[78-L] Escott, was Arnold Covey

[Cary Ginell]

It has more to do with the role the guitarist plays, in my opinion, vs. tenor sax. Just having electric guitar in a group isn't the sole criteria. I don't think it's possible to define what is rock n roll and what isn't and have everyone agree. I listened to Rock This Joint by Preston and it still sounds like R&B/jump to me. 

Cary 

> On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:47 PM, "Joe Scott" <joenscott at mail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Cary,
> I don't know of any connection between the rise of the rock and roll sound and presence vs. absence of guitar. "Rock That Boogie" by Jimmy Smith (1919-1966) is an example of rock and roll with electric guitar from before Sun Records, about two and a half years before. It's on youtube.
> 
> Throughout 1942-1951 many many black lineups included an electric guitarist, many many included no guitarist, and that was about it. (It was very rare to have two guitarists, one of the earliest examples of that in rock and roll being "Real Lovin' Mama" by Floyd Dixon and Mari Jones, 1950, also on youtube.) I don't think there is any music from 1942-1945 that should be called rock and roll music, and during that period the electric guitar was already in...
> 
> Joseph Scott
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cary Ginell
> Sent: 03/06/14 07:21 PM
> To: 78-L Mail List
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Escott, was Arnold Covey
> 
> Everyone has their own opinion of what rock 'n' roll constitutes. The development from R&B/Jump to Rock 'n' Roll took some time to progress, but for me, the key difference was adding electric guitar to R&B groups. In the case of white groups, it worked in reverse - when white groups added tenor sax. Bill Haley started out with steel guitar, but replaced it with a saxophone when he went to Decca. I don't think it was stylistic as much as it was the composition of the band. Now I'm sure someone will take me apart for this, but that's how I view it. It's really hard to generalize about this because there are exceptions to every statement. It's also fun to talk about, but invariably, someone starts to take it personally and invectives start flying. That's when I bail out of the conversation. Cary Ginell On Mar 6, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Joe Scott <joenscott at mail.com> wrote: > Let's take "Rock The Joint" by Jimmy Preston. In your opinion why is it not true rock and roll? > > Joseph Scot
> t > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Erwin Kluwer > Sent: 03/06/14 01:20 PM > To: 78-L Mail List > Subject: Re: [78-L] Escott, was Arnold Covey > > What a nonsense to indentify some jump blues records as true Rock ' n Roll and dismiss Sun records seminal place in creating the genre ... Talking about ignorance!!!! On Thursday, March 6, 2014, Joe Scott <joenscott at mail.com> wrote: > I wish Escott were enough of an expert on early rock and roll and/or > forthright enough that the existence of 1949 recordings such as "Rock The > Joint"* by Jimmy Preston, "Hole In The Wall" by Albennie Jones, "Rock That > Boogie" by Jimmy Smith, and "Boogie At Midnight" by Roy Brown, which all > sound similar to each other because they were all part of a new fad sound, > before Sun existed, a sound that Billboard was calling "rockers" before Sun > existed, would prevent him from coauthoring a book called _Good Rockin' > Tonight: Sun Records And The Birth Of Rock 'N' Roll_. The idea that Sun > 
> Records had something to do with the birth of rock and roll sells great and > is completely false. > > Joseph Scott > > *The first record Escott ever o wn > ed was the London LP _Rock The Joint_ by > Bill Haley. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: warren moorman > Sent: 03/06/14 09:50 AM > To: 78-L Mail List > Subject: Re: [78-L] Lester Young - or Arnold Corey? > > [...] Colin Escott, who's authoritative knowledge of country and early > rock&roll is unquestionable, was associated with the most incredible liner > note howler I've ever known, not once but twice. In his first book on Sun > records, he printed an extremely unlikely explanation about Eddie Hill's > record "The Hot Guitar", then many years later, a Mercury box set he > produced carried a different but equally preposterous explanation. Yet he's > undoubtedly expert[....] > _______________________________________________ > 78-L mailing list > 78-L at klickitat.78online.com <javascript:;> > http://klickitat.78online.
> com/mailman/listinfo/78-l > _______________________________________________ 78-L mailing list 78-L at klickitat.78online.com http://klickitat.78online.com/mail m > an/listinfo/78-l > _______________________________________________ > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l