[78-L] Huh?

[Taylor Bowie]

>>
> What you (Mr. Bowie) are doing is making a common error...?!
>
> "Rock'n'Roll" (originally based on boogie-woogie, but quickly
> changed to an easier-to-play "1-2-*3*-4" 4/4 format!" basically
> existed from the early fifties until some point in the early
> sixties. I VUZ DERE, CHOLLY!! When psychedelia gradually took
> over pop music (1964-65 and ALL 4/4 time!), "rock'n'roll"
> gradually became "old-fashioned;" the revival group Sha Na Na
> did their best to revive authentic "rock'n'roll," but "rock" (its
> direct descendant) gradually took over!! During the 1965-7?
> "rock era," much (most?!) pop music seemed to assume that
> the listener had enjoyed one or more "tokes," and could
> thus comprehend and enjoy the psychedelia...?!
>
> Note that your above list is "ROCK" bands...NOT "rock'n'roll"
> bands!!
>
> Steven C. Barr


Well,  this is the same sort of discussion they used to have in the 30s and 
40s about what was "swing" and what was "jazz,"  etc.  I'd not heard this 
distinction before about "rock" vs. "rock 'n' roll"  so am not sure what to 
think.  But,  wrong or not,  I was right that the original statement needed 
some clarification.

Taylor