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

Post Reply
User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
Posts: 23739
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Clinton Huxley » Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:45 am

The No True Rock Band Fallacy.....
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Imagehttp://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

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

Post by Hermit » Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:42 am

MrFungus420 wrote:So, let's see if I've figured out the criteria:
1) YOU have to think that it counts as "good rock and roll".
2) It has to be incredibly popular.
3) Even if it is an active band producing new music and new hits, it doesn't count unless the band is less than three years old.
4) Any genre of music is "dead. on life support , or just in a coma" if it doesn't produce bands producing major, mainstream hits every three years or less.

Did I miss anything?
Yes. By criterion #4 Baroque music is dead, as is the Twelve Bar Blues, Gregorian Chant... So what? I could not care less about whatever style is - or is not - being produced, popular and selling heaps right now. Thank fuck for recording media. They keep dead music alive, Coito.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

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

Post by Animavore » Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:49 am

Hermit wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:So, let's see if I've figured out the criteria:
1) YOU have to think that it counts as "good rock and roll".
2) It has to be incredibly popular.
3) Even if it is an active band producing new music and new hits, it doesn't count unless the band is less than three years old.
4) Any genre of music is "dead. on life support , or just in a coma" if it doesn't produce bands producing major, mainstream hits every three years or less.

Did I miss anything?
Yes. By criterion #4 Baroque music is dead, as is the Twelve Bar Blues, Gregorian Chant... So what? I could not care less about whatever style is - or is not - being produced, popular and selling heaps right now. Thank fuck for recording media. They keep dead music alive, Coito.
More like they keep it on life support :hehe:
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Audley Strange » Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:27 am

What about Baroque and Roll? Is that dead?
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:39 pm

MrFungus420 wrote: And, along with that, you also dismissed anything from the mid-2000s as too old to count as well (actually, any band from earlier than 2010).
Not completely, although we are in a new decade and getting into the middle years of it. In 1982-83, the big new rock bands were The Stray Cats, Men at Work, The Human League, Culture Club, Big Country, Men Without Hats, Musical Youth, Asia, The Pretenders, The Go-Gos, and the list goes on and on. These were top 10, Grammy winning or nominated artists that started in the 1980s. I think The Gogos and the Pretenders technically formed in 1978 as the earliest.

Compare that to what has been named for 2013. The newest bands named were formed back in 2005. That would be like, calling Bad Company (formed in the mid-70s) as being evidence of fresh, new rock-n-roll in 1983.

I'm not saying there are zero rock bands around now, but I think that the difficulty people are having in naming new bands of the current decade is instructive. In 1983, 30 years ago, we would have had no problem naming like 20 rock n roll bands formed in the 1980s that were very popular.
MrFungus420 wrote:
So, let's see if I've figured out the criteria:
1) YOU have to think that it counts as "good rock and roll".
2) It has to be incredibly popular.
3) Even if it is an active band producing new music and new hits, it doesn't count unless the band is less than three years old.
4) Any genre of music is "dead. on life support , or just in a coma" if it doesn't produce bands producing major, mainstream hits every three years or less.

Did I miss anything?
1. I never said that, and I haven't posted anything about quality of the band as being determinative of whether it is evidence of rock being alive and well
2. No, it doesn't have to be "incredibly" popular, but I think you would agree that if all we can find are rather obscure, non-notorious bands that play to a clique market, it doesn't evidence rock being generally alive and well. It evidences rock being relegated to more of a niche.
3. Generally speaking, yes, although I'd probably stretch it to 5 years. Again, the point is that in some prior decades, particularly the 1990s, 80s, 70s and 60s, we would have no problem AT ALL naming dozens of rock bands that were within that 3-5 year range that would show that rock was still alive in those decades. We wouldn't struggle, in 1963, to suggest rock was thriving, while the main bands we could point to were rock-a-billy bands of the 50s. We'd have the new bands of the 60s at the ready. Same with the 70s, 80s and 90s. Where things start to fall short is in the 2000s, I think, where we see a shift in popularity away from the rock genre. The 2000s still saw some action, but a clear decline, I think. And, then in the present decade -- it looks like it's pretty tough to name a host of new bands that are injecting life into Rock n Roll.
4. Not necessarily, but certainly if people are not producing major hits currently, it is not evidence that the genre is thriving. A thriving genre, one that is alive and kicking, is one where people are playing it and innovating, and producing music.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:45 pm

Hermit wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:So, let's see if I've figured out the criteria:
1) YOU have to think that it counts as "good rock and roll".
2) It has to be incredibly popular.
3) Even if it is an active band producing new music and new hits, it doesn't count unless the band is less than three years old.
4) Any genre of music is "dead. on life support , or just in a coma" if it doesn't produce bands producing major, mainstream hits every three years or less.

Did I miss anything?
Yes. By criterion #4 Baroque music is dead, as is the Twelve Bar Blues, Gregorian Chant... So what? I could not care less about whatever style is - or is not - being produced, popular and selling heaps right now. Thank fuck for recording media. They keep dead music alive, Coito.
Very true, but a different issue altogether.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

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

Post by Sean Hayden » Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:00 pm

Give me a good definition of rock. Certain definitions may push your decline further back than even the 90s. We could just be hip and call it the evolution of rock. :hehe:

User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
Posts: 23739
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Clinton Huxley » Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:13 pm

Aye, the rock is undergoing metamorphosis.
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Imagehttp://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]

User avatar
cronus
Black Market Analyst
Posts: 18122
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:09 pm
About me: Illis quos amo deserviam
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

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

Post by cronus » Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:15 pm

This entire thread is invalidated by 'Mechanical Bull' but you'd know that wouldn't you? :tup:
What will the world be like after its ruler is removed?

User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Audley Strange » Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:44 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote: And, along with that, you also dismissed anything from the mid-2000s as too old to count as well (actually, any band from earlier than 2010).
Not completely, although we are in a new decade and getting into the middle years of it. In 1982-83, the big new rock bands were The Stray Cats, Men at Work, The Human League, Culture Club, Big Country, Men Without Hats, Musical Youth, Asia, The Pretenders, The Go-Gos, and the list goes on and on. These were top 10, Grammy winning or nominated artists that started in the 1980s. I think The Gogos and the Pretenders technically formed in 1978 as the earliest.
Hang on.

What the fuck are you actually asking? Are you asking where modern bands are? Where the Rock N Roll Genre is gone, what are this generations important bands are or what? Of that list you mentioned none of them had any real longevity and most were just shit pop bands even then. I really don't get what you're trying to complain about.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

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

Post by Animavore » Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:51 pm

Could it just simply be that the reason a lot of bands mentioned in this thread started back in the last decade (which is only three years away) because it took some time for them to become popular and break into the music scene?
After all, if you're just looking at when they were formed on Wiki it will tell you the year they got together but nothing about how long they went unsigned, were on a white label or until their break-through album.
Could it simply be that today's, right now's bands have yet to make any real appearance?
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

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

Post by Animavore » Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:55 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote: In 1982-83, the big new rock bands were The Stray Cats, Men at Work, The Human League, Culture Club, Big Country, Men Without Hats, Musical Youth, Asia, The Pretenders, The Go-Gos, and the list goes on and on.
The list of bands I've never heard of is massive, I'm sure :hehe:
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

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

Post by Hermit » Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:47 pm

Audley Strange wrote:What about Baroque and Roll? Is that dead?
Probably. I once had an LP titled Barock. It was jazzed up (so to speak) Baroque music. I still have a CD of Beatles songs played in the style of Handel, Vivaldi and Bach.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Post by JimC » Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:56 pm

Clinton Huxley wrote:Aye, the rock is undergoing metamorphosis.
:hehe:

I share these sediments...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

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

Post by Seabass » Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:15 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote: I'm not saying there are zero rock bands around now, but I think that the difficulty people are having in naming new bands of the current decade is instructive.
:funny:

What difficulty? Rachel named several right off the bat, which you ignored. Tero posted Modest Mouse, Lak posted a couple Rockabilly bands, I named three bands, all ignored. You've only acknowledged MrFungus' list which you wrote off as being too old.

The difficulty here isn't in naming contemporary rock bands; the difficulty is in finding bands that satisfy your ridiculously narrow criteria, i.e. younger than three years AND the ability to pack stadiums, and must be liked/recognized/acknowledged by you.

This discussion is very silly. You've set up all the parameters so the only possible conclusion is the one you have predetermined.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests