Timeline for Correct answer from options: True, false and not given
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2017 at 10:17 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | I also have to disagree with the logic in this answer. The statement that “If you start replacing or supplementing the lead instrument with the guitar in the middle to late 1950s, then it wasn't involved - either as the lead or a supplementary instrument - before that point” is false. You can have a main lead instrument and a supplementary lead instrument quite separate from supplementary (backing) instruments, and it is perfectly possible—and logical—for an instrument to move from backing instrument to supplementary lead instrument, and then eventually to main lead instrument. | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 23:17 | comment | added | Codeformer | @DavidRicherby Does a supplement to lead instrument mean being non lead instrument ? | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 15:55 | comment | added | David Richerby | I disagree with this answer, though it may well be the logic the question-setter was using. The text says that the guitar was added to the set of possible lead instruments in the mid-to-late 1950s, whereas your interpretation is that it was added to rock and roll at that time. The text simply doesn't say whether guitars were used as non-lead instruments at any time. | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 11:23 | comment | added | Flater | You say "Saying that rock and roll music was supplemented by the guitar in the middle to late 1950s", but that is not the case for OP's snippet: "either the piano or saxophone was often the lead instrument, but these were generally replaced or supplemented by guitar". It is the lead instruments that were replaced or supplemented, not rock 'n roll itself. Rock 'n roll itself could not be replaced by guitar; and therefore rock 'n rol is not the thing that gets supplemented! These verbs must have the same subject. That makes a huge difference for the interpretation of your answer. | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 11:21 | comment | added | Flater | You make a very valid point, one that many missed; but I don't think you can be 100% sure about your case. "The lead instrument role was supplemented by guitars" (as an example sentence) would contradict your theory and support OP's case that it is uncertain. Since the main topic of the snippet is about lead instruments; one can logically infer that the supplementation focuses on which instruments have been used as lead instruments (and the guitar was later added to this list); but it does not implicitly state that the guitar was never used as a backing instrument. | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 9:40 | comment | added | Anthony Grist | @DRF The guitar can either be involved or not involved. If it's involved, it can either be the lead instrument or a supplementary instrument. If you start replacing or supplementing the lead instrument with the guitar in the middle to late 1950s, then it wasn't involved - either as the lead or a supplementary instrument - before that point; if it was already involved as a supplementary instrument prior, you couldn't begin to supplement the lead with it at a later point. The text may not be factually accurate, but it's not ambiguous in what it's saying. | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 8:59 | comment | added | Codeformer | Historically, guitars were used before 1950s , I found that from here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_rock_and_roll#1920s | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 8:47 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A |
@Vinod [EDITED] +1 from me, but I'd also add that 1940s implies any year starting from 1940 until 1949. One would need to read the entire text to find out when R&R first appeared on the music scene. The text cited says: ... late 1940s and early 1950s...
|
|
| Jul 3, 2017 at 8:43 | comment | added | Codeformer | @Mari-LouA Thank you, I will try to get the complete passage. | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 8:40 | comment | added | Codeformer | Ideally, our knowledge on history shouldn't impact our answer to this question. This is purely to understand what one should make out from the given passage. However , I have asked this question on music history out of curiosity here. music.stackexchange.com/questions/58886/… | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 8:23 | comment | added | DRF | The supplemented seems to me to be regarding "the lead instrument" not in general in rock and roll music. While the reading of supplemented as applying to rock and roll in general or in the sense of all non lead instruments being supplementary is viable it seems quite unlikely given the actual history. | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 7:54 | comment | added | Codeformer | I read your answer again, I think you have valid point. I need to think more on it. Thank you for the well thought answer. | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 7:46 | comment | added | Codeformer | "supplemented by the guitar in the middle to late 1950s" is the same as saying "the guitar was added to rock and roll music in the middle to late 1950s". The replacement or being supplemented here refers to the role of being the lead instrument. Guitar took the role of lead instrument from the middle of 1950s , isn't it ? | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 7:36 | history | answered | Anthony Grist | CC BY-SA 3.0 |