Well bless Little Steven for doing so much toward educating the goofy kids about Rock 'N' Roll! I know that a lot o' folks that sign-up for The Hideout list his show as their "Favorite GaragePunk Podcast(s)" (does he podcast, or is it a radio show?), so folks like what he does... But, seriously folks, that sound-bite/magazine quote ain't cutting edge or sensational in any way, shape, or form. Plain and simple: it's predictable, safe, and tame. Just admit it! We could all think of a nice, compact quip that could have shaken up the interviewer real good, couldn't we?

Saying that the quote leaves a lot to be desired is no knock on the man or what he has accomplished.

Good for Little Stevie for bringing the Sonics back, but it would certainly be bitter sweet if I had to to hear LS wank all over it.

I understand how looking at Little Steven’s comment on the Beatles in isolation can be taken as flippant, or even insulting, in regards to the great pre-’64 bands. Maybe many people here don’t listen to Little Steven’s show or station often. But if you take a look at his other words and actions, it might put things in a different light. The guy regularly plays the Wailers, Sonics, Beach Boys, Trashmen, Ventures and many other pre-’64 bands on his station (as well as the rock ‘n roll pioneers). He calls the ’63 recording of “Louie Louie” by the Kingsmen the “Gospel of Garage”. He has done syndicated shows specifically dedicated to Surf. He has spoken glowingly about the early-‘60s Pacific Northwest scene, including calling it the beginning of the garage rock movement. There was a comment earlier in this discussion about Little Steven practically ruining the Sonics show in Seattle last year with his on-stage antics. I can’t speak to that specifically, and perhaps that’s the case. But give him some credit. He’s the guy who coaxed the Sonics out of retirement in the first place, and helped promote their return.

Is it hyperbole or is it the ubiquitous revisionism and flattening-out of historical events, complex issues and societal trends that runs rampant through the mediashpere? Either way, I think it's total bullshit and it's exactly why popular culture is a waste of time.

While I wish that Little Stephen might have chosen to expand on the topic to reflect a greater degree of accuracy, it certainly would have lacked the punchiness of what a magazine editor is looking for. While I think it's unfair to criticize L.S. for being media savvy... why am I so completely annoyed by his statement? Maybe it's *not* too harsh to expect that L.S. who has been a (dare I say) champion of the garagerock cause to not willfully gloss over details in pursuit of a tasty quote. I think I'd feel pretty insulted if I'd played in a pre-'64 r&r outfit.

And what inspires the greatest amount of pissyness and resignation in me is that nothing about this (the "story" and the debate that follows) comes as any surprise (Please pass the rageahol).

Finally, here's a book suggestion: True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society by Farhad Manjoo. A good book that'll explain why You, Me and Little Stephen can all have the "right" story and why that should make you even more depressed.

Also worth sayin', not sure how cool I am with LS even being a loose spokes person fer garage rock ...maybe that's part o' the reason I am slippin' away from straight garage rock and fallin' mo' & mo' in love with garagepunk

Thee Crucials said:

I just picked up this:
Elijah Wald's How the Beatles Destroyed Rock n Roll: An Alternative History of American Popular Music. I hope to get to it this week after I finish Sonic Boom, a history of the northwest rock 'n' roll scene. I might send Little Steven some copies, or at least the Cliffs Notes versions.

Thanx fer the gettin' me hip to this book...bout thee only thing I could gleam from this muck of a thread... Who gives a shit what the fuck a schmuck-fuck of a bad guitarist has to say...let it be said again how much I hate all that Springstink shit and how the few times I was unlucky enuf to tune into LS's "garage rock" show I was blasted with E street band garbage...lost serious cred by always pushin' his own musical work...

Richard Meltzer was once asked to do a comprehensive "best of the 60s" article for a magazine (in 1969 no less). He "pulled a fast one" and only covered the early 60s. Funny shit. If you don't own the anthology of his essays "A Whore Just Like The Rest", I highly recommend getting it!

Ha, good point! Anyway, I’m just saying that LS's is using hyperbole to illustrate the incredible impact the appearance of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan had on rock ‘n roll, and popular culture as a whole. Just my two cents… kopper said:

OK, so my point is an "understatement" yet Little Steven's comment is "being taken too literally."

Whatever, man. I don't read "Black is black" and construe that to mean "Black is kinda like dark gray."

Gas-House Gorilla said:

RayDanger has hit the nail right on the head. I think Little Steven’s statement is being taken way too literally. The point is that rock 'n roll was completely hemorrhaging until the Beatles hit the Ed Sullivan show, and that singular event changed everything. Kopper saying that this appearance gave rock ‘n roll a huge shot in the arm is too much of an understatement. It completely resuscitated rock ‘n roll – to the point of it becoming the dominate form of popular music. And thousands of bands cropped up throughout the country essentially the next day.

As for Little Steven, I am a bit fan his. Perhaps he makes some mistakes and missteps along the way, but he is doing as much as (and likely more than) anybody to promote great music. Outside of his program, and the GaragePunk podcasts, it’s very difficult to hear music of any quality. You sure as hell can’t do it by turning on the radio.

OK, so my point is an "understatement" yet Little Steven's comment is "being taken too literally." Whatever, man. I don't read "Black is black" and construe that to mean "Black is kinda like dark gray." Gas-House Gorilla said:

RayDanger has hit the nail right on the head. I think Little Steven’s statement is being taken way too literally. The point is that rock 'n roll was completely hemorrhaging until the Beatles hit the Ed Sullivan show, and that singular event changed everything. Kopper saying that this appearance gave rock ‘n roll a huge shot in the arm is too much of an understatement. It completely resuscitated rock ‘n roll – to the point of it becoming the dominate form of popular music. And thousands of bands cropped up throughout the country essentially the next day.

As for Little Steven, I am a bit fan his. Perhaps he makes some mistakes and missteps along the way, but he is doing as much as (and likely more than) anybody to promote great music. Outside of his program, and the GaragePunk podcasts, it’s very difficult to hear music of any quality. You sure as hell can’t do it by turning on the radio.

RayDanger has hit the nail right on the head. I think Little Steven’s statement is being taken way too literally. The point is that rock 'n roll was completely hemorrhaging until the Beatles hit the Ed Sullivan show, and that singular event changed everything. Kopper saying that this appearance gave rock ‘n roll a huge shot in the arm is too much of an understatement. It completely resuscitated rock ‘n roll – to the point of it becoming the dominate form of popular music. And thousands of bands cropped up throughout the country essentially the next day.

As for Little Steven, I am a bit fan his. Perhaps he makes some mistakes and missteps along the way, but he is doing as much as (and likely more than) anybody to promote great music. Outside of his program, and the GaragePunk podcasts, it’s very difficult to hear music of any quality. You sure as hell can’t do it by turning on the radio.

OK Everyone, keep slappin' those highfives! Kopper: Exactly my say! MK: Me neither am an expert, hahahah. Jorge: Right my say again! Well, now to be seriuos: To say it with the friendly mock-yer-ass-words of Bo Diddley: Little Steve, if you wanna be so true to the facts then ya better "Quit mumblin' and talk out loud!" Make that shit clear, and don't be another quoter on the back of a book. Am I riled up, shit yes! 'Cause people listen to you - and then you got another round a teenagers that take years to figure out the good shit behind the big sellers. PC is, I guess, not so much the topic here, as little Steven hardly seems to be Mr. Controversial and his quote not the kind of thing that gets people thinking thru the backdoor of provoking shit. Crucials: I think that "Twist and shout" example stands quite well for what the Beatles have partly built their success on at that point, namely covering songs that don't need any covering (...covering them in the Beatles sense) and making the big buck with that. Yeah sure, covering also was pretty common do back then, whole sets of teenage bands just being covers of R'n'B and stuff, but it's just something else. Now it's "their" song to many people that never went after the source. But it was already awesome. the Beatles always had the reputation of making songs "better" by their technically good playing (compared to real raw rockers). I don't see their covering in the same rank as, say Hasil Adkins doing "the Banana boat song" because that's a reinterpreting by an original musician (who would also have much more than deserved his place in the charts) and not a hype-up crowd pleaser for the dancefloor by a band with a business plan. But all grudges aside, ya can't make a song like that better, because it is perfect in it's original form, as a friend of mine used to say. I guess that's one part why the Beatles can't stand as a seminal group in the vein of that quote. They just had a different position than most of the bands at that time. Just like little Steven has among rockfans and journalists. I'm afraid I thread dangerous/dorkish waters here, but his past makes him pretty biased on that topic and his viewpoints on R'N'R. AND to finally set myself up as a wiseass: R'N'R might have been dead to the media and to musicians as a new, inspirational music genre, but did that ever stop it from growing until now?? I couldn't care less what some dickwaddddd (not meaning LS) would say. There is always something growing and brooding somewhere in some small cavern, and that's what this music lives from, not epoch making news and (s)hits.

I've heard of him. I've never heard his radio show. And the only Bruce Springsteen song that I am positive that I've heard is "Born in the USA". I truly live under a rock. Alex said:

BUT... one point I think we're missing here... am I to understand that Michael Kaiser hasn't heard of Little Steven? Steve Van Zandt? Of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band?

I agree with everyone that there were clearly rock 'n' roll bands before the Beatles. And certainly there were bands that stuck to that same sound even after the Beatles changed their sound to move away from the traditional "rock 'n' roll" sound (not that they could ever rock half as hard as the Sonics). BUT... one point I think we're missing here... am I to understand that Michael Kaiser hasn't heard of Little Steven? Steve Van Zandt? Of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band? Michael Kaiser said:

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.

Momentary lapse of judgement because his bandana was on too tightly. Michael Kaiser said:

Out of curiosity how did you get all that out of that quote? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, and admittedly I'm not too clever, not did I read the article or the quote on his page. Did Kopper take that out of context? When I read something that starts with "February 8, 1964, there was not one single rock 'n' roll band in the country" I can't fit all of what you have embellished in there. I understand hyperbole. That quote makes for terrible hyperbole.

Help me out, because I love giving the benefit of the doubt!


Kevin Schneider said:

Obviously... He meant they were few and far between, although the claim that they were few and far between is not entirely true either. There were just a lot more on February 10.

And I also don't think he has trying to indicate that there had not ever been American rock and roll groups prior to 1964, just that there weren't many in early 1964.

Out of curiosity how did you get all that out of that quote? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, and admittedly I'm not too clever, not did I read the article or the quote on his page. Did Kopper take that out of context? When I read something that starts with "February 8, 1964, there was not one single rock 'n' roll band in the country" I can't fit all of what you have embellished in there. I understand hyperbole. That quote makes for terrible hyperbole. Help me out, because I love giving the benefit of the doubt! Kevin Schneider said:

Obviously... He meant they were few and far between, although the claim that they were few and far between is not entirely true either. There were just a lot more on February 10.

And I also don't think he has trying to indicate that there had not ever been American rock and roll groups prior to 1964, just that there weren't many in early 1964.

Obviously, he was exagerating when he said there were NO groups. He meant they were few and far between, although the claim that they were few and far between is not entirely true either. There were just a lot more on February 10. And I also don't think he has trying to indicate that there had not ever been American rock and roll groups prior to 1964, just that there weren't many in early 1964. So groups that existed in 1955 or 1958 are irrelevant to the discussion. Also solo artists are irrelevant to the discussion as they are not groups. The Kingsmen version of Louie Louie was by a group and was came out in April 0f '63, and influenced many American teens to pick up a guitar well before the Beatles but still within the general time frame being discussed. And the Kingsmen weren't even the first group to record the song in the early 60s. Not to mention the Kingsmen were only one part of a thriving and active northwest music scene and that there were hundreds of other bands across the country releaseing singles and/or playing at clubs/dances/parties/garages/basements/drive-ins.

I'm with Michael Kaiser on this...

Little Steven is a dork. He practically ruined The Sonics show in Seattle last year by going on and on with masturbatory guitar licks...

I can think if a dozen great bands before the Beatles played Ed Sullivan. Were they popular? Not so much. Were they killer? Hell yeah!

Just off the top of my head - Link Wray, The Wailers, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry...

I just picked up this: Elijah Wald's How the Beatles Destroyed Rock n Roll: An Alternative History of American Popular Music. I hope to get to it this week after I finish Sonic Boom, a history of the northwest rock 'n' roll scene. I might send Little Steven some copies, or at least the Cliffs Notes versions. Yeah, there's no denying The Beatles defined what a traditional teenage rock 'n' roll band could be and galvanized the teenage rock 'n' roll landscape. However, some of my favorite rock 'n' roll thrived between the demise of the first wave of r'n'r stars and the onset of the British Invasion. I've heard that era called Kennedy Pop. Whatever the name, there were tons of exciting sounds bubbling up all over the country, and I hate to see it dismissed because it wasn't as "thoughtful" as later-period Beatles experimentations. As for The Beatles, I'll take "Twist and Shout" and "It Won't Be Long" over anything from Sgt. Peppers. Just a reflection of my taste in music. I've never been a big fan of psyche, freakbeat, or its offshoots. Some of it works for me, but usually the frilly embellishments leave me cold. Plus all the ridiculous lights shows, day-glo, and lava lamps just seem over the top.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.