"Punk is the Nostalgia of Punk"

Totally forgot to post on time. . . fell asleep: figured i would anyways seeing as i enjoyed today's, well yesterdays guest lecture on Punk rock. Growing up with Punk bands like Blink 182 and Greenday led me to perceive Punk for what it was in the 21st century rather than the 1970's when it originated. Contrary to the 21st century; bands like The Sex Pistols and the Ramones paved the path for this new unique style of music. Punk venues like CBGB began to spring up in major metropolitan cities alike New York; and before we knew it, Punk had gone from merely a genre of music to its own rebellious subculture. Although I may not appreciate Punk rock for all that it was when it originated, it opened the door for similar genre's of music like ska and reggae to emerge down the road. With 40 years of growth, Punk rock and its subculture has remained prominent and evolved into a much larger scene with more musical variety. Bands like IllScarlett emerged with a unique new sound that could only be categorized as this "ska punk pop infused reggae ". Originating out of Mississauga in 2004 IllScarlett captures its audiences with their up beat. . . easy to listen to. . . chill as hell. . . punk reggae sound. Modeling themselves after sublime and other punk sounds IllScalett has nearly formed a genre of their own, and for that i thank you Punk rock. . . P.S. maybe my teacher will enjoy my post and consider giving me some credit. Because God knows I've missed way to many of these things.

Hot Topic is not Punk Rock!

Most people feel that Green Day, and Blink 182 are punk. I feel that their intentions of creating a punk image were not as important as selling out to them. They did open the eyes of modern society to punk music, but in a more pop way. Their concern with adopting a mainstream culture tarnished their reputation as great punk bands. Today's society feels that music all about currency, but little do they know that by "selling out" they are killing their reputations as musicians and moving more towards a product. I'm not saying what they are making isn't still considered good music, but it is most certainly not punk rock.

Punk & Race

In class today, there was mention of the idea of race being related to certain subcultures. I definitely agree with that idea because I think that subcultures happened in the past because of the presence of fringe groups. These fringe groups were usually created on the basis of race or nationality. This could show the connection between race and who we identify with because, as seen in the past, it was a sense of unity and comfort to be in these subcultures. However, as also mentioned in class, there were instances of all-African American Punk groups, and there are white hip hop artists. Is it agreeable that this is the beginning of a de-emphasis on race as common ground for fringe groups to relate on?

Hippies with Teeth..

Today's lecture was outstanding by the way. I enjoyed listening to Marta lecture about this crazy, "out there" culture. This brought me back to my roots in ninth grade before country music took over my life! Anyways... I feel that Punk music was very creative and gave musicians a new way to let their angst out on socio-political issues. It definitely is a culture and not just music! When you listen to punk music you are now apart of that culture. If you don't act, look, or riot like a punk, you most certainly are not punk. One of the most influential bands I feel were The Ramones. I personally feel that they helped create the punk scene in America. What was really cool about them was the fact that they took on pseudonyms such as "Joey Ramone" to help create the punk image. Most people will argue that the music was boring, but it had nothing to do so much with the music when this band came about in 1974. With their influence of pop music The Ramones took basic music and added grunge, controversial lyrics, and turned it onto "Awesome-Sauce" and sprinkle on the burger of greatness and turn it into the delicious tasty treat that is current punk music.

Hip Hop and Punk

In class (during the guest lecture session) it was brought up how race and music related. I think it's very ironic hip hop too developed in the 70's as a response to political and social issues. Hip Hop culture like punk did not just progress through music, but also in art (graffiti) and dance (popping locking, b-Boeing). Both these genres were not looking to achieve fame. The main purpose for the two genres was to bring forth the political and social issues, in many cases they were the same. For example, two of my favorite artists Rise Against (punk) and Atmosphere (hip Hop) talk about the social oppression of the lower middle class and the difficulty to get through each day/ living from paycheck to paycheck.





Yes! the type of music is different but we cannot deny the fact that they share same ideals!

Punk Music

Punk is not only a style of music but a way of culture. It influences the way people dress and present themselves. Punk is looked down upon because of drugs and the way they dress, because it's different from the normal of society. In my opinion, I think punk is misunderstood. I think punk lyrics have unique meaning behind it and shows a good expression of emotions which all punk bands show, such as my favorites Good Charlotte, Green Day, and Cute is What We Aim For. Punk music gets a bad rep. I wonder if punk music will ever be fully accepted in society and become popular again?

Punk

Punk has no single definition. You can't kill something that can't be defined. I took that away from class today. It's a cool thought because no matter what punk will never die out. The punk sub culture is very intriguing because it is full of rebellion. I figured from listening to how simple a lot of punk songs are that the band members probably were not expert musicians, but I didn't know until lecture today that some bands like the Sex Pistols basically just picked random people to be in the band even when they didn't know how to play. Some people may think for this reason that punk bands are untalented and not worth listening to, but it doesn't really matter what those people think because punk bands are known for not searching for fame. Part of punk is that they don't care if they become famous, they just say what's on their minds and play what they want to play whether people like it or not, and they have tons of followers that respect them for that. Fame isn't a punks priority.

Punk Music vs. Hippies

The guest lecture in class today was very interesting in my opinion. Sure I have heard plenty of different punk music/bands however I did not know very much about the sub culture of punk music. One interesting piece that I took away from the lecture was the quote about punks being "hippies with teeth," many people took this as meaning that they were very different. In my opinion it just was the instructors way of saying they were an edgier movement than the hippies. If you look at the two movements side by side, sure there were plenty of differences but they had some very similar anti-establishment ideas that cannot be ignored.

Boogie Nights!

Even though Disco music was so basic and most songs sounded similar, I think the music is great. The beats that go along with the music are very catchy and make you want to break out on the light up dance floor and do the hustle! Disco dancing I think let people express themselves and dance freely unlike todays bump and grinding. I almost wish that there was a Disco Tech club open today, I would most definitely rep a leisure suit with my chain hanging out, bust out the hustle and dance to The Bee Gees and KC and The Sunshine Band.

Punks and Hippies

Today Marta discussed the quote "Punks are hippies with teeth". That led to a discussion about how punks were very different in their lifestyles and music. I do agree that the styles between the punk movement as well as the hippy movement were very different; however, I feel that they had a lot in common. Sure hippies would put a flower on a tank and punks would throw rocks but overall what was the purpose? To object to something in their own way. Punks lived the way they wanted, but so did hippies! Free living away from the capitalist world was the purpose of both groups. They did what they wanted when they wanted and made music to represent that. Of course punks seemed more angry compared to the peace and loving hippies, but when it comes down to it, both groups are very similar. I do not feel that hippies led to punks directly, but both groups aren't as different as they seem.

overuse and abuse.

oas i sit here at work at burger king, i cant help but notice all of the disgusting over indulgence of the american culture. it disturbs me but at the same time it reminds me of the culture of the 1970's with the abuse of new wave drugs. however has that become the new drug of the 21st century? is american getting high off of low quality food stuffs in a desperate attempt to reclaim the days of yesteryear? the music pumped into the dinning room is 1970's muzak covers and calming waves of strings beckoning the people to use and abuse the new drug. this is almost as disgusting to me as the thought of the bathrooms at studio 54.

Punks- "Hippies with Teeth"

Today's discussion on punk was very interesting. When she said that punks were reffered to as hippies with teeth, I began to think. They are completely two different life styles. I don't think that the hippies transitioned into punk. I think that this was a new wave of people that developed just like the music. When I think of punk I think anarchy and disorder. Punks make their own rules and live the way that they want. The music definatly was a way of displaying this. I think I would rather live the life style rather than listen to the music. When we listened to the electric eel song agitated, I was very suprised. I knew it would be upbeat and chaotic but I felt that the song was not good at all. I feel like I could of gotten a group together and made a sopng just like it or better. Im not putting down all punk because I do like the Ramones and the Sex Pistols, but there are some bands that were developed that were not very good.

Punk: A Waste of Life

Why even talk about punk? Is this subculture of social misfits and their wana-be counterparts worth our breath? For me, the punk subculture is worth studying from a culturally influential standpoint, but it is certainly not worth promoting. In any case, as Marta explained in class today, punk subculture thrives off a satisfying sense of destruction. White flight and capitalist gains were not the cause of south Manhattan ghettos, they just left the door open for these kinds of misfits and slackers to fill the void. The punk subculture offers very little contribution to the state. Marta described some of their habits as couch surfers and bar brawlers looking for a chance to instigate a fight. It's important for us to study these kinds of subcultures because they're viral to the health of a community more often than not. On the other hand, my knowledge of positive contributions to society from the punk subculture are minimal, so i cordially invite you to prove me otherwise.

Modern Day Punk.

From our discussion about punk, I started to wonder what you could consider modern day "punk" . Should punk ever stand alone as a music genre, or should it be a music genre when you fit all of the other specifications of punk into it? Can you be a "punk" band without the ideologies/beliefs of a punk, or can you be a punkish band (meaning they have the ideologies) without having a particularly punk sound? Which bands are exactly considered punk in the modern music world? I feel like there are bands that do not care about fame, do what they want on stage, act wild, that seem to have the punk beliefs, but are not labeled as punk. However, I feel as if many bands would said to be labeled as punk just because they resemble the stereotypical punk look. I feel like punk should be more than just a physical image. Now, it doesn't really mean anything if you dress like a punk-this does not make you a punk. Punk, to me should be more of a label based on ideologies, not necessary a music category. I believe some bands exist that could be considered punk based on their performances and statements, but you would never hear them and say they are punk. I feel there is almost a new type of punk, not based on the type of music played, but more based on what is put into the music and how it is expressed.

DiScO

The disco era was a great time in America. It was the start of a more DJ oriented time for clubs. The music of this time made people feel good and move to the new style of electric sounds. These clubs would be equipped with wild colorful lights that would flash and shine on these huge dance floors which would be swarmed with people. If I could go back in time for a weekend, I would want to time warp back to the 1970s to a popular club and get my groove on.

Punk is Anarchy

With more time to think of what punk is I believe that punk is not just music but a movement. I believe that punk can be associated with the anarchy movement which is the belief that there should be no government at all. As it is stated in the film SLC Punk "there is nothing but chaos" which is seen in many punk music shows. Among these are the way that the performers antagonize the audience and even start fights with the crowd. For the most part the band, as well as the crowd, enjoys that they can start altercations without consequence which is one of the main ideas behind anarchy. Therefore I believe that punk music is product of the anarchy movement.

Just A Bunch of Unskilled Punks

An interesting point brought up in the guest lecture on punk was the general lack of musical skill among punk artists. Granted I'm sure there were some punk musicians would were very talented but generally it seemed like these groups just let anyone play. I think that is also why punk is so hard to define because it does not conform to any set musical pattern like other genres. With people of all skill sets playing, it would seem that the same song might sound different every time it was played. Maybe that is why punk is on the decline as of late, maybe people really just want to hear songs played the same way every time with no deviation. Auto-tune and computer beats always ruin things for everyone.

Identifying With Music Genres

In today's guest lecture about Punk music, it really got me thinking about how music is defined in general. Marta asked, "how can we define punk?" Can we define any type of music? Is it possible to be a type of music? Marta referred to herself as a "punk." This means that punk is not just a type of music, but it is also a whole culture and a way of living. Therefore, can we do this with other kinds of music genres? Is it possible to identify yourself as country, hip-hop, rock, etc? I think it is very interesting when people identify themselves as a type of music because it really shows the huge impact music has on other people's lives and the way they want to live.

Punk and "Art Terrorism"

I really enjoyed the guest lecture on punk music today. One part I found particularly interesting was the information about the 70's punk band The Electric Eels. I thought it was completely wild that they intentionally abused their audience at live shows with chains and other weapons. Today was also the first time I heard of the idea of "Art Terrorism". It seems that this idea doesn't only relate to physically harming the audience, but also terrorizing them with shocking ideas and behaviors. An off-stage example of this could be when punk bands would appear in public places wearing shirts with terrorizing messages on them. Examples include shirts that said "White Power" or had Nazi references on them. These acts were intended to shock people and provoke fights. According to some of these artists, these behaviors were meant to be satirical. Upon searching for "Art Terrorism" online, almost all of the links were for Banksy, a modern street artist who describes himself as an "Art Terrorist". This could be one way that the influence of 70's punk continues to live on today.

Disco fever!!!

The disco era is such a lively and interesting one. While learning about it during lecture I was so intrigued with the dance moves, the outfits and the hair! The whole generation seemed to be a continuous party. The theme of disco must have been a successful one, for even now in days over fifty years later must songs are still well known and popular. Not to mention each year they still have a disco party that a significant number of people attend. Its a form of music that was fun for everyone and I have to say I am a fan!

Disco

Disco music was the genre of dance music which was popular during middle and late 1970s. As far as I am concerned, this type of music is not my favorite because I find it kind of monotonous. However, it makes me excited about whatever I am doing. To be honest, I wish I was born at that time because I believe, that the time disco music was popular, was so much happier to grow and live.

Boogie Wonderland!

I have learned in the lecture on Monday about how Disco came about. There were several factors that contributed to the rise of Disco music. Due to the advance in technology, nightclubs no longer have to rely on musicians to perform. All the people need is a DJ and a few records. Up till now, it is more common to see DJs playing records in a club rather than live performers. In Singapore, live performers can mostly be found only in pubs.

It is also interesting to learn that Disco music is another type of escape songs. It seems that escape songs have been transcending through time and helped to provide a type of release for most people. Since the focus of disco is on social dancing, I believe that most people "dance" their troubles away. Although the Disco era was quite short, I feel that it had a strong impact on the music scene. Most of popular songs from the Disco era are still often being played on radio stations, in movies and even in commercials.

To end of my post, I am going to share a song by Earth, Wind and Fire. I like this song a lot and first heard it on a variety show. "Boogie Wonderland" was one of Earth, Wind and Fire's biggest hit and is regarded as one of the classics of the Disco era.

DISCO!

When I hear the word disco I automatically think about Afros and bell bottom jeans. In my opinion I think that the Disco Era is the funnest out of all the eras in American music history. If you had a chance to go back in time which decade would you want to visit? I would most likely go back to the 70's. Its a type of music that makes you happy and want to just get up and dance to it. As we have mentioned many of the songs are still being played today. A party is not a party unless you have the disco songs playing. I believe that disco music is one of those things that will never get old!

Image and Popular Music

The Beatles are regarded as arguably the most influential band of the British Invasion period largely because they were the first and received extreme success. The Beatles' success was due to their ability to blend rock with wholesome pop lyrics and maintain a clean cut image whereas the Rolling Stones are seen as the antithesis of all that the Beatles "stood for". Mick Jagger's larger than life persona on stage combined with drug use and sexual lyrics made their image the opposite of the Beatles' wholesome appeal. However, the Beatles had many songs that contained suspected drug references like the line "found my way upstairs and had a smoke / and somebody spoke and I went into a dream" from "A Day in the Life" and "I need a fix, 'cuz I'm going down / Down to the bits I left uptown" from "Happiness is a Warm Gun". Also, although nowhere near as suggestive as lyrics from Rolling Stones songs, the song "Why Don't We Do it in the Road" is clearly a sexual song that did not fit into the clean cut image. John Lennon also famously made the comment about being "bigger than Jesus" which was extremely controversial. Why were the Beatles considered to be so wholesome despite this?

British Invasion

Why is it that people have moved from the all-around talented artists of the British invasion to the more unskilled, auto-tuned generation? As time continues on, will the older generations of music become forgotten, as in will people even know of the Beatles a few decades from now? Is it possible for the music of the British invasion era to ever become popular again?

Influence in music

After the R&B era, the British music influence grew in America. The arrival of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones introduced a new twist to American Rock and Roll. Even after this musical invasion, many other musicians from different areas of the world seek success in the mainstream American Music. Can it be said that the only way of getting world recognition for your music is if you are mainstream in America? Do you think the Beatles and Rolling stones were the ones who opened the doors for the rest like Duran Duran (England) and even Ah-ha (Norway) who only had one hit in the US?

The Next British Invasion

In class this week we discussed The British Invasion and its influence on American music. With the American blues elements in their music, they helped revive the blues scene. This revival helped to influence more bands and so on and so forth. With the impact that the British had on American music do you think that Americans still look to Britain for more musical influence? Would it be safe to say that more genres such as dubstep and other electronic music are the next "wave" of the British Invasion?

The Beatles

In 1964 The Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show introducing a new sound of music which was a break through moment in American popular music. Not long after they changed their sound by experimenting with instrumentation and production of their music, yet a large amount of fans still followed. Why do you think the Beatles became so popular when originally coming over during the British Invasion and why after The Beatles changed their sound did fans still follow them and take to the new music?

How such a fast shift?

It's funny when you look back at the music leading up to the 60s. Not every single song/musician of course, but a majority of songs in the 50s and early 60s had very simple lyrics. Think of the songs that were big; songs about dancing (The Twist), repetitive surfer lyrics (Beach Boys), simple love songs (The Dixie Cups). I am not saying these songs are bad, because they are actually quite fun to listen to, but the lyrics don't really have much depth. How was there such a fast shift from finding these songs great, to finding songs with more abstract lyrics so phenomenal? There are songs in the 60s that have crazy, yet amazing lyrics. Even when you think about some of the Beatles' songs you see this. Mostly though, Bob Dylan was the biggest change. He said he was a poet first, and it definitely showed in his lyrics. Sill known to be the one of the greatest songwriters,, he surely proved that he had a lot of important things to say. It's shocking that a world can go from liking simple melodies and lyrics, to liking a man with just a guitar and a lot of great words. During this era, a lot was happening in the world, and people were trying to make many changes. So, what I always wonder is, does music and change go hand in hand? It's clear that there is a definite strong correlation between music and movement in the 60s. Music had one of the biggest impacts on the people. Do you think the generation in America started to change and think more because of the more thought provoking lyrics, or do you think the people started to change, and so they wanted to hear more thought provoking lyrics? I could never see a generation switching so fast from what they found appealing musically, so I just really wonder if what was going on in the world around them such as the civil right movements, and the Vietnam War affected their new found taste in music.

Influence

It is easy to see the astounding influence that the British Invasion had not only on the culture and music of America during that time, but is also important to note the impact that it has had since then. The two primary bands we looked at in class were The Beatles and The Rolling Stone both of which are house hold names even decades later which makes it apparent the kind of effect they had on America. This begs the question then what would have happened had they stayed on their side of the "pond"? Would it have really mattered?

the border of music

the border between UK and US music disappeared in the 1960s. the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were both influenced by American musicians such as Chuck Berry, and had big influence on American musicians too after they appeared in American music scene. After the border disappeared, UK and US music has been corresponding each other and growing up. Now we have the internet and chance to experience any kind of music, so what do you expect in the future of music?

Chaos Is a Friend of Mine

I want to point out the complex relationship between American electric blues, rock and roll, and the British invasion. The Rolling Stones site blues musicians like Robert Johnson and Muddy waters as major influences to their sound. The Beatles site Chuck Berry as a major influence as well. In the Bob Dylan interview titled "Chaos is a Friend of Mine", Dylan explains that the English are responsible for bringing this sound into the mainstream. To what extent do you think Rhythm and Blues owes its popularity and economic potential to the British invasion? Also in the early 60's, as English artists are starting to make money off this sound, what kind of success are black blues rock artists seeing?

It doesn't matter....

The Beatles were the first band to invade the U.S. American erupted when they had heard the sound of The Beatles and adored them for their clean cut looks. They were a very successful band, only touring for a few years. They had recorded 27 studio albums, 4 live albums. These were produced over a seven year span. They only toured for about four years. I feel they were more successful than any band in a seven year span. The Rolling Stones were influential for their sexual lyrics and dance moves on stage. They were a very talented band recording 29 studio albums, and 10 live albums. I don't feel that one band is more successful than the other because I love both of these bands. I will say however that both bands had their success. The conclusion to this is that both bands had an impact. The Beatles invaded the United States and were able to have a commercial impact. The Rolling Stones bent the rules a bit with their lyrics and dance moves and were able to change the culture of rock music.

What is the U.S. really interested in?

In terms of music and artists, it is difficult to say what the American public is really looking for. Are we looking for genuine talent or are we looking for something to take up our time and keep us entertained? Are artists famous for what they do or for what they show? The reason I ask this is because we see a sort of parallel with artists and their legacies. The Beatles are still popular today, but not so much the stones. Why is that? Is it because The Beatles were accepted by all social groups, or was it because they were tragic (John Lennon's Death for example). Phil Spector is a great example because he was such a huge part of the music business, but now people just remember him as the crazy producer who shot a woman not too long ago. A current artist that applies to this as well is Michael Jackson. He created all this amazing music but then his music took a backseat while he was all over television for his trials. Once he died his music was all over the place. So what is American interested in, the trials and tragedy, or the music itself? Does their "entertaining" life help them leave a legacy?

Why You Hatin' On The Beatles?

In class today we compared and contrasted The Beatles v. The Rolling Stones. Obviously, this was done because they were both bands a part of the British Invasion. I've never even known of such a hardcore rivalry between both fans; I personally never linked the two together on account of that they were both British bands. Yes, I am a fan of both bands, considering my musical influences are from my Dad, but, I'll admit it, ever since I was young, The Beatles took the cake for me. I know a lot of people would argue that The Rolling Stones were innovative with their sound, and always changed it up in their music, and not one song was similar to another; but, let's not just focus on the early emergence of The Beatles in the U.S. Yes, The Beatles started off with their bubble gum pop songs such as "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" that made all the girls scream their heads off, but if you take a look at their later work, after they grew into their own sound a bit, they experimented just as much as the Stones. Every member (yes, even Ringo) contributed in song writing for the band, Paul McCartney's songs were blatantly diverse from John Lennon's songs, and the band experimented with new instrumentation, such as synthesizers and sitars. Other than experimenting with new sounds, many of The Beatles's songs had great meaning behind them, often referring to the state of the world. I mean, there was a whole musical movie created around The Beatles's songs depicting the Vietnam War ("Across The Universe"). All I got to say is that I personally don't think that it's fair to say that The Rolling Stones were more innovative with their sound, and this is because I think that most people usually associate only the songs from the album "Please Please Me" rather than songs from "Revolver" with The Beatles. Comparing The Beatles and The Rolling Stones is just too difficult a task simply because they are two, equally influential, and greatly different bands. I just wanted to give The Beatles some credit where it's due.

Follow the influence

if you want to compare the Beatles and the Stones be my guest i myself find it foolish to spend time on this argument because of the influences and modeling of previous musicians from both America and the U.K. the primary influences on the Beatles at first was mainly Elvis and the other Sun Record players Carl Perkins, Roy Orbison,and Jerry Lee Lewis. The Stones idolized the Blues Greats that came over in the 50's and 60's from America Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Sonny Boy Williamson II, and Chuck Berry all had played in England in European Tours. The Beatles eveloution in music is more present in the short period of time they had created masterpieces after making a name and comfortable arrangements to have the freedom to make "their" music. Albums now became more than just a record most of the later albums were concept and had pages and linear notes on all the songs, From Magical Mystery Tour to the White Album the Beatles were given the freedom of the studio and used it as an instrument. The Stones on the other hand stayed the course with blues and dabbled in the latest sounds in many songs to stay fresh and legitimize themselves as artists. The started out covering Chuck Berry Tunes and Muddy Waters their name comes from a song of His! in a era of disco and dance music they write Miss You to get an audience then they come right back to the blues it proof when they constantly play with Buddy Guy and other still living blues greats in concerts. Its shown more than ever in "Shine A Light"the film by Martin Scorsese. They both paved the way in Rock 'n' Roll showing to future players that theres more than one sound in Rock and its the child of the past genres before it.

Motown Night on American Idol

Ok-so I can honestly say I generally only like to watch the audition portion of American idol. What can I say, they make me laugh. But for whatever reason-this season I have actually been following the show-maybe it's Steven Tyler, he's such a wild card! For those of you that watch it-tonight is Motown night, so all of the competitors are covering hits from the phenomenal music produced from this era. You might recall that we covered Motown this week (Monday), so I thought some of you may enjoy it.

Oh-and it's on right now!

Does being a better a role model make you more successful?

Call me crazy, but I never knew before this class that the Rolling Stones were from the UK. I always knew The Beatles were and I always thought The Beatles were like THE IT group when they came over to the US and expanded their music. So what does this say? In class we discussed how The Beatles looked better "on paper" you could say because they were less trouble, unlike the Rolling Stones who were often looked at as a poor example and not a very good role model. But did that mean they were less likable? Or less famous/popular? I personally don't know the answer to that question but it makes me question music groups and artists of today. If a group or artist is a more of a positive role model than another, CAN that determine their fame, success, and likability? In today's society, I would say, yes. However, at the same time I would say that it would not really matter because many other things would have been considered inappropriate back in the The Beatles and the Rolling Stones days, considered not so bad now. Regardless, I believe that it is flawless how much of an impact both of these groups have influenced American popular music.

"Crossing the Pond"

The British invasion had a tremendous impact on the music industry and the general populace during and preceding the 1960's. Bands such as The Beatles, The Beach Boys, and The Rolling Stones all played a significant roll on the impact of British and European influence on American music. The Beatles were the first to cross the pond and tour the U.S. There unique style and new genre attracted Americans from all social class's. These European bands are still regarded to this day as some of the most popular talented artist of our era.

Beatles and Rolling Stones

I am not personally the biggest fan of the Beatles, however I do not mind the Rolling Stones. I feel like the Rolling Stones have a more catchy beat to their music. From listening to some different Beatles songs in my past, I can not get into the rhythm of their beats. Obviously these bands coming from foreign countries took over American Rock n Roll. What is it about these bands that made them so popular compared to other American artists? Was it their looks, voice, lyrics, or instrumental talents?

Sorry Beatles

To be honest I have never really listened to the Beatles and the songs that I have heard I never really liked. I know they are know of one of the greatest bands of all time but I would prefer the Rolling Stones anyday. They had a much better rock n roll sound to me that would suck me into their music. The Beatles just never could suck me in like the Rolling Stones. My respect for them also went up when we learned that the Beatles stopped touring at a relatively early part of their career. The stones are still performing today and they are well into their elder years. I feel that the stones had a bigger impact on the bands that came later on. To this day I never have had any Bealtes on my iPod but I always have had the stones.

First Come First Serve?

When the British started taking its roots into the American music industry there was a definite splurge of talents that came about. The Beatles being the first British band gained high popularity and was exceptionally successful. There was just something about them that drove people wild. What is it about the Beatles that makes them that popular? Also, from lecture today we touch upon the Rolling Stones and saw how they are often compared to the Beatles. The Beatles were more popular because they were the first British band that was introduced to us. Do you think that there would have been a difference if the Rolling Stones was the first major pioneer of the British invasion instead of the Beatles?

Battle of the Bands

The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones...who's better? I never really knew there was a kind of "battle" between these two bands until class the other day. Both bands had die hard fans that would argue that their band was better. I don't think either was better than the other. They were both rock but had their own styles. It really depends on the mood you're in. Listen to the Beatles for the softer "clean cut" music, and listen to the Stones for a harder "bad boy" style. They are both very talented and influential bands that deserve the fame they've had. I just read an argument about how The Beatles started it all and there was no British Invasion before them and wouldn't have been one without them, and that everything after them was an imitation. Then it said in the Stones defense that the Stones were an R&B band on the London Club Circuit and had nothing to do with the Beatles and the Liverpool sound and many other bands that followed: The Kinks, The Who, The Yardbirds came from the London scene not the Liverpool one. This in a way can put to rest one of the main arguments that the Beatles are better than the Stones because they started the British Invasion.

Rock And Roll Tournament Bracket

Every year during the month of March millions of people fill out a college basketball bracket to determine who they think will be the best team in the country. Well an Espn radio host Colin Cowherd has created a bracket this month that ranks the best bands of all time. Millions of people have voted and considered the Beatles to be the third best behind AC/DC and Pearl Jam. The people have spoken and the conclusion is that a group of four British musical artists have made an impact on millions of peoples lives in their country and in our own.

The Beach Boys - America's Band?

Upon learning about how The Beach Boys ripped off Chuck Berry, I kind of wrote them off from being a respectable band. However, after discovering that their later album Pet Sounds was the main influence behind The Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, I began to reconsider. Upon doing a little research, I realized that several music magazines have rated both of these albums among the greatest ever created. I also noticed that The Beach Boys are commonly cited as being "America's band." Do you think they deserve this title? Does their later, highly acclaimed material overshadow the musical plagiarism of their earlier days? Do you think that by dubbing The Beach Boys "America's band, " it makes it seem as if coping another artist's work is acceptable?

British Invasion.

The Beatles have played a big role in the music industry within America. Because of The Beatles, more British music groups started to bring their music cross the border to America. Even now, many English bands (eg. Coldplay) are gaining popularity in America.

This leads me to the question of how the music industry in America would have been different if there was no British Invasion. Did the British Invasion help to break the music boundaries? Did it help the Americans to get exposed to more kinds of music? Was the British Invasion just a phase in the past or did it transcend through time?

Zi Xuan

Stealing or not?

Mondays discussion about the Beach Boys and their so called "hits" they wrote really got my attention. It made me wonder how many of the hits out there were actually someone else's songs first. Are most songs written and sung by other artist first, before they are covered by the band that makes them famous. Is it stealing if copy right laws did not exist? I'm sure this whole situation with the Beach Boys has happened with other artists as well I just wonder who.

How the Beatles Destroyed Rock n' Roll

For those skeptical of the Beatles and their role in American popular music-I encourage you to check out this book. Elijah Wald is an excellent author and this book offers a different twist on the history of American popular music.

Beatlemania

In my opinion, The Beatles is never ending addiction. Sometimes seems that they are overrated and loving Beatles is just a trend. I understand that they were very influential but I do not agree that they are the best ever. Talking about Beatlemania, it is ridiculous how people can be so dedicated and crazy about them. Some people compare it with Bieber Fever. I would not agree with this because that believe and hope that it is temporary. However, as far as I am c0ncerned, Beatlemania is timeless.

Rock and roll music

I think it's funny how rock and roll has its background in country, and yet every person I know that listens to modern day rock does not like country. I personally do not really mind country, but I would much rather listen to something else. I think today's rock and roll music is becoming more rooted with the pop genre, as it seems a lot of songs are becoming auto tuned. I wonder if it will continue to morph with other genres in future.

What if...

One topic which was brought up more than once in both the discussion as well as the presentation was the common occurrence of songs being covered. Many of the songs which were covered were given a more rock and roll style and often were more popular than the originals. One question that comes to mind is what if there were copyright laws present at the time and these songs were never changed? Would this have effected the popularity of rock and roll as a genre? Would it have caused the other genres to become more popular in its stead?

Too much blame on Freed?

Alan Freed greatly influenced the rock n' roll music world. Specifially, he really helped black musicians get out into the mainstream and popular music world. He got into a lot of trouble for the payola scams he was going through. However, do you think he was targeted so much because of his association with the black musician community? I feel as though he was given so much trouble for payola, because the world wanted an excuse for how these songs got so big. It seems like they did not want to admit that African American musicians could actually have great and popular songs on their own, so they sort of used Freed as a kind of scapegoat to explain it.

Covers

The Bill Haley version of "Shake, rattle, and roll" lacks the passion and soul that you hear in the Big Joe Turner original. Most people can agree that cover songs are never as good as the original because they lack the same feeling that an original has. There are exceptions, like when an artist does something different with the song-like the Jimi Hendrix version of "All Along the Watchtower". Unless an artist reworks a song to make it their own, cover songs generally come across as ameatur versions.

Song Covers

The idea behind covering a song has changed since the beginnings of rock and roll. While covering a song originated with an artist basically stealing a song from someone else and calling it their own it has since become a tribute to the original artist. Many bands pay tribute to their idols by covering songs and also with collaborations with other artists. What i like most about covered songs now is that it may introduce people to bands that were before their time and thus opening them up to other bands.

Rock 'N' Roll

Rock n roll was crated as a mixture of R&B and hillbilly music. It was targeted at young adolecence in specific the baby boomers, the influx of youths after the war ended. Rock n roll was a new style of music that was viewed by the youth as the sound of the new generation and by adults as devils music. Some radios would only play caucasian music due to the racism that stills persisted in the U.S. The radios that was non bias sky rocketed in reviews and became more prdominant and popular than others becasuse they played music from all ethnic backrounds and didnt discriminate. This new genre and style of music was maketed at the youth that could afford records and became the new fad.

Covering Music and Rock n Roll

There are many different topics discussed in the blog posts that I would like to address, but the main one being the idea of covering different artists. I was not in class on Monday to hear the discussion, but through lectures as well as my own knowledge I can say that I am torn between bands that cover other music artists. Original songs from an artist have meaning (usually) which will always make it "special". However, when an artist covers the song, though they have not written the lyrics, they can make it their own. A wonderful song interpreted in a way that one wouldn't have thought of, makes listening to it a completely different experience. What makes covering bad is when the artist that is covering as ill-intentions. The Beach Boys for example, though they were not necessarily out to get Chuck Berry, copied the rifts for their own profit. I hate that, there is no going around it. I am glad there are laws now to avoid those situations but we still see it all the time. I am always listening to music on the radio trying to hear if a song sounds like it came from somewhere else. Songs are always coming from other songs, especially now, where a lot of Rap artists or pop artists are taking songs and adding a modern twist, like the Black Eyed Peas or even Vanilla Ice (which of course is not modern but was very controversial). I wish artists would try to be original now, but music is becoming increasingly generic and it is so sad.

Cover It Up

I can absolutely understand why many African American musicians would be discouraged by the idea of white musicians covering their songs. This not only meant that their songs would be broadcasted on the mainstream radio with credit given to a different musician, but also that most of the time the lyrics would be changed. I can totally understand how difficult that would be because if I wrote a song, and someone changed the lyrics on me, that would ruin what the song meant to me. Those African American musicians had little voice still in main stream music, and this only gave them less worth by changing their lyrics to fit the idea of "appropriate." Music isn't about being appropriate or approved; it's about letting go and showing what you feel.

Hail Hail Rock n Roll

What appears to be over looked more often then people notice is the fact Chuck Berry was billed as country artists before he meet Muddy Waters and Chess. His rhythm and sweet voice was idolized from all over the world he was the sound that sent the world a flame and its the fact that all the English bands covered at least his sound or a song in full. Countless artists from the British invasion were replaying what had already been played in America but fell on deaf ears when the songs were first played by the original players. Howlin' Wolf  from Sun Records but latter persuade to join Chess was a huge move to solidify Chess as the home of electric blues. Wolf was the base of influence for Led Zeppelin while the Stones and Beatles loved everything Chuck played. What fueled the love for the blues in England was because of the extensive touring by the players of Chess through out England the exposer left its mark on the future generation of musicians.

Rock And Roll

Rock and Roll was developed in a very opportune moment in the United States. The war was finally over and the troops were on their way home to a new age in America. The Rock and Roll period of the United States was the jump start to the new audience of the American youth. It was the first time that there was a genre developed in music that targeted young adolescents. Record companies started to take the youths opinion into account and mixed their opinions with those of older adults.

The Intention Is What Matters

In my opinion the way that a band covers a song has changed drastically since the birth of rock and roll. It seems like, back in the day, bands used to cover songs in an attempt to steal credit for the song. In more modern times it seems like bands cover songs to pay tribute to one of their favorite bands or for a more comedic value, such as the "Punk Goes..." series. To me a cover should be a tribute to the original artist rather than an attempt to gain fame through their hard work.

Rock and Roll and Cover Songs

There was an enormous controversy over Rock n Roll bands covering songs that were originally written by Blues and R & B artists. An example of this was when Bill Haley and the Comets covered "Shake, Rattle, and Roll" by Big Joe Turner. I personally feel that covering other people's work is okay if it is just for fun or to pay tribute to an artist. However, I feel like it is wrong to release another artist's song to try to gain popularity or make money off of it. Being a songwriter myself, I strongly value the passion and creativity that goes into writing a song. When you come up with something that you feel is really great, it is unlike any other feeling in the world. You put your heart and soul into the music. When an artist comes along and just copies another artist's work, you lose all of the original feeling associated with the song. I feel like the song is not pure anymore. Granted, the cover version might sound better or bring the music to a larger audience but for me it's just not the same. Cover songs will always be lacking something to me. Nothing can imitate the passion that goes into writing an original song.

Cover Songs

It was interesting to see that many well known songs were actually covers. One thing that most of these cases had in common, was that they were white artists taking black artists music. Was this because of the lack of copyright laws in terms of music, or did race play a larger role? Were there as many cases of this involving white musicians covering other white musicians music?

Rock and Roll

I think that Rock and Roll was a great thing for America. I believe it aided in the civil rights movement by helping unsegregated the American people through music, a common ground where teens and adults could rejoice over the same thing. Chuck Berry is one of the artists of the time whose music truly brought black and whites together.

Baby Boomer Jams

I know that love songs have been a part of music for many years. I wonder though if the baby boom sparked an increase of these kinds of songs. With the darkness and destruction of the war behind them, the American public would have wanted more upbeat and happy music. Coupled with the fact that every family seemed to be having babies, an increase of these love songs may have been a kind of subliminal message to encourage them in doing so. Mindless babbling I know : ]

Record companies strategies

Musicians and early forms of record companies always have had the same goal of reaching the most consumers to gain a bigger profit, but (to my knowledge) only started focusing on a group in society with the race records. During the '50's and '60's however, they focused on the new group and one of the largest groups of the time, the young people. Nowadays most advertising and production is focused on the young people. Since the '50's it only has been intensifying and i was curious if it has gone to far, or that it changed music's focus to a negative?

Bill Haley and the Con-artist's...

Bill Haley and the Comets recorded a cover of a famous R&B hit called "Shake,Rattle,and Roll." The song was originally recorded earlier by Big Joe Turner. However Bill Haley and His Comets were able to top the charts with their version of "Shake,Rattle, and Roll" making it one of Decca record companies best sellers of the year. This frustrates me more than anything. I still don't understand how people can take credit for someone else's work. Even though back then no law, or policy was put in place to protect a songwriters original piece of work, it still does not make it write to make money off of someone else's music. How would Bill Haley feel if I took rock around the clock and mad a rap song out of it back in the day? Would he like that? I don't think so. Did Bill Haley take into consideration that Big Joe Turners work long hard hours to produce such an original and well thought out song? No he didn't. That is just wrong. I wish Bill Haley was still around so I could meet him and give him a piece of my mind.

Sporting Life Blues

In the film Cadillac Records, it seems on the surface at least, that Chess takes good care of his artists. If you were an artist and you gave him your loyalty and a hit record he would in return give you a brand new Cadillac. That Cadillac that the movie gets it's name for is significant. It represents something more than the car i think. To me it's Chess's way of distracting the artists while he reaps the benefits of owning the rights of the music. All the musicians, with the exception of Chuck Berry i believe, have no legal rights to their music. It seems as though their revenue comes from pocket change supplied by Chess himself. This really does a good job of portraying how manipulative the producers can be. The artist becomes dependent on the producer, and once the relationship between the artist and the producer dissolves, what is the artist left with? Today record producers can be just as manipulative. Only a small fraction of cd sales are awarded to the artist, leaving the artist constantly touring to make enough money just to get by. I feel like the Cadillac in this film has a lot of depth and should be discussed beyond the simplicity of a car. What do you think the Cadillac represents?

rock n roll

It was good to see how there was less racism in Cadillac Records than in the years prior. Rock n roll of this age brought both younger blacks and whites together. I don't remember specific names in the movie, but it was nice to see how the white guy (owner of the bar) stuck up for his artist (black guy) when his face was getting pounded into the car by a cop. It showed a new level of respect that white people were growing for blacks, although there was a good deal of racism when the cop cursed the "n" word at the musician. Did this new sense of respect in the music industry carry over to the general society at all? If so, how much of an impact did it have?

Rock and Roll

Rock and Roll record labels targeted a new audience of a younger generation, similarly to how race music targeted a specific race. They did this by focusing the lyrics of the songs on things teens could relate to such as vacations, cars, freedom, etc. Why do you think for the first time record labels targeted a specific age group as an audience? What made this music so appealing to a younger crowd?

Rock n Roll

It was very interesting to see how African Americans and whites had very different experience when Rock n Roll emerged. For example was the shake rattle and roll song that had first emerged with Big Joe Turner. This song was seen as provacative and was gonna get very little airtime. When Bill Haley and the Comets took took the same song and cleaned up the lyrics to gurantee airtime. It shows how race played a big part in music being played on the radio. Do you think if these white artists did not do this would the songs have been as popular as they were?

Rock N Roll Changed life

It seems to me from the lecture today that the music of rock and roll actually brought blacks and whites together. Racism seems to still be fresh and present but lessened by this one common interest. In the movie last week Cadillac records this was shown when the teens were all at the show dancing and enjoying the music, whites on one side blacks on the other. Suddenly one white girl moves the rope and goes to the black side, in no time the teens were all mixed together dancing. This act shows how slowly the times were changing. White kids were buying black artists recorders. Talent was now what mattered not skin color. This mind set seems to be a refreshing one.

Rock and roll away boundaries!

(picture credits: http://www.solcomhouse.com/rockandroll.htm)

I have learned from the lecture this morning that rock and roll music has reduced the level of racial tensions in the U.S at that time. This reminded me of the scene in the movie "Cadillac Records" where the whites and blacks were separated when watching a performance. The music that the musician eventually broke down the barriers between the blacks and whites. Perhaps this is what rock and roll is meant to be! This really shows that music have no barriers! It doesn't matter who is singing it. As long as it is something you like, you can listen to it. Even if the language was different, music still bonds us together.

Another thing that I found out was that many Rock and Roll artistes actually covered songs that were originally by black artistes.Somehow or rather, the music performed by white artistes got more famous. Could this be that people are still racist against the black? But since the white artistes chose to cover the black artistes songs, does this means that they enjoy the music the black artistes created? Could it be that they like the black artiste's music and discovered that the tunes created are much better than the ones they have came up with?

Rock and roll is still a genre of music that is enjoyed by many. What is the significant of Rock and roll on newer genres of music? Would there be a newer form of rock and roll in the future after much fusion between the different genres of music?


Zi Xuan

Cover Songs

In class today we heard the song "Shake, Rattle, and Roll" which was originally recorded by Big Joe Turner. A couple months after its release Bill Hailey and The Comets did a cover and surprisingly became more popular than the original. From just listening to the two versions you can tell that there was a big difference between the two. If I were to choose I'd definitely listen to Turner's version over Hailey's. But everybody has their own taste in music and you really can't say which one is the best because in a way we're all biased.
Most songs are copyrighted now unlike back then. Artists don't have to worry about getting their fame taken away from them like what Hailey did to Turner. Cover songs are pretty common nowadays. People make them because they are bored or just want to show the world what they really got, talent-wise. A best place to get a glimpse of a great variety of cover songs is probably the almighty, Youtube! When you get the chance to sample through a few cover songs you'll start to notice many talents that people in this world has to offer. Who knows the next Youtube sensation could be "noticed" and end up just like Justin Beiber.

Controversy of Cover Versions

Artists such as Bill Haley, who covered "Shake, Rattle, and Roll" which was originally recorded by Big Joe Turner, changed the lyrics and sound from R&B to Rockabilly. After this transformation, the new version of the song gained more popularity than the original. Were these covers becoming more popular because they were sung by white artists and due to the prejudice society had towards black musicians, or did the new baby boomer generation prefer the new sound of Rockabilly?

Rock and Roll

Rock and Roll is a kind of popular music which started in late 1940s and early 1950s in the United States. It seems strange to me that this music of genre used to be called devil's music and parents were thinking it is bad influence for their children. I think it was thought because Rock and Roll makes people, especially teenagers, go wild, be addicted and kind of anti-social. Parents also believed that it leads their children to drugs and sexual activity. Rock and Roll also came from blues (Elmore James & T-Bone Walker) which used to be called devils music as well. 

The Making of Rock & Roll

Chuck Berry once said, "It used to be called boogie-woogie, it used to be called blues, used to be called rhythm and blues...It's called rock now." The makes of Rock & Roll music is a combination of country music and R&B. I never really thought about how the combination of previous popular music styles create what we listen to now. Even in the present day, the popular music we listen to everyday is come sort of combination of previous popular styled music. It is really interesting to think about how music today would not be anything without the music of yesterday. If the music that was most popular in the 1920's and 1930's and so on, then the popular music today would not even exist in my eyes. All music influences each other and I think that is the beauty of it. Even though music can be competitive between songs, artists, and albums, the more significant aspect is that they all influence and inspire one another.

Cadillac Records

After watching Cadillac Records in class I found myself with several questions. For example, when Leonard Chess paid the radio DJ to play Muddy's song, the woman told Chess that she did not bribe DJ's. How common was it for DJ's to be paid for plays? Granted, we have discussed the payola scandals but just how prevalent was it? Another thing I wondered while watching the movie was how much did one of those Cadillac's cost back then? Sure I would be happy to be handed the keys to a new car, but as an up and coming recording artist, especially as a young black man in those days, I would want to make sure that I was being properly compensated.

Evolution?

The other day in class we began watching the movie Cadillac Records. I was wondering, what contributed to the downfall of blues as a genre? Did the British Invasion directly contribute to the downfall of blues or did blues evolve into what rock has become today?

checkmate

As we are watching the film Cadillac records Ive noticed a few things that have brought questions to my mind. There are a number of instances for example where I feel like what is happening is more for the movie than what would occur in real life. One of these being that the owner of Cadillac records Lenard chess is getting away with fraud after he burned down his club, also muddy waters reaction to a change in his music style, the fact that willie dixion all but offers up his own musical talent for muddy to profit off of and how little walter is able to just shoot a man and drive away. Granted I havent seen the movie before so I dont know if any of them will face the repercussions but my question is just whether these things are based in fact or just convenient for the plot of the movie.

Cadillac Records

Today we say in Cadillac records we saw that the producers believed that Muddy Waters needed to change his sound because all of his songs sound the same. Do you believe that Muddy Waters took this as well as we saw in the film or do you believe his reaction was similar to Ray Charles in the film Ray? Also, while changing his sound Muddy Waters, along with his band mates, attempt some new things. Do you believe that he was allowed to because Chess was not a big time producer yet or would Muddy be able to attempt these new things with another record company?

Chuck Berry and the Beach Boys

Listening to the "Surfin USA", it is clear that the Beach Boys "stole" Chuck Berry's song. This can be chalked up to no copyright laws, but where is the line between inspiration from another artist's work and directly copying it? A recent example is the controversy over Lady Gaga's new song "Born this Way" sounding very similar to Madonna's "Express Yourself". There are similarities between the two songs, but is it enough to say Lady Gaga "stole" Madonna's song?

Cadillac Records

In class today we watched Cadillac Records and it was obvious that race played a huge role in the movie. Though this movie is about African American music artists in a point of time when race was a huge issue, was it as intense as it was portrayed in the movie? And even if it was, does this movie specifically portray African Americans as violent, such as when Little Walter shot the guy impersonating him? Was the relationship between Chess and Waters as close as they seemed? Though many of these questions refer to the movie, I do wonder if their real life experiences were similar. Race relations within the US varied, so it makes me curious as to how race played a role in music with these specific men.

Cadillac Records

In the movie Cadillac Records Leonard Chess and Muddy Waters developed not only a business but a friendship, and are frequently seen together driving around. Why do you think this was more acceptable when in Chicago, yet back in Mississippi many people stared and looked down upon the two spending time together?

Race, Music, and Copyright

In class today we talked about how Chuck Berry's riffs were taken and used in many of the Beach Boy's songs, which soon topped the charts, and later turned the Beach Boys into rock and roll icons. There was obviously a difference between how the Beach Boys were able to compose and produce music and how Chuck Berry could: the Beach Boys were white, and therefore would never be turned away by a record producer based on the color of their skin. It was hard to find African American musicians distinguished enough to have copyright laws on their music, mostly because they had less opportunity in the main stream music industry. Do you think that white producers were intimidated that African American musicians were making music as well as, or even better than, the white musicians they represented? Could this intimidation be a factor as to why people like Chuck Berry's music was stolen?

Write your own music...

After discussing in class how the beach boys stole Chuck Berry's guitar riff to produce "Surfin' U.S.A." I was shocked. Nothing aggravates me more than seeing musicians and become famous off of other artists work. We even see a little of this now today. Although Chuck Berry was in jail when the Beach Boys stole this outstanding guitar riff, that still doesn't make it right. This makes me wonder did race have anything to do with this? Were the Beach Boys racists? Or did record companies think that the song would be much more successful if five young white boys from California wrote lyrics to it? What do you think?

What did the music really mean to the artists?

In the movie "Cadillac Records", in multiple scenes people were shown carrying weapons. And in one scene, Little Walter shoots somebody after getting in a very tiny argument, and it wasn't even that big of a deal. Using a popular name to sell certain products led to the death of the seller, because it was considered stealing the name and the music (I beileve). Did the musicians take that business that serious because of passion and love to the music or was it because they made a ton of money out of it and didn't want other people getting in their way?

Leonard Chess

Leonard Chess grew up on the southside of Chicago, with this environment do you believe this effected his personality and his relationships with blacks in this time? Do you think Southside Chicago influenced Leonard's taste on his music? Why do you think he felt he could open up a club in such a poor part of town? I believe Leonard Chess was a great entrepenuer and a great musical part of the 1950's and on. He had a great personality and ability to sign major rec ording artist and knew how to treat them. Was Leonard Chess the first white music producer to have all black talent in his clubs and to record?

Guns necessary?

I noticed in the movie today Cadillac Records, multiple scenes showed guns in the hands of Little Walter and Muddy Waters. It gave the impression that every black musician at this time owned one or had one in their possession. I wonder if this is telling us that they were in constant fear. We're they threatened, or in danger? Was racism a major problem still? I wonder if Chess Recorders was ever threatened or attacked for signing black artists?

Little Walter: NOT a Killer.

As I was looking up Cadillac Records, I saw on a website that the scene where Little Walter shot the man who using his band's name was completely fabricated. This was strange to me, so I did more research, and I found that there was no evidence of this murder at all. Many other websites claimed that this scene was made up, also. I know this is a film made for entertainment purposes, but why would they portray Little Walter as something so serious as a murderer? Was this some sort of reflection of African American violence in the 50s? To completely make up something like that, seems like there must be some sort of truth or reasoning behind it. And if not, why did they include that in the movie? It just made Little Walter look really bad, and I don't see the point in that. Any ideas?

Swapping Their Guitars for Guns

I noticed that a lot of the musicians in Cadillac Records were packing heat. Was that a common practice during this time or was it just an exaggerated or dramatized part of the film? Also did black musicians feel the need to carry guns to protect themselves from racial violence or would they have carried for another reason?

Crossover Music

The music of Rhythm and Blues started out as a "country blues" style music. Even today we hear the term "crossover" music. Why or why not do you think some music artists want to be considered crossover musicians? Also, what makes someone's music just a little bit different from others to consider it a "crossover" song?

The influence of magnetic tape on recording

The recording process changed dramatically with the development of magnetic tape. Before this development, records had to be completed with a single take. There was no editing or overdubbing involved in the process. Since the editing of music was now possible at this time, I wonder if this allowed some popular artists to emerge that may not have been able to successfully record previously. Since editing was now possible, did this decrease the value of talent required to get a perfect recording in one take? I wonder if this development also helped to cut down on the number of musicians involved in the typical recording session. Since before this time you needed all the musicians to be playing at the same time, and now it is possible to add in other instruments after the initial take. Did this development cause an increase in multi-instrumentalists recording multiple instruments on the same record? If so, can you cite some examples from this time period?

Swing

I have heard many people say how hip hop music has influenced the younger crowd to do "bad" things. Not to mention that kids have the same type of fun dancing to hip hop as people did with swing. In class we learned that people had their fun ways of dancing to "hot" swing, which I am sure these kid's parents were not very fond of (same goes for today's era). Does anybody think that the fun and intensity that came with "hot" swing encouraged kids to be more outgoing and do what people considered to be "bad" things?

RnB influence

Rhythm and Blues started out in the black community in the 50's and it was appriciate by most white people. Not only appriciate, many white musicans were influenced by the music as well, even foreigners. In Cadillac Records we touch basis on this. Leonard Chase started out with producing RnB, and then Rock and Roll. I find it interesting that RnB music has also slown down since. Is there a difference between the RnB music from the 50's and the RnB music today or the 90's? And if so, has the audience of RnB changed? Do you think that the evolution of Rock and Roll played a part in this?

R&B

(picture credits: http://www.urbanz-teamz.com/datas/contemporary-rb-us/)

In the previous lecture, I have learned about how Rhythm and Blues (R&B) is being developed. When I first heard about R&B in the class, I thought we were going to be talking about contemporary R&B, which is the most common and popular type of R&B now. Has contemporary R&B now become so well-known that people has forgotten its roots? 

R&B music was also performed almost exclusively by black artistes to black audiences initially. If this was the case, what made R&B music popular among the whites? Since R&B is still popular now, what are the influences that it have on other music genres?

'Rhythm and Blues'

In the lecture we were talking about 'Rhythm and Blues' music in the past. It made me think about this kind of music nowadays. Some people think that today's R'n'B is trashy, full of emphasis of materialism and has nothing to do with old 'Rhythm and Blues' music. However, I strongly believe that there are still many talented R'n'B artists even though I also agree that this style of music has changed a lot through the years. What do you think today's 'Rhythm and Blues' is missing?