Rock's rich tapestry (a phrase coined by some clever dick journo at Britain's New Musical Express in the early '80s) comes in many colors. I grew up listening to oldies (as in pre-'70s rock n roll and pop) on the radio, became a Beatlemaniac as an adolescent, transitioned to punk in the late '70s, and lent an ear to hip hop in the '80s. …
Rock's rich tapestry (a phrase coined by some clever dick journo at Britain's New Musical Express in the early '80s) comes in many colors. I grew up listening to oldies (as in pre-'70s rock n roll and pop) on the radio, became a Beatlemaniac as an adolescent, transitioned to punk in the late '70s, and lent an ear to hip hop in the '80s. To my ears, all of these bore a relationship to and descended from rock 'n' roll (which, as you note, is quite different from the dinosaur bands that would peddle 'rock' or 'AOR rock').
These terms are all malleable and (as you also note) genre is fluid (as is gender - whoops, wrong Substack). But without the development of rock 'n' roll (itself the bastard child of country and rhythm and blues) many of these subgenres ('alternative', punk, indie, metal, etc) would either never have come into existence or would sound very, very different.
In sum, it's still rock 'n' roll to me (except for Billy Joel, he's straight up pop).
It's amazing to me how completely different rock n' roll sounds from rock. The British Invasion was the obvious dividing line. The difference between Buddy Holly and the Stones is like the difference between black-and-white and color television.
Rock's rich tapestry (a phrase coined by some clever dick journo at Britain's New Musical Express in the early '80s) comes in many colors. I grew up listening to oldies (as in pre-'70s rock n roll and pop) on the radio, became a Beatlemaniac as an adolescent, transitioned to punk in the late '70s, and lent an ear to hip hop in the '80s. To my ears, all of these bore a relationship to and descended from rock 'n' roll (which, as you note, is quite different from the dinosaur bands that would peddle 'rock' or 'AOR rock').
These terms are all malleable and (as you also note) genre is fluid (as is gender - whoops, wrong Substack). But without the development of rock 'n' roll (itself the bastard child of country and rhythm and blues) many of these subgenres ('alternative', punk, indie, metal, etc) would either never have come into existence or would sound very, very different.
In sum, it's still rock 'n' roll to me (except for Billy Joel, he's straight up pop).
It's amazing to me how completely different rock n' roll sounds from rock. The British Invasion was the obvious dividing line. The difference between Buddy Holly and the Stones is like the difference between black-and-white and color television.