Re: MG first "rock" song

["Gary M. Gillman" <garyg@inforamp.net>]

At 01:23 PM 5/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>I'd like to elaborate on my earlier views on this question. People have
>>mentioned the Kinks, Byrds, Dylan and Beatles, all bands I admire, but while
>>they show some of the elements which went beyond, or made somethig new of,
>>the folk/r&b/soul/blues influences they started with, only the Who IMO
>>recast those elements into the modern basis for rock as we know it today,
>>i.e., pop songs based largely on a powerful, prominent rhythm guitar sound
>>played suspended-style or in the thrashing Pictures of Lily mode, with
>>virtuoso bass and drum backing. 
>
>Gary M:
>
>You put it so well in this and the other articulate, thoughtful note, I can
>only bask in the glow of your post(s). Well done.
>
>
>
>                   Cheers                   ML
>
>"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."  L. Long
>
>
>
>Well thanks Mark, clearly you and I see eye to eye on this all the way. I
think Brad misconstrued your point about MG (whether as album or song of the
same title - your point was applicable equally to both), as I don't think he
sees the distinction you've drawn, very properly, between Rock and rock 'n
roll, but there is a clear separation between the two. Indeed the music
world  realised this in the late 60's and turned to Rock as the descriptor
for the music which by then had evolved beyond the earlier rock 'n roll
forms, the Who leading the way. Maybe it clarifies it to suggest that the
Stones were a great rock 'n roll band, but not a Rock band, great or
otherwise....Gary M.