Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
Actually I don't think you do get what I'm saying. Them being around before those two bands is not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the Beatles' music has more in common stylistically with early rock n roll (i.e. Chuck Berry, Little Richard, etc.) than a band like Rush does. And since the term "rock n roll" was invented to describe the music made by people like Chuck Berry and Little Richard it can be argued that the closer you come to that particular sound the more rock you are.
Incidentally, I'm not saying that Rush and Black Sabbath aren't rock. They are. I'm just saying that they're further removed from what the term "rock" was originally coined to describe.
|
Maybe I didnt go into enough detail but obviously I know that Beatles style of rock is more closer to original rock & roll compared to the likes of Black Sabbath or Rush.
I thought it would have been too obvious to actually have to say it.
After all you do have to
listen to music to judge it anyway.
My perception of 'Rock' (probably due to personal preference) is more accustomed to bands like Rush or Black Sabbath other than original 'Rock & Roll' as you had mentioned.
This would be why I described The Beatles as not being a 'rock' band in my eyes, which I still kind of agree to(to a certain extent).
Perhaps it would be more suitable to place them as an 'original' rock band but then they had their own sound and all that so its hard to place them.
Certain bands (of whom a lot I do not like) have their own distinctive 'mark' or 'sound' on music (if you know what i mean..) such as U2 for instance, their high pitched air guitar sound has been mimicked/copyed by 90% of the new 'Indie Rock' bands; Snow Patrol, Kings of Leon (recent sell out period) & Coldplay to name a few.