I accept the saying that The Who were one of the “thinking man’s rock bands,” but this Songbook entry is more music-focused than idea-focused. Instead of considering the fairly interesting and very zeitgeist-representative lyrical content of these two songs, I’m contrasting them here to highlight the departure already mentioned in passing in the Songbook, from rock n’ roll to rock.
Here I want to lay my cards on the table. Rock and roll, also known as rhythm and blues, is first and foremost a type of dance music, and one of deliberately apparent simplicity. (It sounds simple, spontaneous, and untutored to its ideal listeners, people who want to dance heartily—but its musicians need a lot of tutored artistry to get that sound, as we shall see.) Contrary to what many assume, musically it is what it is whether or not a rebellious attitude or a go-for-broke hedonism accompanies it. Rock, on the other hand, is a rhythmically heavier or simplified departure from rock and roll, resulting in hard rock and, less objectionably, in the various forms of art rock and rock-based pop.
For example, the Who’s “My Generation” is rock and roll, still musically akin to tunes like Joe Turner’s “Shake, Rattle, and Roll,” whereas their later “Won’t Get Fooled Again” isn’t. Rock and roll practically pulls one onto the dance floor, whereas rock forces dancers to put more effort—perhaps aided by various drugs–into locating the groove. What hard rock invites is something like the gesturing of a Beethoven-esque symphony-conductor–this can be mocked (or ironically embraced) as “head banging,” but the deeper invitation is to tune oneself to the muse of profound primality. The fact that many rock artists elude purely musical definition by mixing various styles—even the hard rock archetype Led Zeppelin, for example, often played mystic folk or “hardened” rock and roll–doesn’t alter the fact that this change did occur, and that it signified a deeper turn in aesthetic attitude.
Compare and contrast the two films linked below of the Who in live action—in the earlier one, the band is actually named The High Numbers(you can skip about a 1:30 in for the music). Moving from ’64 to ’71, note particularly the dramatic gestures, and their general amped-uped-ness, The Who has to rely upon in the hard rock number, as opposed to the more audience-connected and seemingly effortless dance vibe of the rock and roll numbers.
One might also notice there are parts of “Won’t Get Fooled Again” that are more purely hard rock, and parts that are nearly rock and roll. One might also judge that it is a more melodically memorable song than is “My Generation” or the High Numbers’ numbers. I’m not denying that hard rock came out of rock n’ roll, and was able in certain ways to half-retain its characteristics, nor am I denying that it could do some things better. If stage drama is your thing, or a passage that sticks in your memory more vividly, hard rock might be the way to go. But take a look and listen at what you’re missing: the footage of The High Numbers shows us a shindig whose music is sexier, bluesier, swingier, and just way more fun. It also is a shindig in which the spotlight is not so much upon the band—they are clearly there to serve the dancer’s need, and they need the dancers for their music to make sense. And while this particular audience is made up of those super-serious-about-being-hip teenagers the mods, there is no question that the High Numbers could get a high school auditorium rockin’ anywhere, and that some of the chaperones there, whether they’re 30 or 80, would be tappin’ their toes and wishin’ they could join in. Big-time Meaning is not in the house, whereas it’s screamin’ it’s head off in the mixture of party/rally/happening/statement that “We Won’t Get Fooled Again” seems to be striving to be.
Again, Martha Bayles’ book Hole in our Soul lays out the Rock n’ Roll v. Rock departure/difference better than I can here. I know some readers will find much to quarrel with in my summary statements above, in the second and third paragraphs—all I can say is they are statements only arrived at through much back-and-forth thinking, after accounting for a great deal, and that I know that they verge on over-simplification.
Finally, I did aurally illustrate, somewhat cheekily, the basic change in aesthetic attitude in my Rock n’ Roll Patriotism post in Songbook #10. 15 more irrefutable proofs await you there.


July 28th, 2011 | 2:43 pm
Carl, Your examples well illustrate your point. Thanks for this.
I wonder where the phenomenon of “air guitar” (and any other “air” instrumentalism) fits in with the movement from rock and roll to rock. One mimics the amped up activities of the stage players. It is kind of a dance, but to borrow from Billy Idol, it is a dance that one could do with oneself. And it is entirely an unnecessary act and quite easy to do out of mockery–it is a diversion and could be done simply out of boredom.
The High Numbers play music that serves as a platform for which dancers can dance together, and that is simultaneously be soulful sexy fun music.
Perhaps one could contrast this to a Grateful Dead concert (at least from ’70s onward–and definitely during the ’80s, a time with which I am more familiar) with seemingly endless 40 minute “jams” where each audience member does his own “hippie dead dance,” peaceably living one amongst another as a “hippie Locke” might say.
Also you have persuaded me that it is important for me to read Martha Bayles’ book.
August 2nd, 2011 | 5:52 pm
“I accept the saying that The Who were one of the “thinking man’s rock bands…”
Are you kidding me? Rush is the “thinking man’s rock band”. No one else comes close.
August 13th, 2011 | 5:03 pm
[...] previous Songbook posts, I’ve posed rock and roll against rock, and against hard rock in particular. So what about the [...]
October 22nd, 2011 | 4:48 pm
[...] hope you’ll come back and mix it up with us from time to time. If you’re interested, here’s one of my attacks on the hard rock style, and here’s a broader attack on rock’s self-importance, oh, and finally, here’s where I say [...]
January 25th, 2012 | 11:12 pm
[...] by the criteria laid out in Songbook #12, this is not a Rock song, but a rock n’ roll [...]
February 4th, 2012 | 10:25 am
[...] by the criteria laid out in Songbook #12, this is not a Rock song, but a rock n’ roll [...]
February 4th, 2012 | 4:05 pm
[...] document.write(''); [Note: by the criteria laid out in Songbook #12, this is not a Rock song, but a rock n’ roll [...]
June 28th, 2012 | 12:14 am
[...] Since I want films about any and every sort of pop music since the advent of jazz, and about the rock music of 1966 to the present, for this topic I’m sort of overlooking the rock v. rock n’ roll distinction I insist upon elsewhere. [...]
January 21st, 2013 | 6:57 pm
[...] This was in the “pretty bad book” category. Yes, you will wind up agreeing that Pete was wrongly accused in and portrayed by the press on the child-pornography purchasing charges, and this perhaps was his main motive for writing it, but the big result is that you will find yourself wondering where the man behind the “thinking man’s rock band” is. Or, if this is the real guy, how he ever got a reputation for being so thoughtful. Very little insight into the music scene swirling around him, and very old baby-boomerish rock attitudes about lots of things, such as how profound Tommy and Quadrophenia are. You learn things here and there about the music, such as the importance of performance for The Who, and why the demand for that was the real impetus behind the Tommy-esque pattern of the 70s. You see why Live at Leeds is really the pivotal Who album, from this perspective. I have fond memories of that album, and this hard-rock-justifying perspective makes some sense, but I’ve issues with the post-Tommy Who, as I laid out here. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact