I wasn't only talking influence, that's just additional to the quality of the music.

Leaving out Opera, I would still take Jazz and even Blues over rock for the human voice.

Great music is great music, it doesn't matter the technology or when it was recorded. That kind of thinking is very limiting.

With that kind of thinking, in a 100 years when people listen to even the best of today's rock, they will think it's pre-historic in technology and doesn't compare to whatever genre is considered good at that moment.


Rock doesn't even come close transcending Classical, Jazz or even the best of Blues.

Still not close in my eyes and a great many others. Lee himself wouldn't claim that.

No, he equated himself as someone like the others who were trying to do something different than what others at his/there time were doing.


I will take it over Sgt. Peppers anytime.

To be honest Satch, I know you love music in many genre but with your knowledge base I am surprised you would prefer jazz to rock (as far as the best each genre has to offer)... Rock offers so many more "emotions" through the superior developments in studio craft and the use of far more musical styles... Of course the line gets blurred sometimes... I mean really, can we say that "Sugar Sugar" by the Archies and "21st Century Schizoid Man" by King Crimson are both rock and leave it at that?? I think not... But, in some ways that is really my point, rock covers much more ground than jazz.. While jazz and blues are the cornerstones for rock, rock eclipses both in my opinion...

You can say Coltrane, Miles, Bird or whoever played better than anyone rock has ever seen... Or that they covered as much ground from the sense of working through chords, scales and even individual notes and sounds more completely than anyone else... But did they? There are some guitarists who could match Trane note for note... Vocalists who could match the emotions of any jazz great on any instrument, and so on... Great music is about the feel, the vibe, its ability to "move" the listener (to tears or to jubilation and everything in between)...

Rock just offers a bigger landscape in which to paint... Perhaps we should stop labeling modern western conventional music as rock... We perhaps need a new label for everything that came after say 1955-1965... That is when jazz touched barriers never before attempted and where rock and studio craft began to emmerge...

-

It's because I have listened and enjoy so many genres that I can say that.

It's also because you haven't listened to much Jazz that you would say that.


Yeah, they can match him note for note, after the fact....but they couldn't improvise like him or most anyone in Jazz. That's what makes Jazz special. Very few rock musicians can play anything past what is on their recording. Most of those that can improvise were Jazz musicians, who went into Rock because of the money.

Technology is meaningless to me, it's all about the music in the end.


Rock is 3 chords and a cloud of dust.

-

Dude, you (like many others) get way too caught up into what the artist thinks of his own work... Virtually all well researched history does not take how the artist evaluates his own work as to how it measures up as art... The artist are in the eye of the hurricane and only have a very small view of what their work means... It doesn't mean we throw out what they feel, it means we take what they feel as only a very small part of how the art has affected humanity...

I would like to see you (Satch) dig down deep and give us your free and well "studied" view of the music you comment on around here... You may be denying yourself a form of self expression... You are great at linking us to wonderful articles and histories of subject matter at hand, but you would be doing this site and the world around you a better service if you gave us your true feelings as opposed to printed opinions or facts of others... Let it flow Satch, let it all out... Don't be afraid to be criticized for your true opinion... This is what makes debate wothwhile... I had a great thing happen to me circa 1985ish when I started to subscribe to Guitar Player Magazine... Up until then I read a bunch of other music mags like Rolling Stone, Spin, Indie File, Scene, Cream, and others, but I often felt the reviewers and authors in those magazines were holding back... It wasn't until I read Guitar Player and started reading book length works on rock that I realized that my ideas in music criticism were valid and I whould stop using others as the sole barometer as to whether my opinion had validity... There were several writers in Guitar World and other freelancers like Ritchie Uttenberger whole traveled the same path of musical critique that I did... It opened up a new world for me...

Go for it Satch... It's cool to quote sources and others who share you view, but start first with your view and ellaborate on it... We can't all know everything about everything... Don't try to and don't be afraid to make a factual mistake... Approach it from the innocence a five year old would but use the incredible talents you have as a 43 year old to devolop your ideas... I for one would love that... (sorry if this comes off as shrink like, but I think you need to look in the mirror Satch and be homest with yourself... This has nothing to do with your opinion on jazz or whatever... I just would like to read your opinions fully developed, not a link to others all the time)...

-

You wanted to debate that's fine, but you want to start getting personal and you really don't know anything about me....I have better things to do with me time, this is over.


Good luck with your documentary.

-

That is the most simplistic thing I have ever seen you post... You can defend jazz all you want to, I can counter anything (as can you to me) as it is all just opinion...

Like I posted earlier, rock came on the scene and took from the earlier musical forms to go beyond what they had paved the way for... As far as Blues, I understand some feel a connection to it that they feel is pure (emotionally) and can't be matched in rock and I am happy for those people... I have felt that pureness... But I needed more, I need more styles, more instrumentation, more ideas... Great rock brings that to me...

I don't need to hear a thousand jazz artists to know the genre is too limited for my tastes... The several hundred jazz recordings I own and the dozens more I have heard suit me finne and some of it is pure greatness... But as a whole it is just too limiting for me due to the instrumentation... I need more sound in my musical landscape then what most classic jazz offers. Of course jazz (like rock) has blurred the lines by incorporating other styles of music, but as far as the classic jazz line-up and even the big band sound, it is great, but it isn't enough for me... This hs nothing to do with influence.. I know jazz, classical and blues (and other forms) paved the way for rock.. And rock has taken those ideas and stretched music to great levels... To be technical, there have been for more artists in rock willing to experiment with different time signatures, chord changes, and a host of other tone creativity than in any previous form.. Heck, even Coltrane rarely played outside of the 4/4 standards... Jazz, Blues, classical, gospel, etc. just set the stage for modern music... And while there is greatness in all those previous genre, they ALL are too limiting in general form... Heck, Syd Barret used more unconventional techniques in form (song structure) for the relatively simple "See Emily Play" then virtually all music that came before that... Just on Sgt. Pepper and Revlver you can here more unconventional musical uses than almost all that came before in any form and many musicologists have analyzed those two albums to show how some of the music matched the works of diverse artists from Bach to ancient Klezmer structures (all unknowingly as far as McCartney, Lennon and Harrison knew).. Showing the true genius the Beatles had... Forever Changes takes it to even a higher level beyond what the Beatles did (as far as one conceptual album is concearned)...

So we can go back and forth to detail achievment, the bottom line for me (once again) is rock offers a wider landscape in which to create as it takes from all previous forms and when done right, exceeds them (in my opinion, lol)...

-

-

Dude, I am not trying to be mean... I was hoping you would view my post as a friend trying to get you to open up beyond what I view as a protective shell...

I know you value your annonymous nature that you have preserved on the internet, but anyone who has read your posts over the last few years knows you love music and I am just trying to get you to open up more (from the perspective of musical critique)... Why deny our community here (or perhaps yourself) a form of expression that I think you hold back... We only live once on this Earth (I think, lol), so let it out man...

None of us knows it all and you don;t have anything to prove to us... I just would love to read more stuff from the heart... Quoting references is fine, but I think you are holding back... What does Satch feel, why does Satch agree with so-and-so or disagree with so-and-so... Where is the emotion?

I like the main riff in Day Tripper because the tone of the elctric guitar feels like it pierces my skin, my adrenaline kicks in when I hear it... I can immitate the sound with my voice as it plays, it brings joy to my soul and power to my muscles... I know exactly where the influence came from for Lennon for the riff and I know the influence that riff has had on others, but I also like to express how that riff makes me feel and why I think it is important or where I think it fits in in musical history... These are emotions and facts, and I have come across few on the internet who can express themselves with force like you can Satch, but I feel some emotion is lacking and I am hoping you would share that emotion with us (as it pertains to your love of music)...

-

I like it when people belittle 1000 years of great music just to rationalize their myopic understanding of art. Great stuff, Syd.

Pentatonic scales, two guitar players, bass, a singer, and drums is not at all limiting. Brilliant.




This is pure ignorance. I'll give you one name: Bartok. Just listen to his music (string quartets are a great place to start).

Progressive rock will never catch up.

Earle Brown never experimented with time signatures? Elliot Carter? Alois Haba? Harry Partch? Paul Hindemith? Igor Stravinsky (one of the first composers to use compound time signatures)?

Dude! WTF?

Slonimsky could conduct two time signatures at the same freaking time!