DDD Forum :: View topic - Rank The Hall Of Famers

Brett Alan wrote:

I'm asking you what is missing from reggae that makes it not rock, or what defining quality of rock reggae is lacking. Or pretty much any reason you can give for reggae not being rock beyond that you don't like it.

First off, I DO like it.

Several reggae records on on my yearly lists of favorites:

MY TOP 100 RECORDINGS FROM 1968:
6 ¦ Israelites ¦ Desmond Dekker & Aces
32 ¦ Hold Me Tight ¦ Johnny Nash

MY TOP 100 RECORDINGS FROM 1972:
70 ¦ I Can See Clearly Now ¦ Johnny Nash
86 ¦ The Harder They Come ¦ Jimmy Cliff

It's not rock, because it doesn't EVER rock.

I don't hear the usual rock formula of verses, choruses, and a break (guitar, sax, etc...) on many reggae records.

In what other supposed subgenre of rock is every record at virtually the same tempo?

StuBass wrote:

Bruce...Annie Oakley was shooting guns long before she joined Buffalo Bills Wild West Show. Does that mean she was not a PART of the show? Cadillac was around well before General Motors. Is Cadillac NOT a part of GM? I'm sure I can give you hundreds of other stupid examples. Yes...R&B and Soul are a part of Rock...making them a sub-genre...regardless of what was coined first.

Uh, no, Stu.

Your examples don't make sense. Music genres do not equate with entities that can be bought and sold like Cadillacs.

Rock and roll was just a new name for rhythm and blues.

What you are proposing is revisionist history. Rhythm and blues cannot be a subgenre of rock anymore than blues can be a sub genre of rock, Both genres were in existence before rock.

Brett Alan wrote:

It's not rock, because it doesn't EVER rock. I don't hear the usual rock formula of verses, choruses, and a break (guitar, sax, etc...) on many reggae records.

In what other supposed subgenre of rock is every record at virtually the same tempo?

Bruce wrote:

It's not rock, because it doesn't EVER rock.

I'm not sure what this means. It rocks more than prog does, if I'm making the right assumption.

Bruce wrote:

In what other supposed subgenre of rock is every record at virtually the same tempo?

Huh? There is plenty of variety of tempo in reggae.

Reggae has a lot more variety of tempo than punk--you want to say punk isn't a subgenre of rock?

Bruce wrote:

Brett Alan wrote:

Rock is not a verb to describe what the music sounds like, it is an adjective to describe the larger genre which the music belongs to.

Punk is known for having remarkably similar tempos, and mocked for it. So was disco.

But things like Desmond Dekker's "You Can Get It If You Really Want", Toots & The Maytals "Funky Kingston" and Jimmy Cliff's "Many Rivers To Cross" have dramatically different tempos

Quote:

The distinguishing characteristic of reggae music would be a heavy and back-beated rhythm. This means that the emphasis of the beat would be on the second and fourth beat in a 4/4 time.

That's rock 'n' roll.

Round 6 is now closed. There were 9 ballots turned in. here are our new members:

26 - Bruce Springsteen - 58 (7)
27 - Jerry Lee Lewis - 50 (6)
28 - Prince - 44 (6)
29 - Madonna - 40 (5)
30 - Run-D.M.C. - 36 (6)

Brett Alan wrote:

Bruce wrote:

It's not rock, because it doesn't EVER rock.

I'm not sure what this means. It rocks more than prog does, if I'm making the right assumption.

I've never heard a reggae song that rocks like "Locomotive Breath" or "Question."

Brett Alan wrote:

Bruce wrote:

In what other supposed subgenre of rock is every record at virtually the same tempo?

Huh? There is plenty of variety of tempo in reggae.

What reggae song is at the speed of "Rock Around The Clock" or "I saw Her Standing There?"

Brett Alan wrote:

Reggae has a lot more variety of tempo than punk--you want to say punk isn't a subgenre of rock?

It's not a variety of tempo that makes it rock.

BTW...you seem to have given up arguing about the song structure, but "Stir It Up" fits the structure you asked for perfectly, complete with a substantial guitar solo. I don't see how you could make an argument that that's not a rock record.

She surely deserved induction more than those two people with the initials P.S. did!

Author:	pave [ Fri May 18, 2012 12:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
1. Bob Marley 2. Pink Floyd 3. U2 4. Queen 5. The Supremes 6. Neil Young 7. David Bowie 8. Jackie Wilson 9. The Doors 10. Elton John considering for next: Impressions, Cash, Miles, Sly, Sabbath, Kinks, Ramones... basically subgenre pioneers and two artists who are clearly from other genres but also imo clearly recorded some of the greatest rock ever recorded (Cash's early stuff and Miles' late 60s/early 70s stuff).

Author:	Brett Alan [ Fri May 18, 2012 1:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
Bruce wrote: Brett Alan wrote: I'm asking you what is missing from reggae that makes it not rock, or what defining quality of rock reggae is lacking. Or pretty much any reason you can give for reggae not being rock beyond that you don't like it. First off, I DO like it. Several reggae records on on my yearly lists of favorites: MY TOP 100 RECORDINGS FROM 1968: 6 ¦ Israelites ¦ Desmond Dekker & Aces 32 ¦ Hold Me Tight ¦ Johnny Nash MY TOP 100 RECORDINGS FROM 1972: 70 ¦ I Can See Clearly Now ¦ Johnny Nash 86 ¦ The Harder They Come ¦ Jimmy Cliff If someone posted a list of only four favorites from one of your favorite subgenres, and three were huge pop hits, you'd say they weren't fans of that subgenre. I'm just saying. But fine. You like it. I just picked up on the fact that you think the beat is stupid. Bruce wrote: It's not rock, because it doesn't EVER rock. I'm not sure what this means. It rocks more than prog does, if I'm making the right assumption. Bruce wrote: I don't hear the usual rock formula of verses, choruses, and a break (guitar, sax, etc...) on many reggae records. Sounds just like "No Woman, No Cry". Verse-chorus-verse, short guitar break. It's at the end, where in many rock records there would be another chorus after it, but that's hardly definitional. Bruce wrote: In what other supposed subgenre of rock is every record at virtually the same tempo? Huh? There is plenty of variety of tempo in reggae. Bob Marley plays at lots of different tempos. Hell, just go by "No Woman No Cry"--the studio version is at a different tempo from the live version, which is the more often played version at this point. Listening to some more Marley. "Is This Love"...pretty standard verse-chorus-verse structure, short keyboard break right where you'd expect one to be on a rock record. Well, I could do this all night, but I ought to get to bed. So far Marley seems to fit your definition of rock just fine. The structure is very much like what you described as the rock structure. Sure, some songs don't have instrumental breaks, and the ones that are there tend to be short, but it's still a lot closer to the typical rock structure than some subgenres. Reggae has a lot more variety of tempo than punk--you want to say punk isn't a subgenre of rock?

Author:	StuBass [ Fri May 18, 2012 1:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
Bruce wrote: StuBass wrote: Bruce...Annie Oakley was shooting guns long before she joined Buffalo Bills Wild West Show. Does that mean she was not a PART of the show? Cadillac was around well before General Motors. Is Cadillac NOT a part of GM? I'm sure I can give you hundreds of other stupid examples. Yes...R&B and Soul are a part of Rock...making them a sub-genre...regardless of what was coined first. Uh, no, Stu. Your examples don't make sense. Music genres do not equate with entities that can be bought and sold like Cadillacs. Rock and roll was just a new name for rhythm and blues. What you are proposing is revisionist history. Rhythm and blues cannot be a subgenre of rock anymore than blues can be a sub genre of rock, Both genres were in existence before rock. I don.'t know what you're talking about Bruce. Music IS bought and sold. Isn't that how you make your living? I never said that Reggae wasn't Rock either!

Author:	Sampson [ Fri May 18, 2012 1:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
Bruce wrote: Brett Alan wrote: I'm asking you what is missing from reggae that makes it not rock, or what defining quality of rock reggae is lacking. Or pretty much any reason you can give for reggae not being rock beyond that you don't like it. It's not rock, because it doesn't EVER rock. I don't hear the usual rock formula of verses, choruses, and a break (guitar, sax, etc...) on many reggae records. In what other supposed subgenre of rock is every record at virtually the same tempo? Rock is not a verb to describe what the music sounds like, it is an adjective to describe the larger genre which the music belongs to. I believe once upon a time you said that same thing arguing against someone here, though probably not as eloquently. Punk is known for having remarkably similar tempos, and mocked for it. So was disco. Crunk. Speed metal. Motown utilized the 4/4 beat to the point where it almost needed to be trademarked. Chuck Berry on the old pages of DDD was ridiculed for frequently recycling the same simple structure that you describe (intro, verse, chorus, verse, break...), even the same guitar riffs, and I pointed out that he was in the business of selling records and those records sold better than his more creative attempts (which either didn't do as well or weren't deemed as commercial by Chess and thus not released as A-side singles). Things like Downbound Train, Havana Moon, etc. so he kept doing what got the best response and sold more as a result. Reggae is also in the business of selling records and with that audience and their expectations (especially once it appealed to British and American audiences) the vibe that got them the most consistent sales is what they went for. But things like Desmond Dekker's "You Can Get It If You Really Want", Toots & The Maytals "Funky Kingston" and Jimmy Cliff's "Many Rivers To Cross" have dramatically different tempos and structures than what you're describing and they're three of the biggest records by some of the most important artists ever in reggae. So it was clearly done, but eventually the market dictates the dominant trends and since most people's reference point is Bob Marley and he favored using the same tempo fairly consistently that was what became the basic reggae model to build from. Your position is confusing though because you're contradicting yourself from past discussions by using the opposite argument you've used repeatedly for other rock subgenres that people want to exclude and call something entirely different. That's what makes no sense. Other than the stubborn arguing aspect of this, you're not acting like the Bruce we know.

Author:	Bruce [ Fri May 18, 2012 1:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
Brett Alan wrote: Bruce wrote: It's not rock, because it doesn't EVER rock. I'm not sure what this means. It rocks more than prog does, if I'm making the right assumption. I've never heard a reggae song that rocks like "Locomotive Breath" or "Question." Brett Alan wrote: Bruce wrote: In what other supposed subgenre of rock is every record at virtually the same tempo? Huh? There is plenty of variety of tempo in reggae. What reggae song is at the speed of "Rock Around The Clock" or "I saw Her Standing There?" Brett Alan wrote: Reggae has a lot more variety of tempo than punk--you want to say punk isn't a subgenre of rock? It's not a variety of tempo that makes it rock. It's that it has to at least sometimes have a real fast tempo. Punk usually has a real fast tempo.....definitely rock.

DDD Forum https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/

Rank The Hall Of Famers https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2896	Page 27 of 135

Author:	Bruce [ Fri May 18, 2012 1:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
Sampson wrote: Bruce wrote: Brett Alan wrote: I'm asking you what is missing from reggae that makes it not rock, or what defining quality of rock reggae is lacking. Or pretty much any reason you can give for reggae not being rock beyond that you don't like it. It's not rock, because it doesn't EVER rock. I don't hear the usual rock formula of verses, choruses, and a break (guitar, sax, etc...) on many reggae records. In what other supposed subgenre of rock is every record at virtually the same tempo? Rock is not a verb to describe what the music sounds like, it is an adjective to describe the larger genre which the music belongs to. It's both. Sampson wrote: Punk is known for having remarkably similar tempos, and mocked for it. So was disco. No, disco had lots of varioance in tempos, from things like "Rock The Boat" at 107 BPM and "Born To Be Alive" at 132 BPM. There is almsot nothing in regae that even approaches 132 BPM. Sampson wrote: But things like Desmond Dekker's "You Can Get It If You Really Want", Toots & The Maytals "Funky Kingston" and Jimmy Cliff's "Many Rivers To Cross" have dramatically different tempos There are a thousand reggae records with a tempo like "Funky Kingston" for every one that has a tempo like those other two.

Author:	Bruce [ Fri May 18, 2012 1:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
I can't seem to find any online definitions of reggae which consider it to be a subgenre of rock. http://www.reggaemovement.com/rm/index. ... &Itemid=20 Reggae music is musical genre which is a result of the evolution and development of several other musical genres and styles. Although it is strongly influenced by Afro-Caribbean music and American R&B, reggae music primarily originated from the progressive developments of rocksteady and ska back in the 1960s in Jamaica. Bob Marley, a popular reggae musician, said that the term reggae came from the Spanish term for “the king’s music”. Today, reggae music continues to be a significant influence on many other genres such as black music, soul music and chillout music. The distinguishing characteristic of reggae music would be a heavy and back-beated rhythm. This means that the emphasis of the beat would be on the second and fourth beat in a 4/4 time. This backbeat is actually a general characteristic of most African-based musical compositions and cannot be found in traditional Asian or European music. Another characteristic of reggae music would be an emphasis on the third beat in 4/4 time done through a kick on the bass drum. As for its harmony, reggae music often has a simple one; sometimes an entire song would have just one or two chords. Because of the simple and repetitive chord structures of reggae music, it has been sometimes described to have a hypnotic effect to the listener. The lyrics of reggae music could somewhat be difficult to understand, as they are typically English-based but have a distinct Jamaican dialect. The common themes of the song lyrics of reggae music are usually associated with various subjects including relationships, love, religion, peace, sexuality, injustice and poverty. There are also some reggae songs with lyrics that attempt to elevate the political awareness of the audience through criticizing materialism, or through informing listeners about controversial topics like Apartheid. Some common socio-political topics which are also used in reggae songs would be Black Nationalism, anti-colonialism, anti-racism and anti-capitalism. Most reggae lyrics also reflect the traditions and beliefs of Rastafarianism, which is a religion practiced by the most famous reggae musicians of the world. Reggae music has several subgenres. Here are some of them. 1. Skinhead reggae Skinhead reggae originated in the late 1960s, when several reggae artists started targeting their lyrics and music to skinheads. Its difference from rocksteady would be that it has a slightly faster beat which is done by the drummer making use of the hi-hat, lower mixing of the bass, heavy organ lines and the electronic double rhythm guitar stroke. Some skinhead reggae artists would include Toots & the Maytals, John Holt, and The Pioneers and Symarip. 2. Roots reggae Roots reggae is a spiritual subgenre of reggae, with lyrics that are mainly about praising Jah or the God of Rastafarianism. Some of the other lyrical themes of roots reggae would include poverty as well as resistance to government oppression. Most of the songs of Bob Marley and Peter Tosh are under this subgenre. 3. Dub This subgenre of reggae involves an extensive remixing of recorded material. It is also distinguished by the emphasis on the drum and the bass line. Two of the early proponents of dub music would be Mikey Dread and Augustus Pablo. 4. Lovers Rock With lyrics that are often about love, lovers rock is a subgenre of reggae that originated back in the mid-1970s in South London. In many ways, it is similar to rhythm and blues. 5. Dancehall This genre was developed back 1980 and has a style which is characterized by a DJ singing and rapping over raw and fast rhythms. 6. Reggaeton Reggaeton is a combination of reggae and dancehall music, which gained popularity among young Latinos during the early 1990s. Today, reggae music continues to be one of the more popular musical genres appreciated by a wide range of listeners throughout the world.

Author:	ClashWho [ Fri May 18, 2012 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
Bruce wrote: Quote: The distinguishing characteristic of reggae music would be a heavy and back-beated rhythm. This means that the emphasis of the beat would be on the second and fourth beat in a 4/4 time. That's rock 'n' roll.

Author:	Bruce [ Fri May 18, 2012 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
ClashWho wrote: That's rock 'n' roll. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxxVE2FGzFY[/youtube]

Author:	Brian [ Fri May 18, 2012 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
1. U2 2. Elton John 3. The Supremes 4. Pink Floyd 5. Bill Haley and His Comets 6. David Bowie 7. The Drifters 8. Queen 9. Neil Young 10. The Byrds

Author:	ClashWho [ Fri May 18, 2012 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
Bruce wrote: Round 6 is now closed. There were 9 ballots turned in. here are our new members: 26 - Bruce Springsteen - 58 (7) 27 - Jerry Lee Lewis - 50 (6) 28 - Prince - 44 (6) 29 - Madonna - 40 (5) 30 - Run-D.M.C. - 36 (6) Huh. We wavered a little on agreement in the last round, but all five of those acts were on my ballot for round 6. Round seven 1 - Bill Haley & His Comets 2 - U2 3 - Bob Marley 4 - Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five 5 - The Clash 6 - The Supremes 7 - The Drifters 8 - The Byrds 9 - The Grateful Dead 10 - Roy Orbison

Author:	Brett Alan [ Fri May 18, 2012 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
Bruce wrote: Brett Alan wrote: Bruce wrote: It's not rock, because it doesn't EVER rock. I'm not sure what this means. It rocks more than prog does, if I'm making the right assumption. I've never heard a reggae song that rocks like "Locomotive Breath" or "Question." So now we're going to say that prog qualifies as rock because a handful of songs are that uptempo? You're saying that if those songs didn't exist, then Traffic would not be rock? That makes no sense. And just because you haven't heard songs that uptempo is reggae doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't know where "Informer" fits in terms of beats per minute, but it rocks and it's certainly not slow. I'm sure there are some dancehall records that are up there. And then there's ska, which is usually over 130 bpm. Are you going to tell me that ska is rock but reggae isn't? Bruce wrote: Brett Alan wrote: Bruce wrote: In what other supposed subgenre of rock is every record at virtually the same tempo? Huh? There is plenty of variety of tempo in reggae. What reggae song is at the speed of "Rock Around The Clock" or "I saw Her Standing There?" You asked a question, I gave you an answer. Now you seem to be changing your defintion. But it's absurd. Rock doesn't have to be uptempo. There are lots of records which are slower than the typical reggae record which everyone agrees are rock. There are lots of artists who never sped the tempo up much who are unquestionably rock artists. If you want to make a convincing argument that reggae isn't rock, you have to show me something that parts of the definition of rock which reggae lacks. Bruce wrote: Brett Alan wrote: Reggae has a lot more variety of tempo than punk--you want to say punk isn't a subgenre of rock? It's not a variety of tempo that makes it rock. Then why did you ask the above question? BTW...you seem to have given up arguing about the song structure, but "Stir It Up" fits the structure you asked for perfectly, complete with a substantial guitar solo. I don't see how you could make an argument that that's not a rock record.

Author:	Bruce [ Fri May 18, 2012 8:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
Brett Alan wrote: BTW...you seem to have given up arguing about the song structure, but "Stir It Up" fits the structure you asked for perfectly, complete with a substantial guitar solo. I don't see how you could make an argument that that's not a rock record. I'm not a musician. I don't know enough about the technical aspects of song structure to talk much about it. Can you show me ANYPLACE other than this site where SOMEONE says that reggae is a subgenre of rock? Every place I look at calls reggae a genre of its own.

Author:	diane [ Fri May 18, 2012 8:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
Bruce, your list of inductees doesn't include Donna Summer. When I heard of her death I said to myself, well at least she was inducted into the R&R HOF before she died (like this cat from the Beastie Boys). Now I am very disappointed. I guess she was nominated but not elected? What a shame! She surely deserved induction more than those two people with the initials P.S. did!

Page 27 of 135	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Bruce [ Fri May 18, 2012 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Rank The Hall Of Famers
dianeemuller wrote: She surely deserved induction more than those two people with the initials P.S. did! Should we take Paul Simon out?