|  | 
12-18-2007, 07:49 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota | |  VH1 Classic's Seven Ages of Rock.
Sign in to disble this ad
I saw the promos for this thing and thought I'd give it a shot based on the good job they did with the Who documentary from last month. The first episode entitled "The Birth of Rock" opens with The Who playing "My Generation" on the Smothers Brothers show and the narrator Dennis Hopper proclaiming "Rock was born in 1965."
Ummm, what?
As the show progresses, it focuses on the Stones, The Who, Cream, Yardbirds, Kinks and Dylan. There is one passing mention of the Beatles and no mention of Jimi Hendrix.
While the program does mention that Brittish rock musicians learned how to play from American blues artists - including clips of John Lee Hooker, Howlin' Wolf and Muddy Waters - it totally skips over the early rock artists of the 50s like Chuck Berry, Elvis, Buddy Holly, Little Richard etc. Dosen't even mention them. As much as Keith Richards loved the blues, he also worshipped Chuck Berry. How can you do a "History of Rock" type of thing and not even mention Elvis and Chuck Berry?
I guess the Hendrix stuff got edited out because of legal issues due to using his image, but to not even mention him?
To anyone born after 1980 who sees this documentary: Don't watch it! There are about 10 years of rock history missing from it.
__________________
"I don't think equipment is high on the list! It still comes down to WHAT NOTES one chooses to play and to HOW ONE TOUCHES THE INSTRUMENT"-Nels Cline
|
12-18-2007, 09:12 AM
| | | Where's Korn? 
__________________
Someone I know previously found pleasure with himself 8-10 times a day & now he's useless. They all laugh at him.
|
12-18-2007, 12:03 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: New Jersey | | | I have to agree with you that the series is a disappointment. The statement, "Rock was born in 1965." was so baby boomer centric I almost turned the show off. I hung on but by the end I really had to wonder how the producers came to their definition of rock-n-roll. |
12-18-2007, 06:53 PM
|  | Please? | | Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Cincinnati, OH | | | Umm, guys thats pretty much when rock & roll took off. After the Beatles hit in '64, by '65 it took off... |
12-18-2007, 07:14 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Texas | | Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyBassMan  Umm, guys thats pretty much when rock & roll took off. After the Beatles hit in '64, by '65 it took off... | I thought it started about 10 years earlier.  |
12-18-2007, 07:15 PM
| | Please? | | Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Cincinnati, OH | | | It didn't take off in '54 or '55, that is the point of the program. |
12-18-2007, 07:21 PM
| | | | ive already seen this series of programs they were on the BBC over here in the summer time... everyones right they are terrible, they are just a mainstream view of what rock music should be |
12-18-2007, 07:36 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Texas | | | I think it hit it's second stage with the British invasion, but it certainly didn't take off then. |
12-18-2007, 07:38 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Kansas City | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Vorse "Rock was born in 1965." | It's my understanding that while nobody (except for Ike Turner obituary writers) considers one specific point in history to be the birth of rock and roll, all of the recordings which are commonly considered to be the originators the genre were recorded between 1916 and 1955.
When rock "took off" is immaterial unless you're stating in the documentary that "rock took off in 1965", and even that is less than accurate. Chuck Berry was doing commercially viable rock before '65. The fact that you couldn't go to Best Buy and pick it up back then doesn't mean there wasn't interest. The paradigm of music distribution was just different back then. |
12-18-2007, 07:43 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Fort Atkinson, WI | | | I'm watching the second episode "White Light, White Heat" right now. It seems to be very British-centric, though they did spend a fair amount of time discussing The Velvet Underground (which you would figure, by the title). I don't think the show is bad so far.
Really, though, would we need another episode to rehash why the Beatles were so revolutionary? I mean, come on.
__________________
Wisconsin Bassist Club Member #31. Fender Am-Stand P, Fender Am-Deluxe Fretless J, Music Man Bongo 4 HH.
|
12-19-2007, 04:10 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bos, MA | | Quote:
Originally Posted by invader3k Really, though, would we need another episode to rehash why the Beatles were so revolutionary? I mean, come on. | +1. the fact that howlin wolf and other blooze artists were even mentioned is a miracle.
good decision, picking some less trodden eras.
however (in)accurate the "ages" may be, it's still good tv.
__________________ Quote:
Originally Posted by D.M.N. that was like having a gorilla attempt to shove haggis down my ear canal. | |
12-19-2007, 07:47 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota | | Quote:
Originally Posted by invader3k Really, though, would we need another episode to rehash why the Beatles were so revolutionary? I mean, come on. | Not saying The Beatles need a whole hour, but to not even mention them?
__________________
"I don't think equipment is high on the list! It still comes down to WHAT NOTES one chooses to play and to HOW ONE TOUCHES THE INSTRUMENT"-Nels Cline
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | |
