You seem to think catfish is "right," but he fails to define what is the clear difference between rock and rock and roll. Sure, he gives us a nice lesson in some of the originators of rock music, but he hasn't given us a clear statement about what rock and roll IS and isn't.

Where, if catfish is right, would one draw the line?

Way before the pillows.




Look, it's obvious by your rhetoric and lack of a clear argument against catfish that you're in over your head. Heck, I'm in over my head when it comes to most history. But I at least know the difference between rock and roll and pop rock when i hear it. I'm not calling pop rock bad. i've heard good pop rock before. You're probably going to take this the wrong way, but please just give up. Honestly, changing the topic isn't solving any of your skewed opinion. So just admit you're wrong, and get on with life. It's that simple. People mess up. Get over it.

I'm not wrong, and the one who is not clear is catfish.

You're avoiding the question. Where do you draw the line?

Are the rolling stones rock and roll? How about the beatles? Since catfish is so right and I'm in so over my head, can we have some examples of bands that are and aren't rock and roll? And can you arrange them in such a way that it is clear where the cut off is? If not, cut the condescending tone.

You are the one not posing an argument; your last post served only to say that I am wrong.

this has gone a little too far.

if you're going to post quotes from people not on this board, keep it in line.