Some irrefutable truths about rock and roll


1) Robert Johnson invented rock and roll, and is the rightful King of it. Elvis Presley's title should be amended to "Poster Boy of Early Rock and Roll."

2) Jeff Buckley's version of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" is infinitely better than the Rufus Wainwright version and is the definitive version of the song.

3) The Rolling Stones were and are the most overrated band in the history of rock and roll.

4) If it's too loud you are, indeed, too old.

5) The Stone Roses' self-titled debut is the best debut album ever in the history of ever.

6) John Mayer needs to stop that right now.

7) A good song is a good song, whether it's played on an Audiovox tape deck and a single factory speaker in a 1976 Buick Skylark or a complete Linn Klimax system.

8) A couple of Les Pauls, a Fender Precision bass, and a decent set of drums sound every bit as good as the most disciplined orchestra.

9) There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the occasional urge to crank "Hungry Like the Wolf" from time to time, so long as it doesn't become a habit.

Did I forget anything?

*yes, I realize everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, and this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
theraiguy
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").

"Come Together" is another Beatles tune I would not sing to children. But there are literally dozens and dozens of Beatles tunes that you can.

I don't have kids, but it may not be such a bad idea, as the lyrics to that song are so silly that they may just get a good giggle out of it LOL....
How can the Beatles be so good (I'm not a big Beatles fan, but think they are/were good) and Paul McCartney (as a solo act) be so bad?
"How can the Beatles be so good (I'm not a big Beatles fan, but think they are/were good) and Paul McCartney (as a solo act) be so bad?"

I hear Paul still puts on a good live show!

Even in their prime, no solo Beatle could be equated with the Beatles as a group. That was a unique synergy that could be emulated but never equaled consistently.

However good or bad McCartney is/was as a solo act really has no relevance to what the Beatles were.

There are a few McCartney albums that are worth mention that can claim some level of artistry approaching that of the Beatles albums. "Ram", "Band On the Run", "London Town" and "Tug Of War" are the ones I would cite personally though opinions will vary widely regarding the merit of much of McCartney's solo stuff.

Can't comment on most of his recent albums though...haven't heard much of them.