Rock Music Historyhistory of rock music
History of rock music. Story of Music Rock (History of Music)
There'?s no single rock story, there's more than one. A very common type is the history of hits, in which the value of a musician is determined by the number of records sold. Thus it' s sales charts determined by your sales force and if someday someone decides to invest a few million dollars in me, I too, regardless of my real talent, would break the charts and become part of this kind of music history.
Unfortunately, most rock music books are nothing more than books from the music industry. To put it another way, rock stories tend to treat musicians like companies and judge them from the perspective of profit, sales and market strategies. Then there are the national versions of rock history, whose authors were obviously influenced by the music heard in their country of origin and by the tastes of their fellow citizens.
Italians, for example, were much more exposed to British music than to American music. It is therefore clear that the history of rock from Milan is very different from the one seen (so to speak) from Boston, for example. Finally, there are rock stories that we could define as individualistic, in which the author is influenced in his judgments by his personal intellectual growth.
Everyone grew up with "idols" or "myths", and many authors tend to concentrate their rock history on those bands that were emotionally more important during their founding, be it Zeppelin or Doobie Brothers. My rock story is not a commercial success story (which I think is a aberration), it is not a national version (I grew up on two different continents and travelled to about 70 countries) and it is not an individualistic version (I trained with classical music, science and literature, not rock music).
I just listened to a lot of music in search of the origins of the different styles and finally drew my own conclusions. I have no special sympathy for a rock musician either. The role models of my youth were Ernst, Shostakovic, Pessoa, Coltrane... but not a rock musician. So I can say that this is the most subjective of the rock stories, but at the same time the most impartial, independent and balanced.
With hindsight I can say that it is mostly a story of the so-called "alternative" rock. Although this is an approximation, it has now become common practice to distinguish "mainstream" music (commercial, consumer, fashion) from "alternative" music (research, antagonist, niche). It is very likely that anyone who does what I did (listen to records without being influenced by sales or advertising) will not be particularly impressed by the musicians who make it to the top of the charts, but will be impressed by numerous obscure recordings that were ahead of their time.
Fans of mains music may argue that this is just a matter of taste, but I disagree. In addition to purely quantitative considerations, there is a very effective empirical method that clearly confirms the superiority of alternative music. Just tell every musician (alternative or mainstream) that he plays music and he will feel angry.
If you tell a musician (alternative or mainstream) that he or she is playing alternative music, he or she will feel adored. Fans can buy records by being influenced by advertising campaigns, but they also implicitly recognize the superiority of alternative music. Anyone who tries to tell a Beatles supporter that the Beatles are mainly popular risks their life.
The evidence is simply disturbing: even the most commercial of all musicians tacitly agree that alternative music is much more remarkable, just as the masses who buy commercial records tacitly consider alternative music more relevant. To some extent, the rediscovery of alternative rock and the return of its due importance is a way to enhance the reputation of rock music among the most demanding audiences.
Too many rock critics blindly follow the instructions of the big record companies and welcome every artist who has a consistent advertising plan behind him in the sense of "next big thing". Rock critics who can't break away from this bond with record companies have proven a great disadvantage for rock music.
When a fan of Beethoven's symphonies or Wagner's works is told that the catchy songs of the Beatles are rock masterpieces, he may smile and nod politely, but he probably won't hear of rock music anymore; and he will never know that rock music has also produced twenty-minute avant-garde suites or one-hour electronic poems as complex and futuristic as contemporary classical music.
But if the Beatles, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson...are the basis of the pyramid (and in my opinion they are actually closer to the basis than to the top), then it makes a lot of sense for anyone interested in listening to good music and exploring the rest of the pyramid. Unfortunately, the concept of alternative music, understood in terms of music that puts creativity before sale, is anything but absolute and must be constantly updated.
From this point of view, there are indeed four turning points in the history of the rock: 1955, when Chuck Berry "invented" rock'n'roll as we know it; 1966, when Bob Dylan, Frank Zappa, Doors, Velvet Underground... sparked a massive revolution within a sleepy music scene; 1976, when New Winds and Punkrock produced a similar revolution within an equally sleepy scene; and 1987-88, the years when alternative bands invented indie pop.
Each of these periods was followed by a period of "reorientation" in which the record industry used the musicians' creativity to sell their ideas to the general public. Traditionally, rock stories begin by defining rock music as the encounter between countries and rhythm'n'blues, a definition that is not entirely correct (in particular, I think the rhythm'n'blues component), but it all depends on whether we consider Chuck Berry or Elvis Presley as the founding father of rock'n'roll.
Today rock music is a genre that uses sampling, electronic instruments, digital technology, cacophony and ethnic sounds that go beyond the usual Afro-American and Anglo-Irish sounds. The roots of today's rock music lie in a series of stylistic and technical innovations that took place in the first half of the 20th century.
Rock music also belongs to the tradition of popular music, the beginnings of which date back to the late 19th century. Ultimately, a more precise definition of today's rock music should be the encounter between avant-garde music and popular music. That' s why my rock story starts long before most books on this subject.
Having made such a monumental effort, it was inevitable that I felt the need to give clues that would allow a numerical comparison of the value of individual musicians and lead the reader into an essential discography. The number in brackets after the name of a group or a musician is a way to evaluate his career.
If the number is only two digits, it means that the musician has no albums that earn 9/10; if he has only one digit, it means that there are no albums of 8/10. Detailed bibliographies and a list of music journals from all over the world are also available.