Hey guys, if you want to, pull up this cool site, listen to the top songs in each of the years starting in the early 50's. What do you think, did we really need the Beatles?

Go to the web and search www.tropicalglen.com and then click PlayaCofi, if not for anything else it's a good history lesson in early Rock and Roll music for you young'ns. or as I just found out, just click on this address...that's cool.

Hot Wax

Hey, hot wax, your timing couldn't have been better! It just so happens that I wanted to burn off some CD's of adult contemporary music that was popular on AM radio from the 50's to the 80's so I could give them to my parents for Christmas, and the site you linked has proven to be an invaluable resource for me to recall songs that I wanted to include. Thanks a million!  ;)

AL-B

Hey, hot wax, your timing couldn't have been better! It just so happens that I wanted to burn off some CD's of adult contemporary music that was popular on AM radio from the 50's to the 80's so I could give them to my parents for Christmas, and the site you linked has proven to be an invaluable resource for me to recall songs that I wanted to include. Thanks a million!  ;)



AL-B


I'm happy you like it, Enjoy!

I am not a Beatle fan, but do respect their pop muzak songwriting and do really like / appreciate at least a half dozen of their tunes.
That said, and taking nothing away from the influence that they have had on musicians over the dacades:

I did not go to your link, but anyone old enough knows that some true pioneers of "Rock and Roll" are #1: Link Wray, #2: Carl Perkins, and #3: Jerry Lee Lewis, and even Wanda Jackson. (IMHO, anyway)
Opinions please.............

(BTW, good (and controversial) topic!)

I am not a Beatle fan, but do respect their pop muzak songwriting and do really like / appreciate at least a half dozen of their tunes.
That said, and taking nothing away from the influence that they have had on musicians over the dacades:

I did not go to your link, but anyone old enough knows that some true pioneers of "Rock and Roll" are #1: Link Wray, #2: Carl Perkins, and #3: Jerry Lee Lewis, and even Wanda Jackson. (IMHO, anyway)
Opinions please.............

(BTW, good (and controversial) topic!)


{watch out, she's about to explode...again}

Anyone with any knowledge of rock and roll knows that the true pioneers of rock and roll were African American, hence the term Ni**er Music.  That is what it was called by those of lighter complexion.  Give Credit where credit is due.  To say Link Wray, Carl Perkins, and Jerry Lee were the true pioneers of rock and roll is like saying Eminem and Beastie Boys were the pioneers of Rap. 

Hey guys, if you want to, pull up this cool site, listen to the top songs in each of the years starting in the early 50's. What do you think, did we really need the Beatles?

Go to the web and search www.tropicalglen.com and then click PlayaCofi, if not for anything else it's a good history lesson in early Rock and Roll music for you young'ns. or as I just found out, just click on this address...that's cool.

Hot Wax


Yes we needed the Beatles.  It was about more than the music, it was the whole package.  I was there, and it was great.

{watch out, she's about to explode...again}

Anyone with any knowledge of rock and roll knows that the true pioneers of rock and roll were African American, hence the term Ni**er Music.  That is what it was called by those of lighter complexion.  Give Credit where credit is due.  To say Link Wray, Carl Perkins, and Jerry Lee were the true pioneers of rock and roll is like saying Eminem and Beastie Boys were the pioneers of Rap. 
\
I guess it depends upon how far back in time you want to take it

You are correct; I own much vintage string band music from the late 1920's, the 1930's, and the forties that can truly be considered the "roots".......................

\
I guess it depends upon how far back in time you want to take it

You are correct; I own much vintage string band music from the late 1920's, the 1930's, and the forties that can truly be considered the "roots".......................


Need only take it back to the roots of Rock and Roll. It was music that was being played in African American Clubs to African American audiences and was being listened to by people like  Perkins, Link Wray, Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis who became the crossover crowd, they made rock and roll acceptable to white audiences. 

The Beatles were just the second phase of Rock, so it was a little different IMO.

I get the feeling that, as popular as it was in the '50s (especially in the 1955-'58 years), it was still a little too "threatening" and "rebellious" to really go mainstream. Its audience was more teen-centered. The British Invasion started to make rock more household, to where younger kids and some slightly older people could enjoy it. I'm sure TV played a part in this too (I'd say by the mid '60s, television became like the 'Net is now).

I'd say 1954 was the first "youth culture/rock" year, even though Elvis didn't really take off until '56.

Do we need the beatles ??

A simple answer......Yes :D


merry Xmas everyone :)

{watch out, she's about to explode...again}

Anyone with any knowledge of rock and roll knows that the true pioneers of rock and roll were African American, hence the term Ni**er Music.  That is what it was called by those of lighter complexion.  Give Credit where credit is due. 


Part of that credit must also go to the first generation of country music performers (when it was known as 'Hillbilly Music') for their contibution to the mix of what became eventually known as RnR...

Do we need the beatles ??

A simple answer......Yes :D


merry Xmas everyone :)


I was turned on to the site www.tropicalglen.com  by a close friend who's a  Rock and Roll maven from the old school and wanted reminisce some of the old early 50's Artists and their root songs of R & R's "up time" which lead into a discussion on why I thought we needed the Beatles. It's simple to me...I think it was the right time and right place in 1964 for a new generation to hear the old time Rock and Rock beat that was lost from 1960/1/2/3, to all the spinoff sounds, "down time", we were listening to then. It was not bad music, but floundering time in R & R music world, looking for a new hot hook like the one that got away from the R & R roots "up time" ending in 1959, and I think in 1964 the Beatles filled the void...right? Listen to the years top hits and was there a time we needed the Beatles?...I say YES too!  

Part of that credit must also go to the first generation of country music performers (when it was known as 'Hillbilly Music') for their contibution to the mix of what became eventually known as RnR...




Yes, Hill Billy or Rock a Billy was one root of the R & R tree...Do you remember "The Mule Skinner Blues"? a#1 hit on the Rock charts. I also remembered " The Rock Island Line" making #1 also...great music.

The Beatles were a double shot of adrenelin in what was becoming a stale tired genre.  Without them it would have just become a farm team for the side streets of Las Vegas. 

The Beatles were a double shot of adrenelin in what was becoming a stale tired genre.  Without them it would have just become a farm team for the side streets of Las Vegas. 


OK! that's what I say. It was good music and except for the outstanding Four Seasons music, everything else was dull run of the mill so called rock and roll music. In 59 Elvis went into the army and an era of rock and roll came to a close. We looked for a replacement with all his charisma to fill his place. No one did, no one could, not even Elvis himself could fill his famous throne as the King of Rock and Roll when he came out of the army. He was nowhere near the person that went into the army, his new music was a bunch of crap and far from rock and roll, and like you said, he became a farm hand in Las Vegas. So did we need the Beatles? yes we did.

Part of that credit must also go to the first generation of country music performers (when it was known as 'Hillbilly Music') for their contibution to the mix of what became eventually known as RnR...




You may be referring to what I called "String Band" music from the 1930's. This is some truly wonderfull stuff, and much music in the decades following will display influences from this.
A great compilation, if anyone is interested is a collection put together by a collector of 78's of this music Joe Bussard. It's call Joe Bussards "Down In The Basement" and is truly amazing. It contains music that he dubbed from his "Worlds Largest Collection of 78"s" and has songs so rare that only a handfull of the original 78's are left in existence.

The Beatles music seems dated to me.  I don't own any, but in college (long ago) I thought they were great. I never liked the political/religious preaching of Lennon and Harrison. BUT their music did have a wide range of styles from cute pop to hard rock, and unlike most modern "artists" they could actually sing and/or play an instrument.

Playing underage in German bars right after WW2 took some cojones, too.

I was turned on to the site www.tropicalglen.com  by a close friend who's a  Rock and Roll maven from the old school and wanted reminisce some of the old early 50's Artists and their root songs of R & R's "up time" which lead into a discussion on why I thought we needed the Beatles. It's simple to me...I think it was the right time and right place in 1964 for a new generation to hear the old time Rock and Rock beat that was lost from 1960/1/2/3, to all the spinoff sounds, "down time", we were listening to then. It was not bad music, but floundering time in R & R music world, looking for a new hot hook like the one that got away from the R & R roots "up time" ending in 1959, and I think in 1964 the Beatles filled the void...right? Listen to the years top hits and was there a time we needed the Beatles?...I say YES too!  


Yeah, 1959-'63 was sort of a weird "in between"/watered-down '50s period. It was populated by more ballad oriented songs, or stuff like "Stand By Me" and "The Wanderer".

I bet there were people at the time, who would've thought rock and roll was dying, or that it was just a fad (of course, someone in, say 1962 couldn't have known about the British Invasion that would happen in about two years).

To me the Beatles were a bridge between the Rock and Roll and Pyschodelic eras


Yes, that's what I'm saying, we needed the Beatles or we wouldn't have that Pyschodelic era producing all those new bands in the late 60's. 

To me the Beatles were a bridge between the Rock and Roll and Pyschodelic eras


I agree. I'm pretty sure most of the 1967+ rock wouldn't have been very well received or popular the early British Invasion stuff paving the way. I mean, imagine if Jimi Hendrix came out in 1963 when people were still listening to '50s styled ballads or R&B pop like The Drifters. People would probably think he was evil. ;D