poptimists | How I Learned To Love Rock And Roll

You're viewing

poptimists
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

freakytigger.livejournal.com posting in

I have been spending quite a lot of time listening to rock and roll (and other music from the rock and roll 'era' c.late 50s). This was sparked by a sudden and complete infatuation w/"Chantilly Lace" by the Big BOPPER.

So I wanted to ask - what do my fellow Poptimists think about rock and roll? Do you like it? Do you listen to it? How does it stack up next to pop now (or pop from a more recent then)? Is it pop at all? Is it rock? Does the path of listening to rock and roll lead inexorably to the Stray Cats? etc. etc.

Here are some things about rock and roll which relate to other Poptimist concerns:

- The tracks are generally very short.
- They are often quite goofy.
- They sound like they were done very quickly.
- They mostly came out on single.
- There was a hell of a lot of it.
- There are a lot of boys with guitars around.
- Rock and roll is pretty old.
- Chunks of it are very revered.
- It gets revived a lot.

HMMMMMM. Over to you crazy comments box cats!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

koganbot

But Cis, most of what Gillett was writing about was on the indies - and as for whether indies vs. major means revved-up vs. toned-down, I'm not sure there's a consistent answer; Pat Boone was on an indie, and most of the smoothed-out Philly teen idols were on indies too. The majors pretty much missed the boat across the board and were playing catch up.

Toned-down for the kids is not particularly accurate as to what was going on anyway, unless you take into account which kids. Boys liked Elvis more than girls did (at least in one poll I read from several Illinois high schools in 1958, where Pat beats Elvis decisively). And Little Richard deliberately made his sound wilder to appeal to a white crowd; and Jerry Lee I think was urged to go wild. The rockabilly sound was definitely more deliberately crazy than its pop and r&b and country sources. In fact, while r&b might have been dirtier, deliberate insanity was more of a white thing. (Counterevidence: Screamin' Jay Hawkins. Little Richard not counterevidence, given that he was aimng for the whites.) I think there were contrary urges in recording for white teens: both make it sweeter/mushier (for those into courtship), make it wilder, harder rockin' (for those into harder rockingness). Also, getting a large white teen audience also made you more likely to be afflicted with censorship attempts than when you're restricted to an audience of black adults.

Look at the charts today (esp. the U.S.): Is there a consistent answer as to whether a tough guy or a smooth guy hits big on Top 40? Think of Lloyd (smoothie); think of Lil Jon (nutsy); think of 50 Cent (smooth club and tough lyrics).

From:

koganbot

think of 50 Cent (smooth club and tough lyrics)

Talk loudly and carry a smooth club.

From:

martinskidmore.livejournal.com

Little Richard's wildness and madness is certainly in part inherent, and in part learned from Esquerita, who at that time had no white audience at all as far as I know - that's where most of Little Richard's visual, vocal and piano wildness derived from, changing his music from his early smooth blues recordings.

Also, there is tons of craziness (silliness, aggressive wildness, insanity and so on) in R&B of the '40s and early '50s, before it was largely replaced by rock 'n' roll.

But I don't think aiming for the big market meant toning things down, though there was some of that at first. Haley was a very big early star for just that reason - taking out the sexual threat both of the up and coming white stars like Elvis and Jerry Lee, but also just by being white when music was still highly segregated, which meant he could have a widespread hit in a way that Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Ike Turner and so on couldn't. Elvis of course benefitted from that latter point too.