http://www.austinchronicle.com/music/2009-07-17/810720/ very interesting book that I agree with, anyone who knows anything about 1950's rock and roll more than just the usual "elvis" crap would agree with this. They turned it from music that black people, white people, men and women were putting so much work into, and turned it into pretty much white kids and later on hippies. Im not going to say they were bad artists, but the Beatles ruined what rock and roll was supposed to become.
Jimi Hendrix wasn't white. There were several more rockers who were black, Hispanic etc.
anyone who knows anything about 1950's rock and roll more than just the usual "elvis" crap would agree with this.
I have B.B. King albums, Elvis albums, Fats Domino albums, Buddy Holly and the Crickets albums and much, much more. I don't agree with your statement.
Im not going to say they were bad artists, but the Beatles ruined what rock and roll was supposed to become.
Look at music from the 50's and compare it to the 80's. 60's and 90's. 70's and today's. Music changes! Besides, there were obviously more bands than the Beatles. Take the Rolling Stones for example, they are very different than the Beatles!
Look up the book "how the beatles destroyed rock and roll" and youll get a pretty good view on it, sorry i suck at sharing my opinion. Youd have to read a review on it to get what im trying to say here
Without looking at the link... I severely doubt they destroyed anything. Good music perpetuates anyway, and maybe the Beatles did make a certain genre popular over several parts of the world, but they did not destroy the other genres; if a genre isn't played widely doesn't mean it is dead.
Im not going to say they were bad artists, but the Beatles ruined what rock and roll was supposed to become.
And what was Rock n' Roll "supposed to become" exactly? The history of music isn't written, and it's bound to change with time. The Beatles turned it into a more accesible style, but that doesn't mean they destroyed anything.
What Dudeguy said. Regardless on how Rock n' Roll was "supposed" to turn out, here's a reminder for those that forget: music evolves. Even if the awesomeness of the Beatles did not surface, music would have still taken a turn, even more so the very same direction. One band does not influence the whole of music--they only inspire others.
Look at music from the 50's and compare it to the 80's. 60's and 90's. 70's and today's. Music changes! Besides, there were obviously more bands than the Beatles. Take the Rolling Stones for example, they are very different than the Beatles!
But what came out of what was ruined was'nt bad either.
the guy is stating how the beatles turned rock and roll from a music of all races and deep black roots into something for mostly white people and turned into a artsy hippie thing "The Beatles destroyed rock 'n' roll, turning it from a vibrant black (or integrated) dance music into a vehicle for white pap and pretension."
Rock and roll in the 50's and early 60's was rebellious kids with hot rods and leather jackets and it turned into smelly kids with long hair smoking weed and and avoiding the draft and throwing **** at soldiers coming home from war. He is saying the took it from its cultural and rhythmic roots into something that was not rock and roll at all. Read the review, quit acting like im persecuting the Beatle's ability to make music and the evolution of music, read it and maybe one of you will get what im trying to say?..
Read the review, quit acting like im persecuting the Beatle's ability to make music and the evolution of music, read it and maybe one of you will get what im trying to say?
Or you can maybe not use only one heavily-biased source for the basis of your arguments and instead find multiple, objective sources to back up your "findings"?
Rock and roll in the 50's and early 60's was rebellious kids with hot rods and leather jackets and it turned into smelly kids with long hair smoking weed and and avoiding the draft and throwing **** at soldiers coming home from war.
So...you're going to base the behaviors of all the rebellious children in the 50s on...just the Beatles? This movement from the rebellious children was completely different, even though it could have been inspired by the different forms of music. Let's remember that this particular behavior back then died out over time.
He is saying the took it from its cultural and rhythmic roots into something that was not rock and roll at all.
You can say what inspired Rock n' Roll, but no one can truly define what Rock and Roll truly is, because music is not confined to one constricting area. The variation is loose and unconnected, just like how the personification of music is entitled.
So, for tl;dr, try this: 1) Your "source" is completely biased. 2) Biased sources are terrible for bringing a thesis to the table. 3) You are basing your "thesis" on one source and haven't brought other, objective, sources to light. 4) The evolution of music, especially Rock n' Roll, cannot be influenced by one band, no matter how awesome and famous they are. 5) Music is not confined.
okay than so do you at least see the point of the book? I wasn't saying that band is bad at all, i seem to get *****ed at alot of forums by people mis reading my statements
And I am a huge fan of 1950's rock and roll and doo wop, so Im going to ofcourse be interested in this because I have always in my OPINION found 50's rock funner and sounding better.
