No tags :(

Share it



With only a few more records to go before we get to the 1950’s we’re going to take some time to add in a few 1940’s songs we either overlooked or intentionally avoided for various reasons when first covering this ground. It won’t take long and hopefully will paint a more vivid picture of the first era of rock as we head into the second era in the next week or two.


Here’s a not so random question pertaining to how people view music: Is being deemed generic as bad as its reputation would suggest?

I guess it depends on your definition of the word.

If you go by the definition of generic as “lacking imagination or individuality; predictable and unoriginal” then you’d probably say it was a pretty scathing put-down of an artist who cut the record in question.

But if you were to use a slightly different explanation of the term, “characteristic of a group or class of thing”, then maybe your estimation of a generic record would be a bit different, not overwhelmingly positive perhaps, but certainly not negative either as it essentially means that it is entirely fitting for the genre in question.

But which definition of the term does Clarence Samuels’ emerging catalog fit under? Songs which on paper fit into the general themes and structure of what rock is in the process of firmly establishing, but because they all seem to have serious drawbacks in some aspect of their execution never have much of a chance to seem more innovative than they are to leave a very positive impression.
Continue reading »