|
Post by dixonhill on Dec 9, 2004 19:33:28 GMT -5
is their a difference between rock and rock and roll?
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Dec 9, 2004 22:40:57 GMT -5
Wouldn't say so
|
|
|
Post by mybigmouth on Dec 10, 2004 4:16:31 GMT -5
yeah....the difference is clearly the 'and roll'
not really nah i think they're pretty much the same.
|
|
|
Post by belgallagher on Dec 10, 2004 7:52:18 GMT -5
when i refer to rock n roll im always talkin about rather old music, from the 50,60,70,80's... and with rock with 90's or now because there is a difference bewteen rock in general before the 90's and after
|
|
|
Post by jayg on Dec 10, 2004 8:14:23 GMT -5
when i refer to rock n roll im always talkin about rather old music, from the 50,60,70,80's... and with rock with 90's or now because there is a difference bewteen rock in general before the 90's and after Agree with this completely. Bon Jovi - Rock, not Rock n Roll. (and shite)
|
|
|
Post by LDD- Angelic Child on Dec 10, 2004 11:54:28 GMT -5
I'd say that the 90's (up to 1997) belong with Rock and Roll
ok- Red Hot Chili Peppers i'd say are rock
It seems sad but that drum beat at the beginning of Roll With it... that's the roll in rock and roll
I wouldn't say that there are any bands at the moment that are rock and roll.
People say that Elvis invented rock and roll... i don't think he is rock and roll at all (but that's just my opinion)
If anybody asks me to define rock and roll with one song i will instantly say Roll With It.
|
|
|
Post by Eggy on Dec 10, 2004 15:44:53 GMT -5
in my own definition its the guitars that make the difference.
songs with only guitar inthe chorus is rock
songs with guitar everywhere is rocknroll
vertigo is rock, c&a is rocknroll
etc
fuck it, now i think about it there are millions of exceptions on this rule.
forget it
|
|
|
Post by drunken guitar pop on Dec 10, 2004 19:33:03 GMT -5
The term rock and roll is a blues euphemism for sexual intercourse. So I guess taking the obvious blues root in the name from there we can see how Elvis and Chuck Berry would be rock and roll and later bands that put too much in the soup would just be considered rock.
|
|
|
Post by maketradefair on Dec 12, 2004 15:07:57 GMT -5
yes there is . bands like the rolling stones were rock n roll. and bands like ac/dc were rock.
|
|
|
Post by iamthewalrus on Dec 13, 2004 0:23:10 GMT -5
the difference is the way the term "rock'' is used these days..what i mean is like at the mtv video awards, shakira is fucking rock..what the hell. To us there probably isn't a difference but rock can be misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by Eggy on Dec 14, 2004 9:18:37 GMT -5
yes there is . bands like the rolling stones were rock n roll. and bands like ac/dc were rock. its about the definition mates...
|
|
|
Post by Eggy on Dec 14, 2004 9:18:56 GMT -5
the difference is the way the term "rock'' is used these days..what i mean is like at the mtv video awards, shakira is fucking rock..what the hell. To us there probably isn't a difference but rock can be misunderstood. true, and eminem won best rock act.
|
|
|
Post by nyr401994 on Dec 14, 2004 14:52:22 GMT -5
rock and roll is primarily early rock- 50s, 60s. rock really became rock, imo, after help! came out. (everything before that would prob be considered rock and roll, right?)
|
|