If George Harrison had been in a band besides The Beatles, he would've been considered the #1 Genius on the scene. It's amazing that those four guys all happened to be born into the same town, and we've all benefited. The one negative? George's brilliance was overshadowed. For example, he'll always be my second favorite. Not too bad, George. You were in a band with John Lennon.
Posted by Rocko Jerome at 2/25/2011
There are gifts that you can never be thankful enough to receive. Somewhere between the woman who gave birth to you and the guy who would donate his kidney lies the present I received from one Doc Terrific:
He built an action figure in my likeness.
I don't know what you say after that, so I'll just provide a link to his website.
Me with the DVD cover designed by ANTI-VILLAIN
Me and Doc
Front On This
"If you were to give Rock & Roll another name, it would be Chuck Berry."
Like many others, I love his music. I am who I am because of the influence of his music. Chuck Berry owes me nothing, I owe him a debt impossible to repay.
It's funny how genres work. There's many theories on how they come to be and how they evolve. Call me cynical, but in this century at least I think it's all rooted in revenue for record labels. The astute readers will have heard by now that "Rock and Roll" became a buzzword when somebody white- they say it was Alan Freed- started promoting Rhythm and Blues records under a new moniker in order to keep white parents from freaking out. And then, with this new name, record companies could promote others who fall into the new category. Like Elvis? How about Gene Vincent? Like Buddy Holly? How about Jerry Lee Lewis? Buy them all. Now, these are four very different artists. You would be doing yourself a great disservice if you decided you didn't like "Rock and Roll" by dismissing all of these because you didn't like one of them. This is true for all genres. It's a shell game.
I surmise that no man is more aware of this than Chuck Berry.
Keith here makes the arrogant assumption that Chuck is unaware of his talent and impact. I think the truth is that Chuck doesn't give a damn. When the famously sour Keith gets saccharine about how the lasting eternal influence of Rock and Roll must be preserved Chuck looks at him like he's speaking Yiddish.
See, there often comes a point for someone driven to perform for an audience at which the desire to attract attention to themselves or secure some legacy means less than anything. Is this such a bad thing? Or is it healthy?
Posted by Rocko Jerome at 2/21/2011