Is Rock Dead? :/

[Newguy562]

I've been saying for years that Rock died in the mid-90's.  Groups of "noisy", untalented (or at least less talented) musicians with something to say have always been A part of the rock-n-roll landscape, from punk bands, going back to some of the less refined garage bands of the 50's and 60's but it was always treated as a niche market because the industry more or less followed the ideology that cream rose to the top.  Everything changed in the 90's when the same thing (noisier, less talented musicians with something to say) was marketed as something new: Grunge.  At that time, on the same day, all the "mainstream" Rock bands were lead out to pasture, regardless of how long they'd been around or how they sounded.  Reo Speedwagon, Jethro Tull, Blue Oyster Cult, etc, etc. were now "Classic Rock".  Tommy Shaw used to do a bit a Styx concerts about it.  ("I wasn't doing anything different but one night I went to bed a "rocker" and woke up a "classic rocker.") 

The problem was like most lesser talents with something to say, they didn't have much more to offer once they said what they wanted to.  And you can't really blame the artists.  Joe Stummer never wanted to be a "pop star".  Guys like him knew they're place in the grand tapestry of rock-n-roll.  Putting guys who had just one or two albums in them front and center, as heirs-to-the-thrones was suicide for the entertainment industry.  All those guys sweat and slept together in the same vans, working their asses off for ten years and when they got signed, they took their "TEN" best songs together and blew people away with their debut albums.  A couple years later, they took the best of which songs were left and that was their sophomore submission.  But when the time came to write a third album, their heads were so far removed from their origins (having lived the rock-n-roll lifestyle and being told they were rock-n-roll messiahs for several years), they just couldn't deliver and the suits moved on to milk the next thing (in the case of that first post-grunge wave: garbage pop and the resurgence of boy bands), and it's only gotten worse since.

Of course you have to understand that the guys running the rock labels had to do SOMEthing because Rock was pretty much ALREADY dead at the time.  Just like the Pop music of the 40's and before has continued to exist, Rock was still "there" but it's days of being an important force in the entertainment industry had been over for some time.  Rap "music" had already replaced it as "the voice of young America" but most of the remaining Rock fans were too stubborn to admit it.

Using myself as an example, my Grandfather listened to Big Band and Pop music's next big thing was to focus on the vocalists.  By the time the arrangements were smaller and more restrained than those used by the Big Bands who'd used vocalists previously, my dad was in with both feet and continued to follow that trend with later vocalists, even after that style was replaced by the "rock-n-roll combo."  The combo evolves through the 60's and 70's and now the generations who followed THAT music has kids of their own.  In some cases, the kids still listen to newer rock but more often than we'd like to admit, the kid doesn't find Shinedown (or whoever!) appealing because it (being "rock-n-roll" with an arrangement of guitar, bass, drums, and maybe a keyboard) sounds "just like that Led Zeppelin stuff my dad listens to."  The last thing a lot of kids (specifically those more interested in the message than the music) want is for their parents to be able to relate to them or their interests.  So they get into stuff that sounds NOTHING like their parents' music: NWA, 2-Pac, etc.

And it's all made worse that the labels do nothing to nurture the next generation of Rock.  Nowadays most bands can't get more than a three album deal.  Imagine if EMI dropped the Beatles after A Hard Days Night because they'd figured the group had peaked.  And while the sales make that scenario sound ridiculous, my favorite example to site is The Who.  I'm a huge Who fan but will admit that most of their early stuff sounds like bad Kinks music.  In the late 60's Townshen told himself he couldn't compeat with Clapton's playing or Hendrix's spectacle, and made the conscious decision to concentrate on his songwriting, giving the world Tommy, Who's Next, Quadrophenia, etc.  Nowadays, he never would have made it to that point. 

Rock has been dead for some time and here we are.  A bunch of old guys listening to "Sinatra", telling ourselves that "Elvis" is just a passing fad 

Bad kinks music? what do you mean?
"My Generation"(the song) is inspired by The Kinks but it surpassed "You Really Got Me" for sure. Then they tapped into psychedelia(sell out) for one album, they created what we all praise(rock opera)..I'm glad Pete focused on his writing because what he did was open a new route and created a new genre(rock opera) which bands to tapped into..(which the kinks started doing through the 70's way after The Who) so they were inspired by the who as well.

[AndrewHickey]

Bad kinks music? what do you mean?
"My Generation"(the song) is inspired by The Kinks but it surpassed "You Really Got Me" for sure. Then they tapped into psychedelia(sell out) for one album, they created what we all praise(rock opera)..I'm glad Pete focused on his writing because what he did was open a new route and created a new genre(rock opera) which bands to tapped into..(which the kinks started doing through the 70's way after The Who) so they were inspired by the who as well.

A few points:
"We" don't "all praise" albums like Tommy - I for one think it's overblown bombastic nonsense which ruined the Who as a band forever.
As to your contention that Townshend invented 'rock opera' and that the Kinks 'started doing [it] through the 70s way after The Who':
Tommy by The Who was released in May 1969
Arthur, Or The Decline And Fall Of The British Empire, by the Kinks, was released in October 1969. The songs for it were written in January 1969, so the writer of the TV special that went along with it would be able to write round them. Therefore it can't have been inspired by Tommy.

Both albums, however, could have been inspired either by The Pretty Things' SF Sorrow (released December 1968, and a full-length 'rock opera') or The Small Faces' Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake, the whole second side of which was a continuous narrative (and was better both as a narrative and as music than Tommy).

If you're going to talk about things you haven't a clue about, please at least bother to do the most cursory googling before you start to type, to make sure you're not completely and utterly wrong...

[hypehat]

.....does it matter if 'rock' dies? I mean, the Styx guy has a point that if he gave a sh*t about music he wouldn't be so sore about - he became irrelevant in pop. If he wasn't just in it for the money, it wouldn't be a problem. This is in terms of the mainstream, but personally I don't care if 'rock' is dead. I don't care for 'rock'. I care for pop. it used to be the beatles, then it turned into Prince, then it turned into Tupac and Nirvana, and then it turned into Gaga. It's pop music. It's a constantly evolving form.

Of course, if I do fancy listening to modern music made with guitars, I can and it exists. I just don't mind that it's not in the charts. Rock music is problematic for me anyway. Self important men wanking off over their guitars bore me. I demand songcraft.

[Newguy562]

Bad kinks music? what do you mean?
"My Generation"(the song) is inspired by The Kinks but it surpassed "You Really Got Me" for sure. Then they tapped into psychedelia(sell out) for one album, they created what we all praise(rock opera)..I'm glad Pete focused on his writing because what he did was open a new route and created a new genre(rock opera) which bands to tapped into..(which the kinks started doing through the 70's way after The Who) so they were inspired by the who as well.

A few points:
"We" don't "all praise" albums like Tommy - I for one think it's overblown bombastic nonsense which ruined the Who as a band forever.
As to your contention that Townshend invented 'rock opera' and that the Kinks 'started doing [it] through the 70s way after The Who':
Tommy by The Who was released in May 1969
Arthur, Or The Decline And Fall Of The British Empire, by the Kinks, was released in October 1969. The songs for it were written in January 1969, so the writer of the TV special that went along with it would be able to write round them. Therefore it can't have been inspired by Tommy.

Both albums, however, could have been inspired either by The Pretty Things' SF Sorrow (released December 1968, and a full-length 'rock opera') or The Small Faces' Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake, the whole second side of which was a continuous narrative (and was better both as a narrative and as music than Tommy).

If you're going to talk about things you haven't a clue about, please at least bother to do the most cursory googling before you start to type, to make sure you're not completely and utterly wrong...

wow..:/..you should listen to that album as you are closing your eyes ..it's a movie inside your mind
arthur is a concept album i was referring to the 70's rock opera albums by the kinks that were obviously inspired by the who...

[Phoenix]

Just a quick reiteration:  As I said, I'm a big fan of The Who, including their early stuff but in my opinion, aside from a few standout tracks that even then had what later became part of the Who's own distinct sound ("My Generation, " I Can't Explain", etc.), most of their pre-Tommy output sounded very much like music the Kinks were doing, and (again, in my opinion) doing better.   And while I prefer Who's Next and Quadrophenia over Tommy (mainly because it has kinda been done to death by now), Tommy was certainly the point where the band finally gelled and "grew their beard", if you will.  

[bluesno1fann]

Unfortunantly, it looks like Rock is dead or dying.

Now Hip-Hop, Pop, Dubstep, EDM, and all that crap is more popular, sadly.

The last classic Rock Band was Nirvana, and that was back in the early-90's. Since then, Rock has become quite mediocre, which is likely one of the reasons why it's going downhill.

I'd give anything to see a Rock revival, and see it revitalized!

[SMiLE Brian]

Look elsewhere, rock isn't dead...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHZ7nvBSLY

[SMiLE-addict]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv6xJvaRJJE

[bluesno1fann]

Look elsewhere, rock isn't dead...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHZ7nvBSLY

One of my all-time favourite Who songs!

 

[runnersdialzero]

Unfortunantly, it looks like Rock is dead or dying.

Now Hip-Hop, Pop, Dubstep, EDM, and all that crap is more popular, sadly.

The last classic Rock Band was Nirvana, and that was back in the early-90's. Since then, Rock has become quite mediocre, which is likely one of the reasons why it's going downhill.

I'd give anything to see a Rock revival, and see it revitalized!

There's still good rock music out there. I don't know what qualifies Nirvana as "classic rock", but that's coming from someone who's been listening to them since age 9 and could probably re-record their entire catalog from memory. I don't think a band has to sell 39 million records and be good at the same time to be considered a timeless band, nor do I think they have to adhere strictly to only playing certain styles or certain instruments.

[Alex]

Unfortunantly, it looks like Rock is dead or dying.

Now Hip-Hop, Pop, Dubstep, EDM, and all that crap is more popular, sadly.

The last classic Rock Band was Nirvana, and that was back in the early-90's. Since then, Rock has become quite mediocre, which is likely one of the reasons why it's going downhill.

I'd give anything to see a Rock revival, and see it revitalized!

Ahem...Best Coast, Smith Westerns, Wavves, The Black Keys, Yuck, Joanna Gruesome, Vivian Girls, Dum Dum Girls, The Raveonettes, Beach House, Imelda May, Arcade Fire, Dale Earnhardt Jr. Jr., The Drums, fun., Foster the People...

[bluesno1fann]

Unfortunantly, it looks like Rock is dead or dying.

Now Hip-Hop, Pop, Dubstep, EDM, and all that crap is more popular, sadly.

The last classic Rock Band was Nirvana, and that was back in the early-90's. Since then, Rock has become quite mediocre, which is likely one of the reasons why it's going downhill.

I'd give anything to see a Rock revival, and see it revitalized!

Ahem...Best Coast, Smith Westerns, Wavves, The Black Keys, Yuck, Joanna Gruesome, Vivian Girls, Dum Dum Girls, The Raveonettes, Beach House, Imelda May, Arcade Fire, Dale Earnhardt Jr. Jr., The Drums, fun., Foster the People...

I mainly meant it's just not really popular anymore, especially with my generation. I'm one of 3 or 4 people in my whole grade for example who even likes Rock music. Rock has turned from the most popular genre, to a minor genre like Jazz

[Niko]

The best modern rock band I know of are The Sheepdogs, a Canadian band. They're pretty good, a nice mix between the old and the new.

http://youtu.be/uSMN1ugJAos?t=35s

[Mr. Wilson]

The LA Times did an article about is rock dead.. 1-26-14.. They declared it is dead.. Writer said Rock is not relevant anymore and put it out of its misery..! Rap + POP + R+B  better .. He said RAP has all the anger that rock used to have + all the people that play it are old.. Im not quoting here but essentially that's what he said.. I guess ill go hock my guitar Good nite..

[the captain]

Whether rock is "dead" requires an understanding or definition of a few different subtopics:

• What is rock anyway? (How do you define it)
• Are good examples of that music still being made?
• Is that music still popular?

And the comparison a few posts ago to jazz is a great one, in my opinion. Very apt. The answers are extremely similar for those two genres. The first question, as was (and presumably is) the case in jazz, is one that pretty much can serve as quicksand for debaters indefinitely so as to make the rest of it moot. The edges of any genre blur, and that is certainly true of rock. When does it become something else? (There have always been elements of country, folk, blues, and R&B in rock; there are now elements of hip-hop, other kinds of pop, and almost anything else in it. When is it no longer "it"?)

Second, common to rock and jazz, there may well still be examples of groups doing what it was during its heyday, and doing it well. But third and also in common with jazz, it just isn't as popular.

I wouldn't attribute that to any thing but the obvious: time passes, the new thing becomes an old thing. Less vital, less rebellious, more "old people's music." So if you want to say rock is dead, I would say that in spirit, that is somewhat true. It has been born, grown, lived, and died a natural death in a metaphorical sense. Its time has simply passed. Elements of it will remain for the indefinite future, but as a new and dominant art form, it is unreasonable to expect and hard to observe any sort of dominance anymore--and that has long-since been the case.

No other form of music has remained culturally dominant for more than a few decades. Why should this one be different?