Oops, my bad...the thread is so long that I failed to keep up. But anyway, Fats has some claim as "the father of rock and roll" too--he was making records that fit the bill for Imperial Records in the late 1940s.
Yup, absolutely I said that in my post, "The Fat Man" 1949! I said he predated all of them. And then I said Louis Jordan predates him!
But here's some more Fats! From 1953, and totally rock and roll as we recognize it. The great Earl Palmer on drums. Another guy who fused black and white music, note the country "whine" of his vocal. (I had never noticed that until I saw an interview with Earl Palmer, who pointed out the country influence on Fats....way cool.) Fats, Little Richard, Chuck Berry....all three still alive. half the Beatles are dead, half the Who, the front line of the Ramones is dead, and The Band.......Bowie....but the three great pioneers...they're still here!
With all due respect to Elvis, no, it was not all about him musically. Far from it. And this thread demonstrates that. He just got the majority of the press coverage.
Elvis, from 56-60 it was all about Elvis (consider this to be on a loop).
Ever seen the 68 Comback Special DVD set? (i know it's not the 50's but bare with me) If you ever do forget the actual tv special and just watch the 2 sitdown and stand up concerts he did,. He proves he is a tremendous singer & charismatic performer. He infact integrated Tock & Roll on ethnic levels, & no he didn't "steal" anything (as some like to claim) he had a legitimate passion for Country, Gospel, R & B, Blues, & evem Oprah music. He was a true student of his art. And he wad and intrrnational star without world tours or the internet.
Nobody is bigger then Elvis, and nobody ever will be. Not Jolson, Crosby, Sinatra, Jackson, or Bieber. They were/are all great, they were all legends, but Elvis change the landscapr like nobody else, was ever did since (not even Jackson) and he was called King with out demanding it.
Elvis, from 56-60 it was all about Elvis (consider this to be on a loop).
Ever seen the 68 Comback Special DVD set? (i know it's not the 50's but bare with me) If you ever do forget the actual tv special and just watch the 2 sitdown and stand up concerts he did,. He proves he is a tremendous singer & charismatic performer. He infact integrated Tock & Roll on ethnic levels, & no he didn't "steal" anything (as some like to claim) he had a legitimate passion for Country, Gospel, R & B, Blues, & evem Oprah music. He was a true student of his art. And he wad and intrrnational star without world tours or the internet.
Nobody is bigger then Elvis, and nobody ever will be. Not Jolson, Crosby, Sinatra, Jackson, or Bieber. They were/are all great, they were all legends, but Elvis change the landscapr like nobody else, was ever did since (not even Jackson) and he was called King with out demanding it.
No no, you misunderstand what I said. I never said Elvis was not important, or a fantastic entertainer. I simply said there was a lot more going on musically at the time, and there was.
Now if you want to talk bigger in terms of album sales, The Beatles have sold around 178 million albums in the U.S. alone. Elvis has sold around 135.5 million, and that's actually behind Garth Brooks who has sold 136 million in the states.
My figures are as of July 2015 from the RIAA, The Recording Industry Association of America. That's owned by record labels and distributors to track sales, royalties and other matters of importance to the industry.
^You have to remember, though, in the 1950s, singles were what really sold big. Wasn't "Rock Around the Clock" listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for having sold 25 million copies worldwide? Several of Elvis' 1950s singles sold in the multiple millions just counting U.S. sales. Album sales didn't start topping singles sales, especially for rock performers, until Meet the Beatles sold something like 6 million copies in 1964.
Has anyone mentioned Bill Haley and His Comets? He/they don't seem to be as well remembered as other early rock and roll stars not named Elvis (like Buddy Holly or Jerry Lee Lewis), but Haley and the Comets were in the early vanguard, and they had a nice run of hit singles from 1953 through 1956.
I love Clyde but sorry, no way. I'm particularly offended that you think it's something I "like to claim", as if I don't have ears, don't know the period, and as if I've been brainwashed!
First off, if its who came first? Fats Domino predates them all. And Louis Jordan predates Fats! Most people call Jackie Brenston's "Rocket 88" (which is really the Ike Turner band) as the first rock and roll record (I don't.) Personally I think the records Charley Patton made with Willie Brown in the late 20s are the first rock and roll records! There is no ONE "Father of Rock and Roll' (or King for that matter). It was a term that was affectionately (and rightfully) bestowed on Chuck Berry, ala Elvis and "the King".
Clyde McPhatter, if anything, is the Father of Soul Music, which goes on today in R&B singing (a strange term for a music that has zero to do with rhythm, or blues, but.....there you go.). But he never wrote a song, and other than his singing and early popularity, his contribution to rock and roll vocabulary, as it ended up developing, is not anywhere near Chuck Berry's. Not even close! As great as he was!
Bo Diddley's great, pre-dates Chuck by a year (so does Little Richard and Elvis). But Bo Diddley was an eccentric stylist. Chuck, on the other hand, synthesized the music into it's most basic form, in songwriting and performance....you point to a Chuck Berry record like "Johnny B. Goode" and that IS rock and roll music, textbook rock and roll music. Sorry, but the vocal groups of the 50s did not become the predominant paradigm. Guitar combos did. (The Beatles/British Invasion ended the saxophone-based rock, ended the piano based rock and roll until they themselves brought it back in the late 60s, and the vocal groups all stayed in black music. And the predominant influence, more than all others, on the Beatles and the Stones, was Chuck Berry. And their influence is most definitely felt to this day....)
Here are more Chuck's contributions to the vocabulary of rock and roll....he didn't just make one contribution, he made many:
1.) Driving rhythm guitar that's not in a swing feel (Little Richard also did it with piano, though his pre-Chuck material has the swing feel, "Tutti Frutti"). Bo Diddley was a great, eccentric stylist....but we're all not playing Bo Diddley beats on every song; we're playing straight ahead up and down rock and roll, even if it's at different tempos. Listen to "I Want To Hold Your Hand", the rhythm guitar.....that's Chuck Berry rhythm. When I hear indie rock.....I'll pick one off of the top of my head...."Teenage Riot" by Sonic Youth. Sounds like it has nothing to do with Chuck Berry.....but that rock and roll rhythm is still underlying, propelling the song, that's Chuck Berry rhythm. "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing?" Chuck proved them wrong. Now there's hardly any swing in rock-based music, it's not a triplet-feel, it's straight up-and-down eighth-notes.
2.) Lyrics moving from sex and drinking (ala early 50s R&B) to teenage themes like school, jukeboxes, cars...etc., you lay that ALL at the feet of Chuck. Brilliant move. And the whole music went along with him, including Clyde, Little Richard, Elvis and the whole lot of them. Think "At The Hop". You'd never have that pre-Chuck.
3.) He was the first to celebrate rock and roll itself, he celebrated the music and the burgeoning rock and roll culture and audience - especially the white audience.....("School Days","Roll Over Beethoven", "Johnny B. Goode", "Sweet Little 16", etc etc.). Those are THE rock and roll anthems. Not "A Lover's Question" or "Money Honey", sorry. He was the first to do it, he was the first to identify it and put it in song. And he did it beautifully, with great style and craft.
4.) Back to Bo Diddley, who is absolutely on the Mount Rushmore of rock and roll (and who I posted on the very first page of this thread). Rock and roll lead guitar playing goes back to Chuck Berry, that's what every guitar player learned and learns. Bo Diddley is a great, distinctive rhythm player, but single-line leads in rock and roll? Chuck Berry. He got it from T-Bone Walker, of course, and others, but as far as the general population is concerned, Chuck Berry is the archetype of a rock and roll guitarist, not Bo Diddley. And to this day, I see most bands have a guitar player who's going "weedly-weedly-weedly-weedly...."
5.) Chuck Berry's lyrics are fantastic. Go look what everyone from John Lennon & Bob Dylan & Keith Richards to Willie Dixon have to say about Berry's lyrics, don't take my word for it. Or listen to (or read) his lyrics. That's a cut way above the rest. Certainly above the material Clyde was singing. Those words are vivid. He had great "flow" (a hip hop term). "Subterrenean Homesick Blues", completely Chuck Berry-influenced ("Too Much Monkey Business")
6.) Like Elvis, people didn't know if Chuck Berry was black or white when "Maybelline" came out (note the country influence). Both synthesized black and white styles. They are very much counterparts in that sense. And so if you're going to call Elvis "the King" (a term coined when people didn't take this stuff all that seriously), then calling Chuck "The Father of Rock and Roll" is apt. Before Chuck, rock and roll was a loose conglomerate of regional musics. After Chuck, it was its own music, with its own template and - over the long haul of this amazing, diverse style we call rock, or rock and roll, a type of music that encompasses just about anything - his has been the most enduring influence, the one who's ideas are still in use, by the biggest amount of artists, and most varied.
How about "Architect of Rock and Roll"?
Lastly: Regarding "I can't believe this isn't posted this yet!" Lol! It's a whole decade of music, we're only 5 pages in! We could post the whole decade now in one thread, but where would the fun be in that? lol!
Whoa there. You inferred condescension where none was implied. I'm just saying Chuck's a popular pick, and with good reason, but I simply disagree.
Bringing Louis into the discussion is a little odd, as he's widely recognized as not being a rock'n'roller. An important influence and predecessor, but not an actual rock'n'roller. Fats is an interesting selection, and for about the same time frame, you could also argue Ray Charles. However, if you listen to their pre-'55 records, there's definitely a distinction between those rougher sounds and the songs that came later that are definitely heralded as rock'n'roll. "The Fat Man" sounds a lot closer to Professor Longhair songs than say, "I'm Walkin'" or even "Blue Monday." Similarities, yes, but there's also a pronounced difference. Whereas with the Dominoes (not a Clyde-led song, but you hear his voice in the harmonies), "Sixty-Minute Man" had a sound and a feel to it that took time for the rest of popular music to catch up with.
Being a songwriter is a strawman argument to me. It's an asset to be sure, but it's not a requirement that is make or break for me. Never has been, never will be. Some are gifted writers and bad singers, some are great singers but can't write. It's a tangential point at best with me.
As for vocal groups, they WERE the paradigm first. Doo-wop is arguably the first subgenre of rock'n'roll. And it flourished! Even into the early 60s, R&B-influenced vocal groups were a staple, though by the early '60s, they were also battling it out hard with the teen idols and the dance crazes. And in fact, background harmonies survived as a strong feature even through most of the '60s.
Regarding your points:
1. Only important if the guitar is the end-all, be-all instrument of rock'n'roll. And while that's a prevalent notion, it also unfortunately leads to rockism, which leads to idiots like Gene Simmons spouting borderline racist nonsense about music. Fwiw, it's easy to see why the guitar is the choice instrument: you can sing, play, and dance at the same time with it, making it a triple threat while looking sexy doing it.
2. Kinda, but not really.... Bill Haley struck first with "Crazy, Man, Crazy" which was laced heavily with the teenage jargon of 1952-53, but doesn't explicitly call out the youth. As for the sex.... eh... what Chuck did was tone it down to where it simply wasn't as overt. The hormones and lust were still there, but could theoretically fly under the radar.
3. Again, I'd argue "Rock The Joint" and "Rock Around The Clock" did it, but without actually naming rock'n'roll specifically. Either way, I would say this isn't a huge factor.
4. I brought up Bo Diddley mainly because his eccentric stylings, especially the "Bo Diddley beat" has been described as the founding beat that all rock'n'roll is based on. More a food-for-thought point than a serious argument.
5. Again, lyrics aren't as important for me. They are important, but who wrote what just isn't of primary importance to me unless you're talking about lyricists or singer/songwriters, neither of which do I require to be called the Father Of Rock 'n' Roll.
6. "Conglomerate of regional musics" is basically the definition of rock'n'roll.
I would agree to calling Chuck Berry the "Architect Of Rock And Roll," though. He more than anyone else (with the possible exception of Elvis Presley) really bridged the two major pillars that rock'n'roll was about: African-American culture and youth culture. But I feel that he really stood on a lot of foundation and groundwork laid by rock'n'rollers who came before him, and to me, through his three different outlets, Clyde McPhatter is the rock'n'roller whose importance is criminally overlooked, which is a shame because it subtly permeates the rock'n'roll diaspora.
^You have to remember, though, in the 1950s, singles were what really sold big. Wasn't "Rock Around the Clock" listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for having sold 25 million copies worldwide? Several of Elvis' 1950s singles sold in the multiple millions just counting U.S. sales. Album sales didn't start topping singles sales, especially for rock performers, until Meet the Beatles sold something like 6 million copies in 1964.
Has anyone mentioned Bill Haley and His Comets? He/they don't seem to be as well remembered as other early rock and roll stars not named Elvis (like Buddy Holly or Jerry Lee Lewis), but Haley and the Comets were in the early vanguard, and they had a nice run of hit singles from 1953 through 1956.
Yeah, I think your numbers are probably right, without looking it up. I just had the feeling Slaver thought I was trying to diminish what Elvis did, when that's not my point at all. I'm simply pointing out that a lot of people were doing interesting, innovative things with music then. Like the artists you mention. And I think anyone who is not an Elvis fanatic to the exclusion of everything else would agree with that.
Nobody is bigger then Elvis, and nobody ever will be. Not Jolson, Crosby, Sinatra, Jackson, or Bieber. They were/are all great, they were all legends, but Elvis change the landscapr like nobody else, was ever did since (not even Jackson) and he was called King with out demanding it.
The Beatles are the biggest selling act of all time, not Elvis. Elvis was a signpost, he didn't consciously the landscape, he stumbled into it, and with a couple of years he had sold himself out to Hollywood and RCA (understandably, as there was no precedent).
Musically....Elvis was one of many great things happening at the time. If he looked different, he wouldn't have been nearly as big as he was. But James Dean had just died a couple of years earlier, and white kids were flocking to this music in droves. Fats Domino, and Bill Haley were never going to be the "icons" of that music. And, unfortunately, neither would any of the countless black acts that were going on at the time. Elvis, a young good looking white kid, fit the bill. He was great, don't get me wrong. But he did what he did, no more no less.
Let's not underestimate Elvis, but lets not overestimate him either. You pronoucning him "the greatest ever" doesn't make it true. What was great about Elvis was pretty much over by the time he signed to RCA, as far as I'm concerned. He had great stuff afterwards, but alot of it - most of it -was crap. I have it all. What he did was great. There was a lot he didn't do (like generate his own material). I find Elvis fans like to runaway with what exactly his contributions were. He never evolved. Not in rock and roll. His contribution always remained how he started, the hiccupping, the moves, it was all there at the beginning.
it was not ALL about Elvis. Elvis did not wipe out all the music at the time he came on the scene. He was part of the scene, and - yes - as a white teen idol, he sold the most.
The Beatles, however, did wipe out everything that had been going on. After The Beatles, you didn't hear much more from the girl groups and the Four Seasons, and all the teen idols like Fabian and Bobby Vee, and all the surf music, etc etc.
Anyone who says the 50's were "all about Elvis" doesn't know the period. He was in the army for the last part of it! Tell the people who flocked to all those Allen Freed package shows, causing riots and police activity to shut them down, none of those shows Elvis was on........tell that to the people who went to the shows that it was "all about Elvis".
So, nice hype from an Elvis fan, but complete B.S.
Whoa there. You inferred condescension where none was implied. I'm just saying Chuck's a popular pick, and with good reason, but I simply disagree.
Bringing Louis into the discussion is a little odd, as he's widely recognized as not being a rock'n'roller. An important influence and predecessor, but not an actual rock'n'roller. Fats is an interesting selection, and for about the same time frame, you could also argue Ray Charles. However, if you listen to their pre-'55 records, there's definitely a distinction between those rougher sounds and the songs that came later that are definitely heralded as rock'n'roll. "The Fat Man" sounds a lot closer to Professor Longhair songs than say, "I'm Walkin'" or even "Blue Monday." Similarities, yes, but there's also a pronounced difference. Whereas with the Dominoes (not a Clyde-led song, but you hear his voice in the harmonies), "Sixty-Minute Man" had a sound and a feel to it that took time for the rest of popular music to catch up with.
Being a songwriter is a strawman argument to me. It's an asset to be sure, but it's not a requirement that is make or break for me. Never has been, never will be. Some are gifted writers and bad singers, some are great singers but can't write. It's a tangential point at best with me.
As for vocal groups, they WERE the paradigm first. Doo-wop is arguably the first subgenre of rock'n'roll. And it flourished! Even into the early 60s, R&B-influenced vocal groups were a staple, though by the early '60s, they were also battling it out hard with the teen idols and the dance crazes. And in fact, background harmonies survived as a strong feature even through most of the '60s.
Regarding your points:
1. Only important if the guitar is the end-all, be-all instrument of rock'n'roll. And while that's a prevalent notion, it also unfortunately leads to rockism, which leads to idiots like Gene Simmons spouting borderline racist nonsense about music. Fwiw, it's easy to see why the guitar is the choice instrument: you can sing, play, and dance at the same time with it, making it a triple threat while looking sexy doing it.
2. Kinda, but not really.... Bill Haley struck first with "Crazy, Man, Crazy" which was laced heavily with the teenage jargon of 1952-53, but doesn't explicitly call out the youth. As for the sex.... eh... what Chuck did was tone it down to where it simply wasn't as overt. The hormones and lust were still there, but could theoretically fly under the radar.
3. Again, I'd argue "Rock The Joint" and "Rock Around The Clock" did it, but without actually naming rock'n'roll specifically. Either way, I would say this isn't a huge factor.
4. I brought up Bo Diddley mainly because his eccentric stylings, especially the "Bo Diddley beat" has been described as the founding beat that all rock'n'roll is based on. More a food-for-thought point than a serious argument.
5. Again, lyrics aren't as important for me. They are important, but who wrote what just isn't of primary importance to me unless you're talking about lyricists or singer/songwriters, neither of which do I require to be called the Father Of Rock 'n' Roll.
6. "Conglomerate of regional musics" is basically the definition of rock'n'roll.
I would agree to calling Chuck Berry the "Architect Of Rock And Roll," though. He more than anyone else (with the possible exception of Elvis Presley) really bridged the two major pillars that rock'n'roll was about: African-American culture and youth culture. But I feel that he really stood on a lot of foundation and groundwork laid by rock'n'rollers who came before him, and to me, through his three different outlets, Clyde McPhatter is the rock'n'roller whose importance is criminally overlooked, which is a shame because it subtly permeates the rock'n'roll diaspora.
1.) My point about bringing Louis Jordan (or a million other people I could have brought in) is that rock and roll was R&B. The difference between the two musics is virtually nil, other than subject matter. So yes, Louis Jordan is considered a predecsor. By people who write about it, and people who like to put labels on music. But musicians don't think that way. And, by the way, Louis Jordan ended up recording all through the 50s on Roulette, and having his records marketed as rock and roll.
2.) You may think songwriter is a strawman argument, but I don't. Theres a big difference between being a singer (especially in the 50s) where you're a cog in the machine. You have the producer, the A&R guy, the arranger.....all these people pick the material. The singers were brought in, often coached as to how to perform the song. Love Clyde, but he wasn't exactly an "auteur". You're talking about "The Father of Rock and Roll", ok, so the person who's MIND forumulates the basic vocabulary of the music, both the music and the lyrics, that's to me more of the "Father" than a guy who shows up and sings a song he was told to learn by the producer.
3.) As far as vocal groups being the paradigm first? No, they weren't. They were a part of the landscape. At the same time vocal groups were emerging (say, The Ravens), you had Amos Milburn (who was on all the early Allen Freed shows), you had Fats, you had Johnny Otis, you had Bill Haley, Hank Ballard, Joe Turner.....rock and roll was a collection of musics, not one music, not one paradigm.
4.) Lyrics don't mean anything to you. So what, we're all supposed to discount them? Lyrics ended up becoming very important when you got Dylan and Lennon (et al) in the 60s.....and you trace that right back to Chuck Berry. I'm sorry that it wasn't Fats (who did write some of his own songs) or Bo (who also wrote some of his own songs). I agree that you can have a great song with lousy lyrics (and not vice versa).....but you get points if you can do both. They are two completely different skill sets, putting over a song, and conjuring up the words to marry to the melody. In fact, as a songwriter, I can say the music part is always easy; getting just the right words is the tough part.
5.) I've never heard anybody say the Bo Diddley beat was the foundation of rock and roll. If they did, I'd laugh in their face. The Bo Diddley is certainly a contribution to the language of rock and roll, it certainly has been imitated countless times. And when someone uses it, you say" that's the Bo Diddley beat", you don't say, "that's that rock and roll beat".
6.) Clyde is overlooked! I agree! But I completely disagree that Chuck is somehow standing on the foundation of rock and rollers that came before him. Chuck came in 1955. And I don't see him "standing on the shoulders" of Little Richard, Elvis, Bill Haley, or Fats Domino at all. A completely different style. "Maybellene"? Point to me the record that sounds like "Maybellene". It even opens with a distorted guitar. Then goes into a country beat, with a non-blues melody over the top for the opening chorus. Then switches to a blues melody for the verses. I think you're taking what Chuck did a little for granted. Then he follows that up with "Too Much Monkey Business" b/w "Brown Eyed Handsome Man". "You Can't Catch Me" Then "Roll Over Beethoven" (jackpot! Found the formula!) And that's just 1955!
7.) I'm sorry you don't like the guitar solo, and I certainly can't stand excessive guitar solos, but I love a great one, and let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The guitar is a major part of rock and roll, whether or not it's Elvis holding it, or the guitar solo in "Rock Around The Clock", or all of the great guitar instrumentals from Duane Eddy right through to the Ventures.....it's virtually synonomous with rock and roll, and always has been, even when half the music was sax/vocal group/piano-based. And when Chuck takes THREE guitar breaks in "Too Much Monkey Business" (another type of song that had no precedent), that is way cool, Daddy-O. THAT'S rock and roll. "Fuck it, I'm taking another solo!" lol (by the way, Gene Simmons is a bass player).
8.) So a singer, who basically is the cherry on top of a 50s rock and roll record, can be the father of rock and roll, but not a songwriter? I mean, why not Leiber and Stoller? They sold "Hound Dog" to Big Mama Thornton? Why not Sam Phillips, or Art Rupe, or the Chess brothers? Why not Allen Freed? I think your criteria is rather abitrary.
9.) "conglomerate of regional musics is basically the definition of rock and roll" yes. That's what i said! Thanks for quoting me! And Chuck took those elements and fused them together into one style. Elvis stumbled into it by accident, and quickly abandoned it. Chuck imagined it, dreamed it up, and the rest of the music fell in line. He dreamed up the whole imagery....dancing by the jukebox, cruising in the car, sitting in class, you can't wait to get out so you can run to the soda shop and put a dime in the jukebox..... that's the imagery Chuck Berry put to song, as opposed to "love me b-b-baby", or dropping in a bit of beat slang. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
I don't see why we have to tear down Chuck to build up Clyde.
Lastly: this past weekend I was in a jam. No one knew each other. Everyone tuned up and got ready. And the first thing the guitarist played was a Chuck Berry opening. We all fell into line and within moments we were all playing "Johnny B. Goode" There is nothing more fundamental in rock and roll than Chuck Berry, not to people who actually play it. And sorry, but it's alot harder, and more of an achievement to write - and then perform - "Maybellene" than it is to cover "That's All Right Mama", or sing "Money Honey".
PS: I'd accept Haley as a contender,but as far as "Crazy Man Crazy" and "Rock The Joint"? Haley got alot of his act from The Treniers, who used to play right across the street from the Comets. their songs? "Rockin' Is Our Business", "Rockin' On A Sunday Night", everything with them was "Rock". He got it from them, including the wild stage antics, which the Treniers were famous for. (they crop up in all of the Allen Freed movies, but they weren't very well-recorded at Okeh).
Yeah, I think your numbers are probably right, without looking it up. I just had the feeling Slaver thought I was trying to diminish what Elvis did, when that's not my point at all. I'm simply pointing out that a lot of people were doing interesting, innovative things with music then. Like the artists you mention. And I think anyone who is not an Elvis fanatic to the exclusion of everything else would agree with that.
1.) My point about bringing Louis Jordan (or a million other people I could have brought in) is that rock and roll was R&B. The difference between the two musics is virtually nil, other than subject matter. So yes, Louis Jordan is considered a predecsor. By people who write about it, and people who like to put labels on music. But musicians don't think that way. And, by the way, Louis Jordan ended up recording all through the 50s on Roulette, and having his records marketed as rock and roll.
Rock 'n' roll also has roots in country, folk, and gospel. It isn't just R&B.
2.) You may think songwriter is a strawman argument, but I don't. Theres a big difference between being a singer (especially in the 50s) where you're a cog in the machine. You have the producer, the A&R guy, the arranger.....all these people pick the material. The singers were brought in, often coached as to how to perform the song. Love Clyde, but he wasn't exactly an "auteur". You're talking about "The Father of Rock and Roll", ok, so the person who's MIND forumulates the basic vocabulary of the music, both the music and the lyrics, that's to me more of the "Father" than a guy who shows up and sings a song he was told to learn by the producer.
Clyde was more than just a hired hand, and it's a little disconcerting that you described him so. But more to the point, while they stamped the songwriters on the record label, it's the artist that is on the record who is of paramount importance. I simply reject the notion that to be worth anything, you must write, arrange, produce, promote, and distribute your own music while also choreographing all the moves for your show and handling the legal business as well.
3.) As far as vocal groups being the paradigm first? No, they weren't. They were a part of the landscape. At the same time vocal groups were emerging (say, The Ravens), you had Amos Milburn (who was on all the early Allen Freed shows), you had Fats, you had Johnny Otis, you had Bill Haley, Hank Ballard, Joe Turner.....rock and roll was a collection of musics, not one music, not one paradigm.
Nevertheless those acts were immensely outnumbered by vocal R&B groups: the Spaniels, the Crows, the Swallows, the Coasters, the Midnighters, the Cardinals, the Platters, the Five Satins, the Five Keys, the Harptones, Frankie Lymon And The Teenagers, the Moonglows, the Flamingos, etc.
4.) Lyrics don't mean anything to you. So what, we're all supposed to discount them? Lyrics ended up becoming very important when you got Dylan and Lennon (et al) in the 60s.....and you trace that right back to Chuck Berry. I'm sorry that it wasn't Fats (who did write some of his own songs) or Bo (who also wrote some of his own songs). I agree that you can have a great song with lousy lyrics (and not vice versa).....but you get points if you can do both. They are two completely different skill sets, putting over a song, and conjuring up the words to marry to the melody. In fact, as a songwriter, I can say the music part is always easy; getting just the right words is the tough part.
Well, I'm not professional or anything but when I write, I find the two kind of come together at the same time in disjointed, fragmented bits, and getting them to connect optimally is the tough part. But more to the point, with the exception of certain subgenres, a style or genre of music is not defined by the lyrics. Genres are defined by rhythmic structures and to some degree other sonic features.
5.) I've never heard anybody say the Bo Diddley beat was the foundation of rock and roll. If they did, I'd laugh in their face. The Bo Diddley is certainly a contribution to the language of rock and roll, it certainly has been imitated countless times. And when someone uses it, you say" that's the Bo Diddley beat", you don't say, "that's that rock and roll beat".
Well, you'd be laughing at some of the top people in the music business then, because it was said at a Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame induction ceremony.
6.) Clyde is overlooked! I agree! But I completely disagree that Chuck is somehow standing on the foundation of rock and rollers that came before him. Chuck came in 1955. And I don't see him "standing on the shoulders" of Little Richard, Elvis, Bill Haley, or Fats Domino at all. A completely different style. "Maybellene"? Point to me the record that sounds like "Maybellene". It even opens with a distorted guitar. Then goes into a country beat, with a non-blues melody over the top for the opening chorus. Then switches to a blues melody for the verses. I think you're taking what Chuck did a little for granted. Then he follows that up with "Too Much Monkey Business" b/w "Brown Eyed Handsome Man". "You Can't Catch Me" Then "Roll Over Beethoven" (jackpot! Found the formula!) And that's just 1955!
The problem with this is, this all happened on top of and after Clyde was established in three different incarnations and had already laid some decidedly rock'n'roll groundwork.
7.) I'm sorry you don't like the guitar solo, and I certainly can't stand excessive guitar solos, but I love a great one, and let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The guitar is a major part of rock and roll, whether or not it's Elvis holding it, or the guitar solo in "Rock Around The Clock", or all of the great guitar instrumentals from Duane Eddy right through to the Ventures.....it's virtually synonomous with rock and roll, and always has been, even when half the music was sax/vocal group/piano-based. And when Chuck takes THREE guitar breaks in "Too Much Monkey Business" (another type of song that had no precedent), that is way cool, Daddy-O. THAT'S rock and roll. "Fuck it, I'm taking another solo!" lol (by the way, Gene Simmons is a bass player).
No, that's just Chuck Berry doing his thing. And I must disagree with guitar and rock and roll being synonymous. The guitar is a part of musical styles other than rock and roll, and rock and roll can be high quality without being a guitar song. To state them as synonymous projects a very narrow definition of rock and roll that omits important pieces like doo-wop, soul, EDM, and hip-hop. They're all part of the rock'n'roll diaspora. And yes, Gene's a bassist, but that hasn't stopped him from spouting some of the most ignorant statements about rock 'n' roll.
8.) So a singer, who basically is the cherry on top of a 50s rock and roll record, can be the father of rock and roll, but not a songwriter? I mean, why not Leiber and Stoller? They sold "Hound Dog" to Big Mama Thornton? Why not Sam Phillips, or Art Rupe, or the Chess brothers? Why not Allen Freed? I think your criteria is rather abitrary.
Not really. And a singer is not just a "cherry on top" or a "hired hand." They CAN be, but they are not by definition mere cogs. An excellent singer commands that the instruments play to fit the voice, and songwriters often write songs with specific singers in mind. And with a voice as distinctive as Clyde's was, it's very hard to believe that he was merely a cherry on top.
9.) "conglomerate of regional musics is basically the definition of rock and roll" yes. That's what i said! Thanks for quoting me! And Chuck took those elements and fused them together into one style. Elvis stumbled into it by accident, and quickly abandoned it. Chuck imagined it, dreamed it up, and the rest of the music fell in line. He dreamed up the whole imagery....dancing by the jukebox, cruising in the car, sitting in class, you can't wait to get out so you can run to the soda shop and put a dime in the jukebox..... that's the imagery Chuck Berry put to song, as opposed to "love me b-b-baby", or dropping in a bit of beat slang. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
Except Chuck was neither the only nor the first to do so. Bill Haley did a lot more than just drop in a bit of slang. He was before Chuck Berry in realizing that the teenagers were the audience for this new kind of music. And it's a fine line to walk, but it's important to remember that rock 'n' roll is a kind of music foremost, not an image or attitude.
I don't see why we have to tear down Chuck to build up Clyde.
I'm not trying to. I love Chuck Berry's music too, and maybe actually even more than Clyde, but I see a man with three different careers: a solo career of his own and two different vocal groups that sounded a bit different from each other, all before people had heard of Chuck Berry, and it's hard not to give that mad respect as being foundational and formative for what rock and roll is.
Lastly: this past weekend I was in a jam. No one knew each other. Everyone tuned up and got ready. And the first thing the guitarist played was a Chuck Berry opening. We all fell into line and within moments we were all playing "Johnny B. Goode" There is nothing more fundamental in rock and roll than Chuck Berry, not to people who actually play it. And sorry, but it's alot harder, and more of an achievement to write - and then perform - "Maybellene" than it is to cover "That's All Right Mama", or sing "Money Honey".
I'd argue that you're conflating "fundamental" and "seminal." Just because "Maybelline" is a more technically difficult song than those others doesn't necessarily make it more fundamental. In fact, what is fundamental is usually understood as what is most simple or basic.
PS: I'd accept Haley as a contender,but as far as "Crazy Man Crazy" and "Rock The Joint"? Haley got alot of his act from The Treniers, who used to play right across the street from the Comets. their songs? "Rockin' Is Our Business", "Rockin' On A Sunday Night", everything with them was "Rock". He got it from them, including the wild stage antics, which the Treniers were famous for. (they crop up in all of the Allen Freed movies, but they weren't very well-recorded at Okeh).
And Berry got a lot of his stuff from Muddy Waters, T-Bone Walker, and Charles Brown. He wasn't a carbon copy of them, but then again, the Treniers didn't have the country influence that Haley had in his songs either.
As a P.S., the Beatles destroyed a lot of things in the musicscape, but the Four Seasons weren't one of them. In fact, 1964, the height of Beatlemania, was also arguably the biggest year for the Four Seasons. They only had one number one hit during the Beatles' era, but the string of hits was actually steadier and the musical quality was unquestionably better. Generally speaking, the Four Seasons and the Beach Boys are regarded as the two American acts noted for thriving more once the British hit. Though, in both cases, that had more to do with important changes that happened around the time: the Four Seasons switching from Vee-Jay to Phillips Records and Murray Wilson storming out from his quasi-managerial position, which really freed up Brian Wilson creatively.
You know what? I wrote and posted a GIGANTIC response, our responses are getting longer and longer.....and I realize, i don't want to hijack Bugman's thread with arguing about what....Clyde McPhatter and Chuck Berry? Lol! If you want to continue this back and forth, PM me. In the meantime, I'll delete my parsing of each and every sentence you wrote, where you're parsing every one of mine and yadda yadda yadda, it'll never end. I love Clyde McPhatter, and I love Chuck Berry. I don't feel like pitting them against each other. Never in my life did I think I'd get so much grief for tagging Chuck with "Father of Rock and Roll" (an old nickname bestowed on him affectionately, it's not like invented it, and especially after we just had ten posts of talking about "The King".). I didn't really think it was an arugable point....but you never know what's going to rub people the wrong way on the TMF! lol
Fine by me, Internet. I really wanted to just speak my piece and not have to say too much about it either. It's an unpopular opinion, I know, but I'm comfortable enough with it to be able to agree to disagree.
No no, you misunderstand what I said. I never said Elvis was not important, or a fantastic entertainer. I simply said there was a lot more going on musically at the time, and there was.
Now if you want to talk bigger in terms of album sales, The Beatles have sold around 178 million albums in the U.S. alone. Elvis has sold around 135.5 million, and that's actually behind Garth Brooks who has sold 136 million in the states.
My figures are as of July 2015 from the RIAA, The Recording Industry Association of America. That's owned by record labels and distributors to track sales, royalties and other matters of importance to the industry.
Elvis was a huge influence on the Beatles, so much so that John Lennon once said "Before Elvis there was nothing" I can't imagine anybody not being influenced by him, either to enclude or exclude depending on the artists opinion of his style or type of music. He was the biggest influence in pop music ever.
Elvis was a huge influence on the Beatles, so much so that John Lennon once said "Before Elvis there was nothing" I can't imagine anybody not being influenced by him, either to enclude or exclude depending on the artists opinion of his style or type of music. He was the biggest influence in pop music ever.
I'll get back to you tomorrow, it's already past my bedtime. But honestly I think we may just have to agree to disagree, with the understanding I'm not in any way trying to diminish what Elvis did. He's an American icon for good reasons.
I said he predated all of them. And then I said Louis Jordan predates him!
