Pre-'64 Rock 'n' Roll Bands in America

[kopper]

Little Steven has this quote on his Facebook page:

"February 8, 1964, there was not one single rock 'n' roll band in the country. February 9, the Beatles played The Ed Sullivan Show. February 10, everyone had one....My life began on February 9, 1964." - Little Steven (quoted in Esquire, Dec 2008)

What do you think? I think in general he might be right, but I can think of lots of bands that existed prior to '64... the Wailers, the Sonics, the Pyramids, Paul Revere & the Raiders, etc.

While the Beatles appearing on the Ed Sullivan Show no doubt gave a huge shot in the arm to rock 'n' roll in the U.S. (and elsewhere) and helped spur on the garage-band BOOM of '65-'67, I just don't think it's fair to give them all the credit.

It's stuff like that that kinda annoys me about Little Steven.

[IDON MINE]

I don't know, that's basically my problem with all that quote-ing from experts, it just cuts out a lot of superb people and many more people forge their opinion after that.
Just like Lennon saying: "Before Elvis there was nothing." Which also maybe right for the mainstream explosion of making R'N'R a Pop phenomenon, but also a very subjective view coming from their own learning and experience with getting into R'N'R thru a certain happening in their life. I love the King, but he was not the sum of all raw music back then.

Its totally right what you said, the Beatles might be the club to blow off the shorthair-wig of many square teenagers and make them rockfans finally. But what about all the guys that came before that and were restricted by bullshit-fucked-up-dork-motherfucker social codes like "RACE", not being able to make it into mainstream media, meaning the black rockers??? You know the names!
I'm not trying to shut down the awesome music of the pre-Garageband bands, not for nothing - but saying the Beatles made it all happen is just more than a bit arrogant . And yeah it's not fair at all.

BLUES guys with an immense personal background that went to transform their styles to R'N'R and beyond, a more well known example being Bo Diddley that had a huge influence in forming the R'N'R spririt. That's basically where origination of the music came from for the most part, I believe. Of course the whole time then being a massive throw around of styles and innovation. And it's always the stars that collect the crops for the media and history but that can't be put down in an Esquire article, no?

[Simon]

I agree...
Even bands like The Pinetoppers were doin' there thing, and I don't think The Beatles changed much about that.

Though I think it was just Little Steven on some personal DJ rant. Most people were probably changed by that date.

[Mr. Twitcher]

Agree with the above posts, there were definitely pre-Beatles rock bands. I don't know the exact year of origination of the term to signify this kind of music, but "rockin' and rollin'" as a euphemism for sex goes back a lot farther than that. Bill Halley did "Rock This Joint" in '52, and the bigger hit "Rock Around The Clock" in ''54, and there are a ton of other examples.

The Beatles on Ed Sullivan may have changed the landscape of pop music and rock-n-roll, but the yard itself was already there, it was just on a small country road instead of a big highway.

[Michael Kaiser]

When folks make ignorant claims like that it's either that they are trying to be sensational, and thus cementing their status as "expert", or they only know - and are concerned with - mainstream popular culture.

I stick with my tired & worn-out assertion that most folks don't really care too much about music (except in the socially acceptable, "clique-ish" manner of a college student), and even more don't know very much about the vast wealth of recorded music that is available.

I would think a more educated statement would have gone along the lines of "There were millions of Rock 'N' Roll groups throughout the world until The Beatles watered it down to something that parents could dig. Thus they (The Beatles) killed Rock 'N' Roll! You can thank The Beatles for Steely Dan et al."

*edited to note that I don't know Little Steven, nor have I ever heard his radio show. So it's nothing personal - It can't be; I just think that that quote is odd.

[Kevin Schneider]

In looking up information about rock bands in America just before the Beatles, I found this tidbit of trivia: the 1963 Grammy for best rock and roll recording went to Bent Fabric for "Alley Cat".

[kopper]

I'm not even talking about black rock 'n' roll groups (sorry, guess I should've clarified that)... of course there were many of them that were around years before the Beatles... No, what I'm talking 'bout are the American white teenage groups (and I mean groups as opposed to solo acts, too) that existed prior to the Beatles in America, hence the examples I gave. Those bands had many of the same influences the Beatles had, but didn't form because of the Beatles. That's my point.

[RayDanger]

Not to be an asshole but, Little Steven's statement was a little figure of speech called hyperbole and shouldn't bring any personal attacks against him, The Beatles or the state of Rock N Roll in '64. We all know there were bands around, but in the broad scope of popular culture, Rock N Roll was at an all time low. The Beatles deserve a lot of credit and Little Steven is celebrating that, and not just showing his ignorance.

[IDON MINE]

Got that straight away! Was just riled up on something, I guess. Sorry for dropping stuff in yer topic...

kopper said:

That's my point.

[IDON MINE]

Also gotten that one! Hahah.
Wasn't also meaning to attack the guy, I don't have any particular aggression towards him, besides not really kowing his programme or whatnot. It's just you know... the topic really. Was riled up...

If he knows about other bands of the time, which I guess he does, he could also give them a namedrop and not let a new breed of readers step into the puddle of just taking that quote as not only hyperbole but eternal truth or something. He could've guided the direction at what else was going on, like: "Yeah, they were hitmakers that got copied by hundreds but, there was also...."

It's just that "The bands on TV are the bands that you see" thing. I cut into too big a pie here I guess, so please let this drop as I CAN'T go into more detail and am way off the topic that KOPPER was looking to get responses for.

But isn't it a thing of the audience to go after the bands and their shows and records, not wait for promotions and commercials to come towards them, so that there is a broader basic recognition of what all is happening? That's why I dig this place, lot's of info and not the usual BlahBLah. The people back then had to rely on the system of promotion to get their music across the nation, into their local homes as we all know.

And also that "watered down" thing that Mike brought up explains it quite well for me. By doing so you reach a lot of people on the lowest common denominator. Of course the bigger you get the larger the group of people that will remember you, as in this case, a factor that made ROCK a big thing. Today that is a whole lot easier, having different (and affordable) methods to promote yourself and yer band. Of course you still get people that tell you in a hardcore vein "BON JOVI is real R'N'R" because they believe it from the DJ or whoever.

So to at least bring a bit into this discussion, had those pre '64 bands more marketing back up (i.e. some grease to get played), they would have had more hits as well. And with that, more listeners of course that might also remember them as gamechangers. But I'm talking crap and shutting up. Whoooohooo.



RayDanger said:

The Beatles deserve a lot of credit and Little Steven is celebrating that, and not just showing his ignorance.

[RayDanger]

I think everybody here is at least a little bit familiar with the history of rock n roll, but to recap, Rock N Roll was considered dead. The so called Teen Idols ruled the airwaves. It took the Beatles to bring Rock N Roll music back. And a lot bands were either formed or signed after the wake.

In today's society, we have the technology to do the marketing and research ourselves. That's what makes this site so great. That technology didn't exist back then. And you can't blame the marketing back then, because rock n roll was dead, at least in their own eyes.

Kopper is dead on when he says there were other bands. But those bands he listed all achieved notoriety after The Beatles revived a national interest in rock n roll.

Also, They must have been something in the water over by Seattle because they were into cool music way before the rest of the world ever was.

[kopper]

He could've very easily stated instead:

February 8, 1964, there were only a handful of... or very few... rock 'n' roll band in the country. February 9, the Beatles played The Ed Sullivan Show.

...but he didn't. He said there was not one single rock'n'roll band... and whether he was trying to make a point or not, he's wrong. And he's obviously proud of that quote as he has it posted on his Facebook page, which furthers my point. How many people that like his show will read that and take it as gospel? Probably far too many! It's misguided.

That is exactly the sort of mainstream perspective or generality that pisses me off. It wouldn't be any different (in other words, just as wrong) if he'd made the same statement about bands of this decade.

[RayDanger]

Very PC. But not very exciting at all.

kopper said:

He could've very easily stated instead:
February 8, 1964, there were only a handful of... or very few... rock 'n' roll band in the country. February 9, the Beatles played The Ed Sullivan Show.