Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?

[tattuchu]

Rock may still be alive in one form another but it seems to me there are no big important influential bands. There are no modern day Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin or Floyd. There is no vibrant and pervasive rock scene. Any radio station that plays rock plays classic rock. Contemporary rock acts are few and far between and the exception now as opposed to the rule

[Audley Strange]

Well first of all those old bands had little competition. Secondly with the exception of Stones, they had short careers. Thirdly Zep and Floyd never really released many singles. Fourthly there is the mists of nostalgia. Fifthly music is less tribal these days so "scenes" tend to be transitory. As for Rock, as I say it mutated. You've got country rock, hard rock, jazz rock, heavy black death and sludge metal, math rock, grindcore, doomcore, drone and various other forms, screamo, emo, goth and so forth.

The classics are only classics because there were so few of them.

Music thrives. Rock isn't a genre anymore. There is so much that you have to look or you will be plied the same shit over and over.

To everyone else. Check out the music event thread, Scrumple is saving you all a lot of time.

[Robert_S]

Thankfully, I no longer have any coworkers who insist on listening to the corporate mainstream radio stations.

But listening to them brought up the question: If 99% of the music out there is crap, then why can't this crappy station come up with a playlist longer than 45 minutes?

To respond to the original post: Rock is going in all kinds of directions, it's just not taking MTV with it.

[klr]

Well first of all those old bands had little competition. Secondly with the exception of Stones, they had short careers. Thirdly Zep and Floyd never really released many singles. Fourthly there is the mists of nostalgia. Fifthly music is less tribal these days so "scenes" tend to be transitory. As for Rock, as I say it mutated. You've got country rock, hard rock, jazz rock, heavy black death and sludge metal, math rock, grindcore, doomcore, drone and various other forms, screamo, emo, goth and so forth.

The classics are only classics because there were so few of them.

Music thrives. Rock isn't a genre anymore. There is so much that you have to look or you will be plied the same shit over and over.

To everyone else. Check out the music event thread, Scrumple is saving you all a lot of time.

Music is less tribal, yes ... but also much more fragmented. So have our lives in general - music is just one facet of that. Very few shared experiences that most people can relate to.

There is a strong chance that many of the "classics" will remain so in whatever counts for the public conciousness into the future, long after more recent music (be it more or less deserving) has been largely forgotten.

Thankfully, I no longer have any coworkers who insist on listening to the corporate mainstream radio stations.

But listening to them brought up the question: If 99% of the music out there is crap, then why can't this crappy station come up with a playlist longer than 45 minutes?

To respond to the original post: Rock is going in all kinds of directions, it's just not taking MTV with it.

Now, that really would make me go postal ...

[Coito ergo sum]

I know I will face push back here. People will say, "Hey, there are still some great rock songs around," or "Hey, what about this jazz musician?" But really, those are the equivalent of anecdotes. I'm talking about a trend. Can modern jazz really compare to that of the '30s, '40s, and early '50s, when Billie Holiday, Louis Armstrong, Lester Young, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Coleman Hawkins, Django Reinhardt, and innumerable greats held sway? You'd be hard pressed to make the case, for jazz has largely exhausted itself. The same holds for classical music. Do you believe that in 200 years symphony orchestras -- if they still exist -- will be playing largely the "classical" music composed today? I doubt it. It will be Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms.

And in 20 years, do you think the "oldies" rock stations will be playing the rock that is popular today? They should, because today's kids will be tomorrow's consumers, and presumably they'd want to conjure up their youth by listening to the music of their halcyon days.

But this is what they'd be hearing: stuff like this week's top ten songs on Billboard:

"Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke
"We Can't Stop" by Miley Cyrus (gag)
"Radioactive" by Imagine Dragons
"Get Lucky" by Daft Punk
"Holy Grail" by Jay Z (with Justin Timberlake
"Cups" by Anna Kendrick
"Treasure" by Bruno Mars
"Clarity" by Zedd
"Safe and Sound" by Capital Cities
"Love Somebody" by Maroon 5
Now not all modern rock songs are lame; there are some that I actually like. One of them, to use a band on the current charts, is Maroon 5's "Sunday Morning," but that's already nine years old. Songs like that are thin on the ground.

No, the songs on the oldies stations in 20 years will be pretty much what they are now: the Beatles, the Stones, the great soul music of the '60s and early '70s, the Band, Joni Mitchell, Eric Clapton, Ray Charles, Buddy Holly, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Neil Young, and... well, I can go on forever. Why will their music last? Because these people were artists, who produced interesting music with lovely tunes and (often) meaningful lyrics. That's simply not on tap these days. What we have is a crop of overhyped, oversold, autotuned mediocrities.

I am Professor Jerry Coyne, and I endorse this message.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-a-c ... 32003.html

[rainbow]

[MrFungus420]

This is one of the reasons that I feel sorry for most people when it comes to their musical genre. It seems like for most people, music was born and died when they were teens-young adults. Anything new is automatically crap. Their genre of music is, literally, dead.

I prefer hard rock/heavy metal. I've been listening to that genre for over 30 years. However, I've been listening to new music that entire time. From AC/DC, Judas Priest, Alice Cooper, Black Sabbath to Korn, Avenged Sevenfold, Rob Zombie, In This Moment, and Nickelback (I know, fuck y'all. I like Nickelback).

My preferred genre of rock is vibrant and alive.

To me, it's not that anything new is automatically crap, it's that the new stuff NOW is, by and large, crap. I wasn't a teenager in the 90s, but the 90s was loaded with good Rock n Roll.

That's fine. That's why I said that it seems like most people...

And, of course, the thread is not about good or bad music in general, but whether there is still "Rock n Roll."

And I was talking specifically about MY preferred genre of Rock, which is alive and well.

And, nothing you listed was from prior to the 1990s. AC/DC -- 1970s; Judas Priest - 1970s/80s; Alice Cooper - 70s; Black Sabbath 60s/70s; Avenged Sevenfold (early 200s); In this Moment (mid 200s), Nickeback (suck balls).

I'm sorry, but whether you meant prior to or after the 1990s, you've contradicted yourself. Besides, when a band started doesn't matter.

In this Moment is the only arguable exception, since they are about 8 years old and technically still going. But, they're not all that prominent or original.

Really?

You're saying that Avenged Sevenfold, Rob Zombie, In This Moment, etc. are NOT releasing music that is part of CURRENT rock? Judas Priest and Black Sabbath you gave credit for 2 decades, but if someone is releasing music NOW, it doesn't count as today's music if the band started more than a few years ago?

[Skepticus]

Rock'n'roll is definitely on the way down.

Of course, it might be that we're just getting old.

Ah! But Tonight We Are Young ~~~ FUN

This is a bit of a double whammy. The first part is a think piece about the wonder of the universe as seen through the eyes of a de-converted ex-Christian.
The second part is the music and inspirational video footage of... Well you have to see it for yourself. The music ( A song called 'We Are Young') is shit hot IMHO.

[MrFungus420]

To me, it's not that anything new is automatically crap, it's that the new stuff NOW is, by and large, crap.

You're just old. Taste is subjective.

Taste is subjective. But, what we're discussing is whether there is any significant "Rock n Roll" genre alive today (other than older bands from previous decades).

Do you discount everything that the Beatles, the Stones, Metallica, etc. made after they had been together (say) 10 years? That it's no longer part of the music of the time that the music came out?

Michael Jackson had been around since the 1960s. Does that mean that he didn't count as one of the major, if not definitive, artists of the 1980s?

[charlou]

I can relate to much of that, Skepticus

Even as a child, though, considering the vastness of the land (the South Australian Flinders Ranges were my back yard) and contemplating the wonders beyond our planet, only a hint of which is seen while camping out, watching the starry night sky, the god I was raised from infancy to believe had created everything didn't even enter my thoughts, had no part in my recognition and appreciation of reality. How insignificant, yet fortunate I am. Incredible.

I've always been an atheist, even during the time I simultaneously held any erroneous beliefs and delusions instilled in me as a child. Cognitive dissonance, I guess. Happy to leave that behind.


To the topic sortof .. After the store where I work closes in the evening, the lads turn off the middle of the road shite the company has on a loop, and play their own music over the PA system ... The other night one lad had Back In Black playing from his iPod because he wanted a change from the usual more current (mostly gritty, chunky) stuff they play. Hell yes.

[Skepticus]

I can relate to much of that, Skepticus

Even as a child, though, considering the vastness of the land (the South Australian Flinders Ranges were my back yard) and contemplating the wonders beyond our planet, only a hint of which is seen while camping out, watching the starry night sky, the god I was raised from infancy to believe had created everything didn't even enter my thoughts, had no part in my recognition and appreciation of reality. How insignificant, yet fortunate I am. Incredible.

I've always been an atheist, even during the time I simultaneously held any erroneous beliefs and delusions instilled in me as a child. Cognitive dissonance, I guess. Happy to leave that behind.


To the topic sortof .. After the store where I work closes in the evening, the lads turn off the middle of the road shite the company has on a loop, and play their own music over the PA system ... The other night one lad had Back In Black playing from his iPod because he wanted a change from the usual more current (mostly gritty, chunky) stuff they play. Hell yes.

Well then, you had one helluva backyard then charlou. Nuf room for a swimming pool and a barbie I bet. Ditto with the atheist perspective, although I was never really indoctrinated and also cultivated in nature and science fairly well. I did go through a churchy phase at about the age of 12/13 yrs old. Fortunately it never stuck and like you I feel in retrospect that I always was an atheist at heart. That is I was capable of holding out for a logical explanation of anything I didn't yet understand, so a God never was needed to fill the gaps. It was more of a social experiment in pubescent peer group identity I guess.

As for Acca Dacca, well I never got into them much, but I gotta say we were damned lucky with the lineup of top name South OZ rock that we've managed to produce here. A mate and I were only just talking about that a couple of weeks ago. I have thought at times of seeing if I could turn my hand to being a promoter and gig manager. On the way home from my mates place, I thought about the possibility of setting up a South OZ rock charity gig for the Fringe. I started a list (it's around here somewhere) of rock names that came out of South OZ. Then Bugga me if that same night I was listening to a talk back show and John Swan called in. It just so happens theres some serious rock revival goin on around here ATM.

[JimC]

Redgum?

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm sorry, but whether you meant prior to or after the 1990s, you've contradicted yourself. Besides, when a band started doesn't matter.

Oh, it absolutely does, because the idea is whether there is any new Rock n Roll (any significant amount). Aerosmith still puts out albums, but that doesn't mean rock isn't dead, on life support or in a coma. Pointing to a 20 year old band from the 1990s doesn't make the point that rock is alive and well.

In this Moment is the only arguable exception, since they are about 8 years old and technically still going. But, they're not all that prominent or original.

Really?

Yes, really.

You're saying that Avenged Sevenfold, Rob Zombie, In This Moment, etc. are NOT releasing music that is part of CURRENT rock? Judas Priest and Black Sabbath you gave credit for 2 decades, but if someone is releasing music NOW, it doesn't count as today's music if the band started more than a few years ago?

Yes. I gave Black Sabbath two decades because they were formed in 1968 and Judas Priest in 1969. Tail end of decade, so their sound is late 60s, early 70s. But, yes, Rob Zombie is 1990s, with their first big break being Le Sexorcisto: Devil Music Volume One. I don't count his stuff 20+ years later as an indication that "rock is alive and well." Whether rock is alive and well depends on whether there is new blood, a new sound, that can still be considered rock n roll in any significant way.

In This Moment is just a lame pop rock Screamo band anyway, and their fans are teen emos. Kids who would probably have Avril Lavigne along side In This Moment in their iPods....

[Coito ergo sum]

To me, it's not that anything new is automatically crap, it's that the new stuff NOW is, by and large, crap.

You're just old. Taste is subjective.

Taste is subjective. But, what we're discussing is whether there is any significant "Rock n Roll" genre alive today (other than older bands from previous decades).

Do you discount everything that the Beatles, the Stones, Metallica, etc. made after they had been together (say) 10 years? That it's no longer part of the music of the time that the music came out?

Michael Jackson had been around since the 1960s. Does that mean that he didn't count as one of the major, if not definitive, artists of the 1980s?

He was a definitive artist of the 1980s, but if the significant artists of the 1980s were the guys that got started in the 1960s I would wonder if Rock was dead in the 1980s. As it happens, the 1980s also saw the advent of bands like Metallica, Guns n Roses, Bon Jovi, Prince, U2, Def Leppard, the Police, Talking Heads, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Eurythmics, Tom Petty, Joan Jett, Suicidal Tendencies, Depeche Mode, REM, Souixse and the Banshees, Violent Femmes, Duran Duran, Husker Du, The Replacements, The Outfield, The Cure, The Smiths, Poison, Warrant, The Pixies, Pat Benatar, Skid Row, Boston.......... there was a lot of rock born in the 1980s. It wasn't just holdover artists from 15-20 years previously.

[cronus]