Is rock and roll dead?

[Pura Vida]

Originally Posted by 1neeto

GVF will never reach that level of stardom. They got marginally popular because of their similarity to Led Zeppelin. But that niche that made them popular is also their downfall they’ll always be those kids that created a band that sounds like LZ.

And that’s pretty much the fate of just about every band that came together in the past ten years or so. I guess we just have to be happy with the 3 decades or so of great rock and roll music.

Yep, that was my point. GFV (or any newer artist) is making a fraction of what a legendary artist would bring in for the same number of shows. But I do think there are plenty of unique rock artists out there... they're just more difficult to find behind the giant pop machine that's taken over so much of musical entertainment.

Today is Kurt Cobain's birthday (he would have been 56yo), and it makes me wish for another punk or grunge revolution to shift things for a few years.

[EZYPIKINS]

There is a wide perception of what Rock&Roll is.

When the term Rock&Roll was first coined in the 50's, as things evolved.

Ringo was stated as saying, when the Beatles started out, they were playing Rock&Roll.
As the 60's moved on. Rock&Roll had been shortened to Rock.

Then came Acid Rock, as well as many off shoots.

I haven't heard what I consider Rock&Roll since early Bob Seger.

[The Watchman]

Originally Posted by EZYPIKINS

There is a wide perception of what Rock&Roll is.

When the term Rock&Roll was first coined in the 50's, as things evolved.

Ringo was stated as saying, when the Beatles started out, they were playing Rock&Roll.
As the 60's moved on. Rock&Roll had been shortened to Rock.

Then came Acid Rock, as well as many off shoots.

I haven't heard what I consider Rock&Roll since early Bob Seger.

I agree. If you cant dance to it, it's not rock 'n' roll. Try dancing to Stairway to Heaven or Fire and Rain. Not pretty.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by EZYPIKINS

There is a wide perception of what Rock&Roll is.

When the term Rock&Roll was first coined in the 50's, as things evolved.

Ringo was stated as saying, when the Beatles started out, they were playing Rock&Roll.
As the 60's moved on. Rock&Roll had been shortened to Rock.

Then came Acid Rock, as well as many off shoots.

I haven't heard what I consider Rock&Roll since early Bob Seger.

Never heard this?



Or this?



Or this?

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by EZYPIKINS

There is a wide perception of what Rock&Roll is.

When the term Rock&Roll was first coined in the 50's, as things evolved.

Ringo was stated as saying, when the Beatles started out, they were playing Rock&Roll.
As the 60's moved on. Rock&Roll had been shortened to Rock.

Then came Acid Rock, as well as many off shoots.

I haven't heard what I consider Rock&Roll since early Bob Seger.

The Beatles transitioned from rock 'n roll into pop, which was their major legacy to modern music. Sgt. Pepper is, in my view, the greatest pop album ever recorded and marks pop as a bona fide art form.

They never transitioned successfully into rock, however. They made a few tentative forays, like "I Want You" on Abbey Road, but it did not seem a good fit. The Stones were more successful in this, I think, and by the Mick Taylor period, they had developed an impressive rock sound with their own distinctive stamp.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by ewalling

The Beatles transitioned from rock 'n roll into pop, which was their major legacy to modern music. Sgt. Pepper is, in my view, the greatest pop album ever recorded and marks pop as a bona fide art form.

They never transitioned successfully into rock, however. They made a few tentative forays, like "I Want You" on Abbey Road, but it did not seem a good fit. The Stones were more successful in this, I think, and by the Mick Taylor period, they had developed an impressive rock sound with their own distinctive stamp.

Some problematic terminology here. I’d argue that the Beatles had a good number of “rock” songs starting with the Sgt Pepper Reprise tune, continuing with a number of cuts on the “White album.”

As for Sgt Pepper being a transition into “pop”, I don’t get it. What is pop?

Also, I don’t really think of the stones as “rock.” Too much groove happening. When I think of rock, I think of Led Zeppelin.

That said, I’m not sure I have better terms. I just don’t see how useful they are without more clarity.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

Some problematic terminology here. I’d argue that the Beatles had a good number of “rock” songs starting with the Sgt Pepper Reprise tune, continuing with a number of cuts on the “White album.”

As for Sgt Pepper being a transition into “pop”, I don’t get it. What is pop?

Also, I don’t really think of the stones as “rock.” Too much groove happening. When I think of rock, I think of Led Zeppelin.

That said, I’m not sure I have better terms. I just don’t see how useful they are without more clarity.

Yes, terms are so elastic an imprecise, I do agree. But I see pop as the genre of instant-appeal, upbeat, short-tune music, often electric guitar-based, that proliferated in the early-to-mid 60s and extended as far as Blondie, Abba, and the Police and targeted a mainly teenage audience. It may have had rock 'n roll influences, but it was something distinct from what Chuck Berry, Gene Vincent, and Little Richard had done. Jeff Beck played pop on 'Hi-Ho Silver Lining,' and so did the Who with songs like 'Substitute' and 'I Can't Explain.' But by the time of 'Won't Get Fooled Again,' the Who had transitioned into the new Hendrix-Clapton-influenced rock style.

That's where I see early-to-mid Beatles up to Sgt. Pepper. Songs like 'We Can Work It Out,' 'Rain,' 'From Me To You,' 'All My Loving' are pop songs, for me, and 'With a Little Help From My Friends' and 'Mr. Kite' are psychedelic pop. Sure, there are rock 'n roll influences in these songs, but they couldn't be called rock 'n roll, and nor did they have sufficient length or grunge to classify as rock.

I actually think the Beatles were on uneasy ground once Clapton and Hendrix had established rock as the new fashionable style of playing electric guitar-based music. The Beatles albums after Pepper are patchy, and there is a sense of a band that doesn't quite know what it's doing. They probably split up at the best time, before they really had a chance to disntegrate musically or become old hat.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Yes, terms are so elastic an imprecise, I do agree. But I see pop as the genre of instant-appeal, upbeat, short-tune music, often electric guitar-based, that proliferated in the early-to-mid 60s and extended as far as Blondie, Abba, and the Police and targeted a mainly teenage audience. It may have had rock 'n roll influences, but it was something distinct from what Chuck Berry, Gene Vincent, and Little Richard had done. Jeff Beck played pop on 'Hi-Ho Silver Lining,' and so did the Who with songs like 'Substitute' and 'I Can't Explain.' But by the time of 'Won't Get Fooled Again,' the Who had transitioned into the new Hendrix-Clapton-influenced rock style.

That's where I see early-to-mid Beatles up to Sgt. Pepper. Songs like 'We Can Work It Out,' 'Rain,' 'From Me To You,' 'All My Loving' are pop songs, for me, and 'With a Little Help From My Friends' and 'Mr. Kite' are psychedelic pop. Sure, there are rock 'n roll influences in these songs, but they couldn't be called rock 'n roll, and nor did they have sufficient length or grunge to classify as rock.

I actually think the Beatles were on uneasy ground once Clapton and Hendrix had established rock as the new fashionable style of playing electric guitar-based music. The Beatles albums after Pepper are patchy, and there is a sense of a band that doesn't quite know what it's doing. They probably split up at the best time, before they really had a chance to disntegrate musically or become old hat.

Good point; I think the Beatles lost something when they quit live performance (which they kinda had to do.) They were still great, but they became studio painters. Their whole career is marked by unequaled variety in their music. But until they went back to the rooftop performance, rock ‘n’ roll became secondary.

it’s interesting to note their choice of songs for the rooftop performance. You get a sense of what the band might have become if they had gone back to their live performance roots/

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

Good point; I think the Beatles lost something when they quit live performance (which they kinda had to do.) They were still great, but they became studio painters. Their whole career is marked by an equals variety in their music. But until they went back to the rooftop performance, rock ‘n’ roll became secondary.

it’s interesting to note their choice of songs for the rooftop performance. You get a sense of what the band might have become if they had gone back to their live performance roots/

Yes, and they looked as though they were enjoying it, too.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Yes, and they looked as though they were enjoying it, too.

Except maybe George.

[Rickenbacker1]

Anyone remember the GODZ from Ohio back in the day ….That was R&R . They still play the Rock and Roll machine for Columbus drive time . Watch them on
Youtube and memories of the old days will return.

[tinnitus]

Beyond electric amps, impassioned/inflammatory lyrics and I, IV, V chord patterns, it is my observation that Rock and Roll is largely steeped in cause-and-effect.

One example: Sometimes (most often when I'm alone), I find myself reacting loudly to stuff I see on TV. Watching the 3-part Beatles series Get Back, I moaned in despair, chuckled, shouted encouragement and suggested chord changes to coincide with what I knew would come later on vinyl, etc., etc. It was fun, and far more reactive than just watching a scripted show.

Nearing the end, I howled with glee when uniformed bobbies stepped into view on the roof - precisely when McCartney glanced over his shoulder and seemed to realize, "Right, we have the coppers." You couldn't've wiped that mischievous/elated smirk off his face with a dirty diaper. That, IMHO, represents a huge part of what we know as Rock and Roll.

[Mary]

Originally Posted by ozzman

well,its as dead as Big Band and Laurence Welk was in 1976? its around but so was Laurence Welk.

I still enjoy black and white movies that had Big Band music. I'm oft times just an old soul.