[78-L] Rock & Roll rising

Thu Mar 13 13:30:16 PDT 2014

There have been zillions of discussions on the distinction between 
Rhythm & Blues and Rock 'n Roll; or the lack of that; on what should 
be considered the first rock 'n roll record; and more.

There is no doubt anywhere that rock 'n roll developed from rhythm & 
blues - even those who claim that the country & western influences 
are essential still recognize the  rhythm & blues as the originating 
style.  Country music, or by then "hillbilly" has its roots in the blues too.

Most discussions are about where in the development of the style, it 
should be labeled rock 'n roll.  I think there are two developments 
that made rock 'n roll:

- stylistic: the emerge of the back beat, the "rock and roll fad" in 
Rhythm & Blues from the late forties, gospelish delivery getting in 
fashion, the growing emphasis on the guitar over the horns
- cultural: segregation, crossover, "teenagification" and 
commercialization. From a predominant black style played by and aimed 
at mature African-Americans to music played by young white artists 
aimed at the white teenage audience mass marketed with greater budget 
by the greater record labels (together with the indies).

Stylistically, rock 'n roll-like elements are to be found in Rhythm & 
Blues since the thirties, e.g. Roll 'em Pete by Pete Johnson and Joe 
Turner.  There are also examples of gospel/blues crossover and 
gospelish delivery of blues to be found at least from the 
thirties.  They became mainstream in R&B from the late forties.  From 
this viewpoint, Rock 'n Roll started somewhere around 1948.  (Note 
that 1948 was the recording ban of the AFM.  Much material released 
in '48 was recorded in one month, December 1947.  I wonder how much 
this has contributed to the fad).

The generation gap and the crossover aspect are cultural aspects that 
say less of the music itself.  They both happened in the 
mid-fifties.  Personally I tend to favour the racial/generation 
approach over the stylistical, that's much harder to pinpoint.  Or as 
I said in one of my radio shows: Rock 'n Roll swept the nation when 
the white kids started playing their version of the Rhythm & Blues 
and the record labels saw the big money in it.  The raunchy subjects 
of the blues were changed into naive love songs, the sax was thrown 
in the junkyard and teenagers bought the records.

So I place Rock 'n Roll in the fifties and let Rhythm & Blues what it 
always was - African American music.  Before '48 it was called "race 
music" and no-one had heard of Rhythm & Blues until Jerry Wexler 
coined the term.

All significant developments in popular music since the start of the 
20th century, have been started in African-American culture and 
crossed over to the white audience after they'd become hot and 
mainstream in "race music" - whether it were early jazz styles, swing 
or rock 'n roll.

Koenraad G Kamphuijs
The Legends of the Rocking Dutchman - a weekly show on the Rhythm & 
Blues from the thirties to fifties.
http://www.koenkamphuijs.nl/radio

At 19:13 7-3-2014, you wrote:
>Jordan said in a '70s interview that Decca asked him to make rock 
>and roll for them and he refused because he didn't like it. (After 
>Decca dropped him he did end up recording very good rock and roll.)
>As of 1949 there was a fad in secular music for singing about 
>rocking over a backbeat ("Rock That Boogie" by Jimmy Smith, "Boogie 
>At Midnight" by Roy Brown, "Hole In The Wall" by Albennie Jones, 
>"Rockin' All Day" by Jimmy McCracklin, etc.). The fad was influenced 
>by the fact that Wynonie Harris's "Good Rockin' Tonight" and Bill 
>Moore's "We're Gonna Rock" had both been top 3 on the black charts 
>in 1948. There was no such fad as of 1946 or any time earlier. There 
>was still that fad in 1956. Nothing Little Richard did in the late 
>'50s hadn't been done before Sun Records existed (check out "Rock 
>H-Bomb Rock" by H-Bomb Ferguson, for instance).
>Other than the combination of lyrics about rocking with backbeat 
>through most of a tune, there was nothing in 1949-1950 rock and roll 
>that hadn't been around somewere in black music since about 1943, 
>and rock and roll, a new kind of jump blues, often sounded largely 
>like Louis Jordan in most respects because he was by far the most 
>successful and imitated jump blues artist in general. (I agree with 
>Malcolm's point that overall there was a lot more to Louis Jordan 
>than jump _blues_, but he was so massively popular that he was the 
>most popular jump blues artist.)
>The people who made the earliest rock and roll recordings tended to 
>be working within the urban black entertainment business: at the 
>time they were drawing on the likes of Roy Milton far more than the 
>likes of Arthur Crudup.
>Bill Haley became interested in the rock and roll sound in 1950 and 
>he got the great idea to combine it with "hillbilly" music to make 
>rockabilly. Little Richard wasn't rockabilly but was rock and roll. 
>Similarly, none of the earliest known rock and roll was rockabilly.
>Regarding whether the shaping was purposeful, I'd say it was: 
>artists such as Wynonie Harris knew that black people mostly 
>associated backbeat with religious music, associated the verb "rock" 
>with both religious music ("rock my soul" etc.) and with partying, 
>and they created a new secular genre based on being playfully 
>sacriligious in a way their listeners could understand while they 
>were partying.
>Joseph Scott
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Malcolm Rockwell
>Sent: 03/07/14 10:12 AM
>To: 78-L Mail List
>Subject: [78-L] Rock & Roll rising (was: Escott, was Arnold Covey)
>
>I've always found Louis Jordan interesting. I consider him more a 
>crossover novelty act, judging by his choice and execution of 
>material, than the more specific R&B, bop, big band, combo, etc. 
>descriptions. But it's true that R&R drew from all those influences 
>and more while being shaped. However I do not think that shaping was 
>purposeful, more accidental and/or evolutionary. 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 
>******* On 3/7/2014 2:30 AM, Mark Bardenwerper wrote: > On 3/7/2014 
>5:08 AM, eugene hayhoe wrote: >> Electric guitarist Jimmy Lewis has 
>something to say on the topic: >> >> >> 
>http://www.freshsoundrecords.com/the_complete_recordings_1947-1955-cd-2063.html  
> >> >> >> I've always found the 'it can't be rock and roll yet if 
>they're not white' 'argument' bleakly amusing. As Johnny Otis said 
>'can't they gi
>  ve black people credit for anything?' >> >> > Point well taken. 
> High on my list would be Louis Jordan. > 
> _______________________________________________ 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