Transcription

History Of Rock Music(Compiled By Prodigy)Index1 Preface ········ 42 The Beginnings(1951-1965) ························ 62.12.22.32.42.52.62.72.82.9Background: The 20th Century ·················6Rock'n'Roll ·············11Before the Flood 1957-1962 ble in Paradise ·····················20The Flood ·············22Paradise Reborn ·26The Counterculture 7Appendix: Best albums of the 1960s ·······32The greatest of the ····363 The Golden Age ····· 373.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.9Psychedelia 1965-68 ··········37The age of the revivals 1966-69 ················45Solo careers 1967-69 ·········50Electronics and rock 1968-70 e-rock 1968-72 ·57Canterbury 1968-73 ··········62Kosmische Musik 1969-72 Hard-rock 1969-73 ············72The Avantgarde ·················754 The Seventies(1970-1975) ························· 764.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.94.10Psychedelic madness 1970-74 nt 1970-74 ·······78Singer-songwriters 1970-74 dence 1969-76 ············88Sound he auteurs ·············95Disco-music ·············98The avantgarde ····101The Best Rock Albums of the 1970's ·····102The greatest bands of the 1970s ·············1145 The New Wave ·· 1155.15.25.35.4The New Wave ·················115Punk-rock 119USA: The Blank Generation ··················122USA: American Graffiti ·1271

History Of Rock Music(Compiled By 65.175.185.195.205.215.225.235.245.255.26UK: British Graffiti ········130USA: Dance music for punks ·················133UK: Dark Punk ···············135UK: Industrial ········137USA: Hardcore ················143USA: College-pop ············149UK & Australia: The New Wave of Pop and ·155USA & Japan: Neo-progressive ·············160USA: ···············166USA, Australia & UK: Psychedelic ·····················168USA, UK, Europe: The Golden Age of Heavy ·····177USA & UK: Songwriters of the 1980s ···183USA & UK: Roots-rock of the ·······191USA: DJs, rappers, ravers , Europe, Japan: the New ·········201USA: ···················206USA & Australia: Extreme hardcore ····208USA, Europe, Britain: Industrial-metal 0USA, Britain, Japan: Punk crossovers ·213USA: Noise-rock ··············216Appendix: Best albums of the 1980s ·····219The greatest bands of the 1980s ·············2236 The Nineties ···················· 6.156.166.176.186.196.20Noisier than rock ·············226Progressive sounds ··········230Post-psychedelia ··············234Surf and garage ······242Lo-fi pop ··245Lo-fi singer-songwriters ·246The second coming of Industrial music 255Slo-core ····257Dance-music in the age of rit and non-Brit pop ·····269Grunge ·····274Rap of the 1990s ··············277Roots-rock in the age of Alt-country ·····277Hardcore in the age of ···············281From grindcore to ck ····289Gothic 291Drum'n'bass hop ···2922

History Of Rock Music(Compiled By Prodigy)6.216.226.236.24Post-rock ··294Ambient and glitch music ppendix: Best albums of the 1990s ·····299The greatest bands of the 1990s ·············3027 2000 ········· 3048 Appendix: Chronology of Events ·········· 3063

History Of Rock Music(Compiled By Prodigy)History Of Rock MusicWritten By Piero Scaruff1 PrefaceThere is not one single history of rock music. There are several.There is the history of the hits. Most books on rock music are histories of the hits. The charts decide, i.e. themasses decide. Marx would have loved it, except there is a catch: the masses tend to buy what is publicized by themedia, which is what corporations pay money to publicize. Marketing decides the charts. Invest a few milliondollars on me and even I, regardless of my musical talent, will break into the charts, i.e. will become part of "that"history of rock music. Most books on the subject are, in fact, books about the music industry. Very often, theprofile of a musician is simply a list of her/his successes in the Billboard charts ("that album broke into the charts","that album hit #5", "that album sold one million copies"). In other words, books on rock music tend to treatmusicians like corporations or start-ups, judging them by their revenues, profits and marketing strategy.Then there are national versions of the history of rock music. Italians have been more exposed to British musicthan American music. The Eagles and Creedence Clearwater Revival are hardly known, whereas the Moody Bluesand David Bowie are almost household names. The history of rock music viewed from Italy is sharply differentfrom the history of rock music viewed from, say, Boston.Finally, there are the individual histories of rock music. Each person grew up with a different set of idols, andtends to center the history of rock music around those idols, whether Led Zeppelin or Doobie Brothers.My history of rock music is not a history of the charts (which I consider an aberration), it is not a national version(I grew up in two continents and have traveled to some 70 countries), and it is not an individual version (I grew upwith classical music, literature and science, not with rock music).I simply listened to a lot of rock music, and drew my conclusions. Very often, I was unaware of how many recordsan artist sold (I learned it later, when thousands of fans sent me nasty complaints). Very often, I am unaware ofwhat was popular in Italy or Boston.Also, I feel no particular sympathy for any rock musician. My "idols" are Ernst, Shostakovic, Pessoa, Coltrane.not rock musicians.This is the most subjective history of rock music that one could possibly write. But also the most impartial andindependent, fair and balanced.It ends up being mostly a history of "alternative" rock music. While this is a gross approximation, it has becomecustomary to separate "mainstream" music and "alternative" music. If you do what I did (listen to the musicwithout letting marketing and sales influence you), it is very unlikely that you will end up selecting the musicianswho topped the charts, and very likely that you will be impressed by countless obscure recordings that were twentyyears ahead of their time even though nobody heard them.Fans of mainstream music will claim that it all boils down to personal taste. I beg to disagree. There is an absolutefactor that bestows a form of primacy on alternative music. Tell anyone (alternative or mainstream musician) thats/he is playing mainstream music and s/he will get upset. Tell anyone (alternative or mainstream musician) thats/he is playing alternative music and s/he will be flattered. Fans may buy according to the media and to marketingcampaigns, but they, too, implicitly recognize the primacy of alternative music. If you tell a Beatles fan that theBeatles were mainstream, you risk your life. The evidence is just overwhelming: even the most mainstream4

History Of Rock Music(Compiled By Prodigy)musicians tacitly agree that alternative music is more important, and even the masses that buy mainstream musictacitly agree that alternative music is more important.In a sense, rediscovering alternative rock and giving it its dues is also a way to restore the reputation of rock musicamong the more sophisticated audiences. Too many rock critics blindly follow the instructions from the majorrecord companies and hail whichever "next big thing" happens to get a larger marketing budget. Rock critics whocannot break free from this commercial slavery have done a huge disservice to rock music. Anyone who is intoBeethoven's symphonies or Wagner's operas and is told that the Beatles' three-minute catchy tunes are themasterpieces of rock music will simply smile and politely nod, but never listen to rock music again, and will thusnever learn that rock music has also produced 20-minute avantgarde suites and hour-long electronic poems that arefar more complex and futuristic than most of contemporary classical music. If the Beatles are at the top of thepyramid, who in heaven wants to listen to the rest of the pyramid? But if the Beatles, Elvis Presley, MichaelJackson, etc. are at the "bottom" of the pyramid (and in my opinion they are closer