The PBS News Hour last night featured a Clarence Page Essay on the
state of Rock and Roll.......
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/essays/j...page_4-11.html

If R & R isn't dead, it's certainly on life support...... As you may
have noticed for the first time in 50 years the charts really contain
no Roll and Roll music....... RIP ??

and how much rap and "R&B" ( i laugh at that description) do I listen
to?



absolutely zilch.


sorry, its not dead.

How old are you???

The kids (the ones who are supposed to be into r&r) haven't bought a CD
or anything else that gets charted in years. But they are downloading
it and creating it like crazy. Here in LA there are a dozen rehearsal
complexes within a few miles of my studio. 9 out of 10 rooms are
filled with 19 year olds rockin their butts off.

J_West wrote:
The PBS News Hour last night featured a Clarence Page Essay on the
state of Rock and Roll.......
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/essays/j...page_4-11.html

If R & R isn't dead, it's certainly on life support...... As you may
have noticed for the first time in 50 years the charts really contain
no Roll and Roll music....... RIP ??


For a genre based on three chords I think it had a pretty damn good run!

Jonny Durango

hollywood_steve wrote:
How old are you???

The kids (the ones who are supposed to be into r&r) haven't bought a
CD
or anything else that gets charted in years. But they are
downloading
it and creating it like crazy. Here in LA there are a dozen
rehearsal
complexes within a few miles of my studio. 9 out of 10 rooms are
filled with 19 year olds rockin their butts off.


Well that's fine but R & R is quickly becoming a sub genre like Jazz
and Blues. Not good or bad, just the way it is... And I didn't write
the essay. Clarence Page did. I just happen to agree with him.

Most inner city young kids don't even know who Nirvana was, much less
Zeppelin etc....... But they do seem to know the Beatles?

J_West wrote:


Most inner city young kids don't even know who Nirvana was, much less
Zeppelin etc....... But they do seem to know the Beatles?


Wow, that is something. They don't own a radio?

J_West wrote:

As you may have noticed for the first time in 50 years the charts really
contain no Roll and Roll music

But hey, the charts gots more plastic jugs than your average family
dairy farm.

--
ha

Yes they are listening to Radio and according to Clarence Page's essay
........"Rock is disappearing from the airwaves of stations across the
country".

"But hey, the charts gots more plastic jugs than your average
family
dairy farm. "



hehehe....... some plastic buns too.

In article .com writes:

If R & R isn't dead, it's certainly on life support...... As you may
have noticed for the first time in 50 years the charts really contain
no Roll and Roll music....... RIP ??

Well, today (April 12) was the bazillionth anniversary of the
recording date for Shake Rattle and Roll by Bill Haley and the Comets,
a record that some hisorians credit for putting rock'n'roll on the
map.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Every genre is based on three chords.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Jonny Durango wrote:
J_West wrote:

The PBS News Hour last night featured a Clarence Page Essay on the
state of Rock and Roll.......
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/essays/j...page_4-11.html

If R & R isn't dead, it's certainly on life support...... As you may
have noticed for the first time in 50 years the charts really contain
no Roll and Roll music....... RIP ??


For a genre based on three chords I think it had a pretty damn good run!

Jonny Durango

Trevor de Clercq wrote:
Every genre is based on three chords.

Actually, I suspect the naysayers' contempt for rap and R&B might be a
bit less vitriolic if those 2nd and 3rd chords ever showed up. But I
wouldn't hold my breath.

This is new news? I thought it was showing it's age in about 71-72 or
so. By 76 the ceremonial fork was stuck in it.
later,
m

J_West wrote:
Yes they are listening to Radio and according to Clarence Page's essay
......."Rock is disappearing from the airwaves of stations across the
country".



Hmm, not disappearing from the airwaves around here. Or anywhere else I
have been.

Buster Mudd wrote:

Trevor de Clercq wrote:

Every genre is based on three chords.


Actually, I suspect the naysayers' contempt for rap and R&B might be a
bit less vitriolic if those 2nd and 3rd chords ever showed up. But I
wouldn't hold my breath.


Exactly.

"J_West" wrote in message
ups.com...
Most inner city young kids don't even know who Nirvana was, much less
Zeppelin etc....... But they do seem to know the Beatles?



Don't know Nirvana? Where do you live? That's not been my experience here
in California in San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento or the Fresno area-
there are large groups of kids who are way into Nirvana, Zep, Beatles,
Stones, 80s New Order & Cure, etc and into modern rockers like Queens of
the Stone Age and the White Stripes. Walk into a mall on a weekend and take
a gander at all those skinny kids with the black pants and white belts. Go
to Guitar Center on a Saturday and listen to 4 different renditions of
Nirvana songs and a rendition of Stairway to Heaven going on at the same
time. I think rock is still very much alive, but just not seeing record
sales due to used records and internet downloads.

On the other hand, I have talked to a couple teenagers who consider rock old
people's music, and by rock, they're talking about bands like the Vines &
Hives, who are very much young bands. So go figure! ;^)

Joe Sensor wrote:
J_West wrote:

Yes they are listening to Radio and according to Clarence Page's essay
......."Rock is disappearing from the airwaves of stations across the
country".



Hmm, not disappearing from the airwaves around here. Or anywhere else I
have been.

Just for the hell of it I did a quick google on "top 40" and as of
4/11/2005 I spotted 3 that could be considered Rock.

Green Day - I didn't say *Good* rock

Melissa Etheridge doing 'Cry Baby" which I assume is a cover of Janis J

Nine Inch Nails

So to misquote Frank Zappa ' It isn't dead, It just smells funny'.


Bob

There are often three chords in rap and R&B songs. What are you talking
about? Do you actually listen to rap and R&B? The chords do change.
The chords change a lot in R&B usually, less so in rap. But rap is more
of a riff based genre much like the more riff based rock songs (or any
other riff based music).

Conversely, classical music, from the baroque (and earlier) through to
the 20th century has many pieces and entire styles based solely around
three chords or fewer.

Having contempt for an entire genre (any genre) of music is terribly
myopic from a cultural, aesthetic, and musical standpoint, as well as
being definitely limiting from a professional recording standpoint.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Buster Mudd wrote:
Trevor de Clercq wrote:

Every genre is based on three chords.


Actually, I suspect the naysayers' contempt for rap and R&B might be a
bit less vitriolic if those 2nd and 3rd chords ever showed up. But I
wouldn't hold my breath.

In article ,
says...
Joe Sensor wrote:
J_West wrote:

Yes they are listening to Radio and according to Clarence Page's essay
......."Rock is disappearing from the airwaves of stations across the
country".



Hmm, not disappearing from the airwaves around here. Or anywhere else I
have been.

Just for the hell of it I did a quick google on "top 40" and as of
4/11/2005 I spotted 3 that could be considered Rock.

Green Day - I didn't say *Good* rock

Melissa Etheridge doing 'Cry Baby" which I assume is a cover of Janis J

Nine Inch Nails

So to misquote Frank Zappa ' It isn't dead, It just smells funny'.

Yeah, there's a lot of rock still happening. Slash's new band,
Good Charlotte, Evanessence, that "Shaking the Habit" band (I suck
trying to remember names and titles), etc. It's not politically
correct now, of course, so it gets shoved aside in some airplay
formats, but it's there.
My 14-year-old daughter likes this stuff, whereas my 16-year-old
listens to the rap stuff. She also thinks Steve Vai is way cool.
Even wore a Vai t-shirt to school today (8th grade). So it looks
to me like in the space of two years, there's some re-inventing of
rock going on.
It ain't dead. It's just being resurrected in a different form
for the next generation. Apparently in rock today, you're not
allowed to have vibrato on your vocals...
--
---Michael (of APP)...
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/au...plantmusic.htm

Trevor de Clercq wrote:

There are often three chords in rap and R&B songs. What are you talking
about? Do you actually listen to rap and R&B? The chords do change.
The chords change a lot in R&B usually, less so in rap. But rap is more
of a riff based genre much like the more riff based rock songs (or any
other riff based music).

Conversely, classical music, from the baroque (and earlier) through to
the 20th century has many pieces and entire styles based solely around
three chords or fewer.

Having contempt for an entire genre (any genre) of music is terribly
myopic from a cultural, aesthetic, and musical standpoint, as well as
being definitely limiting from a professional recording standpoint.

Yeah, but Rap music still sucks!

On 4/13/05 11:03 AM, in article
, "JM"
wrote:

... Walk into a mall on a weekend and take
a gander at all those skinny kids with the black pants and white belts. Go
to Guitar Center on a Saturday and listen to 4 different renditions of
Nirvana songs and a rendition of Stairway to Heaven going on at the same
time.

Was killing a lunchtime looking at a Fender Showmaster at the GC and in the
Enclosed Room Of Real Expensive Stuff was a 20ish guy working through
PINBALL WIZARD trying amps.

We're looking at a body of work... Style of pop/folk music... That's only
now getting a perspective on itself. It's all one to a significant degree,
and indeed as a genre it couldn;t be identifiable if it didin;t.

Heard a thing on the radio today that was a cleanStrat intro like someone
who 'didn't 'get it' would come up with trying to emulate LITTLE WING, that
then fell thru the floor into a typical Plodding Loud Guywhiner rock tune.

Influences everywhere are being redigested. The only reason it doesn¹t get
respct (and deservedly so) is that unlike any past century's musical genre
with mass distribution and money appeal, it is predominatly produced by
incompetant untrained uneducated musicians and as such, nobody PLAYING the
genre at 20 yrs old has a clue as to what they're doing until they've been
at it qnother 15 years and hgd a chace to randomly discover the source
material and THEN get a clue about what the heck they were copying and why
it worked. It's Lowest Common Denomintor Music (bought by ignorant teeners
who only like what they can understand easy)that then feeds on itself and is
further derailed by popcrap marketting ploys like Brittany.

On 4/13/05 7:08 AM, in article znr1113353623k@trad, "Mike Rivers"
wrote:


In article .com
writes:

If R & R isn't dead, it's certainly on life support...... As you may
have noticed for the first time in 50 years the charts really contain
no Roll and Roll music....... RIP ??

Well, today (April 12) was the bazillionth anniversary of the
recording date for Shake Rattle and Roll by Bill Haley and the Comets,
a record that some hisorians credit for putting rock'n'roll on the
map.

Yesterday interestingly an NPR show did a look at the Burnette brothers/rock
and Rol trio madness... classic

"Trevor de Clercq" wrote in message
news:1113406358.19cd883655693fb71a106b65187da329@t eranews...
There are often three chords in rap and R&B songs. What are you talking
about? Do you actually listen to rap and R&B? The chords do change.
The chords change a lot in R&B usually, less so in rap. But rap is more
of a riff based genre much like the more riff based rock songs (or any
other riff based music).

Conversely, classical music, from the baroque (and earlier) through to
the 20th century has many pieces and entire styles based solely around
three chords or fewer.

And Indian classical music has one chord, essentially, per piece.

Peace,
Paul

In article ,
SSJVCmag wrote:

On 4/13/05 11:03 AM, in article
, "JM"
wrote:

... Walk into a mall on a weekend and take
a gander at all those skinny kids with the black pants and white belts. Go
to Guitar Center on a Saturday and listen to 4 different renditions of
Nirvana songs and a rendition of Stairway to Heaven going on at the same
time.

Was killing a lunchtime looking at a Fender Showmaster at the GC and in the
Enclosed Room Of Real Expensive Stuff was a 20ish guy working through
PINBALL WIZARD trying amps.

We're looking at a body of work... Style of pop/folk music... That's only
now getting a perspective on itself. It's all one to a significant degree,
and indeed as a genre it couldn;t be identifiable if it didin;t.

Heard a thing on the radio today that was a cleanStrat intro like someone
who 'didn't 'get it' would come up with trying to emulate LITTLE WING, that
then fell thru the floor into a typical Plodding Loud Guywhiner rock tune.

Influences everywhere are being redigested. The only reason it doesn¹t get
respct (and deservedly so) is that unlike any past century's musical genre
with mass distribution and money appeal, it is predominatly produced by
incompetant untrained uneducated musicians and as such, nobody PLAYING the
genre at 20 yrs old has a clue as to what they're doing until they've been
at it qnother 15 years and hgd a chace to randomly discover the source
material and THEN get a clue about what the heck they were copying and why
it worked. It's Lowest Common Denomintor Music (bought by ignorant teeners
who only like what they can understand easy)that then feeds on itself and is
further derailed by popcrap marketting ploys like Brittany.


I think you're selling the youngsters short. How old were the Beatles and
Rolling Stones when they hit it big? I was one of the kids back then that
didn't exactly have mastery of the guitar but I kept at it until I got pretty
decent. Admittedly in the minority, I have encountered several 20-something
musicians with talent, knowledge, and drive. I didn't find them at GC.

I don't think rock is dead, but the old paradigm associated with rock, the "sex,
drugs, and rock'n'roll" is getting tired. Rock is continuing to evolve and
that's a good thing. In my classes, pure rock projects have declined in the
last decade while hip-hop has increased. But there are still good rock bands
coming up. The music industry undoubtedly shares some blame in the decline of
traditional rock'n'roll as they seek to push the latest, greatest thing to
maximize profits, but I've heard so many commercials lately using rock
"standards" that maybe rock has become so mainstream that it has disappeared
from the "outsider" position it once held.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Joe Sensor wrote:

...snip..
Having contempt for an entire genre (any genre) of music is terribly
myopic from a cultural, aesthetic, and musical standpoint, as well as
being definitely limiting from a professional recording standpoint.

Yeah, but Rap music still sucks!

Maybe we need glasses?

Later...

Ron Capik cynic in training
--

On 4/13/05 1:28 PM, in article ,
"Jay Kadis" wrote:

In article ,
SSJVCmag wrote:

On 4/13/05 11:03 AM, in article
, "JM"
wrote:

... Walk into a mall on a weekend and take
a gander at all those skinny kids with the black pants and white belts. Go
to Guitar Center on a Saturday and listen to 4 different renditions of
Nirvana songs and a rendition of Stairway to Heaven going on at the same
time.

Was killing a lunchtime looking at a Fender Showmaster at the GC and in the
Enclosed Room Of Real Expensive Stuff was a 20ish guy working through
PINBALL WIZARD trying amps.

We're looking at a body of work... Style of pop/folk music... That's only
now getting a perspective on itself. It's all one to a significant degree,
and indeed as a genre it couldn;t be identifiable if it didin;t.

Heard a thing on the radio today that was a cleanStrat intro like someone
who 'didn't 'get it' would come up with trying to emulate LITTLE WING, that
then fell thru the floor into a typical Plodding Loud Guywhiner rock tune.

Influences everywhere are being redigested. The only reason it doesn¹t get
respct (and deservedly so) is that unlike any past century's musical genre
with mass distribution and money appeal, it is predominatly produced by
incompetant untrained uneducated musicians and as such, nobody PLAYING the
genre at 20 yrs old has a clue as to what they're doing until they've been
at it qnother 15 years and hgd a chace to randomly discover the source
material and THEN get a clue about what the heck they were copying and why
it worked. It's Lowest Common Denomintor Music (bought by ignorant teeners
who only like what they can understand easy)that then feeds on itself and is
further derailed by popcrap marketting ploys like Brittany.


I think you're selling the youngsters short.

Oh no! not intended... All I wrote applies to anybody back to my peers 1.5
gens back!

How old were the Beatles and
Rolling Stones when they hit it big? I was one of the kids back then that
didn't exactly have mastery of the guitar but I kept at it until I got pretty
decent. Admittedly in the minority, I have encountered several 20-something
musicians with talent, knowledge, and drive. I didn't find them at GC.

I don't think rock is dead, but the old paradigm associated with rock, the
"sex,
drugs, and rock'n'roll" is getting tired.

That was a LIFESTYLE thig of the 60's coupled with the same elements as have
ALWAYS been a part of ANY entertainment entity.

though Rock is continuing to evolve and
that's a good thing. In my classes, pure rock projects have declined in the
last decade while hip-hop has increased.

That's just the fad thing working it's way through like always.

On 12 Apr 2005 16:20:04 -0700, "J_West"
wrote:

The PBS News Hour last night featured a Clarence Page Essay on the
state of Rock and Roll.......
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/essays/j...page_4-11.html

If R & R isn't dead, it's certainly on life support...... As you may
have noticed for the first time in 50 years the charts really contain
no Roll and Roll music....... RIP ??

Screw the charts... if you get out of the house once and awhile, R & R
is alive and well in beer joints all over America...

Al

On 12 Apr 2005 23:06:18 -0700, "J_West"
wrote:

hollywood_steve wrote:
How old are you???

The kids (the ones who are supposed to be into r&r) haven't bought a
CD
or anything else that gets charted in years. But they are
downloading
it and creating it like crazy. Here in LA there are a dozen
rehearsal
complexes within a few miles of my studio. 9 out of 10 rooms are
filled with 19 year olds rockin their butts off.


Well that's fine but R & R is quickly becoming a sub genre like Jazz
and Blues.

R & R started out as "sub genre". The only reason it dominated for
awhile was because of demographics, baby boomers & all that...

Al

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:44:26 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

though Rock is continuing to evolve and
that's a good thing. In my classes, pure rock projects have declined in the
last decade while hip-hop has increased.

That's just the fad thing working it's way through like always.

Hip hop IS rock n roll. It's loud, it's got a beat, and it's
rebellious. Old guys don't get it...

Al

In article ,
playon wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:44:26 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

though Rock is continuing to evolve and
that's a good thing. In my classes, pure rock projects have declined in
the
last decade while hip-hop has increased.

That's just the fad thing working it's way through like always.

Hip hop IS rock n roll. It's loud, it's got a beat, and it's
rebellious. Old guys don't get it...

Al

Oh, I think it's a little more complicated than that. The instrumentation is
very different: guitars are fundamental to rock but hardly to hip-hop. The
repetition of musical phrases and song forms are different. Some hip-hop uses
instruments in almost a jazz context but some uses the beat track as mainly a
rhythmic device. It's like the relationship between jazz and blues, perhaps.
But I wouldn't call hip-hop rock'n'roll in general.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

On 4/13/05 3:08 PM, in article ,
"playon" wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:44:26 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

though Rock is continuing to evolve and
that's a good thing. In my classes, pure rock projects have declined in the
last decade while hip-hop has increased.

That's just the fad thing working it's way through like always.

Hip hop IS rock n roll. It's loud, it's got a beat, and it's
rebellious. Old guys don't get it...


Semantics...
Like a Catholic who still wants to be CALLED a Catholic but wants the RULES
changed...
Here's The Crux: What Is Rock & Roll?
Suggestions For Class Discussion:

A)
It's the white-bread cleaned up markettable version of late 40's blues/R&B.
(which is valid but of course leaves OUT the RR originators/inovators from
Johnny Guitar Watson through Hendrix, Isleys, etc)

B)
It's ALL of the above, which then leaves NO real defining distinction
between jazz/R&B/R&R/FUNK/BLUES/HipRapGoGo/etc.


Your above definition
"It's loud, it's got a beat, and it's rebellious"
would allow the inclusion of Stravinsky, Woody Herman, The Legendary
Stardust Cowboy and BR5-49 .
I ain;t sayin that's not VALID but it DOES place us squarely into the
problem of;
a term that is allowed to mean ANYTHING
is a term that really means NOTHING and
is thus useless in communication.

Some Old Guys -Do- get it... It's just always been frustrating for Younguys
to believe that indeed they HAVEN:T actually invented the wheel and there's
more out here (and back then!) than they;ve seen yet.


Johnny "Last-On-His-Block-to-Get-It" V.

Joe Sensor wrote:

Yeah, but Rap music still sucks!

About a tenth as much as narrowmindedness.

--
ha

In article ,
says...
Here's The Crux: What Is Rock & Roll?
Suggestions For Class Discussion:

A)
It's the white-bread cleaned up markettable version of late 40's blues/R&B.
(which is valid but of course leaves OUT the RR originators/inovators from
Johnny Guitar Watson through Hendrix, Isleys, etc)

B)
It's ALL of the above, which then leaves NO real defining distinction
between jazz/R&B/R&R/FUNK/BLUES/HipRapGoGo/etc.

While you're doing that, you seem to have forgotten its country,
rockabilly, and jazz roots as well. Rock'n'roll took a little
something from everywhere; certain ones took more from one than
another, and vice-versa, but to say that it's only blues/R&B is
highly mistaken. The branch *I* like best, progressive rock, also
takes a bunch from the classical world as well.
--
---Michael (of APP)...
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/au...plantmusic.htm

On 4/13/05 4:30 PM, in article ,
"Michael" wrote:

In article ,
says...
Here's The Crux: What Is Rock & Roll?
Suggestions For Class Discussion:

A)
It's the white-bread cleaned up markettable version of late 40's blues/R&B.
(which is valid but of course leaves OUT the RR originators/inovators from
Johnny Guitar Watson through Hendrix, Isleys, etc)

B)
It's ALL of the above, which then leaves NO real defining distinction
between jazz/R&B/R&R/FUNK/BLUES/HipRapGoGo/etc.

While you're doing that, you seem to have forgotten its country,
rockabilly, and jazz roots as well.

Moi?
The word JAZZ is all over my stuff up there...
And rockabilly is PART of the R&R development.

Country pulled from the same blues elements and blended the mountain/Irish
angle with it more, and even that is more INSTRUMENTATION than
song-structure. The only folks that denied the connection for decades were
the overentrenched Bluegrass and commercial country folks and listeners. I
don;t think Cash or

Rock'n'roll took a little
something from everywhere; certain ones took more from one than
another, and vice-versa, but to say that it's only blues/R&B is
highly mistaken.

Oh surely, but that's the REAL core. There isn;t much in Rock that does NOT
go back there, whereas other genres are heavier crossbreeds from TRUE
disparate sources.

. The branch *I* like best, progressive rock, also
takes a bunch from the classical world as well.

Well, more from 50's-on serious jazz than classical. The only
musically-obvious classical influences (not just training and musicianship
chops and knowledge) that come to mind are Wakeman's PERSONAL projects and
Kieth Emerson (who half the time forgot to credit his classic QUOTES!). What
I heard in Yes owed more to Ellington's lesser-known large-format suites and
structures than the classical realm.

Wow, that is something. They don't own a radio?

I don't.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Joe Sensor" wrote in message
...
J_West wrote:


Most inner city young kids don't even know who Nirvana was, much less
Zeppelin etc....... But they do seem to know the Beatles?

In article writes:

Screw the charts... if you get out of the house once and awhile, R & R
is alive and well in beer joints all over America...

Yeah, but most of it isn't very good, and it'll never get better.
Those guys will be accountants or engineers or marketeers when they
get out of school and they'll stop playing music before they really
learn how to be a band.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

All true, Jay, but lay on some other facets like big name R&R being just as
greedy as the corporations we all despise and it's easy to see that most of
us aren't going to go out and buy $150 per tickets to yet another Rolling
Stones concert. Now I'm not talking about greedy being the idea of
protecting your music. I mean vastly over-priced tickets and CDs that offer
far less in terms of entertainment value than a DVD and still cost as much
if not more. New DVDs each and every Tuesday. Plus the masses having
fallen for the "format" wars that ensued and just how many times has one
bought an album only to have it appear again and again, duped from masters
for vinyl, remastered, remastered by the original mixing engineer,
remastered from alternative take tapes, etc. At our age it's surprising
that we aren't already classified as being in a semi-conscious vegetative
state simply because of the pressures of the world.

Add to that some of the technological advances that still promise more
format wars, the "convergence" of TV/music via the 5.1 home theater system
that typically sounds like **** for music, way over the top engineering and
mastering that has a person popping up and down to adjust volume like a
yo-yo on steroids, and you have all the earmarks of an undesireable
situation.

I had the 5.1 home theater system with the widescreen, DVD, high quality
cassette (yeah, right but with DBX it wasn't bad), VHS Hi-Fi, etc., and I
basically chucked it all. I have the widescreen, a DVD player (also plays
DVD-A and SACD as it was originally earmarked for the studio) AND THAT IS
IT. I don't have a radio in the house except for the one next to my bed and
that's actually called and used as an alarm clock.

But we are the wrong people to be worried about it. Our concerns don't run
towards listening to the radio or buying tickets to concerts or new CDs,
etc. At least not as full time entertainment junkies. We are the enablers
of creation, documenters of creation, not the consumers of that creation.
Out of all the problems that seem to be coming to a very abrupt point of
negative convergence, it's not really OUR place to worry about. But if my
client wants my best efforts and puts forth his or her best efforts, I will
give them something they can be proud of, and I'll be perfectly happy
listening to that on my personal downtime.

Besides, just how much Dixieland was being listened to 50 years later?
Sinatra's first 25 years of music equates to our 80s rock, which wasn't the
best time in rock either.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
...
In article ,
SSJVCmag wrote:

On 4/13/05 11:03 AM, in article
, "JM"

wrote:

... Walk into a mall on a weekend and take
a gander at all those skinny kids with the black pants and white
belts. Go
to Guitar Center on a Saturday and listen to 4 different renditions of
Nirvana songs and a rendition of Stairway to Heaven going on at the
same
time.

Was killing a lunchtime looking at a Fender Showmaster at the GC and in
the
Enclosed Room Of Real Expensive Stuff was a 20ish guy working through
PINBALL WIZARD trying amps.

We're looking at a body of work... Style of pop/folk music... That's
only
now getting a perspective on itself. It's all one to a significant
degree,
and indeed as a genre it couldn;t be identifiable if it didin;t.

Heard a thing on the radio today that was a cleanStrat intro like
someone
who 'didn't 'get it' would come up with trying to emulate LITTLE WING,
that
then fell thru the floor into a typical Plodding Loud Guywhiner rock
tune.

Influences everywhere are being redigested. The only reason it doesn¹t
get
respct (and deservedly so) is that unlike any past century's musical
genre
with mass distribution and money appeal, it is predominatly produced by
incompetant untrained uneducated musicians and as such, nobody PLAYING
the
genre at 20 yrs old has a clue as to what they're doing until they've
been
at it qnother 15 years and hgd a chace to randomly discover the source
material and THEN get a clue about what the heck they were copying and
why
it worked. It's Lowest Common Denomintor Music (bought by ignorant
teeners
who only like what they can understand easy)that then feeds on itself
and is
further derailed by popcrap marketting ploys like Brittany.


I think you're selling the youngsters short. How old were the Beatles and
Rolling Stones when they hit it big? I was one of the kids back then that
didn't exactly have mastery of the guitar but I kept at it until I got
pretty
decent. Admittedly in the minority, I have encountered several
20-something
musicians with talent, knowledge, and drive. I didn't find them at GC.

I don't think rock is dead, but the old paradigm associated with rock, the
"sex,
drugs, and rock'n'roll" is getting tired. Rock is continuing to evolve
and
that's a good thing. In my classes, pure rock projects have declined in
the
last decade while hip-hop has increased. But there are still good rock
bands
coming up. The music industry undoubtedly shares some blame in the
decline of
traditional rock'n'roll as they seek to push the latest, greatest thing to
maximize profits, but I've heard so many commercials lately using rock
"standards" that maybe rock has become so mainstream that it has
disappeared
from the "outsider" position it once held.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Woody Herman WAS R&R. Woodchopper's ball was a great boogie woogie. It
just had horns instead of a guitar.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 4/13/05 3:08 PM, in article ,
"playon" wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:44:26 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

though Rock is continuing to evolve and
that's a good thing. In my classes, pure rock projects have declined
in the
last decade while hip-hop has increased.

That's just the fad thing working it's way through like always.

Hip hop IS rock n roll. It's loud, it's got a beat, and it's
rebellious. Old guys don't get it...


Semantics...
Like a Catholic who still wants to be CALLED a Catholic but wants the
RULES
changed...
Here's The Crux: What Is Rock & Roll?
Suggestions For Class Discussion:

A)
It's the white-bread cleaned up markettable version of late 40's
blues/R&B.
(which is valid but of course leaves OUT the RR originators/inovators from
Johnny Guitar Watson through Hendrix, Isleys, etc)

B)
It's ALL of the above, which then leaves NO real defining distinction
between jazz/R&B/R&R/FUNK/BLUES/HipRapGoGo/etc.


Your above definition
"It's loud, it's got a beat, and it's rebellious"
would allow the inclusion of Stravinsky, Woody Herman, The Legendary
Stardust Cowboy and BR5-49 .
I ain;t sayin that's not VALID but it DOES place us squarely into the
problem of;
a term that is allowed to mean ANYTHING
is a term that really means NOTHING and
is thus useless in communication.

Some Old Guys -Do- get it... It's just always been frustrating for
Younguys
to believe that indeed they HAVEN:T actually invented the wheel and
there's
more out here (and back then!) than they;ve seen yet.


Johnny "Last-On-His-Block-to-Get-It" V.

Actually, today's country is largely rock. Country twang guitars started
rock guitar, and now it's come full circle.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Michael" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
Here's The Crux: What Is Rock & Roll?
Suggestions For Class Discussion:

A)
It's the white-bread cleaned up markettable version of late 40's
blues/R&B.
(which is valid but of course leaves OUT the RR originators/inovators
from
Johnny Guitar Watson through Hendrix, Isleys, etc)

B)
It's ALL of the above, which then leaves NO real defining distinction
between jazz/R&B/R&R/FUNK/BLUES/HipRapGoGo/etc.

While you're doing that, you seem to have forgotten its country,
rockabilly, and jazz roots as well. Rock'n'roll took a little
something from everywhere; certain ones took more from one than
another, and vice-versa, but to say that it's only blues/R&B is
highly mistaken. The branch *I* like best, progressive rock, also
takes a bunch from the classical world as well.
--
---Michael (of APP)...
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/au...plantmusic.htm

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:28:57 -0700, Jay Kadis
wrote:

In article ,
playon wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:44:26 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

though Rock is continuing to evolve and
that's a good thing. In my classes, pure rock projects have declined in
the
last decade while hip-hop has increased.

That's just the fad thing working it's way through like always.

Hip hop IS rock n roll. It's loud, it's got a beat, and it's
rebellious. Old guys don't get it...

Al

Oh, I think it's a little more complicated than that. The instrumentation is
very different: guitars are fundamental to rock

Yeah? Tell it to Jerry Lewis and Fats Domino

but hardly to hip-hop.

The
repetition of musical phrases and song forms are different. Some hip-hop uses
instruments in almost a jazz context but some uses the beat track as mainly a
rhythmic device. It's like the relationship between jazz and blues, perhaps.
But I wouldn't call hip-hop rock'n'roll in general.

If you think rock n roll as Chuck Berry or the Clash, yeah Hip Hop is
different. But as far as its agressive attitude and its function in
the youth culture, it's the same. And rock n roll, just like hip hop,
is supposed to be hated by parents.

Al