Page 2 of 5

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:21 pm
by Adam Blake
Ian A. wrote:
Adam Blake wrote:I think that Dylan concert is still folk music played very, very loudly with elaborate arrangements.

No, no, you can't call Dylan & The Hawks a loud folk band - I only remember them doing one traditionalish song (Baby Let Me Follow You Down), the rest was pretty inspiring new music based on Dylan's singer/songwriter stuff.


We-ell... What did they actually play? We can agree that "Baby Let Me Follow You Down" was a folk song. "Tell Me Mama", "Ballad Of a Thin Man", "One Too Many Mornings", "Like A Rolling Stone" - yes, I suppose singer/songwriter sort of covers it. "Just Like Tom Thumbs Blues" and "Leopard Skin Pill Box Hat" are both 12 bar blues's, though, which is a folk form. But I completely agree with you about the essential transition being the emphasis moving from singles to albums for which I suppose we have to blame, um, The Beatles. But the Stones were the first people to put a long, boring jam on one of their albums (11:35 of "Goin' Home" off "Aftermath" in 1966 - which ironically would have made a great three minute song) but it was SOCIOLOGY, man. It said: "We are not drunk or speeding anymore, we are stoned, and if you listen carefully you can hear the sound of rizlas being stuck together and if you are at all hip you will get stoned too and then this 11 minute self-indulgence won't seem boring to you at all." This is not a musical consideration.

Gordon - my vote goes out for "Rumble" by Link Wray which was made in about 1954...

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:33 pm
by Rob Hall
Adam Blake wrote:
Rob Hall wrote:
Adam Blake wrote:The Byrds were considered to be a pop group ('cos they had lots of hit singles)


But The Kinks and The Who had lots of hit singles, yet you're happy to consider them as early practitioners of "rock". I know that when I was a kid in the 60s, I considered them to be pop groups. I'm still curious about when "rock music" as a label became common currency.


Yes, they all had lots of hit singles but I'm sure you'd agree that The Byrds were drawing their music from a very different well to The Who and The Kinks.


Yebbut, you were drawing a distinction between rock and pop by saying that a pop band was characterised by having hit records. My point is that, by that measure, the Who & the Kinks were pop bands too (in their early days), irrespective of the well from which they drew their inspiration.

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:20 pm
by Adam Blake
Sorry if what I was saying was misleading. I'm just groping around here. That's why I prefer to keep the considerations purely musical where I know where I am. It IS an interesting question, not least because I suspect that most of us here have a knee-jerk aversion to what we think of as "rock", even though we all grew up on it to a greater or lesser extent, whereas "pop" is quite acceptable - this being a reversal of the critical position taken in the late 60s and early to mid 70s when "Rock Journalism" came into being.

For myself, I firmly believe that there was a brief period from around 1962-65 when Pop music was really very beautiful. By Pop I don't necessarily mean popular - which is anything that sells - I mean the best of the Brill Building, Spector, The Beatles and the best of the Merseybeat wave, Motown. This was displaced by Rock, and although it was seen as a vital progression at the time, in musical terms (apart from any other considerations) it was a step into a clumsy and graceless era of music that, for the most part, has not stood the test of time in any way as well as the Pop from the time I mentioned.

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:34 pm
by Adam Blake
I just remembered Judith has pointed out something to me about Rock that I had never thought of before: Rock notes have virtually limitless sustain, the notes don't decay naturally once hit. This creates an atmosphere of unrelenting impermeable density.

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:11 pm
by Gordon Moore
Adam Blake wrote: This creates an atmosphere of unrelenting impermeable density.


crumbs, I hope you copyrighted that phrase, it's brilliant.

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:12 pm
by Gordon Moore
btw is Jerry Lee Lewis a rocker?

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:13 pm
by Dayna
yeah. What does it mean?

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:17 pm
by Gordon Moore
I'm working on a subtle mathematical technique called the Dedekind Cut.

If Status Quo is a current lower supremum and Jerry Lee is an upper infernum, then as we raise and lower the bars as it were we will reach the first Rock record - the cut.

I'm now embarking on my PhD so you can all call me Doctor Gordon...

kidding,

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:29 pm
by Ted
Adam Blake wrote: This creates an atmosphere of unrelenting impermeable density.


Howard is that you?

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:29 pm
by kevin
Deep Purple - Black Night was a massive hit but is it rock or pop or is it possible that it could be both? A pop song in a rock style.

For me pop music although it can be sublime and brilliant is essentially throwaway - of a certain time and place. Rock music is more about attitude.

PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2008 10:26 am
by Ted
kevin wrote: Rock music is more about attitude.


Definitely. And the attitudes that define rock are:

1. This is serious music.
2. Listening to this makes me a rebel.
3. No other music is as important as rock.
4. Listening to/playing this makes me a better/smarter than anyone who likes anything else.

You can see how this might lead to a certain amount of critical inertia can't you? "This ten minute guitar solo is really sticking it to the man/annoying my mum, I must like it". Which is fine when you're 14. But if you still believe all this stuff by the time you're a 49 year old with a steady job something has gone badly wrong. I think thats what rock is often used for - to allow people to believe they are rebelling when all they are doing is getting by the same as everyone else.

I really can't see any point in defining rock through musical analysis - what defines it is the way its produced, marketed and consumed. CCR & Deep Purple (briefly) both made great pop music. I can still enjoy it as such. But Kanda Bongo Man and Edith Piaf also made great pop music, and privileging (say) The Grateful Dead (o alright, special case I know) over them seems absurd.

My record collection was often derided by flatmates who were enthusiasts for various turgid rock groups, so I'm sorry if I sound a bit chippy about this. ("But some of your records they are DANCE music" - an intense italian vegan anarchist, with horror, before explaining to me about the greatness of Pink Floyd)

Speaking of rock - and I don't feel inclined to pursue this by listening to any of their music - I have this vague memory of a song by Yes which contained the lines "I went to bed in a llama sandwich". Did I imagine this? Can anyone suggest what song it might have been? Heavee.

PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2008 11:03 am
by Des
Blimey I find myself agreeing with everything Ted has said! Help!

PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2008 12:23 pm
by Adam Blake
Ted wrote:I really can't see any point in defining rock through musical analysis - what defines it is the way its produced, marketed and consumed. .


Oh. Well, I'll just keep quiet then.

PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:04 pm
by Des
Adam Blake wrote:
Ted wrote:I really can't see any point in defining rock through musical analysis - what defines it is the way its produced, marketed and consumed. .


Oh. Well, I'll just keep quiet then.


That'll be a first.

PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:31 pm
by joel
Ted wrote:I have this vague memory of a song by Yes which contained the lines "I went to bed in a llama sandwich". Did I imagine this? Can anyone suggest what song it might have been? Heavee.

Can't help with the song, as I'm almost as allergic to the alleged "pleasures" of turgid rawk as yourself.
I could be of help in finding loudspeakers that would allow you to hear the lyrics clearly. An important task for middle-ages males like ourselves :-)