Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?
- 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?
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!
http://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"
AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!
http://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]
- 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?
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.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?
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
Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?
More like they keep it on life supportHermit wrote: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.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?
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.
- 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?
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
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?
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.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).
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.
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 wellMrFungus420 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?
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.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?
Very true, but a different issue altogether.Hermit wrote: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.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?
- 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?
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.
- 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?
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!
http://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"
AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!
http://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]
- 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?
This entire thread is invalidated by 'Mechanical Bull' but you'd know that wouldn't you?
What will the world be like after its ruler is removed?
- 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?
Hang on.Coito ergo sum wrote: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.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).
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
Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?
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?
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.
Re: Rock n Roll - dead, on life support, or just in a coma?
The list of bands I've never heard of is massive, I'm sureCoito 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.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.
- 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?
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.Audley Strange wrote:What about Baroque and Roll? Is that dead?
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
- 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?
Clinton Huxley wrote:Aye, the rock is undergoing metamorphosis.
I share these sediments...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- 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?
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.
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
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests