Rock and Roll

[Blood Wake]

Alright, well if you're asking who first really popularized it, you have to mention Chuck Berry for creating it, though obviously Elvis did much more to popularize it. I just have a problem with Elvis because he didn't write any of his songs. People like him because of his unique voice, appearance, and dance moves. But he doesn't create any of the rock and roll and possibly didn't even invent his own image, he's a creation by the music industry to sell music by the best song writers that work for them.

The Beatles, were the Beatles. They weren't there at the begining but when they hit the scene, it became a different, and MUCH bigger scene.

The Stones suck. I like a few of their songs quite a bit. But both their instrumental skills and creativity levels are way behind the Beatles. I can't name one thing that they created or changed in their still continueing career.

[Gorak]

Les Paul

[Gen. Volkov]

I just have a problem with Elvis because he didn't write any of his songs. People like him because of his unique voice, appearance, and dance moves.

He has only 9 songwriting credits to his name, and it's unlikely he actually sat down and helped write any of those songs. But there is more to being a musician and artist than just writing. He was a very hands on producer of his songs, and he deserves a lot of credit for both arranging and adapting the songs that he sang.

But he doesn't create any of the rock and roll and possibly didn't even invent his own image

Define "create", because he certainly created the song that before was just words and notes on paper. No one else could have sung those songs like Elvis did. I don't know if he created his "image" or not, but I would suspect he did. I don't think the record companies had a whole lot to do with his performance style, it was just something they exploited to make lots and lots and lots of money.

he's a creation by the music industry to sell music by the best song writers that work for them.

There is a difference between singing other people's songs, and being a "creation of the music industry", which I don't think Elvis was. If you look at his career, he was the prime driving force behind his own success. He wasn't like the digitally modified and smoothed music stars of today. The record companies certainly capitalized on Elvis, but I don't think it's fair to say they created him.

The Stones suck. I like a few of their songs quite a bit. But both their instrumental skills and creativity levels are way behind the Beatles. I can't name one thing that they created or changed in their still continueing career.

Just because they aren't the Beatles doesn't mean they suck. NO ONE is the Beatles. They are unique in music history. They started out as just another rock and roll band, part of the British Invasion, but they developed into something completely different, and took the whole musical world along for the ride.

[Blood Wake]

I'll admit I don't know that much about Elvis. I just find it hard to be interested in an artist who didn't write his own music.

Have you ever watched the Stones play? they suck balls. But, they on the other hand have written some duck great songs. so for song writing credit, the Stones are pretty good.

[Gen. Volkov]

I'll admit I don't know that much about Elvis. I just find it hard to be interested in an artist who didn't write his own music.

Your opinion I guess. I think Elvis was a great talent, and the fact that he write his own songs shouldn't be held against him. Not everyone has the ability to write a great song, and he was just one guy. In a band, usually one or two members write the songs, and the rest just play them. Are those other band members less important because they didn't write the songs? Hell no! John and Paul wrote almost all the music for the Beatles, I believe, but they wouldn't have been the same band without Ringo on drums and George on lead guitar. Similar case with Metallica, Ulrich and Hetfield write nearly all the music, with Hetfield being the main writer, but without Hammett's skills on a guitar, Metallica would be just another garage metal band that never hit it big. Hetfield isn't bad on a guitar, but he's not the same class of guitarist that Hammett is. Not letting him loose on guitar is half the reason St. Anger sucked so much.

Have you ever watched the Stones play? they suck balls. But, they on the other hand have written some [wash my mouth out!!!] great songs. so for song writing credit, the Stones are pretty good.

I've watched the Stones play. They aren't too bad now, they were much better when they were younger.

[Blood Wake]

Well the case of a band with a main song writer is a much different case. because every bit of the writing is done by everyone in the band, even if one guy writes 90% of it. With Elvis everyone in the band including Elvis, is the other 10% adding their own flavor. I'm sure Elvis added MUCH, much more than 10%. but you understand my meaning.


yes, St. Anger would have been much better if Kirk busted out a killer solo or 17. Though in it's own way, it's pretty cool

[Gen. Volkov]

Well the case of a band with a main song writer is a much different case. because every bit of the writing is done by everyone in the band, even if one guy writes 90% of it. With Elvis everyone in the band including Elvis, is the other 10% adding their own flavor. I'm sure Elvis added MUCH, much more than 10%. but you understand my meaning.

Yeah, I understand your meaning, but I'm not sure if I agree with the premise that a singer needs to write their own songs in order to be good or something. Britney Spears writes many of her own songs, and Christina Aguilera now writes all her own songs, but are we really going to say they are better than Elvis because of it?

yes, St. Anger would have been much better if Kirk busted out a killer solo or 17. Though in it's own way, it's pretty cool

I don't like many of the songs on St. Anger, but as a concept it's kind of cool.