Santa Kang wrote:
Cash has solid Rock n Roll cred. Dusty had the blue eyed soul thing going on. Love Merle, but he's solidly country. Warwick, could she be any more pop?
Those were just examples, but that kind of pigeonholing is what I don't get. I understand Johnny Cash going in, but he's not somehow less country. The influence of Haggard's lean, anti-Countrypolitan Bakersfield sound can be heard all over the Byrds-Burritos-CSN-Eagles axis of California rock and roll and well beyond. Dusty Springfield had one great soul-influenced album; most of her chart success was exactly the same kind of pop as Warwick was recording, and often the same Bacharach-David songs. Why is Warwick's "pop" less admissible than Brenda Lee's, or Abba's, or Madonna's?
said, "rock and roll" was not originally so rigidly defined. These kind of arbitrary, indefinable barriers of what's "in" and what's "out" seem exclusive, while I think the best rock and roll/popular music has been inclusive and diversely influenced.