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

[Audley Strange]

I cannot believe you all have such shit memories.

Pop music from the seventies.





From the eighties.





From the nineties.





If you judge the state of the music industry by cheesy corporate pop, do it for all eras and you will find mostly shit. Rock n Roll mutated in 1965 to about a thousand subspecies and kept on going. There is more music made now than ever and while the same percentage is utterly shit, this still means there are more good acts now than ever, you're just not going to find them on MTV music awards or commercial radio.

[klr]

Yes, there was plenty of crap in the 70's - that's true of any period. But there was also plenty of music in the charts (yes, the charts!) that was so much better than today's "mainstream" music that it's not even funny.

[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.

[JimC]

MrFungus420 wrote:

It seems like for most people, music was born and died when they were teens-young adults. Anything new is automatically crap.

I'm afraid this is a totally accurate description of me...



(well, about music, anyway. It leaves out a description of my superb intellect and greek-god body...)

[Audley Strange]

Yes, there was plenty of crap in the 70's - that's true of any period. But there was also plenty of music in the charts (yes, the charts!) that was so much better than today's "mainstream" music that it's not even funny.

Perhaps, but the charts were relevant then. They are not now. I think it was either Keith Richards or Steve Albini that once pointed out (I may be wrong) There used to be thousands of bands making millions of dollars, now there are millions of bands making thousands of dollars.

So let's look shall we?

http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-c ... 973-09-08/

The top ten...

1. Donny Osmond.
2. Barry Blue.
3. Wizzard
4. The Carpenters.
5. Al Martino
6. Dvid Essex.
7. Limmy and the Family Cookin'
8. The Drifters
9. The Rolling Stones.
10. Hudson-Ford.
http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-c ... 983-09-17/

The Top ten

1. UB40
2. Peabo Byrson and Roberta Flack
3. Culture Club.
4. Genesis
5. Ryan Paris
6. Paul Young.
7. Rod Stewart
8. Madness
9. Modern Romance.
10. Level 42.

http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-c ... 993-09-04/

The Top ten.

1. Culture Beat
2. Bitty Mclean
3. Billy Joel
4. Freddie Mercury.
5. SWV
6. The Urban Cookie Collective.
7. Apache Indian
8. UB40
9. Mariah Carey
10. 2 Unlimited.

http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-c ... 003-09-20/

1. Black eyed piss.
2. Dido
3. Gareth Gates.
4. Big Borvaz
5. Elton John.
6. Christina Aguilera
7. Blu Cantrell
8. Muse.
9. Ultrabeat.
10. Nelly.

http://www.officialcharts.com/music-charts/
This weeks.

1. Katy Perry.
2. Onerepublic.
3. Ellie Goulding
4.Avicii
5. Drake
6. Klangkarussel
7 Lana Del Rey
8. Miley Cyrus
9 Macklemore Lewis Lambert.
10. Lady Gaga.

Seems to me like it's always a pile of one hit wonders and the occasional established name.

[cronus]

It's the crap 'rockabilly' music of the fifties and the commercial market then that led to the good stuff in the sixties and seventies. This is a similar 'dead patch of creativity' which is a necessary lull before the next push forwards - all art needs times like this. You can't move forwards forever without having a break.

[klr]

Yes, there was plenty of crap in the 70's - that's true of any period. But there was also plenty of music in the charts (yes, the charts!) that was so much better than today's "mainstream" music that it's not even funny.

Perhaps, but the charts were relevant then. They are not now. I think it was either Keith Richards or Steve Albini that once pointed out (I may be wrong) There used to be thousands of bands making millions of dollars, now there are millions of bands making thousands of dollars.

So let's look shall we?

http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-c ... 973-09-08/

http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-c ... 983-09-17/

Indeed. That's part of the problem. Blame illicit file sharing ... but even more so, the likes of Apple, who take the lucrative middleman role while not really giving anything back to the artist.

[Audley Strange]

Yes, there was plenty of crap in the 70's - that's true of any period. But there was also plenty of music in the charts (yes, the charts!) that was so much better than today's "mainstream" music that it's not even funny.

Perhaps, but the charts were relevant then. They are not now. I think it was either Keith Richards or Steve Albini that once pointed out (I may be wrong) There used to be thousands of bands making millions of dollars, now there are millions of bands making thousands of dollars.

So let's look shall we?

http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-c ... 973-09-08/

http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-c ... 983-09-17/

Indeed. That's part of the problem. Blame illicit file sharing ... but even more so, the likes of Apple, who take the lucrative middleman role while not really giving anything back to the artist.

Sorry I hadn't finished. The main problem is that singles have always been purchased predominantly by 14 year olds, mostly who could only hear the shit pumped out from commercial radio, by fans on the new release of the first single of their bands new album (if you look you will see a trend in this, most bands who released a single prior to the album would have a higher chart position than the other singles) and grannies.

The business has always cultivated expensive producer developed corporate pop and established artistes at the expense of innovation. Yeah there is less money in the industry and thus the big concerns have focussed more and more on sales than developing young talent (though there are still a few, Rough Trade springs to mind) however that does not stop more and more bands coming out with more and more music. Especially because in digital media, it is much more of an open field. Gnarles Berkley, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, The Artic Monkeys and many other bands have used the net to their advantage.

If all you listen to is commercial pop stations you're going to get the same mix of inane nursery rhymes and MOR "rock" as you always had.

[Tero]

Hanson was a pretty good one hit wonder. My best Finland find of the post Nirvana bands.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

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

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).

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.

[Seabass]

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.

[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). Who are the "new" Rock n Rollers...

Taste is subjective, but that doesn't make Miley Cyrus Rock n. Roll.

Also, taste is subjective, but that doesn't mean that everything is equally good. There is still a consensus to be found as to whether specific songs or bands are good or bad, even though there would be some folks who would like the sucky bands.

Art is subjective, but some art sucks.

[klr]

...

Sorry I hadn't finished. The main problem is that singles have always been purchased predominantly by 14 year olds, mostly who could only hear the shit pumped out from commercial radio, by fans on the new release of the first single of their bands new album (if you look you will see a trend in this, most bands who released a single prior to the album would have a higher chart position than the other singles) and grannies.

The business has always cultivated expensive producer developed corporate pop and established artistes at the expense of innovation. Yeah there is less money in the industry and thus the big concerns have focussed more and more on sales than developing young talent (though there are still a few, Rough Trade springs to mind) however that does not stop more and more bands coming out with more and more music. Especially because in digital media, it is much more of an open field. Gnarles Berkley, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, The Artic Monkeys and many other bands have used the net to their advantage.

If all you listen to is commercial pop stations you're going to get the same mix of inane nursery rhymes and MOR "rock" as you always had.

Hmm ... back in the early to mid 1970's - which is when I can recall first hearing music on the radio - there were no rock music stations back then. Or at least if they were, our parents didn't tune into them. As a result, I probably didn't become aware of "proper" rock and roll until circa 1977/1978 at the earliest. Even so, what I listened to on mainstream radio remains (to my ears) markedly superior to most new music from the same general genres. The same applies to rock and roll. Of course, that's partly nostalgia, etc. There's also the problem that I don't listen to any music radio now. I've basically given up. Very occasionally, I happen to catch something unfamiliar on the radio, or playing over the PA system in a shop, and think to myself "hey, that actually sounds good". But those times are very, very rare. Maybe I'm just lazy, maybe I don't want to put the effort into finding really good music that must be out there somewhere. Maybe I'm just getting old. Finding new music is just not that important to me, even though I appreciate really good music as much as I ever have.

[Seabass]

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). Who are the "new" Rock n Rollers...

Taste is subjective, but that doesn't make Miley Cyrus Rock n. Roll.

Also, taste is subjective, but that doesn't mean that everything is equally good. There is still a consensus to be found as to whether specific songs or bands are good or bad, even though there would be some folks who would like the sucky bands.

Art is subjective, but some art sucks.

Ok, then here's my answer:

"Rock is alive and well, but Rock as CES knows it/likes it is dead and buried."

[SteveB]

Rock has simply shifted out of the pop charts. They have their own thing going on now.

That's why you don't hear so much about it anymore.