http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/which-rock-star-will-historians-of-the-future-remember.html

Interesting article by Klosterman about who will be the one picture teachers use in 300 years to teach about rock?
He considers and discounts The Beatles, Elvis, and Dylan, Sex Pistols, and Rolling Stones before settling on Chuck Berry.
His qualifications seem to be: popularity, a solo act, songwriting, showmanship, longevity, simple direct rhythmbased music, lawlessness, mythical, legendary.

But Check Berry didn't really have the longevity or the mainstream chops. Who's a better choice? What says TexAgs?

Buddy Holly, Eric Clapton, Springsteen, and Hendrix fit a lot of the qualifications.
But Paul McCartney may hit them all, I like that he also brings in the idea of a rock group, something unique to Rock and Roll.

Agreed. There may be others, but those two are gonna be up there.

Chuck Berry didn't have longevity or mainstream chops?!?!? Do you know anything about Chuck Berry? Lord have mercy. Admittedly I'm biased because I'm a HUGE Berry fan and was lucky enough to have seen him live twice, but I don't see how you can argue with the authors choice.

John Lennon even said "if they ever decide to rename 'rock and roll', they should call it 'Chuck Berry.'"

If someone doesn't know Chuck sang "Maybellene", "Johnny B. Goode" and "My Ding-A-Ling", that is their loss.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Chuck Berry didn't have longevity or mainstream chops?!?!? Do you know anything about Chuck Berry? Lord have mercy. Admittedly I'm biased because I'm a HUGE Berry fan and was lucky enough to have seen him live twice, but I don't see how you can argue with the authors choice.

John Lennon even said "if they ever decide to rename 'rock and roll', they should call it 'Chuck Berry.'"

---

Ask the average American to name 3 of his songs.

---

And yet you expect them to be able to perform that feat for Buddy Holly and Eric Clapton who you've listed as better choices?
Furthermore, the argument is who is the definitive rock and roller, not who had the most top 40 hits.

What makes Chuck Berry the "definitive" rock and roller? Honest question. I don't agree but I'd like to hear your reasoning.

My vote would be Hendrix if we are saying a solo act. Not much in the way of longevity but his style, flair, musicianship, legacy/influence, and ultimate rock and roll death place him at number 1 in my book.

I hate to say, because I'm not a big fan, but group wise the Beatles win going away.

Queen.

The Beatles, Led Zep.

Chuck was a black guy who loved country(and R&B) and Elvis was a white boy who loved R&B and Gospel(and country). Neither "invented" rock but no informed person could deny that Elvis' uptempo version of Arthur Crudup's "That's All Right, Mama" in 1954 or Berry's reworking of Bob Will's "Ida Red" into "Maybellene" in 1955 were two of the earliest examples of recognizable Rock'n'Roll. No offense to Bill Haley, but both those songs rock way more that "Rock Around the Clock". Both Elvis and Berry maintained their success as well, which gives them a leg up over earlier "first rock song" contenders like "Rocket 88", which even contributing musician Ike Turner said was R&B. Other earlier uptempo blues, country, gospel and R&B songs were certainly forerunners of rock, but all lacked a certain component. When you listen to Scotty Moore's picking or Chuck Berry genius guitar licks, that's rock.

So despite the oddness of the writing, I can see why the author picked Berry, I simply disagree with the premise that a teacher would only use one picture.

quote:

---

Led Zep over Elvis. Elvis didn't rock.

---

I'd think Jimmy and Robert would like to have a word with you about Elvis not rocking.

"I Can't Help Falling in Love With You"--Is that rock?

AC/DC and a host of bands that rock top Elvis as far as rock.

This is just my humble opinion. We all are allowed that.

I agree, we can all have opinions, including this guy:

Why does there have to be one? Do historians only discuss one classical composer?

quote:

---

Why does there have to be one? Do historians only discuss one classical composer?

---

I agree. It boils down often to "my" band is better than all bands, from Creation.

That is silly.

I guess I'll second the opinion that Chuck just isn't as well known for whatever reason. For me the first thing I think of is back to the future and Michael J Fox singing Johnny be good.

If that makes me lame then so be it.

Good bull from Angus.

I've always had a problem with these types of discussions because of how different times are now than the past. Not just music, but with all discussions of history. You can study the 17th century and you're not going to find much difference between the 1620s and the 1680s but in the last 100 years, every decade has been wildly different. The difference in music between the 1950s and 1980s is probably greater than any 200 year span pre 1900 so how can one person be representative of it all. Not to mention, everything is recorded now. Its not like this music is just going to be lost forever. Historians may look at Elvis for what he meant globally more than analyzing his music. Johnny B Goode will be more important than Chuck Berry the artist. The Beatles were so huge and so important to music, that they'll always be remembered. Maybe Bob Dylan songs will be read in English Lit. classes. Because everything is on record now and people will have access to it, what will be discussed are the game changers, the ones that started new trends. As far as what is popular, who the heck knows.

This is one of those arguments that no one will ever agree on. Also, I freely admit that there are some GREAT rockers/bands out there that will long be remembered.

Like I said, I love Chuck Berry. Acquaint yourself with his music if you've only scratched the surface. The guy is simply amazing (he's still rocking at 90 by the way). Many of the artists mentioned readily admit that Chuck is THE guy. The influence he's had over the entire genre is immeasurable. Again, just think about that quote from Lennon that I posted above. He is pure entertainment. Talented beyond belief. He interacts with the audience, responds to their energy, makes them a part of the show. Rock and Roll is more than just music (though Chuck's stands up to anyone's).

Now don't get me wrong, I adore Buddy Holly. I think he was a genius. Was 20 years ahead of his time and had he lived, would've been bigger than Elvis. That stated, I LOVE Elvis too. I'm a HUGE Beatles fan. I think Springsteen is a god. I've seen him over 10 times live. They are all great. But Chuck's influence is unmatched. And they'll all tell you that.

There was a documentary made about him in the mid 80's called "Hail Hail Rock and Roll". If you ever have a chance to watch it, do so. Guys like Clapton, Keith Richards, Robert Cray, Robbie Robertson, etc, people considered legends, talk about and play with Chuck. Listen to their comments and watch their reactions.



One of my favorite Chuck Berry videos of all time is a TV show he performed for in 1972. Chuck's music was so definitive and renowned that he would literally fly from town to town, country to country and just use local musicians (can you imagine the thrill for those guys?!?!). As an aside, he would also rent a car and drive himself to and from the venues...he was good with his money, but I digress. He would coach up the locals in rehearsals and just kill during the show. A perfect example of this is shown below. Look at the excitement on these kids faces as they rock with Chuck. The bass player is giddy. The piano players eyes get wide as saucers when Chuck 'throws' it to him. I mean...this is just pure rock and roll.

POSTED BELOW



**Sorry guys, the forum code wasn't liking my multiple links on one post. I'll break it up into three posts**

Chuck jamming with Clapton and Richards

Chuck in 1972

Not too derail the thread too much, we can keep discussing who represents rock, but what is the picture? Hendrix may not be THE person that represents rock (he certainly embodied the live fast die young part of it), but it's hard to deny this picture being in a 2316 textbook next to a blurb about rock.

You could also sell me on some of his Woodstock ones too.

quote:

---

Not too derail the thread too much, we can keep discussing who represents rock, but what is the picture? Hendrix may not be THE person that represents rock (he certainly embodied the live fast die young part of it), but it's hard to deny this picture being in a 2316 textbook next to a blurb about rock.

You could also sell me on some of his Woodstock ones too.

---

I wonder if the reason Hendrix set his guitar on fire will get lost in translation in 300 years?

The Clash

Once I was swimming 'cross turtle creek, man, those snappers was around my feet. Sure was hard swimming cross that thing...

quote:

---

"I Can't Help Falling in Love With You"--Is that rock?

AC/DC and a host of bands that rock top Elvis as far as rock.

This is just my humble opinion. We all are allowed that.

---

Two things here: 1) Elvis did, in fact, rock with Hound Dog, Jailhouse Rock, the Sun Sessions that invented Rockabilly, etc; and 2) Elvis expanded his style to include the occasional slow song like "Can't Help Falling in Love".

You suggested Zep, but don't forget they wrote quite a few "Going to California"-type songs. That means they've expanded their musicianship, not that they didn't rock. I bet if you gave Elvis's catalogue, particularly his 50's work, a good listen, you'd reevaluate your position.

Elvis = most overrated of all time