Soulful DetroitSoulfulDetroit Forum � Daily News Picks The "Deadest" Rock Bands Previous Next

Author Message
Top of pageBottom of page

Juicefree20 (juicefree20)
6-Zenith
Username: juicefree20

Post Number: 2666
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 24.46.184.162
Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 4:36 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In today's Daily News, columnist Issac Guzman wrote an article called "The Deadest Bands In Rock". This article would be somewhat irrelevant to me, had he not mentioned the well known "Rock" groups, The Temptations & The Bar-Kays.

Yes, he goes on to mention that our favorite "Rock" group, The Temptations have lost 5 of the first 6 group members. Why he chose to include The Bar-Kays for an article with this title, seems a bit cruel to me. We all know about the tragic crash & that Ben Cauley survived the crash, while Larry Alexander missed the flight. Nevertheless, they continued on & continue to this day. Actually, much of their success has come after the tragedy, as the original group recorded as a unit for less than 1 year.

He goes on to name legit Rockers such as The Dead, The Allman Brothers Band, The N.Y. Dolls, Lynyrd Skynyrd, The Ramones & The Byrds. But, THE TEMPTATIONS & THE BAR-KAYS????

One sidebar that was interesting was one in which he named the "Deadliest Jobs In Rock". If you know of any aspiring keyboardists who receive a call from The Grateful Dead, please tell them to hang up immediately!!! From 1973 to 1990, they had their keyboardist die. Almost every 10 years like clockwork...1973, 1980 & 1990.

Also a must to be avoided are the following positions:

Bassist for The Allman Brothers - 3 have died from 1973 to 2000.

And for the ficticiously inclined:

Drummer for Spinal Tap - 6 of their drummers have died. Check out these illustrious names:

Joe (Mama) Besser
Peter (James) Bond
Eric (Stumpy Joe) Childs
John (Stumpy) Pepys
Mick & Ric Shrimpton (They were brothers)

SPINAL TAP RULES, DUDE!!!

Actually, I think that Issac had just a WEE bit too much free time on his hands. Well, at least he knows his music genres. Rock on Tempts....where's that damn air guitar!!!

:-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Kevin Goins - KevGo (kevgo)
5-Doyen
Username: kevgo

Post Number: 211
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 64.33.204.111
Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 4:50 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Juice:
That is why the Daily News should leave the music stuff to David Hinkley, who would have written a more clever and insightful article.
Kevin Goins - KevGo
Top of pageBottom of page

Juicefree20 (juicefree20)
6-Zenith
Username: juicefree20

Post Number: 2668
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 24.46.184.162
Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 5:12 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Kev Go, I couldn't have said it any better. Unfortunately, there will be some folks who don't know any better who will bite on this hook, line & sinker. That's the sad part of all of this.
Top of pageBottom of page

douglasm (douglasm)
5-Doyen
Username: douglasm

Post Number: 190
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 68.118.222.193
Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 8:12 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Juice....
....we've had this arguemen....discussion before. I don't mean to defend the Daily News, but at the time of the Bar-Kays and the early Temptations, it WAS rock and roll. For example, I'm looking at the "Billboard Top Rock and Roll Hits" of 1968 CD. It includes Marvin's "Grapevine, and the Supremes "Love Child" and Hugh Masekela's "Grazing In The Grass" along with such quality stuff as "Yummy Yummy Yummy" and "Green Tambourine". I couldn't give you a date when rock fractionalized itself, but in the '60's, "Rock" was an umbrella label for the stuff WE listened to on Keener, not what dad listened to on WJR.

doug
Top of pageBottom of page

Charise (mistrivia1)
6-Zenith
Username: mistrivia1

Post Number: 623
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 198.81.26.46
Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 8:32 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sometimes Ignorance is not really Bliss! It is just plain Ignorance!!!
Top of pageBottom of page

count (the_count)
4-Laureate
Username: the_count

Post Number: 109
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 69.14.197.239
Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 8:41 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Thread Reads,Deadest Rock Bands.
They forgot these Detroit Kats.
"Count"
Top of pageBottom of page

Juicefree20 (juicefree20)
6-Zenith
Username: juicefree20

Post Number: 2674
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 24.46.184.162
Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 10:10 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Doug,

I hate to disagree with you, but there's no way that Stax artists, or The Temptations were ever considered to be Rock acts in the 60s. Because someone creates a Billboard & sticks the generic term "Rock" on it, doesn't make it Rock music.

Aretha, The Temptations, The Supremes, Pickett, Sam & Dave, Otis made it on the Hot 100 Charts, or the Pop charts. They made it there due to the fact that by 1967 & '68, mainstream America finally accepted Soul music on its own terms. Though many of the hits of that day indeed crossed over, it was predominantly the massive Soul hits that made it to the Pop Charts. Being honest, back in the mid 60s, it was cool to accept Motown. For one thing, they were great. For another, they were extremely glamorous & quite non-threatening to the mainstream. They weren't making Soul music, which as the time was referred to as N***ER music. Those who were around & remember should know exactly what I mean. By contrast, let's look at the very soulful Otis Redding.

While alive, he never had a song in the Pop Top 10. Until "The Dock Of The Bay" went #1, his highest charting record was "I've Been loving You Too Long", which peaked at # 21. The majority of his songs hovered near the middle & bottom of the Pop chart. Hell, soulful groups like The Manhattans, The O'Jays & The Whispers would have starved if they had to rely on the Pop audience.

To further address this whole "Rock" vs "Soul" notion, let me give you some info from Billboard's own book.

These are the charts that Billboard listed in the 60s:

Hot 100 Singles
Top Pop Albums
Top Country Singles
Top Country Albums
Top Adult Contemporary
Bubbling Under

As for R&B/Soul:

Hot R&B Singles - (Top 40) Used From 1/30/65 to 6/4/65.

Top Selling R&B Singles - (Top 40) From 6/5/65 to 8/5/66. From 8/6/66 to 1/13/66, this was increased to the Top 50. This lasted until 1/13/68, which begat.....

BEST Selling R&B Singles - (Top 50) This chart was used from 1/13/68 to 8/23/69, when it morphed into............

Best Selling SOUL Singles - (Top 50) This chart was used until 7/14/73, though the number of records were increased to 60 on 6/30/73. This chart was used until 7/14/73, when it was changed to.....

Hot Black Singles & the positions were increased to 100. This is pretty much the chart that is used today.

As you study this information, curiously, you'll find one chart missing. There is no "Rock" chart mentioned anywhere....IN BILLBOARD! In fact, Billboard had no Rock chart until March 1981, when they created the "Album Rock Tracks". According to the Billboard book, their own publication had no Rock chart!

This is why I take issue with them regarding any SOUL artist as a ROCK artist. Now, if Billboard's CDs were named "Top Popular Hits Of 1968", I'd have no problem with that. However, the trap that many keep falling into to is, forgetting the context of those days. Soul music has never been Rock, I don't care what Billboard says. I remember those late '60s & even as a kid, I knew the difference between the two. In fact, until Soul music became cool in '67 & 68, the average Pop/Rock act wanted nothing to do with sounding Soulful.

You wondered when Rock & Roll died & I'll give you the answer. Rock & Roll effectively died upon the advent of The British Invasion. All of that rowdy Rock & Roll music was cleaned up & "Popped" up by rosy cheeked, clean cut groups such as The Beatles, Hermans Hermits, Gerry & The Pacemakers, The Mindbenders, The Dave Clark Five & groups as such. The only one of those early British groups who retained any of that Rock & Roll edge, was The Rolling Stones.

Even if I chose to consider their claim, when I evaluate the foundation & sound of the music, their claim is false. I'll tell you why....

When you think about Rock, the first thing that comes to mind the the dominance of the guitar solos.....LONG GUITAR SOLOS!!!! In the early days of Rock & Roll, the sax & later, the guitar ruled. Think of all of those sax solos at the break of the song. By the time we moved into the 60s, Rock music was dominated by folks like The Who, Cream, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Grateful Dead & guitarists like Pete Townsend, Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton & the immortal Jimi Hendrix. I defy ANYONE to dance to a Jimi Hendrix song from those days. The fact of the matter is that those screaming guitar solos & the fact that you couldn't dance to Jimi's songs, is the primary factor for his music not receiving love from the Soul community. You couldn't dance to it, there was no steady party groove to it & that's the difference between a lot of Rock music & R&B/Soul music....THE GROOVE!

R&B/SOUL is a completely different animal. It came from the church..it lived, it breathed & it pulsed. R&B/Soul had rhythm, syncopated grooves, strong vocals & church like call & responses. Unlike Rock, where many guitarists seemed to exist to fill their songs with long, self-indulgent solos, R&B/Soul was meant to make you move. It seems as though most Rock was designed for a room full of folks on opiates, nodding in quiet reflection of the music. Soul music was for dancing, for partying, for feeling the rhythm & making you get up & get sweaty & funky. That's Soul music. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

Billboard terminology notwithstanding, there was no such animal called Rock & Roll existant in 1968. As Rock & Roll was no longer in existence, those records simply cannot be called "Rock & Roll", point blank! I could care less what some idiot chooses to call a CD. I can pet a lion & call him a kitty kat. That doesn't mean that old kitty kat won't rip me into shreds if I do.

Doug, I understand where you're coming from. I don't blame you & you're not to blame for how the music is termed. However, I'll be damned if I sit silently, while some idiot that wouldn't know The Dells from The Delfonics, define the music of my people as Rock & Roll, because he's too damn lazy to do his homework. Nor, will I allow anyone to slap some generic term on it & sit silently as they do. Soul music deserves to be treated with more thought & respect than that. People fought too long & too hard for this music to be accepted. Too many people got screwed over because of it. It's akin to calling Pat Boone's versions of Ain't That A Shame & Tutti Frutti, or Georgia Gibbs, Dance With Me Henry, soulful classics.

By calling Soul music Rock & Roll, they are trivializing the entire genre. Why can't these songs be recognized for what they are & stand on their own merit, without these fools trying to make them into something that they're not? Furthermore, who & what gives them the right to try to redefine Soul music? If they called it Soul music in 1966, 67 & 68, damn it, it should be called Soul music in the year 1990 whatever. They take liberties that they shouldn't & in my opinion, yet again, they spit in the faces of all of the R&B/Soul pioneers who toiled & received nowhere near the compensation that they deserved.
To make a long story short......

They offend me! They really do!

(Message edited by juicefree20 on October 04, 2004)
Top of pageBottom of page

douglasm (douglasm)
5-Doyen
Username: douglasm

Post Number: 192
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 68.118.222.193
Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 10:49 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Juice....
I have to respectfully disagree with you kinda, while agreeing with you at the same time, but I can't do it tonight. Tomorrow, yes, but in the meantime....

...I do want to compliment you on your very well reasoned opinion. You state your position well, and it makes discussion much more enjoyable.

doug
Top of pageBottom of page

Juicefree20 (juicefree20)
6-Zenith
Username: juicefree20

Post Number: 2675
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 24.46.184.162
Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 10:53 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Doug,

I love discussions with you because they never evolve into shouting matches. We can discuss things & still agree to disagree & that's a beautiful thing. Now, if we could just get the rest of the world to follow, perhaps we could spend less time speaking about wars & more time discussing our favorite music.

What a grand dream, huh :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Vonnie (vonnie)
5-Doyen
Username: vonnie

Post Number: 307
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 205.188.116.138
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 1:18 am: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have to comment on this topic. I also read the article and I was absolutely floored. The Temptations and Bar-Kays called a "Rock" group, what a misnomer. I have to agree with Juice, "Rock" in my opinion is a genre of music primarily played by groups with predominate solos on guitar and drums.

Juice, the article does not use the term "Rock and Roll", it uses the term "Rock" and that is my objection to the article. As I previously stated "Rock" was not the type of music that the Temptations or Bar-Kays played.

However, as a child the music I listened to was called "Rock & Roll, and this later became known as "R&B" or "Soul", but never "Rock". "Rock" music was played by "Hippies" and later it was played by "Head Bangers". Juice, you are correct in the fact that Jimmy Hendrix was a "Rock" artist, and never called a "Rock & Roll", "R&B" or "Soul" artist. I guess Ravi Shankar will be called a "Soul" artist next.
Top of pageBottom of page

Juicefree20 (juicefree20)
6-Zenith
Username: juicefree20

Post Number: 2677
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 24.46.184.162
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 2:34 am: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Vonnie,

My whole problem is truth in advertising & sloppy, slipshod work. I have a problem with "experts" who simply don't do their homework. These folks think that they're so knowledgable & they don't know shit! Their condescending attitude is reflected even in their coverage of a classic SOUL group like The Dells.

When The Dells were elected to The Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame (GRRRRRR!!!!! That term again!), I continually read these "experts" stating that The Dells were & I quote: "A 50s Doo Wop group". What pisses me off about a statement like that is that it totally dismisses 99.9 of The Dells output. If they had any respect for The Dells & any true understanding of what The Dells are about, they would have never described them as such. In one sentence, these "experts" effectively erased over 30 years of The Dells musical legacy & hits.

Their career has lasted longer than The Beatles, The Four Seasons & Elvis Presley COMBINED, yet these geniuses don't seem to acknowledge it. It would be like calling The Rolling Stones a 60s Rock group. Do they show the Rockers that type of disrespect? In a word, NO! Frankly, I'm more than tired of these so called "experts" constantly treating our music in a condescending manner. They're always defining & redefining things as they see fit.

The bottom line is this: If they're going to write about Soul music, they should damn well do their homework & get it right! I'm not a professional writer & if I can do my homework, so should they. Somehow, they seem to find every fact & figure about Pop & Rock figures. And, it's not as though The Dells are an obscure group. There's a great deal of info about The Dells, if only they'd bothered to look, before setting pen to paper.

Lazy dumb asses!

(Message edited by juicefree20 on October 04, 2004)

(Message edited by juicefree20 on October 04, 2004)
Top of pageBottom of page

Charise (mistrivia1)
6-Zenith
Username: mistrivia1

Post Number: 632
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 198.81.26.46
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 2:44 am: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Juice-LMBBO LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Especially the last three words!!!! In the 3rd paragraph, last sentence: the more things change, the more they stay the same!!!! I always have a problem with so-called know-it-alls who don't really know jack!!
Top of pageBottom of page

douglasm (douglasm)
5-Doyen
Username: douglasm

Post Number: 193
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 68.118.222.193
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 8:18 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Juice....
....I did an informal survey of some co-workers of my age, listing some groups (Tommy James, Delfonics, Rolling Stones, Temptations), 10 groups, an equal mix between "white" and "black", with the question "What did you call that kind of music mix when it was new?" The answer universally was "Rock and Roll". All white, all mid 50's, all listened to radio in the Pacific Northwest, stations that played a blend of music (like Keener, CKLW, CHYR, etc) all hiding under the "rock and roll" blanket. It wasn't until the early 70's that this blanket began to tatter around the edges to the white audience and fragment (I guess like a quilt with pulled stitches) into "Soul", "Acid Rock" and other sub-strata. The problem with the 60's, when we were growing up, was that a mariad of musical styles were all played in one place, and all got labeled (or tared) with the "rock and roll" nametag. On the flip side, I guess this is what made 60's radio so interesting, in that it was not the same thing, over and over like so many nitche stations are now, and this blending of soul, MOR, and rock (that more acceptable to the group?) made it a much more rewarding childhood.
Jazz, Blues, Classical, Folk all have their sub-species living under their individual labels, with adhearents (sp) vigerously supporting their own basic take on their favorite musical flavor. I don't deny anyone their opinion on the subject, I guess I just get tired of the arguement sometimes. I'm inclined to look at the musical trend that started when I was growing up as a living breathing organism, all styles taking from and giving up to other styles. Sure makes for a fasinating study.

I'm also inclined to believe this place needs a spellchecker.

doug
Top of pageBottom of page

douglasm (douglasm)
5-Doyen
Username: douglasm

Post Number: 194
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 68.118.222.193
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 8:19 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm also inclined to believe that I didn't explain my view very well. I really don't do a good job in print, so if you feel I'm wrong, let me know. I probably am anyway.

doug
Top of pageBottom of page

Juicefree20 (juicefree20)
6-Zenith
Username: juicefree20

Post Number: 2684
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 24.46.184.162
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 9:04 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Doug,

What I think is the problem is that in the 60s & 70s, here in the East (N.Y.), aside from the Motowns, Atlantics & Stax labels, radio was pretty segregated. The low end of the AM dial, is where we had the Pop/Rock stations like WABC (770)& WMCA (540 I believe). The Soul stations were relegated to the far right, or upper end of the AM frequency, such as WNJR (1430) or WWRL (1600).

Here in New York, you didn't hear obscure Soul music on the Pop/Rock stations. Yes, you heard the hits, or "Soul" songs that fit their demographics. Other than that, SOul was relegated to the upper end of the dial, Pop/Rock & massive Soul Hits to the lower end. Instead of going back & forth on this, I'm providing you with a link to the popular N.Y. radio stations of those times. They have a week by week survey of the top 40 of the 60s. You choose the year & the week & the charts are there. This will explain the New York scene with actual proof, as opposed to my assertions. From this site, you can also access the surveys for WABC as well. Here's the link: http://www.musicradio77.com/wm ca/surveys.html

Please take note of when the majority of Soul music began to receive a larger amount of airplay. Without looking, I can tell you that it was around 1967-'68. This was the New York radio that I grew up with & as you'll see, it wasn't that inclusionary early on.
Top of pageBottom of page

douglasm (douglasm)
5-Doyen
Username: douglasm

Post Number: 195
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 68.118.222.193
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 9:18 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Interesting, Juice. I'll have to look into this a bit further, involving Keener guides, along with KJR, the BIG Seattle rocker. Maybe I can find KHJ and KLIF guides to compare, also. Can't do it tonight, though. I've got a Country (!!??!!) show to do.

doug
Top of pageBottom of page

Juicefree20 (juicefree20)
6-Zenith
Username: juicefree20

Post Number: 2685
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 24.46.184.162
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 9:28 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Doug,

Likewise, I have an engagement tonight as well. I sometimes forget that music then was very regionalized. Perhaps, what played & the format here in N.Y., was not the norm for all regions. I keep speaking in terms of New York & contrary to what some of us New Yorkers may think, there's a bigger world out there with different sensibilities.

Perhaps I'm a bit guilty of myopia here.
Top of pageBottom of page

douglasm (douglasm)
5-Doyen
Username: douglasm

Post Number: 196
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 68.118.222.193
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 9:59 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

or maybe not. Let me look into it and see what the research comes up with. It's gotta be better than announcing the next George Strait record.

doug
Top of pageBottom of page

john dixon (john_dixon)
4-Laureate
Username: john_dixon

Post Number: 90
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 152.163.100.134
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 2:19 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey Juice, this may not the gist of where the discussion has gone but you made a statement a few posts back that I strongly disagree with. You said that rock and roll effectively died with the advent of the British Invasion and that the only one of the early British groups that retained a rock and roll edge was the Rolling Stones. That's just not true; if anything, rock and roll was rediscovered by the British Invasion. Brit groups that worshipped Chuck Berry, Eddie Cochran, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, not to mention all the blues pioneers, reminded America of a musical heritage they had cast off by the early 60's in favor of the manufactured Frankie's and Bobby's from Philly.

In addition to the Rolling Stones, early British Invasion groups that definately weren't cleaned up, rosy cheeked and poppy were the Kinks, the Yardbirds, the Animals, Van Morrison's group-Them and early Who.
Top of pageBottom of page

Juicefree20 (juicefree20)
6-Zenith
Username: juicefree20

Post Number: 2692
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 24.46.184.162
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 2:38 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey John,

I agree with you when you say that those Early British groups indeed paid homage to the masters. I would never deny that. In a recent post, I stated that The Rolling Stones' admiration of Muddy Waters, led to him getting a great deal of attention. So much, in fact that he found himself paying to college kids on their campuses. Their admiration of him definitely helped his career & his wallet. I believe that in my third post, I made reference to The Who, as well as Jimmy Page.

The point that I was making is that when I listened to the radio back then, it was primarily the Pop sound that dominated Pop radio. For every Who, or Yardbirds song played, there was at least 10 more played by more "Popish" groups like The Beatles, Freddie & The Dreamers, The Four Seasons, Gary Lewis, Hermans Hermits or Tommy James. By & large, that was the way it was here on New York radio.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bong-Man (bongman)
3-Pundit
Username: bongman

Post Number: 39
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 63.148.123.128
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 2:39 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Everyone thinks rock died with their generation....fact is it just died for you.

Even today when classic rock stations or magazines compile "best of" lists, things like the Tempts "Masterpiece", Aretha's "Young Gifted and Black" and Marvin's "What's Goin On" are included....Stevie's 70's work too. That's not an insult, but a great compliment to powerful music that crossed over from one genre to another. In some cities like Detroit, the line was even more blurred than in other parts of the country. Just because you don't hear the Temptations or Aretha on classic rock radio, doesn't mean they didn't influence a whole bunch of people from that genre.
Top of pageBottom of page

john dixon (john_dixon)
4-Laureate
Username: john_dixon

Post Number: 91
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 205.188.116.138
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 5:37 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Juice, I get your point. Of course in the 60's, rock and roll radio was still in its infancy and those in charge of programming were most often too old to "get it", hence the overreliance on the more palatable, safer pop-oriented acts. In the summer of '64, when the Kinks invented "the riff" that would later turn out to be Ground Zero for hard rock on "You Really Got Me", it must have sounded both alien and frightening to the older programmers whose personal taste leaned more toward "Volare".

It wasn't until "Tommy" that the Who became headliners in America. When they were already one of the most electrifying rock and roll acts onstage, they were still opening for Herman's Hermits in this country.

The Yardbirds had to make a blatant pop record ("For Your Love"), and lose a disgusted Eric Clapton in the process, to get that coveted airplay. Radio wasn't interested in their rave-up covers of Howlin' Wolf's "Smokestack Lightning", or Jimmy Reed's "I Ain't Got You", mainstays of their live set.

But the Beatles were no whimpy bunch to be lumped in with Freddie & the Dreamers or Gary Lewis & the Playboys. The Beatles rocked and, along with Motown, led the pack in style AND substance until the end of the decade.

Peace y'all.
Top of pageBottom of page

Juicefree20 (juicefree20)
6-Zenith
Username: juicefree20

Post Number: 2696
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 24.46.184.162
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 5:54 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Big John D,

There's truth to what you just said & I agree with you about The Beatles. Of all of those groups, I appreciated The Beatles. Their craftsmanship, their writing & their music were heads & shoulders above the rest of the Pop acts.
Top of pageBottom of page

Destruction (destruction)
6-Zenith
Username: destruction

Post Number: 466
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 199.173.224.21
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 6:06 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just my 3 cents, but do you know who consistently considers rock and soul in the same (waste)basket? ....Jazz musicians.
Top of pageBottom of page

zebop (zebop)
4-Laureate
Username: zebop

Post Number: 143
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 205.188.116.138
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 6:27 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I remember The Rolling Stone Illustrated History had a lot of "r&b" acts in it. For the most part I thought that r&b could be classified as r&b and rock--or pop, depending on the person. To a certain extent, even hard-driving r&b was called rock as the sales landed it on the top of the rock/pop charts.
Top of pageBottom of page

Juicefree20 (juicefree20)
6-Zenith
Username: juicefree20

Post Number: 2697
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 24.46.184.162
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 7:06 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That may be true, but consider this: You can put a pig in a doghouse, but it doesn't make it a dog. Soul music is Soul music & Rock is Rock. There are distinct & fundamental differences between the two.
Top of pageBottom of page

douglasm (douglasm)
5-Doyen
Username: douglasm

Post Number: 198
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 68.118.222.193
Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 9:10 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Juice....
....I'm still working on what we talked about. Should have something we can chew on Sunday or Monday.

doug
Top of pageBottom of page

Juicefree20 (juicefree20)
6-Zenith
Username: juicefree20

Post Number: 2771
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 24.46.184.162
Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 9:16 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ok Doug!

I'm always willing to learn something new! I look forward to your findings. It should make for some interesting discourse!
Top of pageBottom of page

douglasm (douglasm)
5-Doyen
Username: douglasm

Post Number: 202
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 68.118.222.193
Posted on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 9:09 pm: ��Edit PostDelete Post���Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Juice.....

I don't know if I've learned something or have the gleem of a Masters thesis. There's alot more research that could be done here, but for preleminary data, I have found IN GENERAL, music that I can easily identify as "soul" generally took up about 20% of the pop charts from 1964 to 1970, but it varied widely, depending on the station. For example, WPOP, Hartford, CT ran 3 to 5 songs in their top 40 in '65 and '65, CKLW usually ran about 8, KOL, Seattle had 5 out of their 40 in '69, Keener, 6/30, and WFEA, Manchester, NH averaged only 2 or 3/30 in the mid '60's.

It's difficult to compare many markets on a week to week basis because of the unavailability of charts. I was disapointed, for example, to find the tribute sites to KJR (Seattle) KHJ (Los Angeles) and KLIF (Dallas) did not have charts available, and the websites that collect charts had very incomplete listings.

What DID intregue me was the depth of music in the individual charts. I was expecting the commons to show up, but individual songs by the Marvelettes, Temptations, Sam Cooke, Impressions and the like on some charts were not what I would have expected. Maybe I just didn't listen close enough as a kid.

It would be interesting to see how demographics play a part in top 40 charts. I would assume those "pop" stations that drew higher "black" numbers, or had no major "soul" station in their market would tend to play more and/or deeper soul than CK or Keener, which were in a market with an active soul station or two, but with little backround about the markets I can't tell.

But the thing that really got me was the WWRL (New York City) chart from June 1, 1967....

1) RESPECT--Aretha Franklin
2) ALFIE--Dionne Warwick
3) GROOVIN'--Young Rascals
4) EIGHT MEN-FOUR WOMEN--O.V. Wright
5) TRAMP--Otis and Carla

What got me was that out of their "Soul 16", I recognized 10 of those as songs I heard on Top 40 radio. I would have thought the divergence would have been greater.

The research method I used was poor (lack of time), but if you have a specific question or comment, I could probably dive into it. This was fun.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: