Originally Posted by Jeremy Bender
That's all well and good from a musicological point of view perhaps. But I have to agree with G.D. on this one, that it's a farce. Call it rock and roll or call it something else and get to the point.
I just gave you the point and could not have been more clear. You were the one who made the bizarre Moody Blues/Armstrong comparison that I have no doubt would embarrass MB, because that crowd is smart enough and talented enough to know where it all originally came from...as did Lennon, Berry, Little Richard and scores of others who cited Armstrong as the reason they existed as musicians.
Musicological point of view?
What does that mean? A factual explanation perhaps?
For those who actually want to know...The popular introduction of syncopation into 20th century American music was far and away the most significant audial transition of the past 100 years. If Armstrong doesn't make those Okeh recordings 90 years ago, so called rock music sounds entirely different. Rock singers sound like Broadway singers, Hendrix improvises with even accents like a classical guitarist, the introduction of blues within the context of popular song comes much later if it all, while the drum set is most likely unnecessary when all you would need for the alternative is a bass drum or a snare.
None of that has a thing to do with the fact that Armstrong was usually classified a jazz musician. In fact please name me one rock musician who did more for rock than that
? Let me save you the time by informing that you won't find one regardless of how many hairs some may inevitably split.
It is for these reasons why Louis Armstrong rocks on
on why it's always good for people to be aware of that? I'm sorry guys but deemphasizing Armstrong in a dismissive way isn't the way to go at any time. He's the trunk and roots of the whole tree.