An almost perfect post, I'd only change 2 words:
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. |
Brauser,
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.
Marty |
The Beatles vs Chuck Berry?
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.
Marty |
Unsound...you are surely correct that the cultural impact of The Beatles was enormous in many, many ways.
OTOH, consider Chuck Berry's cultural contribution for a second. For the first time, Berry (along with a few contemporaries) brought black pop culture to white audiences on a mass basis. True, this music needed a white salesman (see Elvis per the OP), but Berry and Little Richard and a handful of peers were the primary force in this major transformation of pop culture. It's easy to forget that jump jazz was considered "jungle music" - and rock n roll was considered literally dangerous. Black cultural impact on mainstream culture was resisted at every turn.
Looking around today, I think that I'd personally argue that the original '50s rockers had the greater influence on contemporary American culture, but I'd agree it's hard to conclusively settle this question. |
OTOH, "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" is only marginally better for the little ones. |
"Like A Rolling Stone" the greatest ROCK song ever?
Personally, I'd be inclined to place it second to "Johnny B Goode".
Note: For me, this one is Chuck Berry vs Dylan, no Beatles involved (until someone - Audiofiel? - involves them).
Second Note: Please, no "Stairway". I get enough of that on the July 4th countdown radio shows.
Marty |
Tube,
Interesting take and I (sort of) agree with a lot of your views (particularly re: boogie woogie), but..."I never saw a direct link between blues and early RnR"?
I'm not sure I understand. Aside from the piano blues forms that inform barrelhouse and boogie woogie itself, Chuck Berry oozes the blues guitar tradition, no? That connection might be even clearer on the early Gatemouth Brown Peacock recordings I mentioned, but it seems pretty clear (to me) on Berry's records, too. And if it's not immediately clear from Berry, listen to Gatemouth, then Berry and I can't believe it won't be clear then. Are you saying something different?
Marty
BTW, I see the structural elements of RnR in Jordan's stuff, but the instrumentation is sufficiently foreign to the RnR convention that I'd hesitate to tag it RnR music (though many others would agree with you on that one). |
Map,
No judgement of any sort was being inferred, I was merely amused by the thought of WDWDIITR as a lullaby.
Marty
BTW, I believe that the "it", in "do it" is usually well understood to mean "it" (yes, that "it"). |
Fred evidently has missed the recent revisionist view of Macca's solo work. Lots of young, hip indie rockers seem to cite "Ram" as their touchstone. FWIW.
BTW, I liked the answer to this question that was provided some decades back by a rock critic (whose name I long ago forgot):
"John without Paul is sour, Paul without John is saccharine."
Marty |
I also found the "Rolling Stones most misunderstood" item to be an odd call.
I think they're very well understood. The Stones are a rock n roll band that made (a) few concessions to pop. Judging from this thread, I think that The Beatles are more generally misunderstood. IMO. they were a brilliant pop band working in a broad rock n roll idiom (backbeat and riff) that many have anointed the "greatest rock n roll band" ever. I disagree, but that's likely because I have a different (okay, maybe eccentric) view of rock n roll as an art form than most folks.
If the thought behind the statement was that The Beatles are overly revered and that The Stones are (as a relative matter) under appreciated, then I won't disagree. However, I don't think that's because the Stones are misunderstood. Notwithstanding the unavoidable semantic elements of the argument (where does rock n roll end and rock inflected pop begin?), I think it's because people generally prefer Beatle-esque pop/rock to Stones style rock n roll. No misunderstanding, just different value judgements.
PS - Consistent with my posts over the years, I'd tend to argue that Fleetwood Mac is the most misunderstood band in history. It's completely true that they charted tons of pop songs written and/or sung by one of the two chicks, but that's only half the story. As anyone who has ever seen them live should know, Fleetwood Mac is one bad ass rock n roll band. |
Peter Green + Danny Kirwan + Jeremy Spencer = guitar heaven. Green will always rate at/near the top of my list of blues rock guitar heroes. That band was short lived. but spectacular, IMHO.
The Kirwan/Christine McVie/Bob Welch variations also produced some pretty fantastic records (most notably, to my ear, Mystery To Me). Nevertheless, I'll still take Lindsey Buckingham era Fleetwood Mac - simply because I believe that Buckingham is a God who walks among men. (And a pretty sick twist, to boot.) |
BTW, if it wasn't clear from my post above re: The Stones, I pretty much agree with you. The Beatles are prized for their exquisite (at least in the context of rock and pop bands) songcraft, which simply has very little to do with what The Stones are all about.
My Buckingham fixation is primarily due to his IMO more or less unique ability to combine Beatle-esque craft with Stones-like primitivism. I find it the best of both worlds, buy - hey - that's just me. |
Well, if we're going to youtube, try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HGs6M9exS4
Just skip ahead to the 4 1/2 minute mark where the guitar solo begins. Some may prefer the wrenching pain of the best blues solos (for example, Peter Green), but IMO this is the sound of pure obsession expressed on a guitar by a player with unnatural rhythmic ability. Beyond the over the top visual display is just a metronomic rhythmic precision.
In my book, Peter Green is a hero, but so is Buckingham. |
Loomis,
The distinction between our views may be real or it may be more semantic.
I use "songcraft" to mean sophistication in a few areas - but, in the end, it's first and foremost (tho not exclusively) a harmonic distinction to me. What I call "true" rock n roll has about zero harmonic sophistication. The chords are rarely inventive and may even add only a single note to the root. There are few to no vocal harmonies. The greatest examples (see "Johnny B Goode) are so simple - backbeat/riff/lead guitar/maybe a throwaway vocal - that they're barely even songs. The lead playing is compelling and doesn't even respect the most basic of rules, moving seamlessly from major key to minor and back. The real joy of the music is in the LEAD guitar backed by the rhythm (let's call it "guit- art").
To me, the absence of harmonic interest is - in one respect - a huge plus. It forces the artist to work with a limited toolbox and, at its best - finds treasure in absolute simplicity. (That's also what I'm driving at when I cite a lack of songcraft.) It also recalls the music of other cultures where tempered scales aren't common and harmony doesn't really work.
One of the reasons that I really love that kind of "true" rock n roll is that - like so much controversial 20th century art - it rejects the idea that the historical bedrock values of the art that preceded it (e.g. harmonic sophistication in music) are sacrosanct. Chuck Berry (and Andy Warhol, for that matter) provide a challenge to the status quo that raises their work to the level of serious art (for me), even if many folks here on the 'Gon would disagree with me. Lots of people reacted violently to these artists because they did present a challenge to existing cultural standards. (The book Pirate Radio points out that British cultural authorities were willing to literally kill to keep rock n roll out of England.) Because - That way lies anarchy!
The Beatles (by their own admission following closely in the footsteps of Brian Wilson) added tremendous harmonic sophistication to the basic rock n roll formula. They became the standard bearers of the "Disciples of Brian", nearly all of whom also became less "guitar centric". (The lead break on Good Vibrations, for example, is played on electro-theremin.)
While there's tons of interesting guitar work in The Beatles' catalog, IMO there's very little in the way of compelling guitar leads. Paul McCartney goes up the neck in tenths on Blackbird - clever guitar playing, no doubt, but IMO closer in spirit to Bach than to Berry. I'd argue that they favored guitar-craft over guitar-art. On the one hand, they provided a new way forward - out of the Berry box, if you will. On the other hand, you could argue that they undermined the whole idea of rock n roll in doing so.
The Stones (and most "hard rock" bands) took another route out of the box. Unlike The Beatles or The Beach Boys, they rarely let harmonic ideas become the central point of their art. Chords stay simple, instrumentation stays simple, tonal color stays simple. Mostly, they find variety within the guitar playing. Of course, making a pure, hard distinction would be an overstatement. In reality, it's more of a sliding scale. The Stones offered some songcraft and The Beatles offered some guit-art. But to me, the difference in emphasis is what really separates the two great bands.
One way to summarize it: The Stones always tried to stay closer to historically African American roots of the form, while The Beatles moved to a sound that was more traditionally Western.
My point about The Stones being well understood and also under appreciated was merely that most folks prefer songcraft to guit-art.
I'm not even really calling a favorite here. I write a half dozen songs a year and The Beatles (along with Stephen Sonheim) are BY FAR my biggest influence. However, when it comes to listening, I'll take The Stones 9 times out of 10. As noted, more often, I'll take Lindsey Buckingham because he provides a satisfying measure of each: songcraft, guitarcraft and guit-art. He's clearly a Disciple of Brian, but he's also a wildman with a guitar who preserves the essential anarchical elements of rock n roll in much of his music.
To be clear, this read on the issue is purely my own. I don't expect anyone to particularly embrace it. But it is definitely the way I make sense of rock n roll and the question of The Beatles vs The Stones. |
Loomis,
I fully understand those who aren't moved by post-Brian Wilson pop/rock and prefer to stay closer to the blues. I also understand why some people lean the other way. As I noted, I can't really spend much time listening to The Beatles, (even tho I do study the song craft), so I definitely get where you're coming from.
My Buckingham fixation is definitely a personal quirk, but it works for me.
As to sharing my songs, that's a bit of a minefield. I perform once a year for friends at my wifes birthday party. Since I'm in LA , that party has, on occasion, included a few record company types and I've had an overture about putting one song on iTunes. That represents a level of personal exposure that I'm not quite ready for. So far, I've resisted - but I'll keep you posted if that changes. |
Phase -
Another lesser known name in that Brit blues-rock genre was Chicken Shack. Stan Webb was a really good lead guitarist and the keyboards were handled by non other than Christine Perfect (AKA McVie), later of Fleetwood Mac.
Cerrot -
On the surgface, you have a point, but...
Even though, as rock n roll bands (per my personal definition, posted above), both come up short in similar ways, I'd argue that ABBA comes up a helluva lot shorter than The Beatles (although they do rock it surprisingly hard on their live take of Gimme, Gimme, Gimme).
As pop bands, both could churn out catchy hits with regularity. I believe that ABBA actually sold more records than the Beatles (tho that may have changed since last I looked.
OTOH, The Beatles were VASTLY more sophisticated songwriters. And I do mean VASTLY. |
Tho our tastes differ by about 180 degrees, I've always found 'Bert one of the most interesting posters here. His views of art and its role in society reflect a sensibility that's not often seen these days. It may be fair to label him intolerant, but its also clear that he finds true joy in the music that fits his view of "noble" art and that he pursues that passion with energy.
I always find his posts well thought out, even tho the context of his logic is narrow. He calls that good taste, others call it intolerant, I'll sit out that debate and continue to read his posts for the very different point of view they represent. |
I don't want to put words into his mouth, but my take from following Schubert's posts over the years is that he simply doesn't have room in his life for for vulgar art. That's not limited to rock music, by the way, IIRC he's no fan of Stravinsky, either. Schubert seems to prefer noble art both aesthetically and for its value statement to society (and possibly the behavioral effects it may inspire, as well).
Rock music (well, most good rock music, anyway) is IMHO vulgar by design. Most of the rock musicians that I admire would likely embrace that description. I find value in art that explores (okay, maybe celebrates) the vulgar (animal) side of human nature, while Schubert seems to reject it.
If I've gotten it right, I'd say that I don't agree with his viewpoint, but I understand it completely. |
The Stones are a purist's choice, for sure. I admire them more with each passing year.
However, the form has become so broad over the years that "greatest" labels have really become meaningless. What The Beatles were trying to do is only marginally related to what The Stones were trying to do, so - for me - a comparison is pointless. It will come down to semantics (What is really Rock n Roll?) and, as mentioned above, the purists probably come down on The Stones side of the fence while those with a broader definition might choose The Beatles, et al. Reasonable mainstream cases can also be made for guys as diverse as Dylan, Jimi, and Zappa. Reasonable esoteric cases can be made for hundreds of other artists.
Maniac,
I would point out that there's quite a stylistic leap from Muddy Waters to Chuck Berry in your lineage. I might insert Louis Jordan in there and I suspect that Gatemouth Brown was also an influence on Berry. But your point is taken...it's a long and winding road to any of these artists. |
