>>127636365
>Why did blacks just do nothing with rock music immediately after inventing it?

False premise that oversimplifies.

First of all, blacks when they were playing Delta Blues in the early 20th century they were using a European guitar. They were doing those slides and chord bending that reminded African tribal chants, but much more woeful as it reflected their downtrodden existence. So even the blues was the result of cultural crosspolination.

As they had low social status, they were relegated to jobs that the majority would not do. Like shoe shining, hard labour, and entertainment. Somethins similar happened in Eastern Europe with gypsies, who have been playing in tarafs as musical entertainers for centuries.

So they brought their styles into their performances. That's how they influenced those early 20th century styles: charleston, swing, jazz. THat wasn't even about music, it was entertainment. Closer to what we call today dance music.

This eventually got picked up by more established performers who incorporated these jumpy beats with swinging notes and that's how we got Buddy Holly. This was the poppified version of those black influences. And they called that rock and roll. Even though a lot of those songs sounded like ballads.

Buddy Holly already doesn't sound black almost at all. He sounds closer to European lied or chanson, but with some black influence in terms of syncopation and slight swing in the melodies.

The public decided what became popular. If blacks couldn't capitalise more on their roots music, then it was probably because the white majority didn't resonate much with that sorrowful music, they wanted to hear upbeat entertaining tunes.