Be advised; this thread is not for serious in depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 111
- 7
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I would define rock and roll in its pure form by that clip from Back to the Future, when Michael J. Fox does the guitar solo and the 50s teens who were dancing are just left going wtf even is that. Stuff past that gets into your heavy metal, your hardcore punk, etc. That's the test I picture in my head. You can play a later rock and roll song to an earlier audience, and that audience would recognize it as rock and roll music.
To me, almost everything by The Beatles would play just fine at a Chuck Berry joint, same with the Stones, and most of Led Zeppelin or the Who as well. Maybe the audience wouldn't love it but they'd recognize it as the same kind of music they like. For me the line comes somewhere around like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest on the metal side, and then bands like Black Flag and the Dead Kennedys on the punk side. That's where I'd imagine the music/content reaches the point where your hypothetical 50s crowd coming out to hear Roll Over Beethoven gets confused.
Lose Yourself is an interesting one, I feel like I can't take it seriously because it's a movie song.
Well, War Pigs came out in 1970 and wouldn't fly with the rock'n'roll crowd. As did Child in Time (I love the stone faces of the audience). So, on one hand, I think the birth of hard rock and metal and their emergence at the genres of rock should disqualify post-Woodstock rock'n'roll songs from being considered the best. But on the other hand, would I really disqualify the songs by 3 Inches of Blood from being on a "best of heavy metal" list just because they were written after it became a niche genre?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link