Fun Article about how Historians will Remember Rock Stars
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/which-rock-star-will-historians-of-the-future-remember.html?smid=fb-share Comments and opinions, please. Let the fireworks begin!
-
Beautiful piece of writing. Thanks for the link. Might be a touch too erudite for most around these parts, which just makes me enjoy it so much more. On a serious note, again (unless I'm mistaken) no mention of Der Bingle. Discussing music and omitting Bing Crosby is tantamount to a criminal act! Sinatra always gets name-dropped but if we adhere to the theory of musical succession lineage. Without Crosby there would be no Sinatra. Bing did it all...first. The world's first superstar; as popular in film as he was in music and a fine dramatic actor too (as was Cranky Frankie). Again, an enjoyable although somewhat ponderous read. I have forwarded it on to many folks.
-
There was one line in there that jolted me. The fact that in 1977 just 19 years had passed since Johhny B. Goode! In 2016 terms that seems like a drop in the ocean!
-
Glad you liked it, Mops! I did too, I am sure there will be a lot of disagreement. But I think the point that The Beatles changed everything is solid. However, no individual Beatle is mentioned, and while the Beatles as a group topped Elvis, no individual Beatle can top him on their own. Bing not being mentioned is crazy!!
-
RMartinez:
Glad you liked it, Mops! I did too, I am sure there will be a lot of disagreement. But I think the point that The Beatles changed everything is solid. However, no individual Beatle is mentioned, and while the Beatles as a group topped Elvis, no individual Beatle can top him on their own. Bing not being mentioned is crazy!!
Yep. Agree with all of that.
-
Historian will What rock stars? What is "vire?"
-
Nancy R:
Historian will What rock stars? What is "vire?"
Thanks! Got it!
-
Nancy R:
Historian will What rock stars? What is "vire?"
...pedant.
-
This thread has gone vire...all
-
moptops:
This thread has gone vire...all
Yup! THAT's what I meant!
-
moptops:
Nancy R:
Historian will What rock stars? What is "vire?"
...pedant.
WTF?
-
The article raises some good points, but I don't follow Klosterman's reasoning that Chuck Berry will end up as the default "rock star" to future generations. He had already dismissed Elvis's music as not "rock" enough, and Berry's music, while hugely influential (especially on the Beatles) is also trapped in this "prehistoric" era in the minds of people even today. Elvis himself is more likely, just given his iconic look. He makes some good cases for Dylan, but again, he's not the type of guy you imagine wielding an electric guitar like a rock star with an attitude. Dylan's influence is deep, but subtle. But still, what about Jimi Hendrix? He had an iconic look, riveting stage presence, astounding technical ability, sensitivity in his songwriting, powerful delivery, as well as that ability to bridge black and white audiences. I'm only a casual fan of his myself, but it's ridiculous that he's not even considered, even though his creative output was relatively small. I'm not sure why he also fails to consider John Lennon or Paul McCartney as individuals, just because their biggest fame and influence were as part of a group. They're quite well known and loved, Chuck! Same goes for Mick Jagger, who could easily be the one rock 'n' roll face and figure that survives, just by his sheer force of will and personality over all these decades.
-
I think the intention referencing Chuck Berry was with regard to his songwriting. That was the way I perceived it. He was an absolute poet. A rock n roll poet. The playing, the singing, even the duck walk...ordinary; but he was by far the greatest rock writer of the 1950's. Even listening to his songs today I'm knocked out by his writing. It is a contentious subject because there are so many criteria on which to judge artists. And after all, it's still always partly subjective, regardless of statistics or however else their impact is measured.
-
I certainly agree with you about Chuck Berry's abilities and writing prowess. I just have a hard time imagining that he will be remembered as "the" rock star when future generations, hundreds of years from now, look at the rock era. That's the main question in the article. I think part of the problem is that there's not a whole lot of iconic footage of him compared to some other people. Also, I went to a School of Rock performance a few months ago (mostly teenagers playing), and they're clearly being taught, and connecting with, the music of the '60s and '70s much more than the '50s. Hey, I could be wrong, but that's my view.
-
Fair enough. You make good points.
-
I would definitely go with Hendrix over Chuck Berry. Seriously, what generation of people listen to Chuck Berry today? Meanwhile, Hendrix is still being played & has influence from College students to Baby Boomers. Hendrix is the "iconic" guitar player (voted #1 all-time by most) and was a great song writer to boot. All is albums are considered classic. He played Monterey to Woodstock, after starting out in English pubs. His early death also makes him a rock-and-roll icon. Interesting piece but the author clearly picked the wrong artist to "represent" rock-and-roll.
-
JoeySmith:
I would definitely go with Hendrix over Chuck Berry. Seriously, what generation of people listen to Chuck Berry today? Meanwhile, Hendrix is still being played & has influence from College students to Baby Boomers. Hendrix is the "iconic" guitar player (voted #1 all-time by most) and was a great song writer to boot. All is albums are considered classic. He played Monterey to Woodstock, after starting out in English pubs. His early death also makes him a rock-and-roll icon. Interesting piece but the author clearly picked the wrong artist to "represent" rock-and-roll.
Ah...but it's not about us...or today. I wonder if in 300 years rock will just be a blurry reference with some names and no knowledge of the songs, the music even the timeline. Much as what we call "Classical music" today. I wouldn't know about names of most compositions, timelines, baroque or sonatas etc. I just hear stuff snd "oh yeah, classical music." Mozart, Brahms, Beethoven, ... the "Liszt" goes on. All those boys must have had their own influences, charisma and styles. These fellas were the rock stars of their time. The scholars only know the details. On the other hand... Today it's the music that matters. 300 years hence maybe nobody gives a damn about Chuck, Elvis, The Beatles or any of it. Maybe they'll know rock n roll as just a category and only that? Who made the mudic might be irrelevant to anyonr listening to it, apart from the scholars. What names are there is moot, the music will survive though.
-
I bet Mozart and Beethoven had groupies too, though!
And I'm quite sure The Beatles themselves, and their songs will be remembered for many hundreds of years. Not so sure about Gerry and the Pacemakers though! -
The guy who wrote the article even says he thinks the Beatles will endure. I don't really know why he's fixated on a single person being remembered. Why can't it just be a group, like the Beatles?
-
Nancy R:
I bet Mozart and Beethoven had groupies too, though!
And I'm quite sure The Beatles themselves, and their songs will be remembered for many hundreds of years. Not so sure about Gerry and the Pacemakers though! If soccer is still played that far in the future. Gerry and the Pacemakers will still be remembered...by way of Rodgers and Hammerstein and Carousel.
