I would second WordMan and say that if Johnny Burnette & the Rock 'n Roll Trio (1950s) aren’t rock, it’s very difficult to say what IS rock. Frankly, they strike me as far more “rockish” than the Beach Boys. As mentioned, the Yardbirds covered them in the '60s, plus Aerosmith covered them in the '70s. Also, Gene Vincent & His Blue Caps were an actual rock group with real musicians - not just a backing group.
I play some steel guitar myself, I’m well aware that lap steels were the first popular electric guitars, and that guitar amps were invented in the 1930s. I’m also familiar with the wonderful Charlie Christian, and his influence as the first well-known electric guitar soloist.
However, the amps that really enabled rock music to develop the way it did were the ones that Leo Fender invented in the late 1940s. So, while there were amplified guitars in the 1930s and early 40s, Fender amps played a major part in creating the sound of what became rock music. So in saying “amps were invented after WW2” I was talking about the sort of bigger and louder amps that Leo Fender invented, not the small and relatively quiet amps that existed before then. Perhaps a better way of saying it would be “larger, louder, deliberately overdriven amps were invented after WW2”.
For that matter electric basses were invented in the 1930s, too, but until Leo Fender invented the Precision bass they didn’t catch on. So, functionally, the electric bass was invented in the 1950s. Electric guitar amps as we now know and love them came about in the late 40s, and solid body electric guitars came about in 1950 with the Fender Telecaster, despite the fact that people had built solid-body guitars back into the 1930s.
As much as I am totally geeking out over these posts - 'Xap, Shakester, E-Sabs, Crown Prince, and always **Bridget Burke **- you guys know your stuff - it is unclear to me that we are getting at the OP.
Near as I can tell, the issue is “rock” - as a nickname it didn’t emerge until the mid-to-late 60’s. Elvis, Chuck, Buddy - they were all rock n’ roll and ruled out. The evolution laid out from the 20’s and 30’s on represents the convergence of a number of forces, including the emergence of guitar both in front of the banjo and as a louder, lead instrument, the urbanification (?) of southern African Americans and their music styles, and innovations of both playing and recording technology. Per 'Xap, figuring out when the first rock n’ roll record was cut is a fun, but ultimately “he said, she said” exercise.
I suppose the same is true for the first “rock” record, but it would have to have distorted guitar, slabs of rock rhythm and/or a central guitar-based distorted riff, etc. Stuff like Louie, Louie, Satisfaction, You Really Got Me, Day Tripper all come to mind. But if songs like that draw the line for “rock,” what U.S. band played that kind of music and had a real career of it? Lots of great nominications, but as i think about it, I would back away from the Beach Boys.
oops, gotta run.
Thank you. Be-Bop-A-Lou-La. That’s what I was trying to remember all yesterday.
The thing is, the distorted guitar isn’t strictly necessary, as I see it. It took over from piano. It’s important, yes, but if you have someone hot on keys it’s pretty close to the same thing.
(And yes, I know guitar solos started off as more or less imitation of horn solos.)
I think what Annie is asking for is Rock and Roll that isn’t Rockabilly and it isn’t R&B. If so, we’re looking at either Do-Wop with instruments and a rocking sound, or something a little later like The Ventures.
The best I can see from this thread is that apparently “rock and roll” is rock up until the late 50s/early 60s, and “rock” began sometime in 1962 or '63 or thereabouts. Personally, I can’t see how something like Johnny B. Goode doesn’t qualify as straight-up rock.
The main differences I see from early rock to this period is the instrumentation moving away from combos with brass and piano to simply guitars and drums, as well as a gradual change in beat. Early rock recordings have a much harder swing to them, whereas as the genre matured, the beat tended towards very “straight” time.
E-Sabs - I would disagree with you; IMHO, a distorted guitar is essential to the evolution from “rock n’ roll” to “rock”…but I hear you and I don’t claim there is a right answer…
**puly **- great observation. The move to songs like You Really Got Me, Satisfaction and Day Tripper did tighten up the rhythm a bit - they don’t have that r&b swing…bigger/tighter drums, more distorted guitars…I am liking where this is going!
Speaking of this change in rhythm, salsa percussionist Ray Barretto once claimed that American music progressively Latinized during the '60s. Here’s a quote: “The whole basis of American rhythm… changed from the old dotted-note jazz shuffle rhythm to a straightahead straight-eighth approach, which is Latin.” I can definitely hear a Latin flavor in “Day Tripper” and a Latinesque twist in the rhythm of “Satisfaction,” two of the songs just mentioned.
I also feel that there was a move away from the I-IV-V type progressions (directly from the blues), at least in the predictable way they’re played in classics like “Hound Dog,” “Rock Around the Clock,” “Great Balls of Fire,” etc.
Also, it seems to me that the harmonies became more ambiguous or open/sparse (“power chords,” for instance), but this is very much a product of the instrumentation becoming almost guitar-exclusive and overdriven/distorted guitars becoming more and more the norm.
Meh - I mean, from a technical standpoint, the rhythm’s structure may have “gotten more Latin” in the 60’s but I would not attribute that to a huge new influence, comparable to feeding more Motown, Blues, etc. into the emerging rock of the time. If anything, as Hispanic population continues to grow in the U.S. and their cultural influence expands, I would expect music from this era to reflect a much stronger Latin influence…
Sorry - **EA, Jr. **- I hope that doesn’t come across as a jab at you; meant to be much more of a comment on Barretto’s comment. I think he is making a larger claim vs. what the evidence would support…
That famous Bo Diddley beat? That’s a straight-up son clave, the basis of Afro-Cuban music.
While the Latin-American influence on rock and popular music has been significant, I’d be hesitant in attributing the straight-eighth rhythm to it. After all, European music has centuries of straight eighth rhythms behind it.
I posted that Ray Barretto quote on another thread a long time ago and someone back then contested his claim as well… I wonder if that was you, WordMan? I’m not sure Barretto means this transition came about via a “huge new influence” - I rather suspect he means it was some kind of surreptitious influence, or a trend that once started simply continued througout the decade. The book I got the quote from, The Latin Tinge by John Storm Roberts, points out that on the mass culture level in the US Latin music seemed actually to be receding in the '60s with the exception of the bossa nova craze. Hollywood & Broadway shows were more or less ignoring it and Latin crossover hits were “exceptions to a general rule.” Which makes the “Latinization” theory more intriguing.
Just to mention other American bands that appeared in the wake of the British Invasion:
Early, but not quite as early as the Byrds or Lovin’ Spoonful, was the Blues Project, who recorded their first LP in late '65 and early '66.
Also I’m not sure if anyone’s mentioned the Fugs yet… their first LP originally came out in 1965. (Not sure whether “successful” or “rock” apply.)
The Mothers of Invention formed in 1964 and put out their debut in 1966; the Velvet Underground formed in 1965 and put out their debut in 1967.
The Turtles formed in 1965; their first single, “It Ain’t Me, Babe”, came out that summer.
Buffalo Springfield came along a bit later – spring of 1966.
I followed **pulykamell’s **link and it wasn’t me, but it sure could’ve been. In that thread Barrington, **puly **and a few others speak to the issues I was trying to articulate…
Another ‘objective’ discussion of a subjective topic. Reminds me of almost every pro-life/pro-choice discussion of “when life begins”. Here’s the real answer:
The Birth Of Rock (Hendrix at Monterey for those without youtube access)
This is the point where everyone stopped and said to themselves, “That’s what I’ve been trying to do!!!” Everything that came before was just the ‘fertilization, gestation and labor pains’ of all that rock was to become.
For many years, I’ve been hearing Other Boomers & Various Whippersnappers wishing they had witnessed Woodstock. (The First One, of course.) I accept its historical importance but my experiences with big outdoor shows–even ones better run–have convinced me that exposure to the elements & giant sweaty crowds do not increase my pleasure in hearing music.
However, I* truly* wish I’d been able to make it to the Monterey International Pop Festival.
Could not agree more. A buddy of mine snuck in for free when he was 13 - he lived in Carmel and walked over the hill to the Fairgrounds.
::envy::
My mom went to Woodstock.
She didn’t get to the show. She just started driving there, got most of the way there, got stuck in a traffic jam, got bored, went back to school.
Yeah, that’s my mom.
Want to hear something really interesting? Ladies and Gentlemen… The Ventures.
Okay, it’s Jimi, but he’s seriously channeling the Ventures there. Also Flight of the Bumblebee.
Does she at least regret it?
[slight hijack]Wow, that’s really interesting. Has there ever been a decent, official release of Jimi’s pre-Experience recordings?[/sh]
ETA: Here’s a different version of the above song.