution of Rock and Roll into Rock. It was a combination of black taste in music evolving along a more soulful line than white Rock and Roll and America being America and segregating and separating black from white and elevating white artists over black artists. Nothing new there.

An interesting side note: Jimi Hendrix played with the Isley Brothers before he became a star with his own rock group. And even Hendrix, the greatest rock guitarist, was not that big in the black community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #9)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 01:54 AM

13. One of the Coasters (not sure which one) said that 'We play rhythm and blues music but if it's a hit

they call it rock-n-roll!' Rock-n-roll IS rhythm and blues of course and what was breaking mainstream 1955 was not much different from what Wynonie Harris, Jimmie Liggins, Jimmie Preston, Louis Jordan and others were doing in the '40s. And the book provides many details of trends in popular American music from 1900 on where he credits blacks with innovating and whites capitalizing (and one or two that went the other way I think- have only read excerpts.)

Just in general, rock-n-roll artists from the 50s and early 60s were both black and white. Elvis and Fats, LR and JLL, Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly, LaVern Baker and Connie Francis, Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers and the Crests, Chubby Checker and Dion, the Shirelles and the Angels, Gary US Bonds and Freddy Cannon and these acts all toured together for black and white audiences around the country on Alan Freed tours and others. The motown groups had a lot more in common with doo wop (r&b rock-n-roll) than they did the later Beatles and Stax to r&b rock-n-roll as well. Billboard dropped the chart distinction between pop and r&b since they were virtually identical in '62 only to bring it back years later.

I just like that there's some reading material with a different point of view out there.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 01:45 AM

12. Blacks left rock and roll before the sixties

Too bad, because they invented it.
They put Chuck Berry in jail, and Little Richard got religion.

That period just before the Beatles had probably the most boring music ever. The charts were filled with Bobby Vees, Fabians, and other bland artists.

The Beatles saved rock and roll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cartoonist (Reply #12)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 02:05 AM

14. The Bobbys were an aBOBanation!

I like the girl groups, dance crazes and artists like Dion, Chubby Checker, Bobby Lewis, the Contours, the Volumes and so many others from the early 60s but not nearly as much as I like Little Richard, Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers and Jerry Lee Lewis from the 50s.

The author would argue that Sgt Pep and later Beatles music was no longer rock-n-roll. Since they started out as rock-n-roll they may have saved it only to change it permanently. She's Leaving Home, Fixing a Hole and Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite have very little in common with rock-n-roll/r&b and as such started being called rock music. Right or wrong it was a change.

It is curious how many horrible fates awaited my favorite 1950s rock-n-rollers. in addition to the ones you mention there was the deaths of Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper and Eddie Cochran. The doo wop groups all seemed to leave the street corner and the rockabillies headed back to the sticks. Jerry Lee was boycotted and Alan Freed ruined. Plus they turned previously cool artists like Johnny Burnette into Fabian/Bobby types.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cartoonist (Reply #12)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 02:05 AM

15. Atlantic, Motown and other R&B labels...

Last edited Sat Oct 28, 2017, 02:50 AM - Edit history (2)

where churning out great music during that time.

Guess because they weren't white artists many were not aware of Jackie Wilson, The Platters, The Coasters, The Flamingos, Ben E. King, The Shirelles, Sam Cooke and many others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cartoonist (Reply #12)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:22 AM

29. Not sure the Beatles or any one person/group "saved" rock n' roll

At the risk of being flamed into eternity, I'm a white person who has always thought the Fab Four we're overrated...I much preferred other groups of that era -- The Rolling Stones, The Lovin' Spoonful, CSN& Y to the Beatles, and I'm a huge fan of R&B.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #29)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 01:04 PM

34. No flames from me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 04:43 AM

18. I grew up in the 50's and 60's. I agree with what you posted but it wasn't like forced segregation

 

You should see the movie "Cadillac Records". It is about Lenard Chess owner of Chess Records, Muddy Waters, Little Walter, Edda James and Chuck Berry and Howlin' Wolf. They made R&B and rock and roll. When a record by a Black artist was popular to White audiences, it was said that the artist had "crossed over."

The Rolling Stones came to Chess Records to meet Muddy Waters and record some of his songs. They paid for Muddy and Willie Dixon to tour Europe.

Chess Records closed after the idea that Black people should own their own business and not just work for Whites. Chuck Berry and Howlin" Wolf were some of the first to be paid royalties. The others were paid in Cadillacs, cash and other material things but did not get royalties.


I listened to all these artists when I was growing up and loved Motown and Soul Music. I still do I was not a Rolling Stones or Beatles fan at first and did not like the way they took over the popular music world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wasupaloopa (Reply #18)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 02:37 PM

21. That's one of my favorite movies of course!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 01:48 PM

20. They can't win

This isn't about the Beatles at all, its Americans using the Beatles' career as a mirror of American racism. And to the degree it's about music at all, it sounds like it's this one critic griping that the Beatles "should" have been doing different songs in their late career. They "should" have been making danceable tunes that sound more like their music from the '50s and early '60s. Yet we also have other critics who call out the early Beatles and, really, pretty much all white rock 'n rollers, for cultural appropriation.

The Beatles didn't tell Billboard how to publish their charts. They didn't tell radio stations they should be either be "soul" or "rock music" oriented. That all happened on this side of the pond, with decisions made by entertainment industry management. It's a less provocative title, but at best we have here "How the Beatles were used to destroy Rock-n-Roll."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #20)

Sat Oct 28, 2017, 03:10 PM

22. The book is 17 chapters and only chapter 17 is actually about the Beatles. It starts out with early

ragtime, blues, pop and jazz and continues through to the Beatles.

It places no guilt or wrongdoing on the Beatles and doesn't dispute their talent, abilities, influence or intentions and it certainly doesn't associate the Beatles with racism in any way. Rather it focuses on how American popular music developed over the years and the radical change that the Beatles success brought about.

The subtitle is 'An Alternative History of American Popular Music' which is the real focus of the book. It's the 21st century so naturally the author used a provocative title which surely sold more books for him than using the subtitle instead.

As far as whites appropriating black music I agree with BB King who said that 'Once music is out there for all to hear then it's fair game' or something along those lines. How can a musician or singer NOT respond and be influenced and inspired by the music that moves them? As long as proper credit and royalties are done it seems like a square deal to me and the Beatles did that as far as I know. The problem is that far too often black artists and songwriters got screwed. To be fair a lot of whites did too.

Another focus of the book is the changes in format over the years from 78s to 45s and then 33s. The Beatles were among the first to orient their music to the 33 rpm record format and away from the dance hit single 45 rpm (and 78s before that).





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:12 AM

25. It really is an unfortunate book title...

... though I suspect it does give notoriety to a work about music criticism. Looks like Mr Wald and I reached some of the same conclusions independently.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:17 AM

26. I blame Obama and Hillary for destroying Rock!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:20 AM

27. Before the Beatles, surf music started this trend

Without the Beatles, we'd be blaming the Beach Boys

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DBoon (Reply #27)

Mon Oct 30, 2017, 10:19 PM

39. But the Beatles impacted everything in their wake whereas surf rock (Ventures, Chantays not BBs) had

it's day but ended just like doo wop, rockabilly, girl groups and the dance crazes. Everyone in the music biz was forced to react to the Beatles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:21 AM

28. Read the book and enjoyed it. The title is just a hook.

Another excellent read is Spinning Blues into Gold by Nadine Cohodas about Chess Records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:41 AM

30. Sounds like a big pile of BS to me.

Otis Redding, Hugh Masekela, Lou Rawls, Jimi Hendrix, Sly & The Family Stone, Richie Havens, Santana, etc. etc. et just monterey pop and woodstock. The change was in the music, not the audiences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 11:03 AM

31. If you're gonna blame the Beatles, you've gotta blame The Crickets

To me the Beatles are what happens when four kids decide to ask "what would Buddy Holly and The Crickets do?"

They get all the credit, however, for capturing that audience and challenging it to change and mature along with them. And I'd go a step farther and suggest that by drawing less sophisticated fans away from R&B, funk and afrobeat were offered an open field to focus on virtuosity and improvisation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #31)

Mon Oct 30, 2017, 10:33 PM

41. Knowing the direction Buddy Holly was heading there is no doubt that he would've made rock

music and dropped rock-n-roll. He was already starting really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 11:20 AM

32. The author...

...is wrong. The art-rock stuff lasted about a year... The Beatles began 1968 with "Lady Madonna" and were seen as signaling a rock 'n' roll revival during the late 1960s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 02:50 PM

35. I danced my ass off at the last Who Hits 50 concert

Music moves people in different ways.

Fats Domino just died. I dare you to put on his live version of Shake Rattle and Roll and not call that Rock and Roll.

It wasn't the Beatles. It was just a natural progression of music that changed from wanting to move your body to wanting to move your soul.

Put on The Temptations Ball of Confusion and you'll hear a protest song that Dylan could only dream of writing.

Watch Otis Redding at the Isle of White Festival.

All the Beatles, Stones and the Who did was bring R&B to white fans...in The Who's case, that was Maximum R&B

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 03:22 PM

36. What bunkum! No, I haven't and shan't. Does the author claim that a band that covered "Twist and

 

Shout" was LESS Rock and Roll than the "California Sound"?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #36)

Mon Oct 30, 2017, 10:30 PM

40. The author would argue that the band that recorded 'Twist and Shout' changed radically by the time

they recorded 'Fixing a Hole'. Most people would agree.

'Twist and Shout' never fails on the dance floor, ever. But many later Beatles songs could never be accurately reproduced live and would clear the dance floor if they could. They were focusing on making LPs, not 45s. They were focused on making music for adults to listen to and not for kids to dance to. I don't think there's much controversial material, rather some people don't like the semantics of the title. But if you really think about it 'Dark Side of the Moon' is not at all the same music as 'Tuitti Fruitti'. Where and when did this change occur if not for with the Beatles around the time of Sgt Pep?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Reply #40)

Tue Oct 31, 2017, 07:11 AM

42. To argue that the Beatles' music changed is not the same as arguing that said change ended Rock and

 

Roll. We'll always have the J. Geils Band!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiltonBrown (Original post)

Sun Oct 29, 2017, 05:44 PM

37. The Beatles SAVED Rock and Roll

In the mid sixties it was declining into a bunch of sound alike Frankies and Bobbies, with Fabian as an example of the worst. (The author probably doesn't know what 'Doing a Fabian' is, which is taking a face and promoting it, regardless of talent, into stardom.) The Beatles put musicianship, composing, and breadth of interest and feeling into rock and roll. After them, rock and roll song writers could be composers, not just Tin Pan Alley like hacks.

I expect Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr to write, "How Elijah Wald Destroyed Folk Music". But Wald is basically a wackademic, and we all know wackademics don't live in the real world, they live in wackademia, where things are the way they are because they're that way in the book.

Wolf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread