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
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.
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!"
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.
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.
One side note: there is such a thing as noble rock music. I'll cite The Moody Blues example from above again as an example. A lot of Yes as well. Progressive rock is probably the category of rock that one is most likely to find noble works. Symphonic rock, the subarea of prog rock that demonstrates the greatest influence from classical music, perhaps the most along the lines of pure classical music.