Rock was horrible until the Beatles

[Taverner]

Sorry, but I am of the opinion that Rock and Roll wasn't worth listening to until the Beatles released "Beatles for Sale"

Before the Beatles, rock was this shitty do-wop bastardization of blues. There was good music out there, but it was all Jazz or Folk. Rock was just shit-pop. And Forrest, you're gonna kill me, but even Elvis was just lame pop. Sure he could croon, but if there were no Beatles I think he would have changed his genre to something more substantial.

Once the Beatles hit the world, of course, Rock changed. The stakes were raised and everyone had to compete. The Rolling Stones went from terrible blues to what we know today. The Who became a real band, and bands like the Yardbirds and Pink Floyd evolved into what we know now.

Debate me - challenge me - it's Monday

LAY ON MC DUFF!!!

[taterguy]

1. uh you're wrong

Two of my favorite box sets are the Sun Box and the Vee Jay Records Story, both filled with great tracks of pre-Beatles rock and roll. And the use of sucks as a pejorative is lazy. I happen to think that sucking or getting sucked is a good thing.

[Taverner]

3. OK OK I'll change the suck word

But I'm sorry - you can't compare Elvis' sun years with such genius as even the early Beatles. Even the Hard Days Night soundtrack is years ahead of any of the sun records.

[El Fuego]

2. Rock sucks after the Beatles.

Proof: Nickelback!!!

[Taverner]

5. I'll drink to that

Once the Beatles broke up, Rock became stagnant, with occasional genius (Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Pearl Jam, Radiohead) but was a downward spiral ever since.

[catbert836]

11. Well, not completely.

A lot of great rock bands and artists, such as David Bowie, The Eagles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Police and Queen only came to prominence after the Beatles were out of the picture.

[El Fuego]

50. The suckage began circa 2000

The last time I liked any rock bands was in the 90s. So the new century must have meant the death of rock.

[idgiehkt]

51. but why?

I agree completely, and I can't understand it. There is some stuff I like out there but it is very, very hard music. What happened to the alternative stuff that doesn't fall into the category of adult contemporary...

damn, nobody wants to be deep anymore. Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson killed music. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't see any evidence that there is much of a 'lilith fair' or 'riot girl' genre, not to mention the stuff like Depeche Mode that was alternative without being so bass driven and heavy.

[El Fuego]

54. Clear Channel Radio.

http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/04/30/clear_channel/index.html

April 30, 2001 | In the late 1990s, while no one was looking, a corporate behemoth became the largest owner and biggest force in America's most venerable mass medium: commercial radio.

Radio stations that once were proudly local are now being programmed from hundreds of miles away. Increasingly, the very DJs are in a different city as well.

Want your record played on one of those stations? Be prepared to pay -- dearly -- for the privilege. Want your band's concert to be sponsored by a radio station? Be careful: If you pick a competitor, the behemoth might pull your songs off its playlists overnight -- from two, 10, 100 stations.

Looking for classy radio programming? Don't look here. The company is known for allowing animals to be killed live on the air, severing long-standing ties with community and charity events, laying off thousands of workers, homogenizing playlists and a corporate culture in which dirty tricks are a way of life.

Welcome to the world of Clear Channel -- radio's big bully.

[catbert836]

4. I completely agree

Elvis's real talent wasn't in rock, but as anyone slightly familiar with him can see, in gospel and country music.

The Beatles were definitely the most influential band of the century, they opened the door to a whole new form of music.

[Taverner]

7. His talent was his voice

He could have sung anything and it would have sounded good.

But the songs themselves weren't anything to write home about.

[ikojo]

6. I agree...any time I hear many songs from the 50s

I say a prayer of thanks for the Beatles...I cannot imagine Pat Boone being the standard bearer!

[progmom]

8. if you're only talking about white rock and roll, then maybe

[Taverner]

9. But even Motown really didn't get great until the Beatles

Compare any Pre-Beatles Motown to say, Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On"

And...Motown almost doesn;t count since the backing band for all of those songs was comprised of Jazz Musicians.

[progmom]

20. you're dismissing Little Richard...Screamin Jay Hawkins, Bo Diddley

Louis Jordan, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Ike Turner...not to mention Johnny Otis, Bill Haley, Gene Vincent, Jerry Lee Lewis, The Everly Brothers, Carl Perkins...

Nope. You're wrong. :D

[Taverner]

25. Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis, as cool as they were...

Couldn't hold a candle to the greatness that was the Beatles.

All their stuff was the three chord shuffle of E - A - B.

Beatles introduced some fairly complex chords and harmony structures into their music - take the bridge in "Things We Said Today" - one of their most overlooked early hits. Try finding something that used any dimnished chords in rock before that tune.

[progmom]

27. then your thread should have read: No One Used Diminished Chords In Rock

Before The Beatles," if that's your theory. Because in my book, diminished chords does not equal greatness. Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis and all the other people I mentioned were instrumental in the development of rock and roll. They were ground breakers, as were the Beatles in their own way. But it's an evolution, and without the earlier music the Beatles would have had nothing to start with.

[Taverner]

30. OK I'll give you that they helped invent Rock

But I look at Blues from the 40's, and Rock from the 50's and I can't tell much of a difference except the tempo and choice to go all electric.

[progmom]

31. really?

You need to listen some more. Yeah, blues and jump blues in particular were the precursors to rock & roll and rhythm and blues, but just in the space of a few years in the early 50s that music evolved pretty significantly.

[Taverner]

32. I'll bite: give me two songs to show that evolution

But I just can't get past the fact that 50's Rock is just unlistenable to me, and once we get to the Beatles suddenly its like someone added color to a Black and White movie.

[progmom]

34. gack!

you think colorizing black & white movies is a good thing? :P

[Taverner]

37. LOL of course :)

It was just an expression :)

I was thinking more along the lines of "Pleasantville"

[progmom]

44. well, do you think maybe your ears are offended by the fidelity of the

recordings of the earlier music? I'm trying hard to understand here. :)

btw - i love black and white movies, too. :bounce:

[Taverner]

48. It's the three-chord shuffle that was pretty much 50's rock

All of it suffered from the e - a - b chord structure - pretty much the same chords AC/DC uses in every one of THEIR songs...

In the 50's, it seemed most of the real artists either did Jazz or Folk.

[sendero]

61. FWIW..

... I pretty much agree with you. Straight ahead rock, be it pre or post Beatles, is to simple to be interesting to listen to.

Sure, there are exceptions. Someone like Screaming Jay Hawkins didn't need any music behind him to be good.

But in general, simple 3 chord 4/4 music puts me to sleep. I need some imagination, some novelty. I just don't want to hear the same song with different words 5,000 times.

The Beatles added that new direction when they turned the recording studio into an instrument, and of course their songwriting has to get a lot of credit also. And to be fair, they did derive a certain amount of their ideas from an unlikely American source, the Beach Boys.

[ornotna]

13. Ah!

A voice of sanity speaks from the wilderness.

[progmom]

24. thank you

:D

[SaveElmer]

10. Uh...no...two Words..

Buddy Holly!

'nuff said

[Taverner]

17. You're going to tell me Buddy Holly compares with the Beatles?

Peggy Sue doesn't even hold a candle to early Beatles!!!!

But again, that's just my opinion ;)

[SaveElmer]

22. There's a difference...

I'm not comparing them...I'm pointing out that Rock did not suck before the Beatles...and Buddy Holly I believe proves my point. The Beatles may have been better, but that does not mean everyone else sucked.

However, the Beatles are my all time favorite rock act...but Buddy Holly was innovative when he was writing and performing...and his songs have held up well!

Had he not been killed who knows how far he would have gotten

[idgiehkt]

52. Peggy Sue is probably my least favorite Buddy Holly song

I loved Blondie's version of "I'm gonna love you too". That rocked. I grew up singing along to commercials not even knowing half of them were Buddy Holly songs. He was so prolific. I love Maybe Baby, and Rave on, Words of Love, That'll be the Day,
and Well All Right, which is like a youth anthem or something.

[asthmaticeog]

12. Wow, you don't, like, know things, do you?

"shitty do-wop bastardization of blues"

Uh huh. Musicology, thy name is Taverner... :eyes:

[Taverner]

15. Hey - It's Monday, my meds haven't kicked in and you're ugly

:P

[GirlinContempt]

29. Didn't the Beatles

claim influence from Chuck Barry and Elvis?

[argyl]

60. Also Little Richard. And John did a game vocal of the Isleys "Twist and

Shout." Literally shouted himself hoarse recording it. The original is the superior version but the boys from Liverpool gave it a hell of a shot.

Their earlier albums had a lot of cover stuff from mainly the artists already mentioned. Their own songs were excellent but they were as much or more of a cultural phenomenom than simply musicians at first. They didn't shake up the musical establishment, they blew it off its hinges with their cheekiness, attitude,appearance and charisma.

And each album became more a complete work of their own. Their arrangements becoming more intricate,their lyrics evolving as well.And they may not have been the first to use it but their band structure became the model for others for years to come. Two guitars, one lead and one rhythym, bass guitar and drums and shared vocal duties.

I feel that "Rubber Soul" was their their groundbreaker. First they were the cute moptops who had girls screaming themselves hoarse and delerious,then they displayed real talent and originality, but "Rubber Soul" showed true genius. On it they also began to experiment with instruments not previously used in rock;the sitar on "Norwegian Wood" and the harpsichord on "In My Life."

And after "Rubber Soul" there was nowhere else to go but up and they blasted off into the stratosphere.These guys had an enormous influence on the music of their times and were an even bigger influence on the attitudes, the culture, and the most vital and controversial issues of the day as well.

Maybe someday another band will come along and impact their times with the power the Beatles did but I doubt it. Matter of fact, you probably couldn't get odds in Vegas on that happening.

[trackfan]

14. Yes, sir. You are correct.

[Fenris]

16. No, rock was horrible until Sha Na Na.

[Taverner]

19. LOL

Bowser was the 6th Beatle...

[tigereye]

28. you're on a roll today, Fenris

[Deja Q]

18. I disagree.

Pioneers like Chuck Berry defined it. But it did get stagnant.

And while girls loved the early Beatles, the music was so-so despite being somewhat different; the main difference was a greater dependence of "I love yoooou, won't me dooooooo..." as the lyrics. By 1964, the Beatles were the trendsetters... by 1969 they were followers to those like Jefferson Airplane (who started off as a semi Beatles clone...)

They did set a trend, no argument there. But their early stuff was lame pop too.

Besides, Ike and Tina Turner had the real style. :D

[Taverner]

21. But take some early Bealtes songs...say

"Things we Said Today" or anything off "Hard Days Night" or the "Help" Sountracks.

They harmonized in a way that was unheard of in Rock. It wasnt that they harmonized, but the way they did it.

From there they just went up.

[begin_within]

23. It was still pretty horrible until "Rubber Soul."

The early Beatles stuff is hit-and-miss, mainly miss in my opinoin. A few good songs here and there, but mainly just a continuation of rock-and-roll. Then they did "Rubber Soul," "Yesterday and Today," "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper" and completely changed popular music.

[tigereye]

26. no.

Bo Diddley had no purpose, eh? or are we splitting hairs about rock vs. rock and roll.

[RedStateShame]

33. Beatles' career synopsis

Before 1965: Rip off Chuck Berry, make profit.
After 1965: Rip off Brian Wilson, make profit.

[mark414]

39. hmm not so much...

brian wilson wrote pet sounds and smile as somewhat "american responses" to rubber soul and revolver...

[Taverner]

40. OH GAWD....

Yes Brian Wilson is and was a genius. The Beach Boys would have been a footnote without him. Pet Sounds was nothing short of pure bliss, and Smile was amazing as well.

BUT...the Beatles were doing complex amazing things before Pet Sounds...in '64 they did "Hard Days Night" which has some amazing stuff on it...

[catbert836]

41. That's not even worthy of a response.

You've obviously never listened to "Sgt. Pepper's", "The White Album" , "Abbey Road", "Revolver" or "Rubber Soul". The Beatles did much deeper music than Chuck Berry or Brian Wilson ever did.

[jane_pippin]

35. You should go say that to Little Richard.

Let me know when you do--I want to see if fire shoots out of his eyes and if so, does he have the ability to aim it or is it more of a haphazard burst in the general direction of his target.

:hi:

[taterguy]

36. If pre-Beatles rock was so horrible

Then why was most of the early Beatles material covers of rock songs?

[Taverner]

42. They simply made them better :)

By adding harmonies and re-arranging them

But the Beatles really didn't come into their own until they started cutting original tunes.

I know I've said it before, but go listen to "A Hard Day's Night". That came out in '64. Then compare it to anything else from that year.

[progmom]

43. hmmmm

versus



:bounce:

You said anything else.

[Taverner]

46. OH YOU KNOW THAT'S NOT FAIR

!!!

Well anything else in Rock

And that excludes Dylan as well....

[progmom]

47. you're making up the rules as you go along, aren't you?

;)

[Taverner]

49. Pththththtpt!

But seriously - find me a rock album that even compares with "Hard Days" or "Help"

"Freewheelin' Bob Dylan"? That was folk

"Kind of Blue" Jazz

[MadHound]

38. Go back and do some research, and listen

People like Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Sister Rosetta Thorpe, and many others were doing incredible, innovative things that not only changed R&R, but also dramatically influenced those who came after, including the Beatles(in fact the Beatles took their name as an homage to Buddy Holly and the Crickets, who they idolized)

The Beatles were not and are not the be all and end all of rock and roll. Yes, they were a tremendously popular and innovative group. However there were many popular and innovative rock and roll artists both before and after the Beatles.

[progmom]

45. excellent post!

[Bridget Burke]

53. The Beatles began Art Rock?

If we're talking sophistication--yes, the Beatles were pioneers. (Especially if you consider George Martin a member of the band.) But the band's name was a tribute to Buddy Holly's Crickets. (And Buddy would have grown much more if he'd lived.)

Rock & roll is, indeed, the bastard child of Country & Blues. Throw in charges of miscegenation--people did, at the time. Beginning with the rockabilly pioneers, the music was meant for dancing, not stoned listening through headphones. Pat Boone sucked, of course. But even doo-wop had its moments. I LIKE the girl groups (& Phil Specter's Wall of Sound.)

The Beatles started with the basic roots & ascended to creative heights that could only be produced in the studio. But far too many bands just grew pretentious & pompous. Punk was not exactly my cup of tea, but people had gotten bored with Stadium Rock.

I'm an old folk fan (among other things). But the folkie guitarist boasts that he "knows all three chords in all five keys." Musical sophistication?

[wildhorses]

55. I offer this, just cos I'm Glad All Over

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMDgrBB4IMk

[ALago1]

56. Rock did not exist until the Beatles became influenced by Dylan

Only then, when Rock n' Roll (a distinctly different genre than rock) merged with folk did "Rock" come to be.

Regarding your original statement, I can think of a few great pre-Beatles artists that made rock n' roll pretty damn awesome:

Elvis
Phil Spector (not an artist, but massively influential)
The Beach Boys (they first hit the scene shortly before the Beatles)
Buddy Holly
Little Richard
Bill Hailey

That being said, I still think the Beatles were undoubtedly the most influential act in popular music history.

[begin_within]

57. The Beatles created their own genre: Beatles songs.

[wildhorses]

58. God Only Knows that I am NOT arguing with you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D73giKIOLIo

[wildhorses]

59. You Send Me, straight to the youtube vault

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGGHZQGeqrI


i guess this is doowop? sorry, I wanted to find his version of another saturday night

[Swamp Rat]

62. Fats Domino RULES!!!

And he STILL plays!