[78-L] One's taste in music is similar to taste in tooth paste. You can't argue about it.

Fri Jan 15 03:45:34 PST 2010

Re: FNARF's post:

Exactly - while the debate has gone on in jazz and blues circles for years about whether rcords represent the best, or just those who happened to make it into a studio, either way, lots of music is played in any time period that is not recorded. 

Records are a way for us to examine (and enjoy) what did get recorded. Charts are interesting, and can prove many things, but they tell us little about the music that is not on them or that was not recorded. It is my assumption that there were musicians playing 'hard' rock ('n roll) live before and after the '55-'57 period Cary refers to, some whom recorded for small labels that are now highly sought after and some who did not. Guys like James Burton, Roy Buchanon, Robbie Robertson & so forth played plenty of incendiary guitar stuff in dives all over the country pre-Beatles. In my experience, I've found that generally the most interesting music is less exposed than the other kind; lots of people like ready-mades and the predictable, for one; I'm always looking for the 'sound of surprise.' 

Part of my earlier comments were influenced by the fact that there were literally thousands of African-American musicians playing music pretty much identical to the various forms of 'r 'n r' in cities large and small all over the country, and some people still think one white guy in Memphis should get all the credit? 

For that matter, no one has brought up white 'R&B' artists like Johnny Otis, guitarist Porky Harris or saxist Jimmy Wright, who pre-date Presley/Sun. PeeWee Crayton cut a number of guitar instrumentals in the late '40s and early '50s that sound like thay could have come out 10 or 15 years later. Then there are 'black rockabilly' records like some of the Cotton/Parker Suns or Magic Sam's 21 Days in Jail. RATC itself, of course, was a cover of Sonny Dae.

FNARF's last point is important too - how else would pedal steel guitar end up in Nigerian juju music? I recall seeing years ago a documentary shot in South Africa in the '5os, and hearing a street kid play Presley's Teddy Bear on a slide whistle.  Post-modern vs. authenticity & regionlity is a long debate I'll not elaborate on here, but it is a debate that is beyond anyone's ability to influence in any meaningful way in this wired world.

Gene

--- On Fri, 1/15/10, fnarf at comcast.net <fnarf at comcast.net> wrote:

From: fnarf at comcast.net <fnarf at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [78-L] One's taste in music is similar to taste in tooth paste. You can't argue about it.
To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 12:40 AM

It's pretty clear to me that you're both right.

>From my perspective, by the time rock'n'roll had become popular, it had lost most of its juice; I really can't think of a circumstance where I'd want to hear "Rock Around The Clock" or "All Shook Up" again, whereas the earlier stuff, that never came near the charts, that Gene is talking about -- what I would probably call "proto-rock" just to keep it straight -- is an endlessly fascinating mine of gold. 

Maybe that's just because it's unfamiliar to me. A huge amount of proto-rock was never heard by ANYBODY except denizens of Chicago juke joints in the late forties and early fifties, and wasn't "discovered" until decades later, ironically in part because it was on 78s and not rock-historian-friendly 45s. That's one of the things that's cool about it.

But in terms of rocking the charts, or influencing faraway listeners like the Beatles (who thought stuff like the Everlys was exotic and unheard-of), Cary's right. Not for the first or the last time, the really groovy stuff wasn't in the charts. Culture moves in multiple streams, all at the same time.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cary Ginell" <soundthink at live.com>
To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 9:23:01 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [78-L] One's taste in music is similar to taste in tooth paste.    You can't argue about it.

As I explained in detail, other than Elvis's records, which fairly quickly abandoned the "primitive" rockabilly he was doing at Sun after he reached RCA Victor, there were few rock 'n' roll records after 1957 that became as big hits as any of the Beatles records. That is not being ignorant. That is merely an observation of record sales and chart action. Here are the #1 records from 1955-57 that I consider to be rock 'n' roll and how many weeks they stayed at No. 1.

1955
Rock Around the Clock - Bill Haley (8)

1956
Heartbreak Hotel - Elvis (8)
Don't Be Cruel/Hound Dog - Elvis (11)

1957
Too Much - Elvis (3)
Party Doll - Buddy Knox (1)
All Shook Up - Elvis (9)
Teddy Bear - Elvis (7)
That'll Be the Day - Crickets (1)
Wake Up Little Susie - Everly Bros. (4)
Jailhouse Rock - Elvis (7)

Now look at the Beatles for 1964-65
I Want to Hold Your Hand (7)
She Loves You (2)
Can't Buy Me Love (5)
Love Me Do (1)
A Hard Day's Night (2)
I Feel Fine (3)
Eight Days a Week (2)
Ticket to Ride (1)
Help! (3)
Yesterday (4)

Other than Elvis, only 4 rock 'n' roll records made #1 on the Billboard charts in 3 years. In 2 years, the Beatles by themselves had 10 #1 records. Rock 'n' Roll in the 1950s had a tremendous influence on rock artists in the '60s, especially those from the UK, but commercially speaking, '50s rock 'n' roll was very short-lived. By 1960, the first rock 'n' roll rush was basically over, with all of its leading exponents either drafted (Elvis), dead (Cochran, Holly), arrested (Berry), injured (Perkins), scandalized (Lewis), or abandoned for to the ministry (Little Richard). If rock 'n' roll was so successful, how come the early '60s was loaded with wimpy boy singers like Anka, Avalon, Fabian, Boone, Rydell et. al.? The leading rock 'n' roll singer of the early '60s was Ricky Nelson, a great artist, but hardly the rebel like his predecessors were. Commercially speaking, the brief 2-year run of rock 'n' roll in the 1950s WAS a blip on the screen when you
 compare it to the overwhelming, world-changing influence sparked by the Beatles. That is not ignorant. That is history.

Cary Ginell

> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:40:39 +0100
> From: ekluwer at gmail.com
> To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
> Subject: Re: [78-L] One's taste in music is similar to taste in tooth paste.    You can't argue about it.
> 
> But there are some statements made that are so objectively wrong ("but the
> initial stages of rock 'n' roll were really just a blip on the screen
> compared to what the Beatles did"0
> 
> that they are ignorant
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Cary Ginell <soundthink at live.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > I don't have a problem exchanging opinions. It's when things get personal
> > (e.g. "You don't know what you're talking about!" "What ignorance!" etc.)
> > that I get riled up. There are no definitive answers to opinions, like "the
> > first rock and roll record," "how good was '50s pop," or anything else,
> > except how worthless "Near You" by Francis Craig on Bullet is. That is just
> > a fact.
> >
> > Cary Ginell
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:32:23 -0800
> > > From: jazzme48912 at yahoo.com
> > > To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
> > > Subject: [78-L] One's taste in music is similar to taste in tooth paste.
> > You  can't argue about it.
> >  >
> > > While I think it is always good to let people know about music that may
> > not be familiar with, IMHO Bill K. has it right with this phrase.
> > Personally, I doubt that I would take personally anything posted on this
> > list by anyone.
> > >
> > > By the way, it is assumed by me that everything I and everyone else posts
> > here is IMHO, so doesn't bother me if it is not explicitly stated. .
> > >
> > > Gene
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 78-L mailing list
> > > 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> > > http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
> > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/
> >  _______________________________________________
> > 78-L mailing list
> > 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> > http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
78-L mailing list
78-L at klickitat.78online.com
http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
_______________________________________________
78-L mailing list
78-L at klickitat.78online.com
http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l