Grateful Dead

dead.net the official site

This rock n roll discussion is whisper down the lane on paper. People are arguing about statements that nobody made. Nobody said The Beatles had no help or influence, you're arguing to yourself. Nobody even said the Beatles invented Rock n roll or coined the term, only that they brought it to life in front of the world. The bottom line is that our generation DID witness the birth of rock and roll, and yes you can use the concept of birth, it's an appropriate form of symbolic language called personification. It's laughable that THAT part of the dicussion even came into question. And you didn't have to be alive to see Bill Haley to have witnessed its birth, you just had to have lived through at least part of rock's journey to full fruition, which basically happened in the 70s. The reason I agree we witnessed rock's birth, is because it came into existence and developed into its purest and present form right before our eyes during our lifetime. Like someone said, in a hundred years, none of the bands or people who lived through this awesome rock movement will exist anymore, and if rock is even popular in 100 years, nobody who likes it will be able to say they were around when it was coming to life. That was clearly the point that was being made. I think of it like I think of the veteran contributors here on dead.net who got to see the Dead back in the 70s or even the 60s. It's just awe inspiring. In a hundred years the think of us and think holy s*** they got to go see the Rolling Stones??? The Beatles brand is what hooked the world on rock and roll, and it was original (which is not to say uninfluenced, you can be both influenced and original). The other bands of the 60s (way too many to name) imitated the Beatles sound and grew successful doing it, at least for a short time, until they came to their creative own and developed their own sound. That's not to say that they didn't also imitate other sounds, someone mentioned the Stones first album was all rhythm and blues covers. That doesn't happen to be what brought the Stones success in the long run, it was the writing of their own music which at first sounded very Beatle-esque. These bands were all driven by record companies and the record companies wanted more Beatles because The Beatles were making them rich. The biggest reasons the Beatles gave birth to it, is 1)they were original, 2)they brought their brand to way more more people, WAY more people,(70 million people, come on now) and 3)they influenced most of the bands that followed after (as well as the popular culture at large). Nobody else went on Ed Sullivan 1st and ushered in a movement in rock pop music. None of their predecessors did that. They took what was out there, made it their own and in doing so TRANSFORMED rock and popular music. The bands that came after helped continue the movement, but there's no question the Beatles brand came first. Millions of people latched on to to the Beatles, not Haley or Berry. It was their mold that came first and endured. Chuck Berry still hugely important and I love him to death, but he didn't do what the Beatles did, that wasn't his role. His role may have been even better in the history of rock and roll as he influenced so many. That's not what this discussion was ever about. This discussion was about whether or not our generation was here to witness the birth of rock and roll. The one excellent point I agree with is that Bob Dylan brought a brand that was equally important, but I don't think you could credit him with heralding in the rock movement. Oborious, yes Chuck Berry was important and influenced many, but same thing, he wasn't the Beatles. You seem to be personally offended by all of this, as you are making statements like what if Chuck has been white or what if Elvis wasn't in the right place at the right time. The discussion is about what is not what might have been or could have been. If the queen had balls she'd be king. I think where people are getting stuck in this dialogue is that they're feeling like the birth of rock and roll on the world scale should go to (pick your name) instead of the Beatles. There is no single person or band who invented rock and roll, but the Beatles did give birth to it in the larger world, and that was the only point that was being made along with the fact that we were here to witness it. V guy you're absolutely right the sensitivity scale is just beyond words. But one thing that is clear if you read through this discussion thread is that words our being misinterpreted even after clarifications are made. It's like there's no effort being made.

....when I was 10, and I didn't give it back. He never asked why. He kept things simple. Love you Dad.

....take many forms. The sensitivity scale is off the charts these dayz. One could argue who gave birth to rock n roll all day. I'm gonna throw Bill Haley and The Comets into the ring. How bout that!....I'll respond to the video game discussion later, cause that would take forever, and I don't want to bore you people.

Lol, who came up with this nonsense?

i'll take the pong consoles over the odyssey any day. at least its a game. man there were a lot of them. some good some just utter failures. the pong consoles never made it to my house or anyone I know. but my cousins had Super Break Out on Atari. and it seems like the ultimate Pong Game to me.

Sorry, point taken. I over generalized.....though I know many lead guitar players who would not call their signers musicians.....ok that was a joke!

Like that sexy telecaster instead of the “Nash” strat?

Agree, Elvis was a great performer an singer, but he didn’t have the full toolbox that the truly greats had.Thus, I’ve always thought him overrated like many of the biggest popular stars are, comparatively... Hell, he might of just been another obscure “hill billy” singer if not in the right time and place?

....ummm, you got a nose job?