given the rancor this debate has caused for some on another thread...thought it would be better received on its own....here's where we left off...

Quote
ohnonotyouagain

Quote
T&A

Quote
ohnonotyouagain

Quote
T&A

Quote
ohnonotyouagain

Quote
T&A

Quote
tatters
Hate to make a trivia game out of this, but can anyone think of another important group without any living original members?

Louis Armstrong and His Hot Fives - as talented and influential as any group ever assembled.

They were as influental as the Beatles or the Stones? I think not.

moreso.

If you put together a list of modern bands that were influenced by the Beatles or the Stones it would be one hell of a lot longer than a list of modern bands influenced by Louis Armstrong and His Hot Fives.

i'm not sure what you're talking about with respect to "modern bands." louis and his band had a wider impact on 20th century music than anyone else. the stones and beatles overall impact and influence is nowhere close. that ain't opinion - it's bleedin' obvious fact.

Do you have a source for that "fact", or is it actually just your opinion?

my fact would be a list of acts/bands that would count the hot fives as an influence over either the beatles or stones. you put your list together first, since you started this, ok?

Difficult question as Louis Armstrong changed the ENTIRE jazz spectrum while The Stones certainly influenced the garage band boom in the 60s and a lot of rock bands in the 70s. But they didn't change rock per se...heavy bands like Led Zeppelin and Cream played a mjor part in that as well.
Anyway, what's the point of the question? Both were incredible in their own fields.

Quote
Silver Dagger
Difficult question as Louis Armstrong changed the ENTIRE jazz spectrum while The Stones certainly influenced the garage band boom in the 60s and a lot of rock bands in the 70s. But they didn't change rock per se...heavy bands like Led Zeppelin and Cream played a mjor part in that as well.
Anyway, what's the point of the question? Both were incredible in their own fields.

haha. what's the point of virtually any of the discussions and debates that ensue here?

i agree with your points 100%. you take Louis and his band out of the equation and there's virtually no telling what the shape of modern music would have taken in the 20th century. there was literally nobody else doing what he was doing in the early 1920's. On the other hand, take the Beatles and/or Stones out of the equation in the 60's and I really don't think the direction music has taken since would have been altered that much. the rock and roll roadmap had pretty much all been laid down before them....

Quote
T&A
given the rancor this debate has caused...

No more rancors!!!

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
T&A
given the rancor this debate has caused...

No more rancors!!!

could i interest you in a little acrimony and animosity...perhaps with a side of umbrage?

Unfair. Musicwise, almost nothin' came outta Satchmo's efforts.
Stones changed a whole word.. Along with those Liverpudlians & a few others...

But jazz is the matrimonyless father of rock and roll.

Quote
Baboon Bro
Unfair. Musicwise, almost nothin' came outta Satchmo's efforts.

excuse me? i assume you are just joshin' here....

Rock music in general sure seems to have a lot more influence and impact these days than jazz. I'm pretty sure if I went to every club in a big city on a given night and asked every musician playing that night who influenced them more, the Stones or Louis Armstrong, the Stones would win hands down. Mainly because only about 10% of the clubs that feature live music in any given city are jazz clubs.

Oh, I know, without jazz there wouldn't have been blues and without blues there wouldn't have been rock, blah blah blah. Well, without some pre-historic caveman banging two rocks together there wouldn't have been music, so maybe the real credit should go to Mr. Unknown Cro-Magnon (and his backup band of five sabertooth tigers).

yeah - that's about the level of response i'd expect out of you, onnya. so much for fact. ignorance is bliss, eh? come to sfo sometime and maybe you'll get an actual education in music.

Quote
T&A
yeah - that's about the level of response i'd expect out of you, onnya. so much for fact. ignorance is bliss, eh? come to sfo sometime and maybe you'll get an actual education in music.

So much for fact? How many actual facts with sources have you cited in this arguement? Oh yeah, zero.

And yes, I should go to California, that magical place where everyone is intelligent and enlightened. But I heard they voted 52-48 to outlaw marriage between any of the two dozen people in the state who think Louis Armstrong was more influental than the Beatles or the Stones.

i rest my case

Quote
T&A
i rest my case

So you admit I won? How gracious of you

music in the Hot Five's times was sophisticated and played by people who learned theory, and played horns and pianos. even drummers could (mostly) read music. Armstrong opened the way for a much more creative form of soloing, along with trombonist Trummy Young, didn't they? I think that is the major contribution in terms of influence..
then along comes the folk music popularity, and rock and roll, and the electric guitar. Suddenly you can play relatively simple music, not know much if any music theory, and have million selling hits...

Jazz seems to have had more of an influence in the more open-minded and creative field of electronic music. Rock music and even so-called indie have largely stagnated. The cult of personality among famous rock musicians and the constant recycling of past triumphs in mags like Mojo seem to have created a heritage museum that has now been mined to exhaustion. I do wonder which bands from today will still be touring in twenty years time.

Quote
Father Ted
Jazz seems to have had more of an influence in the more open-minded and creative field of electronic music. Rock music and even so-called indie have largely stagnated. The cult of personality among famous rock musicians and the constant recycling of past triumphs in mags like Mojo seem to have created a heritage museum that has now been mined to exhaustion. I do wonder which bands from today will still be touring in twenty years time.

i bow and kneel to your grace and humility, father.

seriously...some good points. another bold prediction that none of us will be around to witness: in 200 years, there will still be musicologist scholars sstudying louis armstrong; rock and roll will be a passing footnote.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-14 21:58 by T&A.

It's an unfair comparison. When the Hot Fives and Hot Sevens were "big", music wasn't heard on a global scale, yet. Certainly the Stones had a bigger impact culturally, and affected more people directly - they came up at a time when youth culture was booming, TV was widespread, radio was still alive, teen magazines devoted entirely to one group existed, Rolling Stone got started (followed by Creem, Crawdaddy, etc), rock culture was a force unto itself.

I have to disagree with you though, T&A, as far as rock n roll being seen as a "passing footnote" - rock n roll was a far greater cultural force than any other form of music, and will never (regardless of how lousy modern purveyors of the music become) be seen as a mere trifle.

Now, we all love the Rolling Stones, but I have to say, there would've been another band who approximated what the Stones did, had Brian Jones and his Rollin' Stones never existed. There are very few artists who are irreplaceable - let me pitch it like this: baseball sabermetricians have a stat called VORP (Value Over Replacement Player), it measures how much difference there is between player X and a player who performs at league average. I would say the Hot Fives' VORP is higher than that of the Stones (even though, I personally prefer The Stones). Had the Stones never existed, would The Faces have stepped into the breach and moved music in similar directions? Would The Doors or The Allman Brothers or The Band or The Who or some other band carried the flag as high in their stead? Probably not exactly, but they would've come closer than someone trying to sub for some truly irreplaceable artists.

...in that same spirit (and because I'm a list-maker by nature), a completely unscientific, Ghost-based list of the artists with the highest VORP - in other words, the "irreplaceables":

Robert Johnson
Bob Dylan
Lee Perry
Chuck Berry
Hank Williams
Sam Cooke

I think that may be it. To some degree, every other artist I can think of could have been replaced more easily than those 6 7. Those 6 7 are one-of-a-kind, once in a lifetime talents.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ME?

James motherf#$%@ing Brown belongs on that list, no doubt about it. I think I'd slot him in at #3.

James Brown


EDIT:
Since cc was kind enough to remind me, the groups with the highest VORP:

The Velvet Underground
Sly & The Family Stone


...and I'm considering adding Patti Smith to the list - who else could've filled Patti Smith's role in rock n roll history? No one I can think of. On second thought, Dylan trumps Patti - just because she's a woman, her contributions aren't different than Bob's from a musical/lyrical standpoint. What about Miles? Yeah, I think maybe Miles gets on that list.

.





Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-15 00:10 by The Ghost Of Good taste.

Quote
The Ghost Of Good taste
I have to disagree with you though, T&A, as far as rock n roll being seen as a "passing footnote" - rock n roll was a far greater cultural force than any other form of music, and will never (regardless of how lousy modern purveyors of the music become) be seen as a mere trifle.

i agree with most of your post, ghostie...

i didn't say anything about the cultural impact - i was talking about musicology itself which studies the evolution of music, not culture. i agree on the culture part of what you say.

Quote
T&A

Quote
The Ghost Of Good taste
I have to disagree with you though, T&A, as far as rock n roll being seen as a "passing footnote" - rock n roll was a far greater cultural force than any other form of music, and will never (regardless of how lousy modern purveyors of the music become) be seen as a mere trifle.

i agree with most of your post, ghostie...

i didn't say anything about the cultural impact - i was talking about musicology itself which studies the evolution of music, not culture. i agree on the culture part of what you say.

Gotcha. Rock n Roll was a "mutt": marrying gospel, blues, country and proto soul - nothing wholly original, but something evolutionary (if not revolutionary like hip hop was) like a Merman (1983...). Rock n Roll was a sort of musical Gryphon or Chimera, and I think that's worth something in and of itself from a musicology standpoint.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-14 20:35 by The Ghost Of Good taste.

Quote
The Ghost Of Good taste
Rock n Roll was a sort of musical Gryphon or Chimera, and I think that's worth something in and of itself from a musicology standpoint.

absolutely! it's worth a footnote! ;-)

interesting... they may be playing a slightly different ballgame, but I would add the Velvet Underground to your shortlist, cosmo.

..............What bands did follow up Louis Armstrongs music?
In which music is it audible today?

Quote
Baboon Bro
..............What bands did follow up Louis Armstrongs music?
In which music is it audible today?

wouldn't it be a shorter list to document those bands that didn't follow up? just trying to keep the project's scope as limited as possible....

name five?

Maybe you should start by naming four or five of the most prominenet ones.

Or just two!

Kool and the Gang?

Quote
Baboon Bro
Or just two!

two that weren't? off the top of my head:

The Regimental Band of Lexington, Illinois

The 46th Regiment Band of Lewiston, PA

Quote
ryanpow
Kool and the Gang?

kool, cos he wasn't hot?

actually he was "too Hot" so then he changed to Kool.

Quote
cc
interesting... they may be playing a slightly different ballgame, but I would add the Velvet Underground to your shortlist, cosmo.

Oh, Hell yes. I love the Velvets (my firstborn's middle name is Reed, in honor of Sweet Lou), I was more thinking of individual artists, but you are absolutely right, cc.