Does anyone else find the baby boomer/rockist myth about how

>>75195034
Agreed, R&R is a meme. Especially when people try to make out it's the source of what we listen to now. 2017 pop, indie and hip hop has no more to do with that shit than it does the stylings of Mr. Darrin and co.

>>75195091
>Especially when people try to make out it's the source of what we listen to now

After 60+ years of course the influence will be a little diluted.

>>75195091
>he listens to contemporary pop, indie, and hip-hop
pleb

>>75195034
>Like, it would be if I praised 1920s jazz and said ragtime was shit.
Rag ain't shitty, but jazz is easily better.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=AeBn_TZ4Iak

Christgau was probably right when he said that younger generations will be more likely to regard Year Zero as 1965 rather than 1955.

>>75195034
I blame the "awful noise" on the fact that most of those artist didn't have access to HQ recording studios in LA or New York like the established trad-pop stars.

>>75195137
It's HOMEOPATHIC.

>>75195190
Nah, he was just hoping that something still relevant happened when he was young. Year Zero now is 1986 - that's when Frankie Knuckles' Your Love came out.

Woman love hey, hey, hey hey

>>75195034
Never heard this myth but Rolling Stone has never done shit for early rock music.

Pop music as we know it today took shape in the 50s, as arrangements gave way to the idea of a song being based around effects and textures. But not until the Beatles did the album replace singles as the center of popular music.

>>75195692
But neither of those statements bears any relation to how pop music works now. The first statement is like giving the Wright brothers credit for the space shuttle, and the second hasn't been true since 1977 - what did you think the point of punk was?

>>75195692
>Pop music as we know it today took shape in the 50s
>>75195728
>But neither of those statements bears any relation to how pop music works now

Both of these statements contradict each other and make no sense.

I think that rock n roll definitely played a big part in terms of how up beat pop music has been since then. The closest equivalent was the rhythm section to the kind of shit flappers used to dance to, but that stuff's sound itself wasn't as energetic and visceral.

>>75195781
Big band swing was dance music alright, there was plenty of beat to that, unfortunately drums couldn't be recorded prior to tape, so studio recordings of big band tunes necessitated the drummers playing on wooden blocks instead.

https://youtu.be/Vv-LAbMbEn4
i feel like if /mu/ was around back in 1957 you'd be defending this.

File: 8887879.png (41KB, 560x780px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 560x780px

>>75195781
>I think that rock n roll definitely played a big part in terms of how up beat pop music has been since then
The charts in the early 50s were dominated by slow, saccharine pop and love ballads with zero beat, kids couldn't dance to it. See here, the Billboard Chart for 1954, just before the rock explosion. This is pretty blah stuff on here.

>>75195034
>Try and listen to 50s R&R nowadays, it sounds like awful noise that's aged about as well as sour milk.

Says you. I'm listening to it right now and I think it's a GLORIOUS noise.

It was a generational shift in a rather major way, singers from the big band era were rapidly driven off the charts from 1955 onward.

>>75195898
Lyl Christgau despises Pat Boone.

>>75196036
And OP clearly thinks Christgau is wrong.

>>75195822
I don't think tape recording was regularly used at all until 1952-ish.

>>75195952
This. Noise is good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EVeBFz6IZ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJgll0RiHE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMvJGYi3ts8

The more primitive, the better.

>>75195692
The idea of the artist writing his own songs didn't really happen until the 60s either although Chuck Berry always did it.

Why is this still being debated?

>>75196227
So did Carl Perkins, Little Richard, Bo Diddley, Buddy Holly....

>>75196276
That was in of itself a significant move away from the old days of singers performing Tin Pan Alley standards. And during the early 50s, Mitch Miller and his people at Columbia reshaped the pop song as something based on textures and effects rather than arrangements. Songwriters would also write songs geared towards a specific artist, while in the Tin Pan Alley days, pop standards weren't designed around any singer in particular.

>>75195034
There is some mythology there, the rock and rollers didn't hate traditional pop like you've been led to believe, that was after all the first music they were exposed to as kids. Elvis thought rock and roll was kiddie stuff and you had to eventually grow up and sing standards like Frank Sinatra. The Beatles just couldn't understand why he rejected his rock and roll past in the 60s-70s to become a Vegas lounge lizard.

>>75196321
But there weren't any less songwriters writing for other people in 60's.

>>75195748
The second statement contradicts the first because it was a reply disagreeing with it and the other statement contained in that post. The statement itself makes perfect sense - pop music is nothing like it was in the 50s.

>>75195822
What extraordinary pseudoscientific bollocks.

>>75195921
What extraordinary anachronistic bollocks. They did dance to it.

>>75196398
>But there weren't any less songwriters writing for other people in 60's

No but they would work with a specific artist and write songs for him/her, which wasn't how it worked in, like, the 1920s.

>>75196425
>What extraordinary anachronistic bollocks. They did dance to it.

Anyone with a beat you can dance to, but a lot of that pop shit from the 50s had no beat at all.

>>75195952
That's because you're scared to disagree with your parents and grandparents. But for people who have sex, it's museum stuff.

>>75196444
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOuegJ4YH_o

This has a very definite beat.

>>75195898
The thing is... that's really interesting. He seems gay, in the modern sense, and weirdly animated. He looks neurotic, like a forerunner of David Byrne. The beat's both too slow and too fast. It's too fast for Boone, but too slow for rock 'n' roll. It's clearly the halfway house of an apartheid culture, which makes it MORE uniquely and pugently OF 1955 than the original. Oddity is exciting. Unfamiliarity is exciting. This is odder and less familiar than Little Richard's recording, which is so familiar to us, it's like hearing the start of Beethoven's 5th - oh, Tutti Frutti, yeah, classic.But this is a man going berserk with what he's unable to convey or contain, like a censor driven mad by the very pornography he's preventing us from seeing.

I'm going to listen to the whole Pat Boone one now.

>>75196453
I don't know what my grandparents listened to and I could care less if they'd agree with. Also, you to be trying to discredit this bullshit mythology while pushing some of it yourself. There was a lot more to listen to in the 50's than just rock 'n' roll. It would actually be much safer to assume my grandparents were not listening to it.

>>75196466
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG3FofPUrt8

Not this though.

>>75196321
Why do you keep reposting the same bullshit? Nobody needs to read babby's first rock 'n' roll chronicle every fucking thread.

>>75196466
Sexy record.

>>75196513
Yes, but the baby boomers will have you believe that everything that wasn't rock 'n' roll was literally Hitler.

>>75196507
>This is odder and less familiar than Little Richard's recording
Only because Little Richard's music has aged better. Pat Boone was not odd to kid's in the 50's who grew listen to rat pack bullshit.

>>75196466
It does but the song has a very big band kind of sound to it that was pretty tired and played out by the mid-50s, the kids were looking to something new and exciting. The novelty of rock and roll and especially the electric guitar were major factors.

Most of the early rock and roll performers were also very young, teens-early 20s mostly and kids could connect with them better than Doris Day who was old enough to be their parent.

rock and roll created the first youth subculture.

>>75196566
What baby boomers? You sound like there's a grand conspiracy keeping today's youth from listening to Paul Anka. No one listens to that shit because it sucks.

>>75196579
Not really, that happened in the 1920s but the Depression squelched it and it didn't come back until the postwar years. Rock and roll was however different for its explicit focus on teenagers while prior pop music was targeted at young lovers in a more generalized way.

>>75196513
>I don't know what my grandparents listened to
My grandfather had a bunch of Ernest Tubb 78s, I kind of have an idea of what he listened to.

>>75196622
Further proof against OP's claim that people like early rock because of their grandparents.

>>75196648
Yes well, my grandparents were in their mid-30s when Chuck Berry was a thing, they were a whole generation older than those fans.

>>75196568
No, it's less familiar because we haven't heard it, and it's odder because it has specific musical and performative characteristics that aren't part of rock 'n' roll's norms in general or of the incessantly played Little Richard recording in particular.

I listen to a lot of traditional pop, I've even watched one of Pat Boone's late fifties movie vehicles, and it's still odd, because it isn't quite that either. It's fast in a really odd way. It is like the jazz played in countries that outlaw jazz, or Afrikaaner country music, as a form specifically informed by conservative social pressures that is still trying to at least allude to the illicit forms it can't reproduce. Far more interesting to hear something like this than to hear Little Richard's recording for the hundredth time - the relative merit of their versions isn't the question here, the question is how interesting the experience is.

>>75196579
Nope.

>>75196610
Nope.

>>75196590
The baby boomers who turned the fifties records into a canon in the sixties. No, nobody listens to those records because
A: they're too different, and
B: they're constantly shat on by self-serving propaganda.

>>75196665
>I listen to a lot of traditional pop

It's very weird, almost dream-like in its quality, very melodic but no hooks and usually not any beat.

>>75196648
Where did OP say that?

>>75196695
This is it, it's a whole different world, flowing, lots of imagery in the lyrics, a big emotional range.

>>75196689
>The baby boomers who turned the fifties records into a canon in the sixties

Boomers were small children in the 50s, they weren't the ones listening to Elvis back then.

>>75196711
Well I guess it's not in the first post but I'm assuming this >>75196453 and OP were written by the same person.

>>75196695
But at the same time, it also puts you to sleep so I can appreciate why kids sought something more lively.

>>75196767
They didn't, they were *sold* it. How capitalism works is, entrepeneurs spot potentially fillable gaps in the market before consumers do. This idea that rock 'n' roll was neccesary is Whig history - everyone in history wanted to be like us and was trying to work out how to get to where we are. Not so. Nothing about our lives was neccesary, inevitable or even positive, it's just some shit that happened.

>>75196760
You're wrong, OP was reworking some things I said yesterday. Once I noticed that this thread was happening, I came in to take part, but it's not my thread. I'm interested to notice that there are more people arguing from a position similar to mine than there were yesterday, when I was mostly defending my position single-handed. People turn things over in their minds like this all the time on 4chan of course, it's the advantage of anonymous image board culture - there's no loss of face in changing your mind.

>>75196842
>This idea that rock 'n' roll was neccesary is Whig history - everyone in history wanted to be like us and was trying to work out how to get to where we are

It was though because fast, danceable music was in short supply after big band swing died out. Jazz postwar devolved into self-indulgent noodling while mainstream pop was slow, gushy ballads. It's no different than how disco had to fill the void left by rock having ceased to be danceable in the mid-70s.

>>75196872
And rockists hated disco too, they threw a huge temper tantrum over it.

>>75196848
Christgau exemplifies here the closed-mindeness of the rock generation.

Also, his "the problem is usually obviated by the beat" is disingenuous - the problem is obviated by the fact that rock critics feel uneasy about condescending to rural black mass taste, whereas they feel fine about condescending to rural white mass taste.

>>75196896
Their own damn fault. I mean, you can't exactly dance to Pink Floyd--Animals.

>>75196872
This is not how life works, kid. It's not how capitalism works, it's not how time works, it's not how people's tastes work. You're thinking in cliched phrases that are VISIBLY taken at second hand from what people have told you.

There were hundreds of danceable mainstream rock records in the mid-seventies that weren't disco. People don't RESORT to music to fill holes in their lives, they branch out because they actively like to hear new things. One day, you'll be old enough to get into a club, and you'll understand.

>>75196939
Which came out about three years into punk. Also, most of the rockist attitude was homophobia and racism, the latter of which is intrinsic to rock - after all, rock was in large part a mobilisation of country musicians to prevent white kids from having to buy RnB records for the beat.

>>75196665
Meh. I'd disagree. Taking a wild song and neutering does not make it interesting to me. Your previous comparison to censorship isn't even accurate either. Pat Boone was just doing these songs in the only way he knew how. He was even adverse to wilder sounds. Pat Boone is the one that gave Jerry "the Phantom" Lott a record deal resulting in one of the most manic things to come out of the 50's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zgsIdMa8qA

>>75196986
Rock 'n' roll, that is.

>>75196995
*wasn't even

>>75196995
>Taking a wild song and neutering does not make it interesting to me.

Then you're a boring person. It's 2017. Tutti Frutti is Beowulf. It's ancient, foundational, it hasn't changed, it's familiar. Here's a totally variant version nobody looks at much except in exerpt, made according to the codes of a vanished culture. How is that not more interesting? You're saying you find listening to the same record for the hundredth time more interesting than listening to a different one for the first time. That's conformism in a nutshell, and everything rock 'n' roll was supposed to be against.

>Pat Booone knew no different
>Pat Boone chose to sound like this

Pick one.

De facto censorship is literally the only reason Pat Boone's version exists. If you're going to be the spokesperson for the old fart's version of pop history, at least LEARN the history.

>>75196995
>>75197070

Also, you do know what a comparison is, right? You are capable of some degree of imagination, surely?

>>75197070
Pat Boone's version came soon after Little Richard's version so to someone my they they are both ancient. Pat Boone's isn't different enough from the original for it to sound new especially when he's doing it in a style that is inherently boring. 50's pop.

>Pat Booone knew no different
>Pat Boone chose to sound like this
I pick both. Pat Boone only knows how to makes songs sound tame. He chooses not to attempt a less clean cut sound because it would make him look more ridiculous than he already does. That's why he left that business to Jerry Lott.

>>75197152
It's a question of how many times you've heard it, not its chronological age. You'd rather repeat an experience you've had before than have a new one. Also, the style is not that of traditional pop completely, as I've already said - it's a weird style that tries to use an adaptation of the traditional pop sonic language to convey something it can't - it's both censored and allusive to the censored material.

Are you completely devoid of intellectual curiosity? I mean, do you not think at all when you listen to music?

You can't pick both. Try referring to what the people involved said about what they were doing. He was uncomfortable with Tutti Frutti as a song, but did it because he was asked to.

>>75197198
I'd hardly consider a cover a version that barley deviates from the original qualifies as a new experience but even if it did, new experiences are not always interesting. What's so hard to understand about that?

>>75197270
>barely deviates

You've just said several times over that it travesties the original, now you're saying it barely differs. The lyrics, arrangement, tempo and performance are all significantly different, how is that barely deviating?

File: trash.jpg (394KB, 778x1018px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 778x1018px

>>75196986
>Also, most of the rockist attitude was homophobia and racism

>>75197270
>>75197313
What's hard to understand is that you'd bother to try to counter my clearly imaginative and intelligent comments with "blah, thinking bores me" and an irrelevant pop trivia fact about how he signed another guy who was wilder.

>>75197317
It was. "Disco Sucks" was a directly homophobic rallying cry.

Rock is racist, in thousands of ways.

File: christgau4.jpg (24KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x225px

>Paul is producer Paul McCartney, whose distaste for messages is well known. Yet his album certainly has thrust and shape, and it dovetails perfectly with What About Today? If Streisand, the only important traditional pop singer the under-thirty generation has produced, is paying her tribute to the mainstream music of her contemporaries, then McCartney, the most fluent if not the most profound genius of that music, is paying his to traditional pop. In his purposely slight way, he succeeds. Streisand fails.

>By conventional standards--that is, by Streisand's own standards--this cannot be the case. Her record has to be superior merely because she possesses the better instrument. Mary's soprano is lissome enough but almost devoid of color or dramatic range, and for Barbra that is what vocal music is all about. Even more than her predecessors, she is not so much a singer as an actress, turning each song into a little playlet--or rather, since hitting the notes is important to her, a little operetta. Every song is a new role, and her natural mode is the tour de force.

>It is this very conceit that rock has striven to destroy from its inception. The rock singer may play-act, but never so frankly or variously: His concern is image rather than role. Like the blues and country artists who were his forebears, his aim is always to appear that he is singing his own life--not just recalling his own experience in order to enrich a song, in the matter of Frank Sinatra, but singing his own life and preferably his own composition. To a sensibility accustomed to this conceit, the histrionics of Broadway nightclub pop seem absurdly corny, no matter how "sophisticated" the approach, and the audience for such transparent dramatics seems positively innocent in its eager suspension of disbelief.

>>75197313
All I said you was he neutered it. You said Pat Boone was interesting because he seems gay in the modern sense. Well Little Richard seemed gay in today's sense, yesterday's sense, and tomorrows sense. And that's why it's more interesting. I'm going to bed.

>>75197334
>Rock is racist, in thousands of ways
>genre of music invented by black people
>also one of the greatest metal frontmen in history was gay

>>75196986
I would say it was more of an urban vs rural/suburban conflict. Disco was mostly an urban scene (for that matter, so was punk rock), Saturday Night Fever after all was set in NYC. Kids out in the suburbs in the 70s didn't listen to the stuff, they listened to AOR and got extremely butthurt at the rapid and total takeover of the airwaves by disco post-SNF.

File: Frank Zappa.jpg (28KB, 400x411px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x411px

"Poor Presley. He wouldn't have been anything at all without the songs that Jerry Lieber and Mike Stoller wrote for him, or for that matter the black blues musicians whose music he stole. Consider that his single biggest hit was a cover of a Big Mama Thornton song. I know because I had the 45 from Peacock Records long before Presley came out with his version. When I was in high school, everyone was in love with the guy but I never could stand him. And then he became a fat, bloated drug addict who died on the toilet. How sad."

>>75197406
Was there ever a time when Frank Zappa didn't say something desperately and pathetically edgy?

File: Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.jpg (55KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x333px

>>75197070
>Then you're a boring person. It's 2017. Tutti Frutti is Beowulf. It's ancient, foundational, it hasn't changed, it's familiar. Here's a totally variant version nobody looks at much except in exerpt, made according to the codes of a vanished culture. How is that not more interesting? You're saying you find listening to the same record for the hundredth time more interesting than listening to a different one for the first time. That's conformism in a nutshell, and everything rock 'n' roll was supposed to be against.

>>75197070
>Then you're a boring person.
Chuuni faggot.

>>75197343
No, I said something much more interesting than that. Why do you bother posting?

>>75197343
>>75197497
I said this:
>The thing is... that's really interesting. He seems gay, in the modern sense, and weirdly animated. He looks neurotic, like a forerunner of David Byrne. The beat's both too slow and too fast. It's too fast for Boone, but too slow for rock 'n' roll. It's clearly the halfway house of an apartheid culture, which makes it MORE uniquely and pugently OF 1955 than the original. Oddity is exciting. Unfamiliarity is exciting. This is odder and less familiar than Little Richard's recording, which is so familiar to us, it's like hearing the start of Beethoven's 5th - oh, Tutti Frutti, yeah, classic. But this is a man going berserk with what he's unable to convey or contain, like a censor driven mad by the very pornography he's preventing us from seeing.

I'll only add that it seems obvious to me that a man who, among other things, accidentally seems gay, is obviously more interesting than a man who seems gay in a way that hasn't changed its meaning in sixty years.

>>75197379
That was true. The record industry after Saturday Night Fever massively over-invested in disco artists/records, only to have it spectacularly backfire when this 5 minute fad came crashing down on them.

There was one early interview with David Lee Roth from 1978 when he talked somewhat nervously about disco and said "Van Halen makes rock and roll you can dance to." He sounded as if he was genuinely terrified that rock's days were numbered and disco was here to stay.

I give Christgau credit, he never jumped on the disco sucks bandwagon like most rockfags at the time.

>>75196466
So fucking slow, not upbeat enough

>>75197530
The crucial thing is that he knew disco was already halfway through its life by the time Saturday Night Fever was made.

>>75197530
But that probably had to do with his urban NYC background and interest in black music.

>>75197542
This is like complaining that Elvis raps too slowly. You're comparing one music to another on purpose to pretend that the other was neccesary, because that's the narrative. In fact, all musics are neccesary, and none are. All happen because someone wants to make them happen, none happen because some tide of History or the People demanded them.

>>75197349
>>also one of the greatest metal frontmen in history was gay
If you're talking about Rob Halford very few at the time knew. You know why? Because it would've been an outrage.

>>75197548
So did the Bee Gees. Spirits Having Flown is noticeably absent of dance tracks because they wisely knew that disco was a fad nearing its expiration date. Unfortunately, record company suits didn't know that and instead decided to ride the Titanic to the bottom.

>>75197070
You're not even listening to music honestly, you're focused so much on being a snowflake that you're obsessed with the most banal, uninteresting subjects for being just a little different to what everyone else has overlooked, and you champion that for the value of... being different? Wow! Man this is so different it's amazing! Wait, you don't like it? You're boring dude! Owned!

>>75197550
Ah but even in late 70s NYC, normalfags mostly listened to AOR and punk rock was as much a subculture there as it was anywhere. As I said, the record industry and radio stations overdid it with disco very fast and pissed off a lot of rock fans in a huge way.

Music should not be danceable. There is no surer route to plebbery.

>>75197584
>>75197379
The disco boom probably had to do with it being a singles format, which rock in the 70s was not. A singles-based genre of music lends itself better to radio play and thus $$$.

>>75197577
Could it be that the anon you're talking to is genuinely curious about music?

>>75197584
Well, my cousin told of how he was at a party in the late 70s and everyone had weird reactions when you put Devo or Talking Heads on the turntable. Some people kind of dug it, others didn't. The standard AOR canon like Blue Oyster Cult, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, and Styx of course you could put on and everyone would rock out to it no matter what the band/artist was.

>>75197577
I am listening to the music honestly. Pat Boone's record is interesting *now*. I'm not, for the moment, interested in what the teenagers of the time felt about it compared to Little Richard's, I'm concerned with what's interesting to hear to me, as someone who, like you or anyone else on /mu/, has thousands of potential listening options. Do I want to listen once more to Little Richard's record, which I first heard when I was maybe three or four years old - I can't remember a time when I didn't know it - or do I want to listen to Pat Boone's version, which I've heard a clip from maybe once before, have just heard a clip from again on this thread, and have never heard in full? The latter, obviously. It's a new record to me, and it's weird now. It's interesting.

You've basically confirmed with your "snowflake" comment that you do prefer a conformist listening experience - reaffirming the canonized, accepted value and reading of a record - over a new, individual one. I've known a few people like you. You listen to music joylessly, ticking off masterpieces and agreeing with the received opinion on them. You only listen to them so you can repeat the received opinion without self-consciousness. It's a relief to you when the record ends, so you no longer face the perilousness of a first-hand experience. People like you are the worst. 99% of rock fans are exactly like you.

>>75197613
Yes, but being intellectually curious is no more valid than enjoying for aesthetically pleasing values. Him calling someone else boring for not entertaining his particular, personal way of valuing music is the height of pomposity.

>>75197635
>You've basically confirmed with your "snowflake" comment that you do prefer a conformist listening experience - reaffirming the canonized, accepted value and reading of a record - over a new, individual one. I've known a few people like you. You listen to music joylessly, ticking off masterpieces and agreeing with the received opinion on them. You only listen to them so you can repeat the received opinion without self-consciousness. It's a relief to you when the record ends, so you no longer face the perilousness of a first-hand experience. People like you are the worst. 99% of rock fans are exactly like you
Do you think maybe some people just might find Little Richard more fun to listen to than Doris Day? Is it that hard to imagine someone could arrive at this conclusion on their own and not because a baby boomer told them what to think?

>>75197599
Nope. Again, don't guess, do the reading. Disco was the beginning of dancefloor music that ignored radio, but radio wasn't neccesarily singles-oriented at the time. It was only later that it became stranded and stripped in a homogenized way. Long stretches of uninterrupted music including album tracks were normal on many stations.

>>75197613
Thank you.


>>75197638
Intellectual interest and aesthetics are one and the same thing. What's interesting is expressed in the aesthetics, IS the aesthetics.


>>75197652
I'm the one who was being accused of not genuinely being interested in what I was interested in. The comment you quote was a direct reaction to the thinking clearly evinced by the person I was replying to - I was being condemned for wanting to listen to something with my own ears, in the context of my own lifetime, for my own reasons.

>>75197654
FM (or to say rock radio) did this, AM stations did not, they were a purely singles format that played Top 40, which in the 70s meant a lot of Carpenters, Captain & Tenneil, Olivia Newton-John, and other MOR schlock.

>>75197638
He just wants to get his point across. But sure, one could argue that the curiosity wears off quickly. So why not have a bit of both?

>>75197635
>Pat Boone's record is interesting *now*
*now* for YOU, others don't gave to entertain your particular preference for content that goes against the norm which you perceive, to have a perspective and approach as valid as your own. Stop being so pompous.

>You've basically confirmed with your "snowflake" comment that you do prefer a conformist listening experience - reaffirming the canonized, accepted value and reading of a record - over a new, individual one. I've known a few people like you. You listen to music joylessly, ticking off masterpieces and agreeing with the received opinion on them. You only listen to them so you can repeat the received opinion without self-consciousness. It's a relief to you when the record ends, so you no longer face the perilousness of a first-hand experience. People like you are the worst. 99% of rock fans are exactly like you.
Stop fantasising about the motives of other people, you speak so much bullshit man. I listen to music if it makes me pleased to have listened to it. Listening to music for it being a masterpiece is incidental to me being pleased. The conformity you speak of is imagined, unless I conform for listening as much as I can for that which pleasures me? You're approach is as valid as mine, and I'm not going to care about Pat Boone's version because it sounds boring, there's nothing actually interesting about the listening experience in real terms, only in the imagined and extremely subjective terms of being a recording and of a particular style I don't often listen to, and for good reason. Your fiction is as valid as mine and the other person, it is you however who has the arrogance to project your bullshit as the golden standard of enjoyment.

>>75197563
Disco didn't die anyway in 1980, it just receded back into the underground away from normalfags and trash like "Mickey Mouse Disco".

>>75197635
>>75197733
>I'm not going to care about Pat Boone's version because it sounds boring, there's nothing actually interesting about the listening experience in real terms
Here, this is not a universal statement, this is my subjective view that you don't have to share.
The snowflake thing isn't because your listening to something different or doing something different, it's because you attach intrinsic value to being different, making it superior to other approaches, it's this particular blend of curiosity and arrogance that I spoke of

>>75197733
>*now* for YOU, others don't gave to entertain your particular preference for content that goes against the norm which you perceive, to have a perspective and approach as valid as your own. Stop being so pompous.

You're the one being pompous, your attempt to sound intelligent here renders you completely incomprehensible, this reads like the kind of thing Jerry Lewis used to sputter out to on talk shows when he ran out of two-dollar words.

I'm not fantasizing, you directly expressed an objection to my finding the Pat Boone performance more interesting. You've been replying for several posts, expressing that objection repeatedly, contradicting yourself at least once to deny the validity of this interest. Now I've several times restated and clarified (I hope) why I find it interesting, you're talking as if I was oppressing you by having a different opinion. Get real, please.

>>75197696
Sam Phillips of Sun Records would say how when he was growing up, whites in the South listened to country (or hillbilly music as it was called in those days) and blacks listened to blues. The thing that always struck him was how much more powerful and rhythmic black music was compared to white country artists. He said the same was true of gospel, white church congregations couldn't match the black ones for energy and drive.

>>75197773
There is intrinsic value to a listening experience being different. The only intellectual defence for rock 'n' roll's crudity is EXACTLY THIS, you dense fuck. You can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Either novelty is a valid appetite for a listener to have or it isn't. Either cultural difference is a valid thing to be curious about or it isn't. Pat Boone is more alien than Little Richard to the pop culture of 2017, so I'm interested in listening to his attempt to translate Tutti Frutti into his idiom, especially as he bears all the signs of the strain involved in so doing.

>>75197696
Why hasn't this spam been deleted?

>>75195034
t. Millenial

>>75197808
>Pat Boone is more alien than Little Richard to the pop culture of 2017, so I'm interested in listening to his attempt to translate Tutti Frutti into his idiom, especially as he bears all the signs of the strain involved in so doing
Neato, he admits he likes trad pop and dislikes rock simply because he thinks listening to Doris Day records is reverse-edgy, not because the music is intrinsically better.

>>75196574
>Most of the early rock and roll performers were also very young, teens-early 20s mostly and kids could connect with them better than Doris Day who was old enough to be their parent.
She was 33 when Rock Around The Clock broke? Hardly ancient I suppose, but considering most of the rock and rollers were under 25, probably.

>>75195034
t. nu-male

>>75197834
There's no cure for autism anon-sama, he can't help it

>>75197834
>reverse-edgy

No, it's interesting because it's different. This is about nothing else except the music. Why do you find it so difficult to understand extremely simple concepts? NOVELTY is why ROCK 'N' ROLL was successful, right? But ROCK 'N' ROLL is CLASSICAL now, so OTHER MUSIC is more NEW TO MY EARS. Do you understand now?

>>75197863
Bill Haley fell off the charts fast when Elvis happened because he was almost 30 and lacked the same youthfulness and sex appeal.

The idea of adults making rock music came about in the 60s when it became serious business, other than Chuck Berry, most 50s rock and rollers were pretty much kids themselves. Interestingly enough, when the Beatles first came to America at the end of 1963, John Lennon had just turned 23 and was wondering if he wasn't too old for rock and roll.

>>75197891
>But ROCK 'N' ROLL is CLASSICAL now, so OTHER MUSIC is more NEW TO MY EARS. Do you understand now?

No, I'm sorry but a record made a few years prior to Rock Around The Clock isn't more novel or not "classical" except in your imagination.

>>75197916
>except in my imagination

That's right, that's what I said many posts ago - I listen with imagination, you apparently don't, and are angry that others do. Why repeatedly oppose imagination, then accuse me of saying that about you? You're saying it, repeatedly, about yourself.

>>75197927
You listen with your EARS anon, not your brain. Let me guess, you were raised by a single mother?

>>75197964
Great that you've resorted to "I was just pretended to be retarded", I take it you finally get the point.

>>75198016
*pretending

Seriously, if your ears weren't connected to your brain, you'd be in even more trouble than you are.

File: 354455.png (42KB, 649x781px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 649x781px

>>75197863

>>75195921
As I said, the music landscape had a big generational shift in the mid-50s. The Billboard chart for 1954 is dominated by veteran big band singers.

Check out the chart for 1956. Although traditional pop is still in abundance, the change that happened within two years is very visible.

>>75197597
Clubbing gets you laid. It's always going to be danceable, it serves our base instincts, never mind if it's good. That isn't to say of course that there's no danceable good music

File: 4576788787.png (43KB, 786x786px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 786x786px

>>75198052
And 1957. Uh huh.

Note that Patti Page, Kay Starr, and Doris Day are no longer on here while artists of the rock and roll generation are now dominating.

>>75198016
>>75198031
Cmon boy, give me an argument already, I'm thirsting for your attention

>>75198090
This is really pathetic, it seemed as though you believed in rock 'n' roll, which is a silly position in itself, but at least it's a position. This is just being a failed bitch.

>>75196590
>You sound like there's a grand conspiracy keeping today's youth from listening to Paul Anka
Your local thrift store will have an abundance of Paul Anka and Andy Williams albums. I'm sure they wouldn't be there in stacks and piles if they were highly sought after.

>>75198154
You're agreeing with the guy you think you're contradicting. This is how fucking dense you motherfuckers are.

>>75197542
So was doo-wop. The kids had rock and roll if they wanted fast stuff and doo-wop if they wanted slower, more romantic music.

>>75198209
Careful, mentioning that there was a specific youth music of slow dances will confuse them.

>>75198211
Doo wop gets sometimes neglected by rock-centered music historians but it was part of the overall generational shift in the mid-50s away from big band-era singers. In a sense, the punk explosion in the late 70s was nothing more than the music landscape passing from boomers to Gen Xers.

>>75198132
You bore me, go along now

>>75198331
Why bother coming back to confirm that you've given up?

>>75198337
You keep replying, are you retarded?

>>75198238
All the black or generally "ethnic" stuff gets sidelined, it's a racist music. The important thing to note is that it was the new thrill for the young people who Pat Boone was aimed at. Before that beat got to them, it was around in race records in the 30s and earlier. People said on yesterday's thread that rock 'n' roll was taken from RnB without quite realizing what they were saying - this was white former country singers employed to lift the RnB "thing" so that kids could get the beat without breaching the apartheid. Honesty about this will have to wait until the gatekeepers who cropped up in the 60s are in their graves.

>>75198344
No, I'm amused that you came back with nothing better to offer than this. You like music for conformist reasons. You don't know why you like what you like. You've no soul of your own, in fact. Why draw attention to what you've revealed of yourself by reviving the exchange? Just slink off and fap to Little Richard's pompadour.

>>75198359
>All the black or generally "ethnic" stuff gets sidelined, it's a racist music. The important thing to note is that it was the new thrill for the young people who Pat Boone was aimed at. Before that beat got to them, it was around in race records in the 30s and earlier. People said on yesterday's thread that rock 'n' roll was taken from RnB without quite realizing what they were saying - this was white former country singers employed to lift the RnB "thing" so that kids could get the beat without breaching the apartheid. Honesty about this will have to wait until the gatekeepers who cropped up in the 60s are in their graves.

Horse crap. I've never read a rock history that didn't mention the R&B/blues origins of the stuff, or pretended that, aside from Elvis, most of the early rock performers were black.

>>75198372
>No, I'm amused that you came back with nothing better to offer than this. You like music for conformist reasons. You don't know why you like what you like. You've no soul of your own, in fact. Why draw attention to what you've revealed of yourself by reviving the exchange? Just slink off and fap to Little Richard's pompadour.
Autism

>>75198384
Real rock histories written by people like Christgau who are music geeks. Not those Time-Life schlock histories of the '50s which only mention Elvis and Bill Haley.

>>75198428
>Not those Time-Life schlock histories of the '50s which only mention Elvis and Bill Haley.
Who reads those anyway? They're just coffee table books you get for Christmas and never read more than once.

>>75198384
They always mention it, but the canonical records played are not black. The core of records from about 1949 are kept offstage, unplayed, referenced but not actually heard. Elvis going to Sun Records is still the Big Bang in the rockist narrative. Most rock fans you'll meet IRL actually deny that it *was* black music, they'll make out that it was equally black and white, just like thirties jazz listeners often preferred to make out that blacks got jazz from whites, and there was a history of jazz published back then that mentioned no black players.

Any black record which did rock 'n' roll before it was taken over for white teenagers is referred to as "considered an early..." or "regarded as the first", or some similar academic hedging. When black people invent anything, it's suddenly thousands of years ago in the unsure mists of time. Anything white people claim, there's a fucking plaque marking the spot.

So yes, rock was immediately racist, and it was racist because it involved packaging black music to white kids who didn't really want to use the same drinking fountain as Little Richard, however moist he got them.

>>75198428
Interestingly, I remember a column where Christgau said when he first started doing rock journalism, most of his peers had no interest in black musicians other than Chuck Berry and bluesmen. Soul and funk? Forget about.

>>75198442
>Who reads those anyway?

The majority of the music's actual audience.

>>75198456
>Elvis going to Sun Records is still the Big Bang in the rockist narrative

Rock Around The Clock predates Elvis's mainstream breakout (which happened in 1956 after he went to big label RCA) and as far as I can tell, that has always been considered the Big Bang. Chuck Berry came out with Maybellene in late 1955, which was also before Elvis was nationally known.

>>75198487
Yeah some people seem to forget that Bill Haley was rock and roll's first superstar and he was getting death threats and being shadowed by the FBI while Elvis was still only a local phenomenon in the South.

>>75198460
There's also a very interesting discussion, which could be a thread in itself, to be had about the fact that white rock kids ignored the existence of jazz and all that flowed from it, while regarding black bluesmen as "authentic". Two aspects of this:

1. It took them a long time to realize that these bluesmen wrote songs. They assumed it was all folk repertoire. Why? Same reason Otis Ferguson thought jazz was white - niggers can't invent, right?

2. White rock kids have always disliked upwardly mobile blacks. Blacks are meant to be quaint and broke. They're meant to be toads you can lick to get visions. They're not meant to be composers, like Duke Ellington. They're not meant to give their band a health insurance plan, like Howlin' Wolf did. Jazz was ignored not because it was difficult, but because it was sophisticated, and its practitioners were sober, lucid and spoke for themselves. Decades later, the same thing happened again with house and techno. Logically, the mostly electronic pop we listen to now begins in Detroit and Chicago, but that cuts critics out of the circuit, so the dead hand of Sam Philips will be invoked for a few more years yet.

>>75198487
Bill Haley is comparitively marginalized in most accounts for being too obviously a country singer, and too old for the "rock 'n' roll invented sex" angle. Yes he was important, but he's not important to the myth. Why do you people think that you need to tell me information everyone already knows? I know nobody had fucking heard of Elvis until Heartbreak Hotel, but in the myth which we've already established is racist whole-cloth bullshit, music began at the Sun studio.

>>75198529
>It took them a long time to realize that these bluesmen wrote songs
Maybe in Robert Johnson's time but I thought most of the postwar electric bluesmen didn't write their own material. Albert and BB King don't seem to have written any songs of their own.

>>75198487
Chuck Berry was also the first guy to explicitly make songs dealing with teenager life. As John Lennon put it, "Most music when we were growing up was just the usual 'wah bah boom bah girl I love you' stuff. Chuck Berry though, he actually wrote songs that spoke to you. And they were good songs too."

>>75198553
I'm thinking of the Wolf, Son House, the guys they dug up and patronized, basically. BB King was a lot more like a jazz musician - one of the things I love about the rockists is the way they slobber over King through the intermediary of Clapton, but can't even fuck with King in full flow, when they realize that he's a 40s jazz player.

And I never heard a rock fan of any age not hold Jimi Hendrix in reverent awe, so I'm not buying the white rock fans are racist angle, unless you mean the dumb idiots who rioted when Aerosmith collaborated with Run DMC.

>>75198580
OK, once again, we have an issue in this thread where some people post offering reflection and analysis of facts, while other people just drop well-known soundbites we could all recite in our sleep by our late teens as if they were blowing our minds. Please just read and learn if you have nothing to add.

>>75198586
>one of the things I love about the rockists is the way they slobber over King through the intermediary of Clapton, but can't even fuck with King in full flow, when they realize that he's a 40s jazz player

Of course BB King was heavily influenced by big band music like everyone of his generation, so was Albert King, hell, even Chuck Berry owed a great deal to big band stuff.

>>75198594
They love a certain group of blacks who they access through the right gatekeepers and intermediaries, yes. They don't listen to Hendrix though, do they? I mean, for real. He's too jazzy, and they don't like facing the fact that he was growing out of rock when he died.

>>75198529
>azz was ignored not because it was difficult, but because it was sophisticated, and its practitioners were sober, lucid and spoke for themselves.

Postwar jazz was mostly an urban hipster phenomenon, that's more likely why people in the suburbs/rural areas didn't go for it.

>>75198610
Not an argument

>see OP
>"hoo boy"
>ctrl+f "racis"

Color me surprised

>>75198605
I'm talking about his playing, not arrangements.

>>75198610
I never heard that Hendrix was influenced by jazz. Country definitely, he spoke of being a big admirer of the Texas Playboys as a kid and watching the Grand Ol Opry on TV.

>>75198614
>likely

No, again, I'm talking about what DID happen, you're talking in insulting generalizations that make rockists Simon pure and everyone else culpable. Urban, middle-class whites ignored jazz because they couldn't patronize the blacks who made it. The cocksucker from Canned Heat who dug Son House out of his steady job and got him back into performance and alcoholism (the two being synonymous for House) was not put off jazz because he was from the suburbs, but because he was a cocksucker.

>>75198638
Have you tried listening to his fucking playing? In that last year, he's going towards jazz.

>>75198621
No, just observed facts, not controversial.

>>75198653
Nothing you wrote was true

>>75198460
In one of his columns from the late 80s, he mentioned that most of his white baby boomer peers found hip-hop like Run DMC and Public Enemy just totally...indigestible, but punk and alternative bands they were usually able to "get". (putting aside the occasional crotchety "music died in 1974" remarks).

>>75198670
>In one of his columns from the late 80s, he mentioned that most of his white baby boomer peers found hip-hop like Run DMC and Public Enemy just totally...indigestible
I bet you they weren't listening to James Brown in 1967 either.

>>75198670
I trust Christgau to be ready for the next development - in 2017, this is Elvis.

https://youtu.be/-ioilEr3Apw

>>75198662
It was all true, although dead Bobby Vee on the TimeLife presentations would disagree.

Back in the day, when you had a group like the Ink Spots, they were basically tidied up and made friendly for white people. Sam Phillips noticed this when he first started recording bluesmen. If they were performing in front of whites, they would tend to automatically make their singing style a little smoother, not as raw.

>>75198704
>money green like a sea lion

What?

File: 1505580582828.png (405KB, 400x414px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 400x414px

>>75198610
>They don't listen to Hendrix though, do they? I mean, for real. He's too jazzy, and they don't like facing the fact that he was growing out of rock when he died.
?????????????

>>75198714
The thing is, this is a choice which they had everyr right to. Its heir is people like Lionel Ritchie, and the ways whites tend to smirk at him and other suited smoothies has always been... well yeah, that word again.

>>75198460
Actual white rock musicians always had huge respect for soul and funk artists, although the Rolling Stones were more obvious about their admiration of black music than most. When Prince kicked it, dozens of rock musicians were coming out and saying what a huge impact he had on them. However, the average white rock listener knows little of Prince (partially his own fault, but I'll leave that go).

Music creators and music consumers have never quite been one and the same.

>>75198727
Listen to the music.

>>75198731
*every

>>75198709
Not an argument

>>75198731
>Its heir is people like Lionel Ritchie, and the ways whites tend to smirk at him and other suited smoothies has always been
Christgau called him the black Andy Williams and always complained that his easy listening nonsense polluted every Commodores album, so...yeah.

>>75198552
>Bill Haley is comparitively marginalized in most accounts for being too obviously a country singer, and too old for the "rock 'n' roll invented sex" angle
His band did however have an electric bass which was pretty novel in the 50s when most rock and roll bands still used a double upright bass.

>>75198738
>respect
>admiration

Here's the thing - no white jazz player in 1964 would have said something like "I have great respect for Duke Ellington", because that would have been like a writer saying "I have great respect for Shakespeare" - it's fatuous to say you respect someone you couldn't do other than respect. It's a condescension made possible by the intrinsically apartheid basis of rock. Mick Jagger bestowing his favor on the people he owed his entire career to is not respecting them - they were dealing with white America, sure, but white America didn't NEED them. Most of the British blues thing was a continuation of the basic Pat Boone dynamic - you have a raw thing being cleaned up by a European filter. In this case, the filter actually WAS European. I think this observation was the basis of Zappa's antipathy to "the British Invasion".

>>75198442
I have one of those, in fact I'm looking at it right now. It's called "The Century" by Peter Jennings and Todd Brewster. The part about the 1950s does mostly just mention Elvis, Sun Records, and Sam Phillips, although it does go a little into mentioning black R&B records that the music originated from. But there's no mention of Chuck Berry or Little Richard in the book.

>181 / 8 / 20 / 1
What and AIDS thread. There is probably a healthy dose of samefagging going on.

>>75198731
>>75198762
Don't reply to yourself.

>>75198752
No, not an argument, fact, as you've been told.

>>75198769
Yes, you're still just repeating pieces of information rather than thinking through history.

>>75198784
There was nothing factual in what you said, and to have an argument you must have facts
>>75198752

File: RipTheSkin.jpg (28KB, 369x342px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 369x342px

>>75195921
>15
>mfw

>>75198762
Here's a thought - rock listeners' wish to deny blacks the right to be square is comparable to Democrats' wish to deny blacks the right to vote Republican. It's often the same people doing it, too.


>>75198783
He isn't me, bitch.

>>75198779
>Most of the British blues thing was a continuation of the basic Pat Boone dynamic - you have a raw thing being cleaned up by a European filter. In this case, the filter actually WAS European. I think this observation was the basis of Zappa's antipathy to "the British Invasion"

It's been established before that Europeans never did quite "get" rock and roll since they didn't have the connections to the roots music it came from. Europeans' brand of rock has always been more poppy, it can be seen in David Bowie and Queen.

>>75198802
>Here's a thought - rock listeners' wish to deny blacks the right to be square is comparable to

Eh? Christgau just said he didn't like Lionel Richie's adult contemporary mush simply because he doesn't care for that kind of music. It's not a white or black thing. I mean, he took a steaming dump on Olivia-Newton John during her 70s adult contemporary period and then came to embrace her when Physical came out and she went pop/R&B. Olivia Newton-John sure ain't black by any stretch.

>>75198782
Yes, and there are many such books. THIS is the myth I'm talking about, this is the force-feeding I was talking about on yesterday's thread. We are given this narrative throughout pop culture's mainstream accounts of itself. The kids who listened to race records, the beatniks, the teenagers into jazz, the black teenagers who weren't waiting for Elvis to liberate them, and many, many more simply don't figure in this account of events. It is the story, mainly, of what a great and important thing it was to sell country artists' covers of RnB records to white teenagers too square and conformist to get the stuff from its source. And here we have the issue - Elvis doing Big Mama Thornton is great, Pat Boone doing Little Richard is bad.

After sixty years, wouldn't it be more interesting if we think of them as doing *the same thing*, then see where we end up? After all, they pretty much *were* doing the same thing.

>>75198833
It's always a white or black thing. A black guy being mellow doesn't mean the same thing as a white guy being mellow, because the black guy's funkiness or expected funkiness is his capital. Ritchie's squareness is radical in its way - he isn't what hip people want from a black guy, yet he's clearly a hip guy who chose to be square. Again, it's interesting.

>>75198804
Indeed, but there were a huge number of British blues-based acts, starting with the Stones and leading into the blues-rock thing of John Mayall's Bluesbreakers, Fleetwood Mac and Cream.

>>75198843
>It is the story, mainly, of what a great and important thing it was to sell country artists' covers of RnB records to white teenagers too square and conformist to get the stuff from its source
This is definitely not true though, because as I said most of the 50s rock and rollers like Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, etc weren't white but they were more than successful, popular, and sold tons of records to both white and black teenagers. Yes, mainstream histories tend to be Elvis-centered, however that's probably not exclusively because he was white, but of course he became a much, much bigger superstar than any of his peers, including even the white ones like Jerry Lee Lewis.

>>75198833
He never disparaged jazz guys like Coltrane or Duke Ellington either, so that negates part of anon's argument about jazz being snubbed for not being black enough.

>>75198876
>etc

Who else? The story is Little Richard, Chuck Berry, because as writers of their own stuff they're impossible to sideline, and a bunch of country singers. Oh, and Fats Domino's one record they mention. That's it. The rest is all white guys. The Big Bopper is more central than Ike Turner to most histories of rock 'n' roll that white people actually see, hear and read.

>>75198924
>Oh, and Fats Domino's one record they mention

Fats Domino had been recording since 1949 and had a number of hits but up to 1954, he lingered in obscurity in the black R&B ghetto. The string of crossover hits he had in 1955-57, during the height of rock and roll, are what most normies know.

>>75198905
I wasn't talking about Christgau then, I was talking about the 60s blues revivalists. Christgau is in the culture but he's not those people. That said, Christgau has no time or use for jazz, not "disparaging" isn't acknowledging, dealing with or valuing. And look - house and techno would have happened without rock, they're black musics that flowed from previous developments in black music that continued on from before rock 'n' roll, and flow eventually from jazz.

No, not "not being black enough" - being sophisticated music by black people they couldn't patronize.

>>75198924
>the story is Little Richard, Chuck Berry, because as writers of their own stuff they're impossible to sideline, and a bunch of country singers. Oh, and Fats Domino's one record they mention
All of them had multiple iconic hit songs and would be pretty hard to ignore though.

>>75198943
They only usually refer to Blueberry Hill, as I'm sure you've noticed.

>>75198949
>That said, Christgau has no time or use for jazz
IIRC he said he listens to a lot of jazz but he doesn't write a lot about it because he has no formal training in music theory or composition and without that, it's hard to write much about jazz.

>>75198958
That was his biggest hit but come on, you all know Blue Monday (despite it being an undisguised rip of Stormy Monday) and I'm In Love Again. Those were also huge hits at the time.

>>75198957
Why are you assuming good faith where there is none? Rock 'n' roll happened because of profits made by RnB. RnB is treated subliminally. The straight-up rock 'n' roll records made by black artists from around 1949 onwards are so little played or concretely referenced that most white listeners think it was fifty-fifty or seventy-thirty. How often do you actually *hear* Rocket 88 played?

There's no grounds for assuming good faith. Rock is a racist racket, for racist listeners. There are markets where they play, for the sensibilities of rock-raised white listeners, versions of pop tracks with rap verses where the rap verses are wiped, and you just get a verse of instrumental with a weird mix because the lead's gone, or else you get a simple cut. This is in 2017.

>>75198978
People who care to find out know. That's not what I've been complaining about - it's the general purpose version, the cultural baggage we get without willing it from our childhoods, that bothers me.

If anything you notice, it's that the pantheon of guitar heroes is very white. Eddie Hazel and Prince are seldom mentioned despite their potent chops.

The Wikipedia article on Eddie Hazel doesn't even mention the equipment he used while the article on Jimmy Page has a huge, highly detailed list of all the guitars and amps he's used.

>>75198965
If he'd cared to he could have gotten an inkling in fifty years.

>>75198998
Oh that's absolutely part of it, perhaps the most conspicuous part.

>>75198986
>The straight-up rock 'n' roll records made by black artists from around 1949 onwards are so little played or concretely referenced that most white listeners think it was fifty-fifty or seventy-thirty
That would be like arguing that Nirvana invented alternative rock when they really just mainstreamed what had been going on in underground 80s rock for years. Normies have seldom heard of bands like Mudvayne.

>>75198998
Most normies don't know about Eddie Hazel, but Prince's article says nothing about his equipment either, a guy as massive and iconic as he was.

>>75199030
Yeah it's like that, although I still think a higher percentage of people who get into them these days are aware of that context and/or go back to discover it, than bother when watching the 209th documentary about Elvis to say "well, hold up - who WAS Big Mama Thornton?"

>>75199059

>>75197406
To that end, we may give Frank Zappa credit for not buying 100% into the Elvis hype machine.

The record industry did also tend to suppress black politics/militancy, after the protest era died down in the 70s, record labels pushed black artists to just make cheesy party-down tunes, nobody except George Clinton was still doing politics at that time. Groups like Kool & The Gang were kind of just a minstrel show revisited.

>>75199059
That's just because the Internet lets one find music and information easier than in the 1990s or something when you had nothing except Time-Life histories of the 50s to rely on.

>>75199106
Yeah, but the thing is, now that we're not inside that era of hype, why is her Hound Dog more obscure than his? There's no reason for that to be the case except that the official history is the history of what the broad mass of white teenagers felt about the music, not the history of the music itself. In other words, it's still about white self-image, not the reality of the music. Now, by the 60s, people were repelled that people in the 30s wrote stories of jazz that included no black musicians, but it's like half as much progress has been made in twice the time since. This despite inroads against racism in the wider society. This is not a coincidence - it's part of rock's cultural DNA finally, in my opinion. Black artists must be "sponsored" by white artists to take their place in the narrative.

>>75199155
Yeah, but they haven't stopped talking about that era in the internet age.

>>75199189
>Yeah, but the thing is, now that we're not inside that era of hype, why is her Hound Dog more obscure than his?
Having Elvis's massive marketing machine and major label backing from RCA no doubt helped.

Normies didn't listen to blues until the late 60s, only music geeks. Frank Zappa was a budding music geek as a 14 year old kid so it's not shocking he'd have known about the original version of Hound Dog and owned the record. Normies however didn't know that shit, especially not the deranged fangirls who in their adult years decorated their living room with tons of tacky Elvis merch.

>>75199230
>Normies didn't listen to blues until the late 60s, only music geeks

If you mean when white rock stars start promoting BB King and whatnot, still, a lot more baby boomers listened to blues filtered through white rock musicians than they did the original sources.

>>75199251
It's only filtered if it's those groups playing the music themselves, listening to Robert Johnson recordings as a Cream fan doesn't mean it's been 'filtered' for you.

File: My_Generation.jpg (26KB, 292x291px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 292x291px

Rock and Roll truly began in 1965

>>75199189
>why is her Hound Dog more obscure than his?
Because Elvis's Hound Dog is much, much better than Thornton's. Same reason Arethra's Respect is bigger than Otis's

File: nu.png (281KB, 331x436px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 331x436px

Just arrived. What, exactly, is this faggot bleating on about?