Best riff writers?

[Johnny Drama]

I would say anyone in Down as well but I suppose that's really more votes for Iommi given the influence.

[Len Cnut]

For those unfamiliar, I made a video:

Not one of those is the same.

[Rovim]

For those unfamiliar, I made a video:

Not one of those is the same.

yeah bro, I know. They're not. Not the same at all. It's astounding how many totally different concepts Chucky is employing there.

the first one is clearly doo doo doo doo doo dooo dooooo

while the second one is do dooooo do dooo doo doo doo.

etc.

I like how cohesive his body of work is.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I fuckin' love him, and he invented so many elements I hold dear in music but bitch, please.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rovim

[Len Cnut]

For those unfamiliar, I made a video:

Not one of those is the same.

yeah bro, I know. They're not. Not the same at all. It's astounding how many totally different concepts Chucky is employing there.

the first one is clearly doo doo doo doo doo dooo dooooo

while the second one is do dooooo do dooo doo doo doo.

etc.

I like how cohesive his body of work is.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I fuckin' love him, and he invented so many elements I hold dear in music but bitch, please.

Its either exactly the same or its not...and those are not. Remember now, this man was laying groundwork in establishing a genre, at that stage there has to be a little consistency to what you are putting forward.

You're a guitar player and you cant tell those shits aint the same? Can you play em, have a go and tell me if they're the same.

And what do you mean 'employing different concepts', what concepts do you want him to employ, hes playing guitar not mapping a space shuttles flight path, what does that mean exactly, employing different concepts?

Edited April 23, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Rovim]

For those unfamiliar, I made a video:

Not one of those is the same.

yeah bro, I know. They're not. Not the same at all. It's astounding how many totally different concepts Chucky is employing there.

the first one is clearly doo doo doo doo doo dooo dooooo

while the second one is do dooooo do dooo doo doo doo.

etc.

I like how cohesive his body of work is.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I fuckin' love him, and he invented so many elements I hold dear in music but bitch, please.

Its either exactly the same or its not...and those are not. Remember now, this man was laying groundwork in establishing a genre, at that stage there has to be a little consistency to what you are putting forward.

You're a guitar player and you cant tell those shits aint the same? Can you play em, have a go and tell me if they're the same.

And what do you mean 'employing different concepts', what concepts do you want him to employ, hes playing guitar not mapping a space shuttles flight path, what does that mean exactly, employing different concepts?

Of course they're not the exact same replica, not identical. Employing different concepts is basically taking existing licks and making them sound like you've said something new enough that it makes it fresh. Like there is enough new shit there to make it's existence meaningful as a riff and not just revisiting much of what made the first idea so exciting in the first place.

If the changes he made from riff to riff in that clip are enough for you, then there is nothing wrong with that, but to me, with his talents, he could have made it more varied from riff to riff, like the note choices are virtually identical and he's just playing around with rhythm which does bring something different to it but just not enough for me or compared to other great riff makers.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rovim

[Len Cnut]

GTF said they are the EXACT same...I said they werent cuz they're not.

[Rovim]

GTF said they are the EXACT same...I said they werent cuz they're not.

Maybe he was exaggerating a bit so we could be less literal about it, so I just thought it was a good chance for me to mention how the lack of variety in Chuck's riffs always kinda sucked for me, cause there is enough cool shit there to keep listening.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rovim

[Zeppelin]

I have to throw in Åkerfeldt also.

[Len Cnut]

GTF said they are the EXACT same...I said they werent cuz they're not.

Maybe he was exaggerating a bit so we could be less literal about it, so I just thought it was a good chance for me to mention how the lack of variety in Chuck's riffs always kinda sucked for me, cause there is enough cool shit there to keep listening.

A lot of the quality in what Chuck did was in its subtle precision, therein lies the quality, ask yourself why Keith Richards couldnt nail the intro to Carol in Hail Hail Rock n Roll.

[Rovim]

GTF said they are the EXACT same...I said they werent cuz they're not.

Maybe he was exaggerating a bit so we could be less literal about it, so I just thought it was a good chance for me to mention how the lack of variety in Chuck's riffs always kinda sucked for me, cause there is enough cool shit there to keep listening.

A lot of the quality in what Chuck did was in its subtle precision, therein lies the quality, ask yourself why Keith Richards couldnt nail the intro to Carol in Hail Hail Rock n Roll.

I realize that, and again if whatever is there, and all the subtle nuances and vibe of it is enough to express something more then whatever riff that came before it did, then that's perfectly fine.

There are other guitar players that had the unique feel and inventiveness, but could also make every riff more distinct. Keith's shortcomings only mean he couldn't do it cause he probably didn't understand in the first place all the elements that you must nail when you play that intro, or just couldn't replicate it.

Not taking anything away from Chuck. He is a legend for a reason.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

For those unfamiliar, I made a video:

Not one of those is the same.

yeah bro, I know. They're not. Not the same at all. It's astounding how many totally different concepts Chucky is employing there.

the first one is clearly doo doo doo doo doo dooo dooooo

while the second one is do dooooo do dooo doo doo doo.

etc.

I like how cohesive his body of work is.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I fuckin' love him, and he invented so many elements I hold dear in music but bitch, please.

Its either exactly the same or its not...and those are not. Remember now, this man was laying groundwork in establishing a genre, at that stage there has to be a little consistency to what you are putting forward.

You're a guitar player and you cant tell those shits aint the same? Can you play em, have a go and tell me if they're the same.

And what do you mean 'employing different concepts', what concepts do you want him to employ, hes playing guitar not mapping a space shuttles flight path, what does that mean exactly, employing different concepts?

Of course they're not the exact same replica, not identical. Employing different concepts is basically taking existing licks and making them sound like you've said something new enough that it makes it fresh. Like there is enough new shit there to make it's existence meaningful as a riff and not just revisiting much of what made the first idea so exciting in the first place.

If the changes he made from riff to riff in that clip are enough for you, then there is nothing wrong with that, but to me, with his talents, he could have made it more varied from riff to riff, like the note choices are virtually identical and he's just playing around with rhythm which does bring something different to it but just not enough for me or compared to other great riff makers.

You do not know what you are talking about. Firstly, this guy is actually inventing rock n' roll guitar here; you do not get much more original than, inventing an entire sub genre. You play rock n' roll guitar: you play Chuck Berry guitar - it is that simple. When Slash plays that lick, he is playing Chuck Berry's lick. When Steve Jones plays that lick, he is playing Chuck Berry. The two-three fingered licks, he was influenced by piano playing. It was totally original. Secondly, Chuck is working from a primal background here. It is remarkable how much variation he gets from the same essential tools. It is difficult to describe but it is more about, feeling and rhythm. Each one of those Berry masterpieces has a different feel, a groove. There are certain nuances there, not just in the guitars but in the vocal delivery, which make each one of these songs different; this is why Carol has a different feel from Johnny b Goode and Beethoven. But he is working from the same essential 'raw materials' - his materials.

It is a different approach from genre bending (a la Queen) or masturbating (a la Floyd). There is almost an element of, the very similarity of Chick's raw materials gives him a great amount of freedom to deliver his music. He does not need to sit on his bed, desperately find D Minor 7th chord. He knows where he is going.

[Rovim]

For those unfamiliar, I made a video:

Not one of those is the same.

yeah bro, I know. They're not. Not the same at all. It's astounding how many totally different concepts Chucky is employing there.

the first one is clearly doo doo doo doo doo dooo dooooo

while the second one is do dooooo do dooo doo doo doo.

etc.

I like how cohesive his body of work is.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I fuckin' love him, and he invented so many elements I hold dear in music but bitch, please.

Its either exactly the same or its not...and those are not. Remember now, this man was laying groundwork in establishing a genre, at that stage there has to be a little consistency to what you are putting forward.

You're a guitar player and you cant tell those shits aint the same? Can you play em, have a go and tell me if they're the same.

And what do you mean 'employing different concepts', what concepts do you want him to employ, hes playing guitar not mapping a space shuttles flight path, what does that mean exactly, employing different concepts?

Of course they're not the exact same replica, not identical. Employing different concepts is basically taking existing licks and making them sound like you've said something new enough that it makes it fresh. Like there is enough new shit there to make it's existence meaningful as a riff and not just revisiting much of what made the first idea so exciting in the first place.

If the changes he made from riff to riff in that clip are enough for you, then there is nothing wrong with that, but to me, with his talents, he could have made it more varied from riff to riff, like the note choices are virtually identical and he's just playing around with rhythm which does bring something different to it but just not enough for me or compared to other great riff makers.

You do not know what you are talking about. Firstly, this guy is actually inventing rock n' roll guitar here; you do not get much more original than, inventing an entire sub genre. You play rock n' roll guitar: you play Chuck Berry guitar - it is that simple. When Slash plays that lick, he is playing Chuck Berry's lick. When Steve Jones plays that lick, he is playing Chuck Berry. The two-three fingered licks, he was influenced by piano playing. It was totally original. Secondly, Chuck is working from a primal background here. It is remarkable how much variation he gets from the same essential tools. It is difficult to describe but it is more about, feeling and rhythm. Each one of those Berry masterpieces has a different feel, a groove. There are certain nuances there, not just in the guitars but in the vocal delivery, which make each one of these songs different; this is why Carol has a different feel from Johnny b Goode and Beethoven. But he is working from the same essential 'raw materials' - his materials.

It is a different approach from genre bending (a la Queen) or masturbating (a la Floyd). There is almost an element of, the very similarity of Chick's raw materials gives him a great amount of freedom to deliver his music. He does not need to sit on his bed, desperately find D Minor 7th chord. He knows where he is going.

Another pointless history lesson. I'm aware and agree with all of it already. My previous post stated that I'm not trying to take anything away from what the man did. Just that it lacks certain things that make it more interesting for me as a listener, but I still listen to his music anyway.

And I always know what I'm talking about. In most of our discussions here, I'd say I was the only one who did.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rovim

[Len Cnut]

For those unfamiliar, I made a video:

Not one of those is the same.

yeah bro, I know. They're not. Not the same at all. It's astounding how many totally different concepts Chucky is employing there.

the first one is clearly doo doo doo doo doo dooo dooooo

while the second one is do dooooo do dooo doo doo doo.

etc.

I like how cohesive his body of work is.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I fuckin' love him, and he invented so many elements I hold dear in music but bitch, please.

Its either exactly the same or its not...and those are not. Remember now, this man was laying groundwork in establishing a genre, at that stage there has to be a little consistency to what you are putting forward.

You're a guitar player and you cant tell those shits aint the same? Can you play em, have a go and tell me if they're the same.

And what do you mean 'employing different concepts', what concepts do you want him to employ, hes playing guitar not mapping a space shuttles flight path, what does that mean exactly, employing different concepts?

Of course they're not the exact same replica, not identical. Employing different concepts is basically taking existing licks and making them sound like you've said something new enough that it makes it fresh. Like there is enough new shit there to make it's existence meaningful as a riff and not just revisiting much of what made the first idea so exciting in the first place.

If the changes he made from riff to riff in that clip are enough for you, then there is nothing wrong with that, but to me, with his talents, he could have made it more varied from riff to riff, like the note choices are virtually identical and he's just playing around with rhythm which does bring something different to it but just not enough for me or compared to other great riff makers.

You do not know what you are talking about. Firstly, this guy is actually inventing rock n' roll guitar here; you do not get much more original than, inventing an entire sub genre. You play rock n' roll guitar: you play Chuck Berry guitar - it is that simple. When Slash plays that lick, he is playing Chuck Berry's lick. When Steve Jones plays that lick, he is playing Chuck Berry. The two-three fingered licks, he was influenced by piano playing. It was totally original. Secondly, Chuck is working from a primal background here. It is remarkable how much variation he gets from the same essential tools. It is difficult to describe but it is more about, feeling and rhythm. Each one of those Berry masterpieces has a different feel, a groove. There are certain nuances there, not just in the guitars but in the vocal delivery, which make each one of these songs different; this is why Carol has a different feel from Johnny b Goode and Beethoven. But he is working from the same essential 'raw materials' - his materials.

It is a different approach from genre bending (a la Queen) or masturbating (a la Floyd). There is almost an element of, the very similarity of Chick's raw materials gives him a great amount of freedom to deliver his music. He does not need to sit on his bed, desperately find D Minor 7th chord. He knows where he is going.

Spot on!

[DieselDaisy]

Chuck Berry is the most interesting rock music ever made. If you did not spend so long masturbating over Axl and chinese democracy, you would see this.

[Len Cnut]

Chuck Berry is the most interesting rock music ever made. If you did not spend so long masturbating over Axl and chinese democracy, you would see this.

Right, thank you, theres Jazz influence in there, theres T Bone Walker in there, playing fuckin' piano chords on guitar. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the specific departure from the Berry template off into excessive periphery with a fundamental lack of understanding of its rhythmic qualities and the function of those within a rock n roll template is exactly why the genre turned into a piece of shit.

In terms of rock n roll there simply is no better than Chuck Berry...and there never will be now.

[Rovim]

For those unfamiliar, I made a video:

Not one of those is the same.

yeah bro, I know. They're not. Not the same at all. It's astounding how many totally different concepts Chucky is employing there.

the first one is clearly doo doo doo doo doo dooo dooooo

while the second one is do dooooo do dooo doo doo doo.

etc.

I like how cohesive his body of work is.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I fuckin' love him, and he invented so many elements I hold dear in music but bitch, please.

Its either exactly the same or its not...and those are not. Remember now, this man was laying groundwork in establishing a genre, at that stage there has to be a little consistency to what you are putting forward.

You're a guitar player and you cant tell those shits aint the same? Can you play em, have a go and tell me if they're the same.

And what do you mean 'employing different concepts', what concepts do you want him to employ, hes playing guitar not mapping a space shuttles flight path, what does that mean exactly, employing different concepts?

Of course they're not the exact same replica, not identical. Employing different concepts is basically taking existing licks and making them sound like you've said something new enough that it makes it fresh. Like there is enough new shit there to make it's existence meaningful as a riff and not just revisiting much of what made the first idea so exciting in the first place.

If the changes he made from riff to riff in that clip are enough for you, then there is nothing wrong with that, but to me, with his talents, he could have made it more varied from riff to riff, like the note choices are virtually identical and he's just playing around with rhythm which does bring something different to it but just not enough for me or compared to other great riff makers.

You do not know what you are talking about. Firstly, this guy is actually inventing rock n' roll guitar here; you do not get much more original than, inventing an entire sub genre. You play rock n' roll guitar: you play Chuck Berry guitar - it is that simple. When Slash plays that lick, he is playing Chuck Berry's lick. When Steve Jones plays that lick, he is playing Chuck Berry. The two-three fingered licks, he was influenced by piano playing. It was totally original. Secondly, Chuck is working from a primal background here. It is remarkable how much variation he gets from the same essential tools. It is difficult to describe but it is more about, feeling and rhythm. Each one of those Berry masterpieces has a different feel, a groove. There are certain nuances there, not just in the guitars but in the vocal delivery, which make each one of these songs different; this is why Carol has a different feel from Johnny b Goode and Beethoven. But he is working from the same essential 'raw materials' - his materials.

It is a different approach from genre bending (a la Queen) or masturbating (a la Floyd). There is almost an element of, the very similarity of Chick's raw materials gives him a great amount of freedom to deliver his music. He does not need to sit on his bed, desperately find D Minor 7th chord. He knows where he is going.

Spot on!

What? so we've established Chuck was responsible for inventing the blueprint of rock n' roll. How the fuck does that relevant enough for what we were talking about? every riff sounds very similar. To the point it can't really be the best thing or one of the best things about the song. (at least for me)

Cause I've heard a variation of it already in some other Chuck Berry tune and loved it. It's like he says the same thing over and over again in many of his riffs but it sounds cool everytime, just less interesting compared to a slightly more adventurous approach. Keep it in the same realm, but ffs say something else.

Chuck Berry is the most interesting rock music ever made. If you did not spend so long masturbating over Axl and chinese democracy, you would see this.

You're a joke.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

You are discussing 'originality' and 'adventure'. The guy invented rock n' roll guitar! How much more original could Chuck theoretically be? Every guy mentioned in this thread (Angus, Page, Iommi, Slash, Izzy, etc.) are basically playing Chuck Berry guitar. Heck, even Hendrix owes a great deal to Chuck and Hendrix was revolutionary.

[OmarBradley]

You can't compare Chuck Berry to someone like Jimmy Page or Dave Mustaine. Berry (or someone else like Berry) had to come first in order for the later guys to do their thing. Do the later/modern rock/metal/punk musicians write better riffs than Chuck? You betcha. But they wouldn't have been able to do it if he hadn't come along first. This is partially where this thread is disagreeing, since Chuck was one of the original founders, does that mean his riffs are better? I don't think so.

Another component is that the nature of 50's rock n' roll was repetitive, just like a lot of pop music during that time (and today!). It's just the progression of pop music. We're all focusing on the intro riffs here, but I'd have to bet the verse riffs to nearly every one of those songs is pretty much identical too, just in different keys. Does that mean he sucks? No.

We shouldn't deride players for existing before the time of intricate riffs where it was expected each song had a vastly different one than the previous, but we also shouldn't praise them for that very same reason.

Appreciate players in the context of their era, otherwise, there's not really a proper way to compare.

As far as the "if Chuck hadn't come along, we wouldn't have RNR as we know it" line of arguing, maybe, but that's teleological. Any number of players could have done what he did, he just did it first (or most prominently?). Not to mention, I'd have to guess a few others were beginning to do so - though my specific knowledge of this time period is poor, I'd have to guess Buddy Holly and Scotty Moore.

Edited April 23, 2015 by OmarBradley

[Snake-Pit]

You are discussing 'originality' and 'adventure'. The guy invented rock n' roll guitar! How much more original could Chuck theoretically be? Every guy mentioned in this thread (Angus, Page, Iommi, Slash, Izzy, etc.) are basically playing Chuck Berry guitar. Heck, even Hendrix owes a great deal to Chuck and Hendrix was revolutionary.

Chuck Berry, of course, and that whole 50's rock swing. Yeah man, it's fun...

I hear A LOT of that on The Spaghetti Incident!? which is pretty much load of old punk covers... But yeah, I hear it too.

That was recorded by Gilby Clarke though, not Izzy, but Izzy's riff You Could Be Mine; Love it!

Edited April 23, 2015 by Snake-Pit

[DieselDaisy]

You can't compare Chuck Berry to someone like Jimmy Page or Dave Mustaine. Berry (or someone else like Berry) had to come first in order for the later guys to do their thing. Do the later/modern rock/metal/punk musicians write better riffs than Chuck? You betcha. But they wouldn't have been able to do it if he hadn't come along first. This is partially where this thread is disagreeing, since Chuck was one of the original founders, does that mean his riffs are better? I don't think so.

Another component is that the nature of 50's rock n' roll was repetitive, just like a lot of pop music during that time (and today!). It's just the progression of pop music. We're all focusing on the intro riffs here, but I'd have to bet the verse riffs to nearly every one of those songs is pretty much identical too, just in different keys. Does that mean he sucks? No.

We shouldn't deride players for existing before the time of intricate riffs where it was expected each song had a vastly different one than the previous, but we also shouldn't praise them for that very same reason.

Appreciate players in the context of their era, otherwise, there's not really a proper way to compare.

As far as the "if Chuck hadn't come along, we wouldn't have RNR as we know it" line of arguing, maybe, but that's teleological. Any number of players could have done what he did, he just did it first (or most prominently?). Not to mention, I'd have to guess a few others were beginning to do so - though my specific knowledge of this time period is poor, I'd have to guess Buddy Holly and Scotty Moore.

I do not agree. I do not agree about ''the nature of 50's rock n' roll'' being ''repetitive''. There is a tremendous amount of variety there. Firstly you had the Chess tradition, electric, guitar-centric, merging directly from Chicago blues via Chuck. You also had the rockabilly 'Sun Records' tradition as demonstrated by Elvis, Carl Perkins (and later, Buddy Holly) which was more rooted to the country music of the south and was more, acoustic. Chuck is urban whereas the rockabilly sound is more, rural and grassroots. Then you had the New Orleans big band tradition of Little Richard. There is a huge amount of variation in all three of these major sounds. Now if you take a Chuck Berry song it is very different to a Little Richard or Elvis song. Chuck, the guitar bursts out and his lyrical content consists of an urban poetry. Elvis had a completely different sound with the acoustic guitar, Scotty's hillbilly licks and Black's big walking basslines from the Dixon/Johnson set up. Elvis actually did not have a drummer until he joined RCA! Then you had Little Richard where the singing is ramped up. Chuck could sing but Little Richard could sing.

Lyrically, Little Richard and Elvis pertain far more to sex. There is more an innocence in Chuck's lyrics, more, 'Americana'. The sounds are different. The lyrics are different. The image is different. And that is not even mentioning Jerry Lee Lewis (of the Sun Rockabilly tradition) and the earlier pioneers such as Bo Diddly and Fats Domino.

[OmarBradley]

You can't compare Chuck Berry to someone like Jimmy Page or Dave Mustaine. Berry (or someone else like Berry) had to come first in order for the later guys to do their thing. Do the later/modern rock/metal/punk musicians write better riffs than Chuck? You betcha. But they wouldn't have been able to do it if he hadn't come along first. This is partially where this thread is disagreeing, since Chuck was one of the original founders, does that mean his riffs are better? I don't think so.

Another component is that the nature of 50's rock n' roll was repetitive, just like a lot of pop music during that time (and today!). It's just the progression of pop music. We're all focusing on the intro riffs here, but I'd have to bet the verse riffs to nearly every one of those songs is pretty much identical too, just in different keys. Does that mean he sucks? No.

We shouldn't deride players for existing before the time of intricate riffs where it was expected each song had a vastly different one than the previous, but we also shouldn't praise them for that very same reason.

Appreciate players in the context of their era, otherwise, there's not really a proper way to compare.

As far as the "if Chuck hadn't come along, we wouldn't have RNR as we know it" line of arguing, maybe, but that's teleological. Any number of players could have done what he did, he just did it first (or most prominently?). Not to mention, I'd have to guess a few others were beginning to do so - though my specific knowledge of this time period is poor, I'd have to guess Buddy Holly and Scotty Moore.

I do not agree. I do not agree about ''the nature of 50's rock n' roll'' being ''repetitive''. There is a tremendous amount of variety there. Firstly you had the Chess tradition, electric, guitar-centric, merging directly from Chicago blues via Chuck. You also had the rockabilly 'Sun Records' tradition as demonstrated by Elvis, Carl Perkins (and later, Buddy Holly) which was more rooted to the country music of the south and was more, acoustic. Chuck is urban whereas the rockabilly sound is more, rural and grassroots. Then you had the New Orleans big band tradition of Little Richard. There is a huge amount of variation in all three of these major sounds. Now if you take a Chuck Berry song it is very different to a Little Richard or Elvis song. Chuck, the guitar bursts out and his lyrical content consists of an urban poetry. Elvis had a completely different sound with the acoustic guitar, Scotty's hillbilly licks and Black's big walking basslines from the Dixon/Johnson set up. Elvis actually did not have a drummer until he joined RCA! Then you had Little Richard where the singing is ramped up. Chuck could sing but Little Richard could sing.

Lyrically, Little Richard and Elvis pertain far more to sex. There is more an innocence in Chuck's lyrics, more, 'Americana'. The sounds are different. The lyrics are different. The image is different. And that is not even mentioning Jerry Lee Lewis (of the Sun Rockabilly tradition) and the earlier pioneers such as Bo Diddly and Fats Domino.

Okay? So that's 1 word from my post that you've focused 2 paragraphs on, lol. The word "repetitive" was not really even the biggest point in my argument, like I said my knowledge on the era isn't good, and I only know the very very tip of it. And I'm not referring to lyrics at all when I am talking about this.

Edited April 23, 2015 by OmarBradley

[Len Cnut]

What? so we've established Chuck was responsible for inventing the blueprint of rock n' roll. How the fuck does that relevant enough for what we were talking about?

Well first of all i was talking about GTF about the specific notion that those riffs ain't the same...and they're not, the idea is that there was suggestion that he was being unoriginal, so Dies's point about him inventing the shit in pertinent because he was laying the groundwork a genre and establishing it's standards. In that regard is specifically pertinent.

every riff sounds very similar.

I agree they sound similar...not identical though and thats the point i was arguing, something that you took upon yourself to adjust GTFs statement regarding.

It's like he says the same thing over and over again in many of his riffs but it sounds cool everytime,

This is where appreciation of nuance and subtlety comes in, cuz it's not the same thing...or are you exaggerating again? Can we start saying what we mean please so i can make sense of this conversation?

just less interesting compared to a slightly more adventurous approach

What, more adventurous than creating a new genre at the time? Or, if we're being precise, establishing and consolidating the musical template for said genre.

Keep it in the same realm, but ffs say something else.

Chuck is not responsible for your inability or unwillingness to appreciate subtlety.

You can't compare Chuck Berry to someone like Jimmy Page or Dave Mustaine. Berry (or someone else like Berry) had to come first in order for the later guys to do their thing. Do the later/modern rock/metal/punk musicians write better riffs than Chuck? You betcha. But they wouldn't have been able to do it if he hadn't come along first. This is partially where this thread is disagreeing, since Chuck was one of the original founders, does that mean his riffs are better? I don't think so.

Another component is that the nature of 50's rock n' roll was repetitive, just like a lot of pop music during that time (and today!). It's just the progression of pop music. We're all focusing on the intro riffs here, but I'd have to bet the verse riffs to nearly every one of those songs is pretty much identical too, just in different keys. Does that mean he sucks? No.

We shouldn't deride players for existing before the time of intricate riffs where it was expected each song had a vastly different one than the previous, but we also shouldn't praise them for that very same reason.

Appreciate players in the context of their era, otherwise, there's not really a proper way to compare.

As far as the "if Chuck hadn't come along, we wouldn't have RNR as we know it" line of arguing, maybe, but that's teleological. Any number of players could have done what he did, he just did it first (or most prominently?). Not to mention, I'd have to guess a few others were beginning to do so - though my specific knowledge of this time period is poor, I'd have to guess Buddy Holly and Scotty Moore.

I do not agree. I do not agree about ''the nature of 50's rock n' roll'' being ''repetitive''. There is a tremendous amount of variety there. Firstly you had the Chess tradition, electric, guitar-centric, merging directly from Chicago blues via Chuck. You also had the rockabilly 'Sun Records' tradition as demonstrated by Elvis, Carl Perkins (and later, Buddy Holly) which was more rooted to the country music of the south and was more, acoustic. Chuck is urban whereas the rockabilly sound is more, rural and grassroots. Then you had the New Orleans big band tradition of Little Richard. There is a huge amount of variation in all three of these major sounds. Now if you take a Chuck Berry song it is very different to a Little Richard or Elvis song. Chuck, the guitar bursts out and his lyrical content consists of an urban poetry. Elvis had a completely different sound with the acoustic guitar, Scotty's hillbilly licks and Black's big walking basslines from the Dixon/Johnson set up. Elvis actually did not have a drummer until he joined RCA! Then you had Little Richard where the singing is ramped up. Chuck could sing but Little Richard could sing.

Lyrically, Little Richard and Elvis pertain far more to sex. There is more an innocence in Chuck's lyrics, more, 'Americana'. The sounds are different. The lyrics are different. The image is different. And that is not even mentioning Jerry Lee Lewis (of the Sun Rockabilly tradition) and the earlier pioneers such as Bo Diddly and Fats Domino.

Y'know what the truth is? The truth is a lot of people say they like 50s rock n roll cuz they feel they have to, like it's a box they've got to tick but their actual interest in it extends to a few brief runs through '20 Greatest Hits' of whatever artist and thats often about as far as it goes.

[OmarBradley]

What? so we've established Chuck was responsible for inventing the blueprint of rock n' roll. How the fuck does that relevant enough for what we were talking about?

Well first of all i was talking about GTF about the specific notion that those riffs ain't the same...and they're not, the idea is that there was suggestion that he was being unoriginal, so Dies's point about him inventing the shit in pertinent because he was laying the groundwork a genre and establishing it's standards. In that regard is specifically pertinent.

every riff sounds very similar.

I agree they sound similar...not identical though and thats the point i was arguing, something that you took upon yourself to adjust GTFs statement regarding.

It's like he says the same thing over and over again in many of his riffs but it sounds cool everytime,

This is where appreciation of nuance and subtlety comes in, cuz it's not the same thing...or are you exaggerating again? Can we start saying what we mean please so i can make sense of this conversation?

just less interesting compared to a slightly more adventurous approach

What, more adventurous than creating a new genre at the time? Or, if we're being precise, establishing and consolidating the musical template for said genre.

Keep it in the same realm, but ffs say something else.

Chuck is not responsible for your inability or unwillingness to appreciate subtlety.

You can't compare Chuck Berry to someone like Jimmy Page or Dave Mustaine. Berry (or someone else like Berry) had to come first in order for the later guys to do their thing. Do the later/modern rock/metal/punk musicians write better riffs than Chuck? You betcha. But they wouldn't have been able to do it if he hadn't come along first. This is partially where this thread is disagreeing, since Chuck was one of the original founders, does that mean his riffs are better? I don't think so.

Another component is that the nature of 50's rock n' roll was repetitive, just like a lot of pop music during that time (and today!). It's just the progression of pop music. We're all focusing on the intro riffs here, but I'd have to bet the verse riffs to nearly every one of those songs is pretty much identical too, just in different keys. Does that mean he sucks? No.

We shouldn't deride players for existing before the time of intricate riffs where it was expected each song had a vastly different one than the previous, but we also shouldn't praise them for that very same reason.

Appreciate players in the context of their era, otherwise, there's not really a proper way to compare.

As far as the "if Chuck hadn't come along, we wouldn't have RNR as we know it" line of arguing, maybe, but that's teleological. Any number of players could have done what he did, he just did it first (or most prominently?). Not to mention, I'd have to guess a few others were beginning to do so - though my specific knowledge of this time period is poor, I'd have to guess Buddy Holly and Scotty Moore.

I do not agree. I do not agree about ''the nature of 50's rock n' roll'' being ''repetitive''. There is a tremendous amount of variety there. Firstly you had the Chess tradition, electric, guitar-centric, merging directly from Chicago blues via Chuck. You also had the rockabilly 'Sun Records' tradition as demonstrated by Elvis, Carl Perkins (and later, Buddy Holly) which was more rooted to the country music of the south and was more, acoustic. Chuck is urban whereas the rockabilly sound is more, rural and grassroots. Then you had the New Orleans big band tradition of Little Richard. There is a huge amount of variation in all three of these major sounds. Now if you take a Chuck Berry song it is very different to a Little Richard or Elvis song. Chuck, the guitar bursts out and his lyrical content consists of an urban poetry. Elvis had a completely different sound with the acoustic guitar, Scotty's hillbilly licks and Black's big walking basslines from the Dixon/Johnson set up. Elvis actually did not have a drummer until he joined RCA! Then you had Little Richard where the singing is ramped up. Chuck could sing but Little Richard could sing.

Lyrically, Little Richard and Elvis pertain far more to sex. There is more an innocence in Chuck's lyrics, more, 'Americana'. The sounds are different. The lyrics are different. The image is different. And that is not even mentioning Jerry Lee Lewis (of the Sun Rockabilly tradition) and the earlier pioneers such as Bo Diddly and Fats Domino.

Y'know what the truth is? The truth is a lot of people say they like 50s rock n roll cuz they feel they have to, like it's a box they've got to tick but their actual interest in it extends to a few brief runs through '20 Greatest Hits' of whatever artist and thats often about as far as it goes.

Same goes for jazz I've noticed.

[Rovim]

What? so we've established Chuck was responsible for inventing the blueprint of rock n' roll. How the fuck does that relevant enough for what we were talking about?

Well first of all i was talking about GTF about the specific notion that those riffs ain't the same...and they're not, the idea is that there was suggestion that he was being unoriginal, so Dies's point about him inventing the shit in pertinent because he was laying the groundwork a genre and establishing it's standards. In that regard is specifically pertinent.

every riff sounds very similar.

I agree they sound similar...not identical though and thats the point i was arguing, something that you took upon yourself to adjust GTFs statement regarding.

It's like he says the same thing over and over again in many of his riffs but it sounds cool everytime,

This is where appreciation of nuance and subtlety comes in, cuz it's not the same thing...or are you exaggerating again? Can we start saying what we mean please so i can make sense of this conversation?

just less interesting compared to a slightly more adventurous approach

What, more adventurous than creating a new genre at the time? Or, if we're being precise, establishing and consolidating the musical template for said genre.

Keep it in the same realm, but ffs say something else.

Chuck is not responsible for your inability or unwillingness to appreciate subtlety.

You must be joking. He created something new and original, but his work since has been repetitive. Still great stuff, love him, let's leave it at that cause I don't think some people here get what I mean they're just hearing "chuck is unoriginal!".

Also: I always aim to say what I mean.

[Len Cnut]

What? so we've established Chuck was responsible for inventing the blueprint of rock n' roll. How the fuck does that relevant enough for what we were talking about?

Well first of all i was talking about GTF about the specific notion that those riffs ain't the same...and they're not, the idea is that there was suggestion that he was being unoriginal, so Dies's point about him inventing the shit in pertinent because he was laying the groundwork a genre and establishing it's standards. In that regard is specifically pertinent.

every riff sounds very similar.

I agree they sound similar...not identical though and thats the point i was arguing, something that you took upon yourself to adjust GTFs statement regarding.

It's like he says the same thing over and over again in many of his riffs but it sounds cool everytime,

This is where appreciation of nuance and subtlety comes in, cuz it's not the same thing...or are you exaggerating again? Can we start saying what we mean please so i can make sense of this conversation?

just less interesting compared to a slightly more adventurous approach

What, more adventurous than creating a new genre at the time? Or, if we're being precise, establishing and consolidating the musical template for said genre.

Keep it in the same realm, but ffs say something else.

Chuck is not responsible for your inability or unwillingness to appreciate subtlety.

You must be joking. He created something new and original, but his work since has been repetitive. Still great stuff, love him, let's leave it at that cause I don't think some people here get what I mean they're just hearing "chuck is unoriginal!".

Also: I always aim to say what I mean.

Well that is close to calling someone unoriginal isnt it? Almost like you're saying 'he did that one thing and then its been the same after', which is wrong on two counts, firstly its not the same and secondly doing that one original thing, if in fact it was the only original thing, its pretty fuckin' seismic, does he have to revolutionise modern music every time for him to not be called repetitive?

The fact that no one has in anyway expanded on his template says a great deal to me. No, solos getting longer and adding tonal instrumentation does not consistute expanding the template, thats called dressing up the template.