For what it's worth...
Posted by Nolol on 1/31/2012, 12:31 pm, in reply to "Re: i'd like to think wiki is your best friend"
I don't agree with George's notion of Little Richard as the first rock and roll artist. He certainly had a very important role to play, but I'd say one of the jump blues artists would have to qualify first. Maybe even Big Joe Turner? |
As for genre definitions, now that's really iffy territory. I would have trouble describing certain genres, particularly "post" anything (post-punk, post-rock, post-grunge, etc) and, as you mentioned, power pop - I just kind of "feel" my way around them, if that makes any sense.
: Wiki seems ok for a brief overview and the
: major artist of a particular genre but I'm
: guessing I'm looking for more specific
: technical innovation.
: Such as quoting Jonathan review of Robert
: Johnson "He also pioneered the entire
: idea of playing a bass line over the melody
: of the actual song, at the same time and on
: the same guitar as the actual song, and
: while singing at the same time as doing all
: of that"
: How would someone know that information
: without look up a specific biography of that
: artist itself (which in all honesty kind of
: defeats the purpose because I'm kind of
: looking for artist to discover).
: I also think that wiki goes to very little
: detail over the stylistic of a genre. Their
: definition of post-punk doesn't seem
: particularly satisfactory to me. Is it just
: introverted and experimental punk music?
: From my listening to bands who are
: considered post-punk, I concluded that those
: bands tend to have songs that are
: bass-driven and strong emphasis on the
: rhythm section and the guitar being used for
: more textural effects and that post-punk
: bands tends to have a singer-songwriter
: attitude (although not always).
: I'm not too sure if my conclusion matches
: with the official definition of that genre,
: nevertheless I don't see many genre
: definition goes into technical description
: of the music and who exactly was responsible
: for that development.
: It's interesting though reading the wiki
: about how there are no specific "first
: rock and roll song or artist". Yet
: Starostin boldly claim that little richard
: is the first rock and roll artist and I
: don't see little richard being quoted as
: even a nominee to th e first rock and roll
: artist in the wiki page.
: another curious thing, starostin was quoted
: in the rock music wiki "Starostin
: argues that most of what is traditionally
: called "power pop" falls i into
: the pop rock subgenre and that the lyrical
: content of pop rock is "normally
: secondary to the music."
: Now that I think about it but doesn't that
: definition of pop rock music seems weird.
: When I think about pop music, I generally
: don't associate the pop genre to be any more
: or less emphasis to lyrics as any other
: genre. I consider art rock and prog rock
: music to be more emphasis on the music than
: the lyrics whilst something like folk or
: singer-songwriter to be more focus on the
: --Previous Message--
: just start with the generic "rock"
: label and work from there
: they have links to sources for further
: reading at the end of each subject
: --Previous Message--
: Despite learning a lot from reading some of
: these reviews site. I still feel like I'm
: still in a bit of a dark about the history
: and development of rock and roll and I still
: can't really pin point the various
: revolutionary and advancement of rock music
: beyond the basic well known events (such as
: Dylan going electric, Sgt. Peppers etc).
: Even in George Starostin website where he
: assigns album as "revolutionary",
: a lot of the times I still don't know why
: they were revolutionary (I still have no
: idea how the police somehow reinvent the
: structure of the pop song like George claim
: I guess considering that one of the criteria
: of rating music that people bring up is
: "originality", even if I do one
: day decide to take major consideration in
: originality, I wouldn't be able to because I
: don't know what is original.
: So I'm hoping there would be some good
: resources for me to look up about the
: development of rock music. I did see the
: rolling stones "history" of rock
: music but considering that a lot of people
: reckon that they are hostile to prog rock, I
: didn't buy it.
: Also anything that recommends me more good
: music and albums would be great.
: Does anyone know any good books or even
: videos or documentaries that gives me a good
Message Thread | Skip to this response ↓|
- Got any recommendation on good books on the history of rock and roll - Trung 1/22/2012, 5:24 am
- Unfortunately, I don't - Nolol 1/24/2012, 11:01 am
- There aren't really any all encompassing books on the subject - Ken 1/25/2012, 2:13 am
- i'd like to think wiki is your best friend - Howard the Duck 1/29/2012, 4:42 am
- That's what I did - Mr. X 1/30/2012, 7:17 am
- Re: i'd like to think wiki is your best friend - Trung 1/31/2012, 2:48 am
- Those things that you've mentioned are constantly under-debate - Howard the Duck 1/31/2012, 5:24 am
- Addendum - Howard the Duck 1/31/2012, 5:26 am
- "you need to buy a book" - Trung 1/31/2012, 6:46 am
- Re: "you need to buy a book" - Nolol 1/31/2012, 12:41 pm
- Re: "you need to buy a book" - Trung 2/1/2012, 2:24 am
- I am much more tolerant to unconventional vocalists than most - Nolol 2/1/2012, 8:31 am
- Re: "you need to buy a book" - Howard the Duck 2/2/2012, 8:24 am
- Midnight oil - Trung 2/2/2012, 10:02 pm
- I only 10,9 etc, mind you - Howard the Duck 2/3/2012, 4:33 am
- I only *have* 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 (nt) - Howard the Duck 2/3/2012, 9:22 am
- Why worry so much? - Howard the Duck 1/31/2012, 10:13 pm
- For what it's worth... - Nolol 1/31/2012, 12:31 pm
« Back to index