Someone in the “white music sucked in the 50s” thread mentioned

What's my point? My point is that as a man in his early thirties, I resent being asked to eternally salaam one bunch of ancient records and regard another slightly older bunch of ancient records as beyond contempt. 1956 good, 1953 bad? The evidence of my ears refutes that. So much of rock 'n' roll now sounds like a total sham, people who can't sing at all being hustled into a recording studio to cut a record because they're the right age. They piled them high, and sold them cheap. Meanwhile you have Jo Stafford, Dean Martin, Patsy Cline. The sound world of Mantovani. Exquisite arrangements. The highest fidelity of their day. Am I meant not to be able to hear that rock 'n' roll only happened because people too young to discriminate suddenly had disposable income?

Rock rolled on. Today, there are people younger than me forcing themselves to rate "Bony Moronie" and roll their eyes at "That's Amore". 1957’s equivalent would have been a youth culture that venerated ragtime and despised Sousa. Wouldn't both positions have been equally weird? I'd rather listen to traditional pop's transmissions from another planet – a more graceful, sophisticated one, than listen to "Chantilly Lace" and try to hear my life in it when it's not fucking there.

TL;DR: Liking rock 'n' roll is staid; liking trad pop takes imagination.

Just like both, fucking who gives a shit what a dickhead like Christgau thinks?

Fuck Christgau.
Gave 'Welcome to Sky Valley' a bomb, his opinions will never matter to me, and they shouldn't to anyone else either.

>>75173200
>>75173205
Agreed, my point was not to make another Christgau thread, he's not the worst offender, but attack the zombie rock 'n' roll culture.

>>75173205
and for some reason he gave an A- to Souljaboytellem.com

What white artists do blacks even like?

>>75173241
but yeah OP, I enjoyed reading your opinion, sadly I can't state my own because I listen to neither old rock'n'roll nor trad pop

>>75173295
nirvana
eminem

>>75173241
I think there's a lot of weird trends in music history/music criticsm like this. I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that Rock n Roll is presented in retrospect as this big new thing that wiped everything before it off the map and that everything before it was sterile and lacking in redeeming qualities. Same with Punk music or the Alt Rock boom of the 90s. It's definitely an accepted narrative written by those who came into music through those trends. I agree though, there's tons of great music after the Classical era but before 1956 that just gets sidelined because it doesn't fit in what the critics want to say. Trad Jazz or Music Hall or whatever are an important part of musical heritage as well that just aren't given credence.

but rock n roll was invented by black people
rocks original audience was black people

>>75173305
red hot chili peppers

>>75173346
Explain.

>>75173346
Yeah, and they moved on after about six years. It's whites who've beaten it to death and buggered its corpse.

>>75173338
Well, the whole field of jazz, not just trad jazz which was an odd revival, is incredibly rich. And pop itself had so many shades to it before rock 'n' roll got started.

>>75173338
>>75173446

But I agree, there's a chronological chauvinism based on very little.

>>75173295
Kool keith likes slayer

>the “white music sucked in the 50s” thread

OP was indeed a fag.

Brothers let us pray...

https://youtu.be/fZZD8ckwLJA

>>75173391
black man invent bangy guitar bass
white man say "sounds cool"
rock music become a profit genre
black man say "this is not rock"
go off and make other music
I don't know why I'm typing like this

Dude, I just don't like traditional 50s pop, why is that an issue to you? The good rock of that era is actually appealing to me in comparison.

>>75173509
Good, but not as good as this, by the least rock 'n' roll singer imaginable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqnhsGpjjkY

>>75173509
I can't believe I'm being venerated outside of my own thread, you shit taste niggers are obsessed

>>75173532
It's not an issue if you've tried with it. It's the dismissal that's the issue.

>>75173553
Tell me more of Little Richard's Power Soul Vocal father

>>75173422
Whites make the best rock, though.

>>75173548
This fucking sucks.

>>75173796
It was originally an autocorrect of power and soul

>>75173868
The thing they turned rock 'n' roll into, they're best at, but nobody else wants to do it anyway.

>>75173936
Why do you think it sucks? It has it all. The voice, the jazz, the dissonance, the production. A classic.

>>75174072
All that and it still manages to be boring. Just realized the guy's English. That explains a lot. England didn't have anything good until the Shadows came along.

>>75174141
It's only boring to you because it was introduced as being by "the least rock 'n' roll singer", proving my point.

>>75174164
I do like rock 'n' roll and know it when I hear it so it would have been boring regardless of how it was introduced. That's not even the least rock 'n' roll singer. That title belongs to Pat Boone. I still don't know what point you're trying to make.

>>75174251
You've just admitted that anything that's not rock 'n' roll is boring to you. That's pathetic.

I wasn't literally ranking them, the point is that Young isn't rock 'n' roll but that record is more sonically interesting than most rock 'n' roll records.

>>75174415
All I said was that I like rock 'n' roll. You're reaching pretty far if you think that mean I find anything that's not rock 'n' roll boring.

>>75174514
Look at what you said.

>I do like rock 'n' roll and know it when I hear it so it would have been boring regardless

That means "I knew it wasn't rock 'n' roll, so it was sure to bore me."

>>75174531
>regardless of how it was introduced
I was replying to your dumb assumption that your description of the singer would have any impact on whether or not I liked the song.

>>75174588
You said you would have been bored anyway, which is saying that you only like rock 'n' roll, or else why would you bring rock 'n' roll into it?

>>75174620
>You said you would have been bored anyway
That song would have been boring regardless of how it was introduced? Yes.
>which is saying that you only like rock 'n' roll
No. If it was a good song, I would have said so. Regardless of genre.
>or else why would you bring rock 'n' roll into it?
I didn't. You did when you posted the song.

>>75174718
You said you would have been bored because you know rock 'n' roll when you hear it. That's what you said.

>>75173548
I'd say this is more skiffle with some rockabilly effects, but it's interesting.

>>75173338
>I think there's a lot of weird trends in music history/music criticsm like this. I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that Rock n Roll is presented in retrospect as this big new thing that wiped everything before it off the map and that everything before it was sterile and lacking in redeeming qualities.

Which wasn't true. Actually, Christgau even said in a column that the rock and rollers of the '50s had more veneration for pre-rock pop than popular myth has you believe, after all they grew up when big band music and crooners dominated and their earliest exposure to music would have been Sinatra, Crosby, and Stafford.

Elvis thought rock and roll was kiddie stuff you grew out of and Frank Sinatra was what a serious, adult performer should aspire to be. Chuck Berry was influenced by swing music quite strongly, also his guitar style, rooted as it was in pre-rock forms of music, is almost impossible to emulate despite the countless covers of his songs (even Keith Richards himself could not play Chuck's licks and get the groove and tone exactly right). Rock as a business, as a lifestyle was a thing of the baby boomers, who were really the generation that rejected and overthrew traditional pop.

>>75173179
>Meanwhile you have Jo Stafford, Dean Martin, Patsy Cline. The sound world of Mantovani. Exquisite arrangements. The highest fidelity of their day. Am I meant not to be able to hear that rock 'n' roll only happened because people too young to discriminate suddenly had disposable income?
The thing most critics are trying to argue was that rock and roll had drive, it was edgy, black, and you could dance to it, while traditional pop was slow, bland, saccharine, and white as a snowflake. The early 50s was a remarkably bland, conformist time and kids wanted to have a good time, and the postwar economic boom gave them the money, leisure time, and new technologies like the portable record player that allowed them to do it.

Traditional pop didn't go away though, it lived on in new, insidious forms of adult contemporary music like Celine Dion and Adele.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFfqjlfAu0A

If you were 13 years old in the 1950s and this was all you had for music, you'd welcome the coming of Little Richard too.

>>75175764
Agreed, it's not rock 'n' roll, but it's just as exciting, and for me, has more sonic interest than Summertime Blues, which was in the post I replied to.

The thing is, even before the rock explosion in 1955-56, white kids had been buying black R&B records for some time, people involved in the record business had been noticing this phenomenon for a few years at that time. It was clear that kids were looking for something more driving than, uh, Patti Page?

>>75175849
Why are you repeating the standard line as if my posts didn't make it clear that I'd heard it many times before? It wasn't bland, it was sensual and dreamy and full of stories. Nor was it "white as a snowflake" - Dean Martin had more black friends than Elvis ever did.

R&B > R'n'R

File: 91aa5181fe062f9ae826e.jpg (37KB, 450x475px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 450x475px

>>75173179
>I'd rather listen to traditional pop's transmissions from another planet – a more graceful, sophisticated one, than listen to "Chantilly Lace" and try to hear my life in it when it's not fucking there
Ok, I see what your problem is and I also found this picture of you.

You see, rock and roll and other forms of music that have a strong beat you can dance to...they tend to appeal to sociable people who go to parties, bump ass, pick up girls. That sort of thing. Of course a shut-in basement dweller can't appreciate such music.

>>75175949
But don't you get it? Pop was not all anyone had. There was always jazz and classical. This is not taking into account folk or race records. All more interesting than the literal scam that was rock 'n' roll.

If I had been 13 then, I wouldn't have wanted anything more from pop than this. Listen to that voice, man. Rock 'n' roll was for the credulous.

>>75176037
Excuse me, I love early rock 'n' roll but don't do any of those things.

>>75176046
Jazz had stopped being danceable by the 50s and devolved into self-indulgent noodling for people who sit in a cafe as it's pouring rain outside. So something had to take its place.

Would Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley & Little Richard be considered rock and roll or rhythm and blues?

>>75176037
No man, rock 'n' roll fails as dance music. It's not sexy anymore, and nobody posting here can genuinely claim to find it so.

The point is that listening to old music is time travel. I'd rather travel to an interesting time and culture than an uninteresting one.

>>75176046
>Implying white kids would be allowed to listen to "negro music"

>>75176086
Chuck Berry and Little Richard were definitely rock 'n' roll, Bo Diddley is debateable. I'd call him more blues.

>>75176083
I didn't say jazz was danceable, although there was swing - and indeed, rock 'n' roll was basically sold on the same basis swing had been, but with much less skill and fewer overheads - few musicians + amplication taking the place of a dance band. Even the fashions look similar. But the real art of pop got lost.

The point is, you could dance to traditional pop, you just couldn't do rock 'n' roll dancing to it.

Early rock and roll's songwriting was limited to nonexistent, this was true. It was mostly party-down dance music, and the older generation at the time, raised on traditional pop written by Tin Pan Alley songwriters like Irving Berlin, bemoaned the loss of melody or songwriting in rock. So it took Dylan and the Beatles to give melody and songwriting to rock. This was the real rock revolution, in 1965 rather than 1955, and it paved the way for rock becoming serious business instead of a cheesy, loud teenage fad.

>>75176095
Many of them already did. Make your mind up. Either their parents were racist, in which case they wouldn't have got to listen to Little Richard, or they weren't, in which case they had heard other stuff.

The point here isn't the Whig history bullshit of pretending that rock 'n' roll was neccesary or an improvement, it's just a question of what's interesting to listen to. I think rock 'n' roll was mostly non-music, and what was worthwhile is no longer stimulating. A foreign culture interests me more than one that's been shoved down my throat all my life, and rock 'n' roll is the latter.

>>75176149
Yeah but even then, every time someone tries to bring back in some of what was lost, it gets slapped down as inauthentic - to something that isn't even authentic to anyone's experience these days anyway.

Of course, rock 'n' roll wasn't the start of black music being heard by white teenagers, it was the start of black music being heard by stupid, conformist white teenagers. Rock is a conservative genre because rock 'n' roll was aimed at witless crackers.

>>75176130
>I didn't say jazz was danceable, although there was swing - and indeed, rock 'n' roll was basically sold on the same basis swing had been, but with much less skill and fewer overheads - few musicians + amplication taking the place of a dance band.

This is an important point. Big band swing used large orchestral ensembles, and WWII effectively put it out of commission. Musicians got drafted into the military and wartime rationing made it hard for bands to tour. After the war, swing died out due to changing tastes and postwar inflation making those large orchestral ensembles cost-prohibitive.

So for the first decade after WWII, pop music was mostly crooners and novelty songs, and it was dull, slow, and not danceable. During the early 50s, as I said, kids started buying black R&B records. The rock explosion at last came when Chuck Berry began writing songs that explicitly aimed at the teenage audience, and Elvis gave rock its first white superstar/sex symbol.

>>75176149
>>75176193
But I'm glad someone else is acknowledging the facts.

I like dance music. I like music for listening to to. The canon of rock 'n' roll is these days neither one nor the other. It's not sexy, and it's not rewarding listening. It's as staid as the staidest traditional pop, but without the craft values or interesting difference from the now cliched rock idioms.

>>75176166
>A foreign culture interests me more than one that's been shoved down my throat all my life, and rock 'n' roll is the latter.
Please loosen the headband on your fedora. It's cutting off the circulation to your head.

>>75176166
How has it been shoved down your throat in the 21st century?

>>75176291
How is this staid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlHO7OEzHQk

>>75176291
>It's not sexy, and it's not rewarding listening.
Except it is.

>>75176264
Anything with a beat is danceable, and slow dancing was traditionally found sexier than fast dancing. It wasn't dull - are you one of those people who forgets that he never needed a product before its existence was advertised to him?

>at last came
>gave rock

Why do you talk like this? Are you worried you'll notice how gimcrack the music is if you stop talking like a TimeLife infomercial starring the late Bobby Vee?

>>75176264
And there were other factors. During the early 50s, pop music in the form we know it today came into being thanks in large part to Mitch Miller and his crew at Columbia. While in earlier times, pop music was based around arrangements in a manner similar to classical music, Miller conceived of a new kind of pop music based on textures and studio effects rather than arrangements.

Technology also was a major factor. In 1949, RCA debuted the vinyl 45 and 33 RPM record format, which was more lightweight, easier to handle, less fragile, and less noisy than the old shellac 78 discs. The 45 discs in particular, because they were easier for careless young kids to handle, helped create a unique teenage music culture.

>>75176297
Look, unfamiliar sounds will always be more interesting than familiar ones. Rock 'n' roll may have been the former once, but it's been the latter for as long as any of us has been alive. I'd rather listen to the recognisable but quite different sound worlds that came before it.

>>75176299
Constant documentaries reminding us to find it important. The canonization of it as official culture. Look at the inability of people on this thread to acknowledge how boring and stiff it is when it isn't just Fabian-tier con artistry.

>>75176326
It's completely staid. The fact that the guy's distorting his mic slightly changes nothing, it's like a gavotte or something. Even the sentiments of the lyrics are of a dead time.

>>75176341
Only to people who want to suck off their grandfathers and eat the dust that results.

>>75176364
>conceived of a new kind of pop music

Again, why are you talking like someone with no soul of their own?

>>75176264
>After the war, swing died out due to changing tastes
Count Basie complained in the mid-50s that kids no longer came to his shows. As he put it, "I would ask [teenagers] why they didn't come to our performances and they told me 'We cannot dance to this music.' And I thought 'But there was dancing before.'"

>>75176414
>Even the sentiments of the lyrics are of a dead time
But what of trad pop? Are not those songs also the sentiments of the lyrics of a dead time?

OP is a guy whose grandmother used to collect tons of Elvis memorabilia and beat him while playing "Heartbreak Hotel" on the turntable.

>>75176441
This is it, the need for faster music didn't exist beforehand - that's not how capitalism works. Rock 'n' roll created the need which made the older music seem archaic. Nobody was sitting around going "gee, the only records I've ever heard with backbeats are somehow undanceable to me for reasons that don't even make sense, I hope someone invents rock 'n' roll soon". This kind of thinking is anchronistic, patronising and simply wrong-headed.

>>75176414
>Look at the inability of people on this thread to acknowledge how boring and stiff it is when it isn't just Fabian-tier con artistry.

You're the odd one out for a reason. We aren't "sheeple", you're just a contratian shit.

>Even the sentiments of the lyrics are of a dead time.

The lyrics are just there for the sake of having lyrics, and there's nothing wrong with that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LUGNC8miRo

>>75176494
Tastes change of course. Even a lot of the rock that was out in the 70s like KISS or AC/DC would be undanceable to today's kids, the beat of it is too thin for today where the preference is for a really WHOOOMMM WHOOOMMM WHOOOMMM kind of beat.

>>75176494
But rock 'n' roll wasn't always fast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM_WLu4TnfE

>>75176465
Crafted speech is more timeless than spontaneous speech, and more interesting even when it isn't. The lyrics of "You Belong to Me" are image-rich and even sexually symbolic. The Bunker Hill record is just an old-timey guy hollering that he owns his girlfriend. Nobody feels like that anymore, and those who do, don't say it in those words.

>>75176541
This, a lot of it was brooding and sounding almost ready to explode with pent-up energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4_5593-skQ

>>75176571
That's not as sexy as this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YWbCs6Bkps

>>75176571
>Nobody feels like that anymore, and those who do, don't say it in those words.

Why does that matter?

>>75176535
Exactly. But we keep being told by the whole industry of rock nostalgia and the people who imbibe its nonsense - like some of the posters here, for example - that that music is still exciting in some timeless way, and it's just not, any more than any other time's fashions are. The issue for me is that people talk as if those records were still new, and as if stuff from three years before or even the same year is irrecoverably old, and I don't feel that's the case at all.

>>75176602
That's almost parodically staid.

>>75176603
Because I'm not interested in masturbating over dead people's sex lives.

File: lemmy.jpg (70KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 620x387px

"I actually remember before there was rock and roll. Music was just...Patti Page and Rosemary Clooney, and then, one day, along comes Chuck Berry, Bill Haley, and Elvis, and it was like 'This is rock and roll'."

>>75176670
Bill Haley was a cup of Ovaltine in human form, the idea that people ever found him exciting is hilarious.

>>75176597
Right. See, the point he's trying make here was that traditional pop had a certain...artifice to it. Meaning, professional songwriters would write standards and everyone would go out and sing them. The rock era brought about a change in that the performer wrote his own songs and they were personal and confessional, rather than whatever generic love ditty that Irving Berlin wrote for you. In essence, he's saying trad pop singers performed more for the sake of singing rather than because they "felt" the words of the song.

Frank Sinatra was a rare case of a trad pop performer who escaped this, he could make lyrics others wrote seem very personal and real in a way that, like, Perry Como could not. Dean Martin said of him "I don't get what ol' Frank gets so emotional over. It's just singing."

>>75176665
Is that the only criticism you can come up with? Every post you make is parodically staid. I feel like I'm listening to a Stan Freberg record.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiBbyz4oE0g

>>75176714
>Bill Haley was a cup of Ovaltine in human form, the idea that people ever found him exciting is hilarious.
Try and imagine him in a 1955 context though. J. Edgar Hoover actually had the FBI bug him because they thought he was a communist plant and he received death threats in the mail. And yes, Elvis, who was younger and sexier, soon replaced him.

>>75176670
Rosemary Clooney was a great singer, check out this tasty shit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mriXncI96lw

From when there were no fast records, remember...

>>75176614
>that that music is still exciting in some timeless way

I think it is. It's refreshingly simplistic and unpretentious, performed the common man instead of kikes in tuxedos or artsy hippies.

>>75176665
>Because I'm not interested in masturbating over dead people's sex lives.

Then why do you care so much about lyrics at all?

>>75176714
His voice was bland but the music his band made was exciting for the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBWF2m6K7sQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-BztZfXzlo

>>75176714
>>75176779
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsp5bLCPMNU

>>75176759
But the record you linked *was* staid, it was like listening to Korla Pandit. Try finding a rock 'n' roll record that's sexy to people who weren't alive at the time, and isn't either a guy rasping "MIIINE" or some little pavane of a thing.

>>75176806
If only records like that were more than a rare exception.

>>75176817
It annoys me that they didn't use the original recording, but still neat.

>>75176849
>Try to prove my subjective point

Now a real fake industry plant was Ricky Nelson. His debut record, while amateurish as fuck, still sold over a million copies. He didn't work his way up from the bottom like Elvis or Chuck Berry, he was a successful TV star whose father figured he could also market him to rock-crazed teens.

>>75176808
But it isn't. Most of the simplistic aspect is pure cynicism.

>kikes in tuxedos

Oh, I see why you hate the Songbook. >>/pol/

>>75173265
Which is an excellent album?

>>75176893
>But it isn't.

http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/factsopinions.html

File: zappa-Evening-Standard-Hul.jpg (63KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 630x420px

"I rather liked the music of the '50s and think it's better than a lot of what's out now (1979). To me, one really good, heartfelt song about a guy breaking up with his girlfriend is worth more than twenty albums of English rock put together."

>>75176808
Kill yourself

>>75176808
>>75176893
Putting aside your redpill for a moment, I don't get what possible connection you perceive between liking a good lyric and masturbating over dead people's sex lives. Look, try to understand - a love poem for the ages is for the ages. Stuff that just says "me want fuck" in the lingo of its moment is for the moment, and then for the trashcan. A Cole Porter lyric isn't about dead people fucking. A dead guy saying "me want um handjob" is about dead people fucking.

>>75176943
>the music of the '50s
He's referring solely to black doo-woop/rhythm & blues.

>>75176946
gr8 rebuttal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJsod7Lgn8E

>>75176882
Fuck you. The were plenty of people like Fabian and Dobie Gillis getting pushed without talent but Ricky Nelson career was the industry accidentally giving us some great records.

The thing is, 50s rock and roll didn't really kill off trad pop, if anything that music continued to sell millions of copies. Frank Sinatra's artistic peak was in the mid 50s-early 60s. The Beatles put the nail in the coffin more than anything.

Trad pop's last dying gasp was in the form of guys like Tom Jones and B.J. Thomas and by the late 70s it was definitively dead.

>>75177001
>Trad pop's last dying gasp was in the form of guys like Tom Jones and B.J. Thomas and by the late 70s it was definitively dead.

Technically yes, but >>75175883

>>75176855
>"If only records like that were more than a rare exception", the anon said, trusting that the other anon won't want to waste time pasting links just to disprove his lazy received opinon.

>>75176877
I have the great disadventure here, I know, of actually having a subjective taste, rather than just paying obesiance to baby boomer orthodoxy.

>>75176882
There were a lot of those guys though. Fabian, Frankie Avalon...

>>75176943
Yeah, we had this quote from that cocksucker in the "50s white music sucked" thread that this quotes from.

>>75176962
I'm so grateful that I've never been very invested in lyrics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPNcJhEYH0A

>>75176994
That wasn't the main anon in this discussion.

>>75177042
>rather than just paying obesiance to baby boomer orthodoxy

Fuck off with hat. I have my own opinions, I think 1956-'66 were the best years for pop and rock music and things went downhill when psychedelia came about.

>>75177033
What about Engelbert Humperdinck.

The truth is, the genre of popular music for normal people who aren't looking for gurus or self-insert ego worship figures never went away, but its sonic characteristics changed. This is specifically about the traditional pop styles that got sidelined.

>>75177097
Yeah, but that's rockist opinion #1 right there. It's well within the range of orthodoxy.

>>75177119
>that's rockist opinion #1 right there.

Wut? Most Boomers think rock peaked during the psychedelic years and can't shut up about Hendrix and Cream and Love's Forever Changes.

>>75177158
Yeah, but not all, there's always those Stones and Who fans who thought it was all faggotry.

>>75177062
So you're sidestepping the discussion? Cool.

I didn't read any of this faggy thread but Eddie Cochran was the GOAT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFmLWlx-P3U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY5MDivdcEE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYt-igGfblA

RNR is basically boogie-woogie without the piano. Black musicians had been recording it since at least the 20s, the only remarkable thing is how long it took to get exploited by the white record industry.

>>75177042
>paying obesiance to baby boomer orthodoxy
No one is paying obsidance to baby boomer orthodoxy. If we were we'd be defending Lawrence Welk or some shit. Rock 'n' roll wasn't as big as most people think. The reason those rock 'n' roll records are still listened to today instead of most bigger acts of the time is because they actually hold up better today.

>>75177326
OK.
>Hide post

>>75177326
He had me until 'Sitting In the Balcony'. Like Gene Vincent, he's got great hits but I can't stand his filler.

>>75177330
>Doesn't know what a baby boomer is.

Rock 'n' roll was fucking huge. How well they "hold up" is nothing to do with it. The records are still listened to today is that they're articles of faith for the generation that never grew up, and in refusing to do so, condemned your generation to serfdom.

>>75177326
I have a huge eight-disc box set of pretty much everything he ever recorded. It's just too bad he was forced to sing so many Elvis-style ballads, as his voice wasn't really suited to them.

He was also a great guitarist and can be heard as a session musician on dozens of other artists' singles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjVptiy92-A

>>75177328
Show me a Little Richard from the 20's.

>>75177367
Most boomers were too young for 50's rock 'n' roll. The British Invasion was such a massive phenomenon because boomers were teenagers in 1964.

>>75177382
>Show me a Little Richard from the 20's.

Read the post again, robot.

>>75177421
Show me a boogie-woogie singer from the 20's who sang like Little Richard.

>>75177411
All of that generation overrated the canon that already existed and was referenced by the Beatles and Stones in interviews, and their turning it from being dance music into some kind of ideological totem is the main reason it's still talked about. I mean, those people thought they weren't racist any more because they liked Chuck Berry records. The pre-packaged faux-piety is part and parcel of the overrating, and that took root in that generation.

>>75177490
No.

>>75177490
You're overanalyzing this to hell. I loved 50's rock 'n' roll even as a little kid, and only avoided it as a teenager because I feared it might be considered immature. In high school I forced myself to listen to classic rock, but now I've mostly gone back to old rock 'n' roll and country and blues because I just like the sound more. Piss off with your cultural analysis.

>>75177443
Show me a rock 'n' roll singer who sang like Barry Manilow. See how fucking meaningless you're being? The rhythm was under discussion, not the qualities of one singer's voice.

>>75177579
Nope, I'm not overanalysing anything. The reason this music is still overrated is the mythologizing that took place the following decade. You seem annoyed by thinking.

>>75177578
Yes, it did.

>>75177594
Nobody will listen to a song from the 20's and think "Oh yeah that's rock 'n' roll" because the rhythm is similar. You're saying Latin is the same as English because they're written in the same script.

>>75177621
It's not overrated. I'd still love it even if it weren't so talked about, and so would many others.

>>75177490
>and their turning it from being dance music into some kind of ideological totem is the main reason
Well, it kind of was an entire generation's rebellion against the Tin Pan Alley canon.

>>75177663
Is there a bot designed to eradicate any discussion on here by bringing up this cocksucker's opinions?

>Manilow arouses all the distrust that a man who achieved affluence making advertising music deserves

Imagine being an adult who thinks that kind of thing. Christgau later taught a college course funded by Clive Davis of Arista, amusingly. That apparently isn't being a whore, but being a jobbing jingle writer is.

>>75177621
What mythologizing? I've met far more people who share your opinion than people who listen to early rock 'n' roll. Most books/articles on the history of rock music skim over early rock 'n' roll and almost act as if the Beatles invented it.

>>75177675
No it's not. All non-racists know that rock 'n' roll was around on race records decades before it got codified and packaged for Klansmen's kids.

>>75177720
This, I'm a member of the biggest boomer-centric music forum and there's no discussion of early rock 'n' roll other than the threads I start.

>>75177001
>The thing is, 50s rock and roll didn't really kill off trad pop, if anything that music continued to sell millions of copies

Thrift stores have piles and piles of shit like "Andy Williams sings Christmas" or "Jerry Vale Live At Caesar's Palace". Trad pop/adult contemporary did after all sell a lot more records than Jefferson Airplane.

>>75177731
This is just absurd. There's music which directly preceded rock 'n' roll, but the elements didn't definitively come together until the early 50's.

What's next, 19th-century marching bands were jazz?

File: 5lsFo1qipzp7.png (23KB, 300x295px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x295px

>>75177746
>I'm a member of the biggest boomer-centric music forum
*sigh* Steve Hoffman Forums. We know.

>>75177731
The basic ingredients of it were around since probably the 1920s but rock in its familiar form only happened after it came to be explicitly marketed at teenagers.

>>75177687
No you fucking wouldn't, idiot. You wouldn't have heard of it any more than you know how to jitterbug.

>>75177695
Think about the sentence you just wrote. Think about the words in it. Do you not think it might be bullshit? What does it mean to "rebel" against a bunch of songs that are repertoire for professional musicians because most people who like pop tunes like them? It's like saying "it was a generation's rebellion against leaded windows", or "it was a generation's rebellion against Eggs Benedict". It doesn't MEAN anything. It's TimeLife CD box-set jabber.

Liking rock 'n' roll happened to teenagers in the 50s. Refusing to grow out of it because there was a cottage industry devoted to pretending that it meant something profound happened in the 60s. You listen to the relics of your grandparents' fornication now because of what went wrong in the 60s, not because of a brief trend in dance music in the 50s.

>>75177826
>You listen to the relics of your grandparents' fornication now because of what went wrong in the 60s

My grandparents were born in the 20s so they were more children of the big band era.

>>75177826
>The dominant music style for nearly a decade
>"a brief trend in dance music in the 50s"

>>75177720
That stuff is always present in a John the Baptist capacity, if you read about Rock as opposed to rock 'n' roll, naturally you'll get a different skew to the narrative, but they're never going to talk much about all the Rosemary Clooney and Sophie Tucker songs the Beatles played in Hamburg, as opposed to the canon worshipped and referenced by Lennon at every opportunity.

>>75177824
That's what I just said, why are you repeating it to me in a different order?

>>75177826
My grandparents weren't American. They didn't know what rock 'n' roll was.

>>75177860
>for nearly a decade

Try four years. And even if that were true, a decade is quite a lot briefer than sixty fucking years, which is how long it's been "current".

Now Christgau might well be right when he said that younger generations are more likely to perceive 1965 as Year Zero rather than 1955. After all, 50s rock and roll was a flash in the pan and after a few short years, music by 1960 had virtually devolved back to the early 50s with innocuous love ballads and novelty songs. What happened in 1965 onward was permanent and irrevocable.

>>75177847
Cool, you're definitely old enough not to talk like a fucking commercial presentation then.

>>75177884
About seven years, '56-'63.

>>75177878
Lucky them. The fact that you're overrating it is even more sad, then.

>>75177898
>permanent and irrevocable.

Nothing is. But that's the attitude was referring to above - this thousand-year-reich mentality kicks in with the baby boomers.

>>75177914
>>75177898

>>75177903
You're allowed to agree with common opinions without being a fucking brainwashed drone who can't think for himself.

>>75177957
Look at what you WROTE, man. You're the corpse of Bobby Vee begging us to remember.

>>75177920
Hell, I'm not even putting it on a pedestal. I just like it. Early rock 'n' roll isn't even my preferred genre. All I'm saying is your a moron to assume that everyone is listening to it because of John Lennon and their grandparents. I hate John Lennon.

>>75177973
I'm not big on Bobby Vee/Vinton/Rydell. I like the wilder, uninhibited stuff. And not because anyone told me to.

>>75178011
>Hell, I'm not even putting it on a pedestal. I just like it. Early rock 'n' roll isn't even my preferred genre
Of course, but this autistic fedora-wearing OP thinks people can only like something because baby boomers brainwashed them.

>>75177903
>Cool, you're definitely old enough not to talk like a fucking commercial presentation then

I'm not talking like a Time-Life commercial for some doo-wop compilation, that's your own warped, mentally ill interpretation.

>>75178017
>And not because anyone told me to.
But look what you WROTE.

>Well, it kind of was an entire generation's rebellion against the Tin Pan Alley canon.

That kind of total drivel - imagine you read someone saying that kind of thing about any other kind of product, or a politician. Any of that kind of "a generation thought..." generalizing bullshit, don't you realize what crap they've got you parroting? It's like MKUltra or something, seriously, the absolute garbage the baby boomers have drilled into your head.

>>75178052
He thinks you're parroting the opinions of music historians and journalists because your opinions happen to coincide.

>>75177864
>but they're never going to talk much about all the Rosemary Clooney and Sophie Tucker songs the Beatles played in Hamburg
Well...that's the old familiar tactic of "Let's make edgy covers of some Top 40 song". Think Megadeth's version of "These Boots".

>>75178011
That's fine, why are you involving yourself in defending it from my criticisms then?

>>75178035
No, I never said that. Read the thread.

>>75173346
Uhh, you are clearly a pleb. Blacks invented music. Not just rock

>>75177973
And why do you keep bringing up people like Bobby Vee and Fabian. No one here listens to them. More people disagreeing with you have been bringing up Little Richard. This is evidence that the cream rose to the top. Shit 50s rock just like shit 50s pop, went to the bottom.

>>75178059
>seriously, the absolute garbage the baby boomers have drilled into your head

Boomers were little kids in 1956 though, they weren't listening to Little Richard. As much as Bruce Springsteen likes to jerk off 50s rock and roll, he was like 6-7 years old at the time.

>>75178052
Your entire phrasing was the stuff of bullshitting advertising copy. A number of posts here have talked like that. Nobody naturally comes out with sentences like "It was Columbia engineer [dude's name] who sowed the first seeds of popular music as we know it today...". If you talk like that, you've had something done to your mind, either by your own mental laziness or being left in front of the TV as a baby, I don't know. I'm joking but only just - seriously, you sounded corny as fuck.

>>75178066
No, like I said, it's the phrasing, stop trying to manage people's perception of what I'm saying directly to them, they don't need an intermediary, thanks.

>>75178082
Because you're insisting that people who happen to like rock 'n' roll do so because of John Lennon and/or having a desire of living the life of their grandparents.

>>75178059
>But look what you WROTE.

All I said is that agreeing with what others have said after analyzing the facts for yourself, doesn't mean your opinions are being made for you.

>>75177914
>About seven years, '56-'63

The first wave of rock and roll was from 1955 to 58, by 1960 it was totally over and guys like Chuck Berry fell off the charts. In 1960-63, you had a dead zone filled with girl groups and novelty songs.

>>75178115
See, there we go. I'm only talking like an advertising copy in your paranoic mind.

>>75178115
Turns of phrase exist. Again, you're overanalyzing.

>>75178068
It really isn't, they were jobbing entertainers doing the work that would these days be done by a DJ, and they were playing whatever songs they knew.

>>75178088
I bring them up because the aggregate of what rock 'n' roll consisted of was chancers like Fabian, not songwriters like Chuck Berry or Little Richard. I'm talking about a whole culture.

Criminally underinformed about pre-rock, not counting jazz.

>>75177703
Barry Manilow is pretty fucking nauseating though.

>>75178095
I've already addressed this. >>75177938, last paragraph of >>75177826, >>75177490.

>>75178128
>ignoring the best genre to come out of the early 60s
I don't blame you. Everyone seems to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLujo3BEU7E

>>75178163
Why? He's written some good songs. "Sandra" is superb.

>>75178128
There was also early surf rock, adventurous stuff by Roy Orbison and Del Shannon, and some rockers like Freddy Cannon and Gary US Bonds.

>>75178128
Thank you for correcting that anon, your less generous calculation of rock 'n' roll's peak is probably more correct than my four year estimate.

>>75178128
Interesting fact: Chubby Checker thinks he should be in the RRHOF. Unfortunately, he won't because Jan Wenner and his crew control all of that and they snub anything associated with 1960-63, even though The Twist kind of kept rock and roll alive during that period.

>>75178204
Hank Ballard's original is better.

File: 96353ab74728debcc56dc9362805d405.jpg (10KB, 236x182px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x182px

>>75178163
Eh? Do I have to listen to Megadeth to prove how manly I am?

>>75178204
>ignoring surf again

>>75178219
I'm not the one ignoring surf rock here, Jan Wenner is.

>>75178208
It's Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Talent. If it were, three-quarters of the inductees would be gone.

>>75178216
No, you don't have to do that, I'm just Saiyan that no self-respecting heterosexual man can unironically listen to Barry Manilow.

>tfw this is the most in depth thread on rock 'n' roll i've ever seen on here
I guess I should have said it was shit if I wanted you guys to talk about it.

>>75178204
I think of those years, 1960 was the weakest. Looking at the charts for that year and there was just...nothing but vapor. 50s rock and roll had died off and there wasn't yet even any Beach Boys, let alone Beatles or Dylan.

>>75178245
If you have any self-mustard then you know fame is a fickle faggot

>>75176004
>It wasn't bland, it was sensual and dreamy and full of stories.
LOL

>>75178273
This. Maybe I should start a thread shit-talking classic country or blues.

>>75178245
Then again, they still won't admit KISS to the RRHOF even under duress.

>>75178282
But there was the Ventures and the Shadows you fag. Before Dylan and the Beatles fucked everything up.

>>75178289
Should we say his opinion is invalid because it's written like a music journalist?

>>75178204
I'd be interested in knowing more about this snub and its motives.

The sniffiness I've noticed in a few posts on this thread about "novelty records" has been odd - don't they realize that all rock 'n' roll records were novelty records? Elvis's voice seemed like a gimmick to older listeners, and his name certainly did.

File: 89787897894.png (41KB, 777x771px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 777x771px

>>75178282
Some big names here, but it's not that good overall.

File: qotsarr.jpg (13KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 600x600px

Controversial opinion: best rock record came out in 2000

>>75178333
>I'd be interested in knowing more about this snub and its motives
I already told you. The people who control the RRHOF dislike 1960-63, they perceive it as a dead zone between Elvis and the Beatles. Whether you consider that correct or fair judgement or not is up to you.

>>75178333
Rock 'n' roll wasn't novelty music but there were novelty rock records. As much as I'd like to see it Elvis never did 'Monster Mash' or 'Martian Hop'.

>>75178333
Before Elvis had become famous, some music executive who had never seen his picture referred to him as "that colored boy with the funny name".

>>75173305
>nirvana
They don't really, they just namedrop Cobain because he licked hip-hops butthole.
>>75173295
Lots. They sample white music all the damn time.

>>75178289
Seriously, there are stories in every lyric in those days, even the silly ones. The music is dreamy - swooning strings, jazziness. And I can't help but notice that most of the anti-trad argument indicates a preference for hoarse male voices over caressive female ones.

>>75178317
I've spotted you doing this twice before, this is the third time. If you want not to seem like a conformist, doing this "he thinks that you", "what do we think of him" go-between shit for people who don't need it is not the way to go about it, you fucking drone.

>>75177621
The music is venerated because it still holds up and sounds good you dumb honkey

>>75178354
I think I mentioned this before, but Connie Francis is sadly ignored for having as many hits as she did, because the people making 50s playlists on oldies radio didn't care about girl singers.

>>75178379
That's interesting, so their basis for it is simply their pretension?

>>75178384
Elvis was himself a novelty act to adult listeners. I know of at least one DJ raised in the trad pop era who laughed at Elvis's voice and name. Buddy Holly's hiccup is a novelty. The Big Bopper was called the Big fucking Bopper. Gene Vincent was an electrocuted-looking queer spaz. All novelty acts.

>>75178387
Exactly.

>>75178402
>Seriously, there are stories in every lyric in those days, even the silly ones. The music is dreamy - swooning strings, jazziness. And I can't help but notice that most of the anti-trad argument indicates a preference for hoarse male voices over caressive female ones
HAHAHAHAH FUCKING SHIT

>>75178402
>And I can't help but notice that most of the anti-trad argument indicates a preference for hoarse male voices over caressive female ones
You have Taylor Swift if you want caressive female singers. :^)

>>75178354
>>75178282
>looking at the charts
And that's where the problem is. If OP wants to shit on someone who is way under the influence of baby boomer opinions, here they are.

>>75178404
>The Qu'ran is still believed because it's true, you dumb kaffir!

Sure, I'm sure that's how it works.

>>75178443
>Taylor Swift's voice
>sexy
This is a troll, right?

Women don't really sing like they did in the crooner days anymore, that low, chestal kind of vocal, they all try to...project.

>>75178419
There's a theme of women being overlooked it seems to me.

>>75178439
It's true, isn't it?


>>75178443
I like Taylor Swift, though I wouldn't call her style caressive.

>>75178443
Oh wait, Taylor Swift isn't seductive or caressive, she sounds like a fucking chipmunk.

>>75178462
Some people have different tastes than you, wow!

File: MI0001406967[1].jpg (51KB, 400x477px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 400x477px

>>75178436
He wasn't and neither was anyone you listed. Even if they were, it would not be a problem. Screamin Jay Hawkins was a novelty he's amazing.

>>75178462
>>The Qu'ran is still believed because it's true, you dumb kaffir!

>Sure, I'm sure that's how it works.
I'm not sure that's how arguments work cracka

>>75175949
Yeah, I don't really find Doris Day sexy. That song you linked is more silly than it is sexy.

>WUUDDD I LUV YOU LUV YOU LUV YOOOOUUUUUU

>>75178354
Slightly irrelevantly, I'll just say that I love Percy Faith's Theme from A Summer Place. Just listening to it again now. That light music sound!

>>75178506
>Screamin Jay Hawkins was a novelty he's amazing
Plus the man invented shock rock (well, Little Richard had a part in that too). Alice Cooper, KISS, Manson, all of them wouldn't have been possible without Screamin' Jay.

>>75178486
Women can be soulful singers too, 50s honkeys just tend to not be good at it

>>75178499
That's what I started this thread to state. If you look at this thread, it's been about other people's denial of my right to call rock 'n' roll music as I hear it - staid, dusty, unstimulating old fap.

>>75178493
>>75178486
>>75178463
>somehow this thread devolves into Taylor Swift bashing just like the one yesterday

>>75178436
Most of those weren't really novelties.Buddy Holly's sound, nor his popularity, revolved around his hiccup. Elvis' vocals were rooted in the styles of R&B singers as well as some more intense pop performers like Johnnie Ray. And that Gene Vincent thing doesn't even make sense, he was just king of ugly.

>>75178545
You're a fag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE7ONOX8ud4

>>75178506
Yes, they all were. Make up your mind about what argument you're making. Here's the thing - rock 'n' roll shouldn't have ended up with fans who concern themselves with notions of artistic legitimacy, but it did. You're against them being called novelty acts, which they were, but then you say it wouldn't matter if they were. Decide which you want to say.

>>75178561
>You're a fag

He does. He actually admitted to liking Barry Manilow.

>>75178545
And we think your crooners are boring. What a pointless debate.

>>75178511
That's how the "argument" I was responding to worked.

>>75178545
>staid, dusty, unstimulating old fap
You were talking about trad pop this whole time? LOL

>>75178515
Patti Page was pretty sexy for the time, actually she gives How Much Is That Doggy In The Window a deliver that sounds a little too seductive for the lyrics.

>>75178541
I have no idea what you think you're arguing against in my posts about women being just that, but I wish you'd stop pretending to be Huggy Bear, it's embarrassing.

>>75178582
No it didn't, you're just a retarded cracka who can't debate. Go back to your farm

>>75178596
Why haven't you given me a single argument so far?

>>75178583
I mean, really. The kids rebelled against Doris Day and Jo Stafford for a reason and it wasn't because they were making music that had any drive to it.

>>75178559
Yeah, they all were. Buddy Holly's vocal sound is that hiccup, which is a total gimmick.

Gene Vincent's body language and what he did with his limitations was his gimmick. His whole way of coming across.

Johnnie Ray was the most decadent fucking gimmick performer of all time, and you're referencing him to defend Elvis's cartoon baritone dips? PLEASE.

>>75178571
I'm saying it doesn't matter because there is nothing wrong with novelty music. Like I said earlier Elvis never did 'Martian Hop' but I sure wish he did.

>>75178561
>>75178572

This is how you end up pretending to think if you grow up convincing yourself to like grampa's fuck music, kids. Don't do it. Rock 'n' roll - not even once.

>>75178628
Notice how these singers are all white?

>>75178628
By this logic, every music performer in history had a gimmick.

>>75178641
Rock 'n' roll everyday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaNVqErcCGg

>>75178641
It's just choosing the lesser of two shits at this point

>>75178648
You can apply that bullshit to black performers too.

>>75178641
>This is how you end up pretending to think if you grow up convincing yourself to like grampa's fuck music, kids
>he says RNR was grandpa's fuck music

>>75176348
You just got done saying that slow dancing was sexier than fast dancing.

>>75178580
I haven't mentioned any crooners.

>>75178618
The kids didn't "rebel" against Doris Day and Jo Stafford. Try to understand what the world was like then. Those people were entertainers, not authority figures. There was no rebellion because there was no oppression. You bought their records or didn't. The sick guru nonsense of people thinking John Lennon or Bob Dylan spoke for them was later. Doris Day and Jo Stafford sang songs to entertain normal people of all ages. They never inspired a Charles Manson or a Mark David Chapman.

>>75178656
It's true though. Do you honestly believe anyone would have ever liked James Brown if he was clean cut and didn't dance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNdZpNUzFIg

>>75178648
Name some black ones and I'll name their gimmicks.

>>75178656
No, just ones aimed at youth with little discernment and lots of pocket money.

>>75178678
>The kids didn't "rebel" against Doris Day and Jo Stafford. Try to understand what the world was like then

Yes I do. How Much Is That Doggy In The Window and Mr. Sandman was what you heard on the radio. It was very boring and very lame, and even before Rock Around The Clock happened, kids had been buying black R&B records for a couple years.

>>75176670
See Lemmy's remarks about the abysmal state of popular music right before the rock explosion.

>>75178671
I said "traditionally found", and the point is that nobody was saying "gee, when will they invent rock 'n' roll' in 1953.

>>75178693
Sure, I liked him long before I saw any footage of him.

>>75178727
1. That's not rebellion, that's buying different records.

2. Black radio existed, and whites living in the right areas could hear it.

3. I read Lemmy's anachronistic and incoherent comments, why would I care? Nobody was asking for rock 'n' roll before it existed because capitalism doesn't work like that.

>>75178736
But that was because of his gimmick of constantly taking it to the bridge.

>>75178735
But they ate up rock 'n' roll as soon as it came about, and not just because they were brainwashed into it or whatever you'll probably say.

>>75178736
You only got to hear him because others had gotten off on what he looked like. The baton has to be passed down for it to reach you.

>>75178757
>I read Lemmy's anachronistic and incoherent comments, why would I care?
He was actually around in 1955 to remember and so was Christgau. You and me weren't.

>>75178233
Jan Wenner can eat a dick though.

>>75178771
Okay, but why did I like it then?

>>75178769
>This OP
Lul. How long did it take you to find this place cutie?

>>75178766
I have addressed this three times over now. The overrating which is why people in 2017 are pretending to get a spontaneous rush from sixty-years-old dance records began with the mythologization in the sixties by the baby boomers. That's what I'm talking about, not that kids liked it at the time. Ragtime was huge from the 1890s onwards, but nobody was crazy about it in 1956 - yet the equivalent attitude towards rock 'n' roll is commonplace in 2017. To think this is merely because of the merit of the records is to assume that its merit is also greater than that of any preceding youth craze throughout the history of popular music, which is insane nonsense.

>>75178799
Because of gimmicks. True artists like Pat Boone don't need gimmicks. They got talent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=von9jW-_eqI

>>75178815
Pat Boone sucks.

>>75178808
True post honestly.

>>75178808
>To think this is merely because of the merit of the records is to assume that its merit is also greater than that of any preceding youth craze throughout the history of popular music, which is insane nonsense.
Pretty much everything of popular music today was made possible by what happened between 1955 and 65. The Tin Pan Alley school of music became obsolete overnight.

>>75178778
Why the fuck would that have anything to do with the clear issue of this thread, stated explictly at the start, that people born decades afterwards have had this myth of its importance foisted on them from birth? Of course the dead and ancient think sex peaked in their day, but you're QUOTING that opinion as if it has any chance of being true. This is generational suicide, but more worryingly, it's homicide - the old trying to murder the energy of the young, deny the validity of their libidos.

>>75178851
>Why the fuck would that have anything to do with the clear issue of this thread, stated explictly at the start, that people born decades afterwards have had this myth of its importance foisted on them from birth? Of course the dead and ancient think sex peaked in their day, but you're QUOTING that opinion as if it has any chance of being true. This is generational suicide, but more worryingly, it's homicide - the old trying to murder the energy of the young, deny the validity of their libidos.

>>75176297

>>75178808
Yes it was. Fag.
>>75178837
Wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLaY1kBdWKs

>>75178840
>throughout the history of popular music
is what I said. Not throughout the last sixty years.

Tin Pan Alley didn't become obsolete at all, people continued to record those songbook songs. They've never stopped, and there's still a vast market for them.

>>75178837
Thank you.

>>75178865
And on a show that featured rock 'n' roll no less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJob6kilGXQ

>>75178871
>Tin Pan Alley didn't become obsolete at all, people continued to record those songbook songs. They've never stopped, and there's still a vast market for them.
Sure, people continued to record the old standards written by guys like George Gershwin, but nobody wrote new songs in that vein (I guess David and Bacharach were the last songwriters in that tradition), in particular the 60s brought about the idea that music was written by the performers about themselves rather than standards that everyone recorded, and we can thank Bob Dylan to a large extent for that, although of course Chuck Berry had always written his own material as well.

>>75178912
Dylan was important in making those anthemic songs you could sing around the campfire. You couldn't possibly sing the Tin Pan Alley canon around the campfire, those songs required a full string/horn section and a singer of huge range and power to pull off.

>>75178933
I think that's always been a large part of what Christgau and other rock critics have argued, that music should belong to the people and be achievable by an average guy strumming a guitar.

>>75178912
>in particular the 60s brought about the idea that music was written by the performers about themselves rather than standards that everyone recorded
Pop musicians don't use their own songs with rare exception, they get Max Martin to write them a tune.

>>75178912
This is hilariously wrong. First of all, those songs had never been written in only one style - check out a 1929 clip of someone singing Singin' in the Rain when it was new, then compare that to the famous Gene Kelly version. Or listen to the original releases of Georgia on My Mind by Hoagy Carmichael, then listen to the famous Ray Charles arrangement. Those songs had been rearranged perpetually since their introductions, and have been rearranged perpetually since. The songs of the new era became new standards to join the Songbook - look at Yesterday, or Something. More recently, look at Adele covering 90s Dylan.
The vast majority of pop singers have continued to leave the writing to others. Some get co-writer credits, but Al Jolson got co-writer credits as part of a deal in return for introducing the song to the public, and I imagine Adele's contribution to most of her ostensible compositions is roughly at the same level.

>>75178950
Taylor Swift writes most of her own songs, but in general this does tend to be true. However, pop music has a similar problem, it's inherently corporate and not grassroots.

>>75178961
>The songs of the new era became new standards to join the Songbook - look at Yesterday, or Something
Paul McCartney however wrote that as a Beatles song for the band to perform themselves. If people covered it, nothing wrong with that, but it was certainly a lot different from the crooner days when nobody wrote their own songs.

>>75174718
good man.

>>75178933
Nope. People sang those songs a cappela in their homes routinely. I know this happened in my own family, and it was common in others' to judge from various sources, such as the early features of Terence Davies. They took the place of folk songs. It was the rock era whose technological perfection put the song beyond the reach of ordinary people.

A recurring theme on this thread is that people will make some wild and completely baseless claim in order to defend the account that rock music has given them of rock 'n' roll's greater honesty, purity, democracy or some shit like that - all of which claims are provably false.

>>75178985
No, he knew it would never work for the group format. He wrote it as a standard, because he came into the game with the full intention of being a professional songwriter. Don't talk about things you don't understand, get a basic education first.

>>75178995
>Nope. People sang those songs a cappela in their homes routinely. I know this happened in my own family
Does all of your family wear fedoras?
>It was the rock era whose technological perfection put the song beyond the reach of ordinary people.
Your trolling is getting more obvious with each post.

>>75178962
>Taylor Swift writes most of her own songs

Could you tell us how old you are, please? It might save some time.

Every record you ever heard was corporate. This was especially true in the fifties when indie labels as you understand them basically didn't exist - apart from Sun Ra's maybe, if he'd started it by then.

>>75179007
>Don't talk about things you don't understand

If you're going to be patronizing and sound like a parent scolding a child, then don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

>>75179023
I'm not denying she doesn't use producers to help develop the songs, but she does write most of her own lyrics and also picks what songs get released as singles.

>>75179014
No, you see, working people used to sing for their own pleasure. Every family member had their own solo songs, and there were also songs everyone sang together. This began back when the songs were all folk songs - it goes back as far as hearths and the family unit, no bullshitting. When Tin Pan Alley started, the wonderful thing that happened was, the working class adopted those songs into their own traditions - so you had Northern English people singing these songs in amongst, and eventually replacing, their centuries-old "songbooks".

Then within the space of a decade and a half, that was destroyed. Songs appeared that were for certain demographics only, splitting the group. It carried on from there. You can't sing "Tomorrow Never Knows" that way. The songs started to express narcissistic states that an individual could identify with, but couldn't declare in a group. How do you sing "It Ain't Me Babe" in front of your grandmother? And so it all died.

This isn't memeing or fedora shit or romanticization, this is what rock 'n' roll and what followed actually *did*.

>>75179030
If you sound like an actual child who thinks sincerity was invented by Paul McCartney, the professional musician's son, in 1964, don't expect any adults to take you seriously.

>>75179076
Yeah, again, what age are you?

>>75179084
>This isn't memeing or fedora shit or romanticization
Oh, but it is romanticization because even if you would go back to, say, the 1930s, different demographics of people had different musical preferences, for example jazz was mostly an urban style while folk and country were the music of rural whites. Rural blacks had blues. And there was always a generational divide of sorts, old fuddy-duddies thought 1920s jazz was ruining young people's morals. Old fucks who thought jazz peaked in 1923 or something were shitting on Duke Ellington in his day, calling him "tea-room music" (they were dubbed "moldy figs" by Downbeat Magazine).

For example, my grandmother was a girl during the 40s and she said her mother told her "I don't care for these singers of today. They use too much vibrato. I was always taught that when you sing, you stretch a note out and make it smooth."

>>75179084
>Then within the space of a decade and a half, that was destroyed. Songs appeared that were for certain demographics only, splitting the group. It carried on from there. You can't sing "Tomorrow Never Knows" that way. The songs started to express narcissistic states that an individual could identify with, but couldn't declare in a group. How do you sing "It Ain't Me Babe" in front of your grandmother? And so it all died.

Does this guy even realize just how autistic he is?

File: frank-zappa-9540382-2-raw.jpg (93KB, 1200x1197px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1200x1197px

>>75179149
"When you get down to it, almost nobody listens to music for its own sake, it's the background noise to their particular lifestyle. For example, if you're the laid-back romantic type, you'd listen to the Eagles or Linda Ronstadt. If you're a young urban professional, you'll listen to jazz fusion. As for my audience, I believe there's a lot of cynics out there and they feel reassured knowing there's someone else who shares their skepticism."

>>75179177
Stop calling me an autist, autist.

>>75179252
Takes one to know one.

>>75179177
What clued you in, >>75178851?

>>75173174
>Someone else repeated Christgau's pathetic claim that Patsy Cline's records were better with their production fucked with by CD-era remaster producers
Actually he said he preferred Patsy Cline's live recordings to her studio stuff.

>>75173179
To be fair, I'm not a big fan of Chantilly Lace, there's better rock and roll songs than that.

>>75179149
The song and the singers being detached from each other meant that a song could continue its "career" across different generations of a family even if the most recent recordings were not to the taste of all family members.

Why are you bringing up what groups of jazz fans called each other? I know about that, but I'm talking about ordinary working people.

>>75179177
Why do you keep doing this appeal to the audience shit? Talk directly to me, not about me or, as in this case >>75179252, pretending to be me.

>>75179252
I wouldn't call you that if it wasn't true, you know.

>>75179333
He also made the claim I referred to. Didn't you notice that when you read the same review?

>>75179361
>The song and the singers being detached from each other meant that a song could continue its "career" across different generations of a family even if the most recent recordings were not to the taste of all family members
If you want to argue that, AC/DC tunes will probably live on forever while only Gen Xers will ever really be able to "get" The Pixies.

>>75179232
Very interesting that he thought his audience listened to him for his lyrics. Pity he couldn't have done better on them.

>>75179375
He said that the remaster got rid of the snapback reverb, however it couldn't eliminate the other dated studio production bits and for that reason he'd rather listen to Patsy Cline's live recordings.

>>75179361
This gets even better because now the OP, on top of his other massively autistic arguments, is now saying that soulless mass-market pop made by professional songwriters is better and superior because it doesn't offend your grandma.

>>75179384
That's dependent on their still being a lot of bands who want to cover them. But the Pixies seem pretty impossible to get if you weren't directly in that window who were sold them at the time, it's true. They're interesting as a business plan - I take it that Black Francis is a square guy who can sing who decided to pretend to be a twisted guy who couldn't - but the results are barely even songs.

How it used to work was, people would go and ask for a hit song by name, then they'd be asked "which recording?" Songs were hits, not records, which accounts, among other things, for Woody Allen's oddly-phrased reference to "the Beatles' hit recording of I Want to Hold Your Hand" in Annie Hall.

>>75179395
Yeah, and he said it was an improvement, which he was wrong about in my view, as I said, why are you describing back to me a review I read and referenced myself, are you genuinely fucking insane?

>>75179410
No, I haven't said anything like that. You're calling me autistic when you call some kinds of consumer product "soulless", as if there were consumer products that had souls. Do you talk to cars, as well? Do you get angry with certain breads?

>>75179384
What I'm saying is, there are plenty of rock tunes like Back In Black which have become standards covered by countless people. However, AC/DC wrote their own songs, it was an expression of who they were as people. Even KISS, maligned as they often are, did write all their own songs, which reflected who they were and what they were feeling.

When you're talking someone like Mariah Carey, she was just a dancing puppet for the songs that Max Martin et al fed to her, there was no "honesty" to what she did as an artist. And that's why people dislike her kind, she's just a continuation of the musical tradition that gave us How Much Is That Doggie In The Window.

>>75179393
cynicism is a plebeian stance. he wrote satire for middlebrows. get ducked

>>75179533
Oh man, this is some serious rockism you've got going on. Max Martin is no more or less personal than KISS, who are arch-professionals and always were. Whether they naturally think in rock cliche soundbytes or they have a well-oiled machine for breaking their thoughts down to that level, the result's the same.

>>75179533
I dislike the values of people who dislike Mariah Carey. And I can't stand her voice.

Also, Elvis sang anything you put in front of him. How come he's not this contemptible puppet?

It's because he had a wang. So much of the authenticity myth, like I said earlier, boils down to an anti-feminine thing.

>>75179615
>Also, Elvis sang anything you put in front of him. How come he's not this contemptible puppet?
Elvis worked his way up from poverty to get where he was, big difference between someone like Mariah Carey who was created as a corporate Top 40 song factory from day one.

>It's because he had a wang. So much of the authenticity myth, like I said earlier, boils down to an anti-feminine thing

This is getting borderline Tumblr here.

>>75179659
No, you're talking nonsense. You sound like an underage YouTube commenter. Are you the same dipshit who thought that Taylor Swift actually writes her songs?

>>75179684
>>75179659
Calm down

OP here. There seems little to add to this thread, other than to note that people's committment to maintaining orthodoxy is fiercer than I might have expected, but no worse than I feared. It's hard to dislodge the bullshit narrative, but many posters did, contributing some great points, and I thank them. I'm going now, but I'm sure the remainder of the threads' allocated posts will be used - to post bullshit, insults, possibly some pretences to be me, and a lot of conformist staircase wit using my silence to have the last laugh. Knock yourselves out.