Midas Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) The British Invasion that began with the Beatles' record-setting American debut on the Ed Sullivan Show not only transformed rock 'n' roll but in some ways marked the end of pop music as it had existed for the previous seventy years". Wald explains that the Beatles did in fact destroy rock 'n' roll by creating a schism between white and black music that's only grown farther apart in the decades since the dawn of Beatlemania (see: disco, soul, hip-hop). Like many early rock bands, the Beatles were rooted in the music of Chuck Berry and Little Richard. As the band found its creative voice, its members abandoned their early influences. The results included "the effetely sentimental ballad" "Yesterday," a song that Wald claims "diffused" rock's energy and opened the door for milquetoasts such as Simon and Garfunkel, Crosby, Stills and Nash, Billy Joel and Elton John. With the "Sgt. Pepper" album, the band draped their music "in a robe of arty mystification, opening the way for the Velvet Underground, Pink Floyd, Yes, and Emerson, Lake and Palmer." "Rather than being a high point of rock," he continues, "the Beatles destroyed rock 'n' roll, turning it from a vibrant (or integrated) dance music into a vehicle for white pap and pretension." And what, again, was so revolutionary about Pat Boone. Do you think they destroyed Rock and Roll? Well my opinion of course not they actually saved it and transformed it. Has anyone read this book? Edited June 17, 2009 by Midas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Haven't read it, but here are a few remarks (including Chris Albertson's) about it on a blues forum. Not so positive LA Times review Edited June 17, 2009 by J.A.W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Heard it all before. Wald sounds like a real dope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikelz777 Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Wald sounds like a pot-stirrer to me. His shakey premise is predicated by the assumption that rock-n-roll would have stayed the same had the Beatles not shown up on the music scene. It's undeniable that the Beatles were a huge influence on music but how and why should such an accusation be placed soley on their shoulders even if there were some truth to what he's saying? Was there no one else who dared to sully the "purity" of rock-n-roll? He then goes on to insult and dismiss artists who created a lot of good, if not great, music. I think it's a bunch of baloney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Rock and Roll had played out as a major force before the Beatles came along as far as I'm concerned. Listen to the pap that was popular right before they burst on the scene. It wasn't Chuck Berry and Little Richard anymore, it was Bobby Vinton and Lesley Gore. If that's rock 'n' roll, it deserved to die. The oddest part of his theory to me, however, is that it "in some ways marked the end of pop music as it had existed for the previous seventy years". No, you putz, that's what your beloved rock 'n' roll did, dividing the pop music scene by generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeline Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Just curious - has anyone posting in this thread actually read Wald's new book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) actually, it was not complete pap in that interim period before the Beatles - there were some very good surf bands out of the west coast, also the Wailers (a great band, admired by Hendrix, they were the first white band to do Louie Louie; part of an excellent Northwest rock and roll scene); Link Wray was making excellent records for Columbia (his version of Ain't That Lovin You Baby from, I think, 1960, is amazing); also the Kingsmen, punk before their time. Bobby Fuller was excellent, the Fendermen. Some good stuff. Edited June 17, 2009 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I agree, it wasn't complete pap; there was some good stuff. But the general overall tone of rock n roll (or 'teen pop', whatever) had definitely lost it's energy by that time, or at least lost some of it's popularity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeline Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Just curious - has anyone posting in this thread actually read Wald's new book? I guess not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Just curious - has anyone posting in this thread actually read Wald's new book? I guess not... I have read part of it and the Beatles have only chapter devoted to it. He actually really likes the early Beatles but not the experimental or Art-rock of the Beatles. I think what he is saying that Sgt Pepper lead to groups who were just not good enough to create their own Sgt Pepper which led to some awful music in it's wake. It's true songs like "Norwegian Wood" or "A Day in the Life" is not 50's R&R but if the Beatles were just recreating 50's R&R the Beatles would not be regarded as many the most influential rock act ever. It's also not really fair to pin this only on the Beatles there was others like Brian Wilson and Frank Zappa. I have no problem with George Harrison putting Classical Indian elements or McCartney putting avant electronics in their music. Jazz music was adding other elements to their genre also did it really hurt jazz music? The Beatles chapter should have been called "How the Beatles changed Rock & Roll Music" because they did not destroy rock and roll. They saved it actually. They started at least two major changing events in rock music. The first was the British Invasion which paved the way for acts like the Rolling Stones and the Kinks in the states. The Beatles at the same time influenced their American counterparts like the Byrds and Dylan to go electric. Bob Dylan said the Beatles were leading the direction of music. The second one was Sgt Pepper but the seeds of this started on Rubber Soul and Revolver. Like it or not- The Beatles influenced thousands of musicians. They also added a lot to rock music -with more interesting chord progressions and instrument arrangements (Eleanor Rigby, Strawberry Fields..) but also transformed the recording studio entirely and pioneered many recording techniques. Did this ruin R&R well they helped pushed it to rock music? Many of their early songs had Latin rhythms and songs like Yesterday and Girl were hardly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereojack Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Elijah Wald is a knowledgeable and informed writer. The title of the book, I suspect, is not his, and I believe that is is mainly geared to stir up controversy like it is doing here. I haven't read the book, but I'd be willing to bet that he makes many interesting points about the develpment and demise of rock & roll, especially since what came after the Beatles came to be known simply as "rock", a music in many ways different from the roots music of the 1950's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Stuff don't live on if it don't get destroyed every now and then... What really "destroyed" rock and roll was time and cultural evolution. Once hip-hop started getting recorded (and all that comes with/from that, explicit & implicit), the cycle began all over again. But really, who cares? If you want to stay stuck on rock (and/or roll), there's more than plenty opportunities available, more than plenty people places and things more than willing to take your money to do so. If you were smart, though, you kept all your records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeline Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) Elijah Wald is a knowledgeable and informed writer. The title of the book, I suspect, is not his, and I believe that is is mainly geared to stir up controversy like it is doing here. I haven't read the book, but I'd be willing to bet that he makes many interesting points about the develpment and demise of rock & roll, especially since what came after the Beatles came to be known simply as "rock", a music in many ways different from the roots music of the 1950's. Perspective deeply appreciated, S. I know some people have it in for Elijah Wald (in general), and most that I've seen (elsewhere, not here) haven't read a single word he's written. Midas, thanks so much for your post! Edited June 18, 2009 by seeline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Who is Elijah Wald? Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Who is Elijah Wald? Seriously. Elijah Wald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Basten II Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 If i get this right, he blames the Beatles because numerous band trying to do similar stuff than them did actually sucked. If that's the case they are plenty of great groups and great musicians who destroyed music because every great originator will leave in its footpath a bunch of subpar imitators, wait 'til he gets to Nirvana and the awful grunge scene that followed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Who is Elijah Wald? Seriously. Elijah Wald Oh....ok. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 If i get this right, he blames the Beatles because numerous band trying to do similar stuff than them did actually sucked. If that's the case they are plenty of great groups and great musicians who destroyed music because every great originator will leave in its footpath a bunch of subpar imitators... Well, yeah. Trane ruined jazz, right? So did Bird. Hell, so did Louis Armstrong. What is there to "ruin" anyway (other than business opportunities)? None of this shit is set in stone or "guaranteed" anyway...it's "popular music", and when the "populace" needs to move on, they do. I mean, music can be anything, anyway...what catches on catches on by consensus between musician and audience, not by some divine edict or something. So....I just don't get what the "problem" is, if he's in fact claiming there is one, and...I'll take y'all's word on that one. Cat's apparently got a lot of books about...stuff. Too much math for R&B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeline Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Maybe you guys could actually read the book instead of trying to trash what you *think* Wald says, sight unseen .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Life's too shot to spend it reading a tome about something I really don't care that much about. A few throwaway posts on a thread like this works just fine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spontooneous Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 FWIW, I liked Wald's book on de-mythologizing Robert Johnson. If the first post in this thread accurately reflects the premise of the new book, count me out. It took four young guys from England to widen a black-white schism in America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John L Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Yea, I guess if it wasn't for the Beatles, Dion and Fabian would have just kept performing black music... Elijah Wald's book on the blues is interesting and thoughtful, but still unfair and problematic. He somehow managed to attract attention by claiming that he was attacking writers from the "blues orthodoxy" with fresh perspectives and opinions. There was not a single footnote or reference in the entire book. No single member of the "blues orthodoxy" was mentioned by name. In the end, most the opinions expressed in the book seem quite consistent with what blues experts had been writing years before Wald came on the scene. Wald has good PR - he made his name the American way by repackaging something, crossing a few Ts, dotting a few Is, and calling it revolutionary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 So this is ultimately some more of that Ongoing Battle For The Blues then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolff Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 That's funny....'yahn' was my physical reaction after reading first post. Other than that, I thought Allen was gone. Does he still have that Conrad Johnson 11B pre-amp for $550? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Life's too shot to spend it reading a tome about something I really don't care that much about. That's pretty much the way I feel. Though seeing the word "tome" brings back some memories... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.