[78-L] Rock & Roll rising (was: Escott, was Arnold Covey)

[Joe Scott]

Hi Gregg,

As of 1949 there was a fad for singing about rocking in secular tunes that had backbeat through most of the tune. That fad didn't exist in 1946 or any time previously. As of 1949 artists were copying each other's details within this genre and were having hits doing so, and as of 1949 Billboard was referring to that genre as "rockers." The wording "rock and roll" is at least as early as 1951 to describe that genre where people hollered about rocking ahd rolling, i.e. rockers. There's no reason to think that as of 1949 and 1950 listeners minds' couldn't identify that when one person hollered rock and roll over a backbeat like Louis Jordan had never done it reminded them of that other good record where someone hollered rock and roll over a backbeat. Sun started in 1952.

If we take genres to be _continuous_ traditions (where e.g. one 1941 recording that sounded a certain way wouldn't be relevant to a genre unless someone in 1947 had heard it and been influenced by it, if you see what I mean), then keeping in mind that 1945-1947 was a massively documented era of black music (compared to e.g. 1930-1932), we have plenty of data on whether Wild Bill Moore and Wynonie Harris were innovators on record as of December 1947, yes.

But regardless of when we think it might have "started," we can listen to certain recordings from 1949 and be fair-minded about whether, if they had been recorded in 1955 by Chuck Berry or Little Richard or whoever, we would call them rock and roll.

When people let truth fall by the wayside in the interests of commerce, no, it doesn't surprise me, but I don't like it. That book quotes someone saying Elvis made the first rock and roll, leaving that without further comment there, and elsewhere notes that someone else has said Jackie Brenston made the first, adding that it might not have been until later. All of which is consistent with the hope of Sam Phillips (who late in life allowed himself to be billed as "the man who invented rock and roll") that people would think the existence of music like "Rock The Joint" had anything to do with him.

Joseph Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: gdkimball at cox.net
Sent: 03/07/14 01:58 PM
To: 78-L Mail List
Subject: Re: [78-L] Rock & Roll rising (was: Escott, was Arnold Covey)

---- Malcolm Rockwell <malcolm at 78data.com> wrote: > Could it be possible that the dynamism between city and country, black > and white, standard and non-standard, etc., musical forms is why Rock & > Roll developed? That's far more likely, in my estimation. > Malcolm > > ******* This. Most creation stories of musical styles fixate on a specific recording or session or artist. It makes for good storytelling but the result is almost always wrongheaded. Musical styles, like all aspects of culture, develop out of an accretion of countless human interactions, many of which didn't even leave an historical record. We are talking about processes that not only involve the artists and the music but the audience as well. When Rock and Roll became a defined genre in the minds of listeners is just as important as stylistic considerations in my book. By the way, I'd be interested in your stylistic definition of Rock and Roll, Joe. Given that the development of Rock and Roll was obviously a process of both music and market, it suprises me that the subtitle of Escott's book is so controversial. "Sun Records and the Birth of Rock and Roll." So what? It's not "Sun Records Created Rock and Roll." Yeah, it's a bit silly given the content of the book, which covers a wide range of musical styles and artists who recorded at Sun. But are we really suprised that the title of a book might involve a touch of marketing hyperbole? Gregg _______________________________________________ 78-L mailing list 78-L at klickitat.78online.com http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l