[78-L] Rock vs. Rock 'n' Roll (WAS Huh?)

[Sammy Jones]

> > 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
> 

Steven's distinction of "Rock" vs. "Rock 'n' Roll" is not new.  It is taught
in college-level "History of Rock" classes.  I took one about six years ago.
Although I seem to recall that the parent genre was Rock, and Rock 'n' Roll
was a very specific sub-genre that existed roughly in the timeframe that
Steven laid out.  The psychedelic/drug element was not glossed over either.
In fact, our professor (having lived through much of the "Rock Era") would
sometimes reminisce about "really good drugs"!

To my mind, differentiating between Rock and Rock 'n' Roll is condescending
to neither one.  Musicologists are always trying to classify and
compartmentalize.  It is a very human trait.

Sammy "I prefer Ragtime to Rock, anyway" Jones