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

[Steven C. Barr]

From: "Sammy Jones" <sjones69 at bellsouth.net>
>> > 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
>
Point being that Bill Haley's "rock' n'roll" of 1954-55 was audibly VERY
different from the "rock" of "Sgt. Pepper's" and its ilk! For one thing, you
could (and many DID!) dance to the former...most who listened to the
latter didn't (they were too stoned!).

When listening...ignore the nadir of 1961-62 (which generated a major
boredom among its listeners...?!). After having been submitted to such
"rousers" as "This Ol' House" and "Doggie In the Window," young
folks wanted somerthing new and different...which Alan Freed and
bands like Haley's gave them!! Around late 1962, radio (still mostly
AM) was severely boring (unless you listened to WLAC!!) Then the
Beatles arrived...and issued "Sgt. Pepper's" and things abruptly
changed!!

Psychedelic music and psychedelic drugs appeared pretty well at
the same time...?!

Steven C. Barr