I recently heard someone assert that “rock” has all sorts of permutations including cock-rock, hair rock, punk rock, and so on, but “rock-n-roll” specifically refers to Elvis, Buddy Holly, maybe Little Richard, etc.
Is this how the terms are commonly understood? Is this how academicians of college “History of Rock” classes parse things?
Rock ‘n’ roll was still commonly used well into the 60s. However, during that decade to start and increasingly thereafter the field split into an infinite number of subdivisions, most of which used the term rock, usually associated with a modifier. You heard the term occasionally - Zeppelin has a song called “Rock and Roll”; the Stones did “It’s Only Rock and Roll (But I Like It)” in 1974; Kiss has "Rock And Roll All Nite’; Joan Jett did “I Love Rock and Roll” and there are many others - but those were deliberate throwback songs. The “‘n’ roll” turned into camp and largely abandoned otherwise. Over time, rock n roll became specifically the term to distinguish 50s rock from later rock.
No idea what academics say about it, but it would surprise me if they used a different definition.
I use the term “rock” as a catch-all for various types of related music, such as punk rock, hair bands, heartland rock, British rock, etc., but I use the year 1964 (the rise of the Beatles and Rolling Stones and the movement into harder styles of rock and roll) as a dividing point. Totally arbitrary, and there are some bands such as the Beach Boys and Herman’s Hermits that I still consider “rock and roll”, but not “rock”. But to me, any popular music with a hard edge to it, as opposed to the Elvis and Bill Haley type of 50’s music is “rock”.
I concur. Old school Beatles, The Monkeys, Buddy Holly, Elvis, etc I categorize as Rock & Roll. Starting in the 60s, I then have different categories of “Rock”:
Psychadelic Rock -Jimmy Hendrix, The Doors
Hard Rock - Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones
Progressive Rock (which evolved from Psychadelic Rock) - Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd
Heavy Metal - Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden
Punk Rock - The Clash, Sex Pistols, The Ramones
plain ole “Rock” I would include commercially successful bands like The Eagles
and then for later decades I would add other Rock genres like:
New Wave - Men at Work, Duran Duran
College Rock (basically pre-1991 Alternative Rock) - Midnight Oil, Depeche Mode
Alternative Rock - Smashing Pumpkins
Grunge - Nirvana, Alice in Chains,
and so on and so on…it gets pretty involved
To me, rock is just short for rock-n-roll. A punk rock band is a punk rock-n-roll band. I’m sure it’s true that more people use the abbreviated version these days and the full term was more popular in the early days of rock, but I still see it as nothing more than a shorthand word for a longer word with the same meaning. I can’t imagine someone saying that The white Stripes are a rock band but not a rock-n-roll band.
When Sam Cutler began introducing the Stones as the “greatest rock-n-roll band in the world” during the 1969 U.S. tour, it was particularly appropriate. This was when “rock” (Led Zeppelin, Cream, Ten Years After…) was just starting to be distinguished from “rock-n-roll” (early Beatles, Elvis…). The Stones, while definitely starting to play with a heavy sound, were also consciously deciding at the time to be standard-bearers for continuing much of the tradition of “rock-n-roll” – simple verse-chorus structures, etc. – rather than getting into the psychedelic sound or other dircetions which “rock” music was taking. One indication of this “rock-n-roll” direction happened a year previously, when they put out a simple rocker called “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” rather than continue down the path of the previous album Their Satanic Majesty’s Request. It deepened during the 1969 tour, when they played a lot of Chuck Berry, who is practically the living definition of “rock-n-roll”. They definitively threw their hat in the “rock-n-roll” ring with Exile on Main Street, the album of a couple years later.
In other words, of all the “rock” bands, it makes sense that a self-consciously simple, rootsy band like the Stones of 1969 would call itself a “rock-n-roll” band.
Gross simplification. If it swings, it’s Rock and Roll if it doesn’t, it’s plain Rock.
I’ll let someone else set out some examples (like the acts in JKellyMap’s post) I’ve gotta run.
I’m a fan of Men at Work and never considered them New Wave. They have a lot more style in common with fellow Aussie rockers such as INXS or the Little River Band, in my opinion. I’d really replace them with The Cars as an example of New Wave.
But then again, that’s what keeps rock n’ roll interesting, everybody has opinions about their favorite music.
Hmm…I’d certainly consider them New Wave. New Wave is a very diverse genre, so much so that it’s difficult to really pin down what bands do and do not fit that description, but I would definitely put Men at Work there.
Well, like I said, that’s what makes music discussions so interesting. I don’t consider them New Wave and no amount of persuasion will convince me otherwise. And as you said, it’s a very diverse genre, so if you consider them New Wave, I guess there’s enough room for you to put them in there and for me to put them somewhere else.
Hmmm. I’d lump Men At Work with “New Wave” in the absence of “Alternative” at the time. New Wave to me, includes all of the post-punk, synthy, fashion bands of the early eighties i.e., Duran Duran, Adam and The Ants, Human League et al. However I think because Men At Work were hugely popular at the same time and did not really fit in with Springsteen, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner and Journey they are often included with New Wave. However they don’t fit the synthy glam label. There is so much overlap depending on what your experience was.
As far as the OP goes though, maybe Rock and Roll just has amplified guitars and ROCK has the addition of distortion? Just a thought. Do any of the early Beatles, Elvis and Chuck Berry have distorted guitars? Doesn’t seem so to me, but I’m sure others are more knowledgeable.
Count me as another vote for this simplistic answer. Is Country different from Country & Western or just a shorter term? Is R & B different from Rhythm & Blues?
Yeah, some bands are kind of hard to pin down. New Wave, like Alternative, became kind of a catch-all for most punk-inspired syth pop commercially viable rock music in the 80s.
But see, that’s why I’d exclude them. They didn’t weren’t heavy on synths (well maybe with the exception of Dr. Heckyll and Mr. Jive or It’s A Mistake), they were mainly guitar and drums. Along with wind instruments such as flutes, clarinets, and saxes. And they weren’t a glam or fashion band like The Human League, or Flock of Seagulls. They seemed to project rugged Aussie individualism, sort of a precursor to such icons as Paul Hogan or Steve Irwin. They were the antithesis to glam.
I was thinking of the same thing. I just couldn’t find the right description. I was thinking of saying that rock music has more of a “fuzzy” sound to it, for example, like Keith Richards, who is certainly a disciple of Chuck Berry. But I think “distortion” is the perfect word for it.
I don’t consider synths a pre-req for New Wave by any stretch. New Wave is closely related to Post-Punk in my mind. I’d put in a bands like The Police, B-52s, as New Wave. I’d break it down like this: Punk had that garage-rock, anarchic ethos; New Wave was a more ornate, intelligent, arty offspring of punk (or perhaps an underground reaction against punk). Post-punk differs from New Wave in the latter being much more pop oriented and accessible. Post-punk often featured very “angular” guitar lines, off-kilter rhythms, and lyrical abstraction. Those are just rules of thumb. I would say that Post-Punk is a subset of New Wave or a new classification that arose to distinguish poppier New Wave bands from more arty, alternative ones.
If your idea of New Wave is synth-driven pop like Duran Duran, then I would agree that Men at Work wouldn’t fit your definition. But the conventional genre classification of New Wave is more expansive than that.
FWIW, I just checked and allmusic.com classifies Men at Work in two categories: New Wave and Pop/Rock.
Reminds me of Weird Al Yankovic’s question of where do you fit Billy Joel? Full lyrics here, but part of it goes:
It’s hard to stick everything in neat pigeon holes. Inarguably, Billy Joel was on the scene longer than Men At Work, but some of his albums, like The Nylon Curtain, or The Bridge, were hard to fit in the same category as 52nd Street or An Innocent Man. I suppose it boils down to your personal taste, and not a label that others put on it. Whatever blows your hair back, I say.
Sure. And artists often shift around in genres. One of my favorite bands, Wire, I would call punk, post-punk, and New Wave, depending on which of their 70s and 80s albums you were describing. (And their most recent effort, a few years back, is even more difficult for me to describe.)
New Wave is more of a historical identifier than a unified sound of any sort. It covers a wide range of music.
Also, ‘New Wave’ was originally a synonym for ‘Punk’, if you read fanzines from the time (around 1977-78). And let’s not forget that it also led to the most amusing acronym in musical history - New Wave Of British Heavy Metal (NWOBHM).
My definition:
Rock and roll is easy to dance to. It’s more rhythmic and soulful. Emphasis on the vocals (hook) rather than the instrumentation (riff). Much closer to its R&B roots (which makes perfect sense, since rock and roll used to be synonmous with R&B). Lyrics tend to be of a lighter substance. Simpler song structure.