2. music
  3. 1238620414

Some irrefutable truths about rock and roll

1) Robert Johnson invented rock and roll, and is the rightful King of it. Elvis Presley's title should be amended to "Poster Boy of Early Rock and Roll."

2) Jeff Buckley's version of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" is infinitely better than the Rufus Wainwright version and is the definitive version of the song.

3) The Rolling Stones were and are the most overrated band in the history of rock and roll.

4) If it's too loud you are, indeed, too old.

5) The Stone Roses' self-titled debut is the best debut album ever in the history of ever.

6) John Mayer needs to stop that right now.

7) A good song is a good song, whether it's played on an Audiovox tape deck and a single factory speaker in a 1976 Buick Skylark or a complete Linn Klimax system.

8) A couple of Les Pauls, a Fender Precision bass, and a decent set of drums sound every bit as good as the most disciplined orchestra.

9) There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the occasional urge to crank "Hungry Like the Wolf" from time to time, so long as it doesn't become a habit.

Did I forget anything?

*yes, I realize everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, and this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
theraiguy
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,511 posts
 
I think Schubert hits a nerve with many with his assessment of rock music.

Ironically, these days, rock is mostly dead and other forms of pop music and culture in general continue to push the limits of what is acceptable to publish or not.

My view is the only way to know about what really goes on in the world is to remove barriers and let what was buried prior be seen.

Where are the limits though? Anyone can say or publish most anything on the internet these days, like in this forum and these things remain on record for others to read, use or ignore as they please.

There is a downside to everything I suppose. That seems to be the way things work. Rock music is no exception.

Now, off to listen to some super raunchy Led Zeppelin.....
whart's avatar
whart
3,074 posts
 
The only quibble I have with Schubert's assessment (apart from the fact that I like early R & R and what followed from it) is S's observation, on the one hand, that R& R is visceral, not intellectual ('hits you in the crotch' to paraphrase him) and on the other, that it invites introspection and navel gazing, which seem to be contradictory. I think the genre comprehends both- from the rowdy hillbilly-turned-'race' music of Sun Studios through the heavy, searing or distorted guitar-centric stuff of the late 60's (extroverted) to the singer-songwriter material of psych-folk, country rock and 'pop' music that focused on a narrative (navel-gazing). I'm good with all of it.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,511 posts
 
The problem with telling anyone not to do something (or listen to something) that they might not seem as potentially harmful, is that the end result is most likely that they will, and perhaps not even realize the harm. Especially kids.

My approach has been to call a spade a spade so that my kids know how to recognize it all for what it is. THen they are in a good position to act accordingly. THat is the approach that seems to work for me.

So calling rock or pop music bad or evil at its core does not bother me in that there is some truth to it. Despite perhaps knowing that there is more to it than just that, listening to it will do nothing for some, like Schubert, whose interests and likes reside elsewhere.

Personally, "I know its only rock and roll....but I like it!"
martykl
3,578 posts
 
I don't want to put words into his mouth, but my take from following Schubert's posts over the years is that he simply doesn't have room in his life for for vulgar art. That's not limited to rock music, by the way, IIRC he's no fan of Stravinsky, either. Schubert seems to prefer noble art both aesthetically and for its value statement to society (and possibly the behavioral effects it may inspire, as well).

Rock music (well, most good rock music, anyway) is IMHO vulgar by design. Most of the rock musicians that I admire would likely embrace that description. I find value in art that explores (okay, maybe celebrates) the vulgar (animal) side of human nature, while Schubert seems to reject it.

If I've gotten it right, I'd say that I don't agree with his viewpoint, but I understand it completely.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,511 posts
 
Marty, I agree with your post 100%.

Vulgar is vulgar. Noble is noble. Its only art. One can take it or not and do with it what they please.
More to discover