• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Is Rock and Roll Dead???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo Simon said:
The Stray Cats were revivalists, definitely rock n roll. But that's because they were revivalists, consciously imitating the old original style.

Can any one here who is a music expert explain the difference between the rhythms of Rock Around the Clock and She Loves You (Yeah Yeah Yeah)?
Click to expand...

You're the pedant among us, why don't you do us the pleasure? :music:
 
I don't get your obsession with dancing to The Beatles. They're not the only band that's existed since 1963. I agree that they're not the most ideal band to dance to, especially after they got more "artsy" but plenty of bands maintained a danceable beat as part of their musical architecture. If what you are saying is that "Music from 1959 no longer exists" well, of course it doesn't. It's not 1959. But things have evolved and much of the same intent, and much of the same structure and beat still carry on in a variety of music today. Some of it more overtly rock than others.

But you're creating your own small world for the sake of argument. You're insisting that everything be EXACTLY like the original bands, yet when somebody brings up one that is (Stray Cats), you say its a throw-back band. So how could a band be the same, but not be? And if then they don't have to be the same, you'd end up with what we have. A big stew of bands variously influenced by rock. Some close, some not so close. Some danceable, some not.
 
JohnVF said:
I don't get your obsession with dancing to The Beatles. They're not the only band that's existed since 1963. I agree that they're not the most ideal band to dance to, especially after they got more "artsy" but plenty of bands maintained a danceable beat as part of their musical architecture. If what you are saying is that "Music from 1959 no longer exists" well, of course it doesn't. It's not 1959. But things have evolved and much of the same intent, and much of the same structure and beat still carry on in a variety of music today. Some of it more overtly rock than others.

But you're creating your own small world for the sake of argument. You're insisting that everything be EXACTLY like the original bands, yet when somebody brings up one that is (Stray Cats), you say its a throw-back band. So how could a band be the same, but not be? And if then they don't have to be the same, you'd end up with what we have. A big stew of bands variously influenced by rock. Some close, some not so close. Some danceable, some not.
Click to expand...

The Stray Cats were consciously imitating the original rock n roll. Almost everyone else on the planet had moved on, and the Beatles were very much the catalysts of the movement. The Stray Cats were very good, and I bought their records. But they were conscious throwbacks, even in their deliberately anachronistic costumes.

The Beatles were pretty much the first popular band whose music was not danceable.

The Animals' House of the Rising Sun was danceable, but it was a traditional delta blues song from the American south, not rock n roll at all. Early Rolling Stones was danceable. But almost from the beginning, the Beatles' music was not danceable. That is why I say the Beatles killed rock n roll. Rock n roll (fast or slow) was danceable.
 
Last edited:
Theo Simon said:
The Animals' House of the Rising Sun was danceable, but it was a traditional delta blues song from the American south, not rock n roll at all. Early Rolling Stones was danceable. But almost from the beginning, the Beatles' music was not danceable. That is why I say the Beatles killed rock n roll. Rock n roll (fast or slow) was danceable.
Click to expand...
You're just talking about the slow and never-complete split from early R&B. You can consider this the end of rock n roll if you like, but the history books will not.
 
dumptruck said:
You're just talking about the slow and never-complete split from early R&B. You can consider this the end of rock n roll if you like, but the history books will not.
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow you. The Beatles broke from and transcended rock n roll.

What was Gerry and the Pacemakers' classified as? Merseybeat? I loved that stuff, but it did not last long.
 
They did lots of things. You said they killed rock n roll, which they did not, just as bebop did not kill jazz, and only strange old men go around proclaiming that big band swing is the only real jazz, or some such thing.
 
Theo Simon said:
What was Gerry and the Pacemakers' classified as? Merseybeat? I loved that stuff, but it did not last long.
Click to expand...

They were classified as Gerry rock.

After 1965, The Beatles became classified by some folks as Pooperifusus Abstracticus. The genre has a large following, you should check it out. The followers are called Shitheads.
 
dumptruck said:
They did lots of things. You said they killed rock n roll, which they did not, just as bebop did not kill jazz, and only strange old men go around proclaiming that big band swing is the only real jazz, or some such thing.
Click to expand...

I know very little about jazz or jazz history or bebop and will not comment on it. I don't own any classical 'jazz' except for Kind of Blue, which listened to only once after I bought it. I don't 'get' it. I listen to ECM artists. I do not consider ECM music jazz in the usual sense.
 
Last edited:
Theo Simon said:
I know very little about jazz or jazz history or bebop and will not comment on it. I listen to ECM artists. I do not consider ECM music jazz in the usual sense.
Click to expand...

ECM Does. I had to scroll down less than a dozen artists in their catalog to see a name I recognized: John Abercrombie.

Here's ECM's description of the first Abercrombie album listed:

ECM said:
“Within A Song” celebrates the spirit of discovery that illuminated the jazz of the 1960s, as John Abercrombie declares his musical loyalties in a quartet album that pays tribute to a range of early influences including Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Bill Evans, Ornette Coleman, Sonny Rollins and Jim Hall. “This was the music that spoke to me. When I heard it, it was like finding a new home.” The group assembled especially for this production, recorded at New York’s Avatar Studios in September 2011 features tenorist Joe Lovano as the optimal partner for Abercrombie. Together they mine deep feelings from these modern jazz classics.
Click to expand...
 
Too many ecstasy fueled college nights during the 80's in Texas (disclaimer: MDMA was legal then) gave me a soft spot for new wave dance music which I still listen to on occasion, kind of a guilty pleasure.

Do I consider this music R&R...no...but it was a viable art form that morphed from it.

Peace

tejas
 
Jeffery said:
ECM Does. I had to scroll down less than a dozen artists in their catalog to see a name I recognized: John Abercrombie.

Here's ECM's description of the first Abercrombie album listed:
Click to expand...

But even though I own some of Mr Abercrombie's ECM recordings, they do not sound at all like the 'jazz' referred to there. It's different. He cites them as influences, but I don't think of his music as being like that stuff.
 
Last edited:
tejas said:
Too many ecstasy fueled college nights during the 80's in Texas (disclaimer: MDMA was legal then) gave me a soft spot for new wave dance music which I still listen to on occasion, kind of a guilty pleasure.

Do I consider this music R&R...no...but it was a viable art form that morphed from it.

Peace

tejas
Click to expand...

Which artists do you mean?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom