Conspiracy Theory Vol 420: The Death of Rock & Roll

[Moon Dawg]

  Consider the events of 1958-59:

 1) Elvis Presley drafted into the U.S. Army. Peacetime.

 2) Chuck Berry arrested for violation of the Mann Act.

 3) Little Richard quits rock & roll to become a minister.

 4) Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, and The Big Bopper perish in a horrific plane crash.

 5) Jerry Lee Lewis more or less blackballed from the big time after marrying his teen age cousin.

 6) Bill Haley & His Comets release lame records like "You Hit the Wrong Note Billy Goat"


 Meanwhile, despite people like Dion, Rick Nelson, doo wop, and the emergence of Motown, the Frankie Avalons and Fabians take center stage.


 Coincidence...or Conspiracy? 

[Rocker]

Rock & Roll was very much alive and recorded, played and listened to. People's taste just had changed. That happens, it's business. Still, Elvis climbed the charts regularly, even while in the army (e.g. A Big Hunk O' Love, One Night) which was the fruit of one of Colonel Parker's greatest coups and after that with some of his (Presley's) greatest recordings ever.

"Rock and Roll" and the history of that term, of the genre and of what is considered Rock and Roll would be worth another discussion though, especially because Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins and all the "original" cats weren't doing Rock and Roll but just they're own style of music (that had influenced them). "Rock and Roll" it imo became when other people tried to imitate them because then it became a formulaic thing.

[Lonely Summer]

A lot of the older rock history books and films take that stance that rock died with the events listed above. These days, I think most historians take a more balanced view. The sound changed, and yes, for awhile in the early 60's, got a little smoother and softer, but it never really died. It might be dead now, though.

[JK]

The problem with this subject is how one defines rock & roll. In the US Simon and Garfunkel are rock & roll. It's probably true to say that the age of classic Rock & Roll came to an end in the late fifties. But the music kept on rocking in the pre-Beatles era----you better believe it.        

[KDS]

A lot of the older rock history books and films take that stance that rock died with the events listed above. These days, I think most historians take a more balanced view. The sound changed, and yes, for awhile in the early 60's, got a little smoother and softer, but it never really died. It might be dead now, though.

I don't think rock and roll will ever die.  Unfortunately, it's no longer the dominant genre, and hasn't been for quite some time.  

There's still some good new music out there, but it's not in the mainstream anymore.  

I don't think we'll ever see another golden age for rock, like we had in the 1960s and 1970s, but the genre itself will never go away, despite the efforts of Top 40 radio and the leftist political / hipster rag that calls itself Rolling Stone. 

[the captain]

Yes, rock 'n' roll was invented as an expression of stale, right-wing culture. It will never die. Remember how great the 60s and 70s were? Kids these days. Woo fucking hoo.

(People get old. New people build on old things. Old people hate it. That's ok because new people hate them anyway. Who cares? Back in my day...)

There is only a golden era in your mind. There is another one in mine. And another one in someone else's. It's subjective, with communal agreement from similarly minded people because people like being part of something.

Rock and roll will die, though. it's already long-since dead as the dominant form of American popular music, anyway, if you're defining it somewhat strictly as relatively aggressive, guitar-bass-drums dominated, 3-to-5 chord music.

[Loaf]

it's tough to come up with an answer to whether Rock is dead, or whether Rock will die, because it isn't the right question to ask.

[the captain]

What makes a question right or wrong to ask?

I think it's a perfectly legitimate question as long as you're defining it (what is rock and roll? what is dead?). Otherwise it just doesn't mean anything and serves only to let everyone spout off about their own preferences. If the answer sounds like "It is dead because new music sucks; they don't make 'em like they used to," well, that's just meaningless, mindless, and boring.

[Loaf]

I think it's a perfectly legitimate question as long as you're defining it (what is rock and roll? what is dead?). Otherwise it just doesn't mean anything

"rock" is such a fluid term that to define it would either include so much music that isn't "rock", or would include so much stuff that isn't "rock", and could anyone agree? And if people can't agree on a definition, then how can anyone say it's "dead", and what would "dead" even mean?

or, to look at the question from a different angle, is any music form "dead"?

all said in friendly conversation and interested debate, of course

p.s. on a side-note, i'd say that "rock" is nearing philosophical extinction when people can now "rock" something, e.g. hairstyles.
p.p.s and let's not even get onto the subject of "owning" something, e.g. hairstyles. That pisses me right off. Is there a fad right now in China for trendy people to say that they "collectively share" hairstyles? "Oh, comrade, you are really collectively-sharing that Mao hairstyle" etc etc etc...

[KDS]

I think it's a perfectly legitimate question as long as you're defining it (what is rock and roll? what is dead?). Otherwise it just doesn't mean anything

"rock" is such a fluid term that to define it would either include so much music that isn't "rock", or would include so much stuff that isn't "rock", and could anyone agree? And if people can't agree on a definition, then how can anyone say it's "dead", and what would "dead" even mean?

or, to look at the question from a different angle, is any music form "dead"?

all said in friendly conversation and interested debate, of course

p.s. on a side-note, i'd say that "rock" is nearing philosophical extinction when people can now "rock" something, e.g. hairstyles.
p.p.s and let's not even get onto the subject of "owning" something, e.g. hairstyles. That pisses me right off. Is there a fad right now in China for trendy people to say that they "collectively share" hairstyles? "Oh, comrade, you are really collectively-sharing that Mao hairstyle" etc etc etc...

Strictly as a genre of music, I do agree that the term rock is used very loosely these days, especially when I hear about such "rock stars" as Pink and Kelly Clarkson. 

As a genre, I think rock will always exist in one form or another.  When I said earlier that I don't think rock will experience another golden age like we had in the 60s and 70s, I'm not just talking about the quality of the music from that time (although, that's one of the factors).  I'm basically saying that I don't see rock being the dominant genre any longer.   Because.....

1.  Radio won't allow it.  Everything is filtered now.  Most FM radio (and a lot of XM Siruis) only plays familiar rock bands or pop infused artists whose songs are written by song doctors.  Radio doesn't really take any chances.  There are some good bands out there, but most mainstream radio won't touch them. 

2.  Bands aren't allowed to grow.  Perfect example in Pink Floyd.  They released a pyschedelic debut then had a roughly five year experimental / transitional period.  That wouldn't be allowed to happen today.  Plus, many great bands during the golden age had a chance to evolve.  The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Genesis, Queen, etc.  These bands stuck to a signature sound, but took chances, and evolved.  Most big bands that have come out in the last 30 years or so have stuck to one sound since their inception. 

3.  Where can the genre go from here?  Rock music has been around for over 60 years now.  It's been done every way imaginable.  Short songs.  Long songs.  Classically infused songs.  Psychedelic.  Concept albums.  Rock operas.  Light.  Soft.  Heavy.  Country rock.  Southern rock.  Surf guitar.  Shred.  Blues rock.  Rap rock.  Glam rock.  Punk rock.  Indie.  New Wave.  Grunge.  Metal.  Progressive.  The list goes on.  Maybe there's a kid in a garage right now with the next new thing, but it seems like its been a long time since the genre saw something that was new. 

Loaf, I also agree 100% that in a non musical way, the term rock has been lost.  "Rocking sandals."  etc etc.  Plus, the so-called devil horns (AKA The Maliok) used to be primarily associated with heavy rock or heavy metal.  Then, kids starting "throwing the horns" at Brittney Spears concerts.  That didn't kill rock, but I'm pretty sure it left a scar. 

[the captain]

I think it's a perfectly legitimate question as long as you're defining it (what is rock and roll? what is dead?). Otherwise it just doesn't mean anything

"rock" is such a fluid term that to define it would either include so much music that isn't "rock", or would include so much stuff that isn't "rock", and could anyone agree? And if people can't agree on a definition, then how can anyone say it's "dead", and what would "dead" even mean?

or, to look at the question from a different angle, is any music form "dead"?

all said in friendly conversation and interested debate, of course

p.s. on a side-note, i'd say that "rock" is nearing philosophical extinction when people can now "rock" something, e.g. hairstyles.
p.p.s and let's not even get onto the subject of "owning" something, e.g. hairstyles. That pisses me right off. Is there a fad right now in China for trendy people to say that they "collectively share" hairstyles? "Oh, comrade, you are really collectively-sharing that Mao hairstyle" etc etc etc...

That is all--with the exception of the detour into rock-as-wear, or own/share--exactly my point. It's meaningless. The same debate was had over jazz from the late 60s onward. The issue is the same: definitions on the borders. Certain things are well understood to be [genre], but as [genre] evolves, by definition that incorporates other genres, excludes original facets, tests boundaries. That's essential in keeping art forms vibrant but it also changes the thing itself. So when jazz is highly notated and arranged to resemble what we call classical (another form of music whose life has been questioned over the decades), is it jazz? When it loses its swing, is it jazz? When it's electric and has a 2-4 beat? Or is that rock? In rock, when it evolves to incorporate the aforementioned jazz, is that rock? What about dance music? What about rap?

The reality is that these things all evolve. If they didn't, they might as well die, because it would be so excruciatingly dull to have "new" work continue to be limited by those same initial boundaries or touchstones. If one accepts evolution of [genre], then it's inevitable that (especially older generations) are going to cry "it's dead." Whatever newly evolved versions exist by then aren't by or for them.

[KDS]

I think it's a perfectly legitimate question as long as you're defining it (what is rock and roll? what is dead?). Otherwise it just doesn't mean anything

"rock" is such a fluid term that to define it would either include so much music that isn't "rock", or would include so much stuff that isn't "rock", and could anyone agree? And if people can't agree on a definition, then how can anyone say it's "dead", and what would "dead" even mean?

or, to look at the question from a different angle, is any music form "dead"?

all said in friendly conversation and interested debate, of course

p.s. on a side-note, i'd say that "rock" is nearing philosophical extinction when people can now "rock" something, e.g. hairstyles.
p.p.s and let's not even get onto the subject of "owning" something, e.g. hairstyles. That pisses me right off. Is there a fad right now in China for trendy people to say that they "collectively share" hairstyles? "Oh, comrade, you are really collectively-sharing that Mao hairstyle" etc etc etc...

That is all--with the exception of the detour into rock-as-wear, or own/share--exactly my point. It's meaningless. The same debate was had over jazz from the late 60s onward. The issue is the same: definitions on the borders. Certain things are well understood to be [genre], but as [genre] evolves, by definition that incorporates other genres, excludes original facets, tests boundaries. That's essential in keeping art forms vibrant but it also changes the thing itself. So when jazz is highly notated and arranged to resemble what we call classical (another form of music whose life has been questioned over the decades), is it jazz? When it loses its swing, is it jazz? When it's electric and has a 2-4 beat? Or is that rock? In rock, when it evolves to incorporate the aforementioned jazz, is that rock? What about dance music? What about rap?

The reality is that these things all evolve. If they didn't, they might as well die, because it would be so excruciatingly dull to have "new" work continue to be limited by those same initial boundaries or touchstones. If one accepts evolution of [genre], then it's inevitable that (especially older generations) are going to cry "it's dead." Whatever newly evolved versions exist by then aren't by or for them.

That I pointed out, there have been many different versions of rock over the past 60 years.  Rock has been infused with every genre out there. 

Unless I missed something, there have really been no new movements in rock since the rap rock movement of the late 90s / early 00s. 

Most new bands of the 2000s are derivative of something that came before.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing.  For example, one of my favorite new bands is Ghost, and they sound a lot like Blue Oyster Cult.  I love the music, but its not breaking any ground.  I think this is enough to sustain the genre. 

Granted I'm not a fan of his whatsoever, but Kid Rock has made a very lucrative career for himself doing a mix of metal, rap, country, southern rock, etc.  Keeps the genre alive, but again, not breaking any new ground. 

Plus, many artists from the old guard are still active with touring and recording. 

While I don't necessarily like the direction rock has taken over the last 20 + years, I can see the genre is still doing OK.  But it doesn't seem to connect with the youth of today in the same way that pop, rap, R&B, and even country have. 

[Ovi]

People have been saying that rock is dead for the past five decades. That says everything about the relevance of the statement.

[the captain]

I think it's a perfectly legitimate question as long as you're defining it (what is rock and roll? what is dead?). Otherwise it just doesn't mean anything

"rock" is such a fluid term that to define it would either include so much music that isn't "rock", or would include so much stuff that isn't "rock", and could anyone agree? And if people can't agree on a definition, then how can anyone say it's "dead", and what would "dead" even mean?

or, to look at the question from a different angle, is any music form "dead"?

all said in friendly conversation and interested debate, of course

p.s. on a side-note, i'd say that "rock" is nearing philosophical extinction when people can now "rock" something, e.g. hairstyles.
p.p.s and let's not even get onto the subject of "owning" something, e.g. hairstyles. That pisses me right off. Is there a fad right now in China for trendy people to say that they "collectively share" hairstyles? "Oh, comrade, you are really collectively-sharing that Mao hairstyle" etc etc etc...

That is all--with the exception of the detour into rock-as-wear, or own/share--exactly my point. It's meaningless. The same debate was had over jazz from the late 60s onward. The issue is the same: definitions on the borders. Certain things are well understood to be [genre], but as [genre] evolves, by definition that incorporates other genres, excludes original facets, tests boundaries. That's essential in keeping art forms vibrant but it also changes the thing itself. So when jazz is highly notated and arranged to resemble what we call classical (another form of music whose life has been questioned over the decades), is it jazz? When it loses its swing, is it jazz? When it's electric and has a 2-4 beat? Or is that rock? In rock, when it evolves to incorporate the aforementioned jazz, is that rock? What about dance music? What about rap?

The reality is that these things all evolve. If they didn't, they might as well die, because it would be so excruciatingly dull to have "new" work continue to be limited by those same initial boundaries or touchstones. If one accepts evolution of [genre], then it's inevitable that (especially older generations) are going to cry "it's dead." Whatever newly evolved versions exist by then aren't by or for them.

That I pointed out, there have been many different versions of rock over the past 60 years.  Rock has been infused with every genre out there. 

Unless I missed something, there have really been no new movements in rock since the rap rock movement of the late 90s / early 00s. 

Most new bands of the 2000s are derivative of something that came before.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing.  For example, one of my favorite new bands is Ghost, and they sound a lot like Blue Oyster Cult.  I love the music, but its not breaking any ground.  I think this is enough to sustain the genre. 

Granted I'm not a fan of his whatsoever, but Kid Rock has made a very lucrative career for himself doing a mix of metal, rap, country, southern rock, etc.  Keeps the genre alive, but again, not breaking any new ground. 

Plus, many artists from the old guard are still active with touring and recording. 

While I don't necessarily like the direction rock has taken over the last 20 + years, I can see the genre is still doing OK.  But it doesn't seem to connect with the youth of today in the same way that pop, rap, R&B, and even country have. 

My premise is that by only looking at what is recognized classically as "rock," you're already missing the "living rock" for the dead. The things that happen within the more traditionally defined boundaries are bound--by definition--to seem stale, and it's no surprise that younger generations (except when there are the inevitable, intermittent resurgences of dormant styles, such as with 80s sounding romantic pop right now) eschew them. The "evolved rock" is simply a new species that still maintains remnants, that still has the DNA trail, but just isn't the same thing. If one is looking at or for the vestigial touchstones, one is looking at the "dead" parts.

So that gets us back to some earlier posts by me and others in this thread: at that point, it's about definitions or about the question itself. If you want to limit the definition of rock (even including its previously pushed boundaries and subgenres), and if you want to define "dead" as not among the dominant forms of pop, then yes, it's at least (to quote "the Princess Bride") mostly dead. There is not much life within the traditional boundaries of rock, including its past boundary-pushing. It's not consistently, especially popular among the mainstream and hasn't been in decades. (I would argue traditional rock is most popular in modern country music, which is more or less classic rock with vocal twang, "country" subject matter to the lyrics, and usually unnecessary fiddles or other traditionally country instruments as window dressing.)

If, however, you want to define rock loosely to mean youth-oriented pop music infused with rebellious spirit, then it's not dead. Or if you want to define dead as meaning literally nonexistent, then no, obviously it isn't dead.

[the captain]

Oh, one other thing I wanted to note. This is off track somewhat, but it's also at least tangentially relevant.

I think that even the resurgences of dormant styles, the rediscoveries of old influences, is in some sense a new development because it happens in a new context. Location, location, location, right? If there's a particular style that was done there and then, but now it's done here and now, that is at least somewhat a new development. As Zappa said in his autobiography, sometimes it's all about the frame. The gear may be different. The production technique is almost certainly different. The players themselves are presumably different. The Beatles, Zeppelin, the Stray Cats, and god-knows-who-else each recalled rockabilly, and each sounded entirely different in doing so. You can pick out what they're doing when they're doing it; you can spot the influence easily. But even if it seems blatantly ripped off from the same source, the result is indeed a different one.

There is a fine line in there somewhere, where pastiche and influence meet.

[KDS]

I think it's a perfectly legitimate question as long as you're defining it (what is rock and roll? what is dead?). Otherwise it just doesn't mean anything

"rock" is such a fluid term that to define it would either include so much music that isn't "rock", or would include so much stuff that isn't "rock", and could anyone agree? And if people can't agree on a definition, then how can anyone say it's "dead", and what would "dead" even mean?

or, to look at the question from a different angle, is any music form "dead"?

all said in friendly conversation and interested debate, of course

p.s. on a side-note, i'd say that "rock" is nearing philosophical extinction when people can now "rock" something, e.g. hairstyles.
p.p.s and let's not even get onto the subject of "owning" something, e.g. hairstyles. That pisses me right off. Is there a fad right now in China for trendy people to say that they "collectively share" hairstyles? "Oh, comrade, you are really collectively-sharing that Mao hairstyle" etc etc etc...

That is all--with the exception of the detour into rock-as-wear, or own/share--exactly my point. It's meaningless. The same debate was had over jazz from the late 60s onward. The issue is the same: definitions on the borders. Certain things are well understood to be [genre], but as [genre] evolves, by definition that incorporates other genres, excludes original facets, tests boundaries. That's essential in keeping art forms vibrant but it also changes the thing itself. So when jazz is highly notated and arranged to resemble what we call classical (another form of music whose life has been questioned over the decades), is it jazz? When it loses its swing, is it jazz? When it's electric and has a 2-4 beat? Or is that rock? In rock, when it evolves to incorporate the aforementioned jazz, is that rock? What about dance music? What about rap?

The reality is that these things all evolve. If they didn't, they might as well die, because it would be so excruciatingly dull to have "new" work continue to be limited by those same initial boundaries or touchstones. If one accepts evolution of [genre], then it's inevitable that (especially older generations) are going to cry "it's dead." Whatever newly evolved versions exist by then aren't by or for them.

That I pointed out, there have been many different versions of rock over the past 60 years.  Rock has been infused with every genre out there. 

Unless I missed something, there have really been no new movements in rock since the rap rock movement of the late 90s / early 00s. 

Most new bands of the 2000s are derivative of something that came before.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing.  For example, one of my favorite new bands is Ghost, and they sound a lot like Blue Oyster Cult.  I love the music, but its not breaking any ground.  I think this is enough to sustain the genre. 

Granted I'm not a fan of his whatsoever, but Kid Rock has made a very lucrative career for himself doing a mix of metal, rap, country, southern rock, etc.  Keeps the genre alive, but again, not breaking any new ground. 

Plus, many artists from the old guard are still active with touring and recording. 

While I don't necessarily like the direction rock has taken over the last 20 + years, I can see the genre is still doing OK.  But it doesn't seem to connect with the youth of today in the same way that pop, rap, R&B, and even country have. 

My premise is that by only looking at what is recognized classically as "rock," you're already missing the "living rock" for the dead. The things that happen within the more traditionally defined boundaries are bound--by definition--to seem stale, and it's no surprise that younger generations (except when there are the inevitable, intermittent resurgences of dormant styles, such as with 80s sounding romantic pop right now) eschew them. The "evolved rock" is simply a new species that still maintains remnants, that still has the DNA trail, but just isn't the same thing. If one is looking at or for the vestigial touchstones, one is looking at the "dead" parts.

So that gets us back to some earlier posts by me and others in this thread: at that point, it's about definitions or about the question itself. If you want to limit the definition of rock (even including its previously pushed boundaries and subgenres), and if you want to define "dead" as not among the dominant forms of pop, then yes, it's at least (to quote "the Princess Bride") mostly dead. There is not much life within the traditional boundaries of rock, including its past boundary-pushing. It's not consistently, especially popular among the mainstream and hasn't been in decades. (I would argue traditional rock is most popular in modern country music, which is more or less classic rock with vocal twang, "country" subject matter to the lyrics, and usually unnecessary fiddles or other traditionally country instruments as window dressing.)

If, however, you want to define rock loosely to mean youth-oriented pop music infused with rebellious spirit, then it's not dead. Or if you want to define dead as meaning literally nonexistent, then no, obviously it isn't dead.

I wouldn't fine rock as youth-oriented pop music infused with rebellious spirit.  If that's the case, then you can include Justin Beiber and the like in the rock genre, and that couldn't be further from the truth. 

Although I do agree that what passes for country today is basically country flavored rock.  Or is it rock flavored country? 

[JK]

Dreadful word, rock. Give me pop any day. At least pop doesn't die.

[the captain]

I wouldn't fine rock as youth-oriented pop music infused with rebellious spirit.  If that's the case, then you can include Justin Beiber and the like in the rock genre, and that couldn't be further from the truth. 

I don't see any harm in including them. But as I said, if you want to stick to a more traditional definition of rock, then we should just agree that yes, it's dead. Or at least smells funny.

[the captain]

Dreadful word, rock. Give me pop any day. At least pop doesn't die.

Amen. And bless you.

[Loaf]

Dreadful word, rock. Give me pop any day. At least pop doesn't die.

Amen. And bless you.

and what do you call pop music that isn't popular? Unpop?

[Loaf]

I think it's a perfectly legitimate question as long as you're defining it (what is rock and roll? what is dead?). Otherwise it just doesn't mean anything

"rock" is such a fluid term that to define it would either include so much music that isn't "rock", or would include so much stuff that isn't "rock", and could anyone agree? And if people can't agree on a definition, then how can anyone say it's "dead", and what would "dead" even mean?

or, to look at the question from a different angle, is any music form "dead"?

all said in friendly conversation and interested debate, of course

p.s. on a side-note, i'd say that "rock" is nearing philosophical extinction when people can now "rock" something, e.g. hairstyles.
p.p.s and let's not even get onto the subject of "owning" something, e.g. hairstyles. That pisses me right off. Is there a fad right now in China for trendy people to say that they "collectively share" hairstyles? "Oh, comrade, you are really collectively-sharing that Mao hairstyle" etc etc etc...

That is all--with the exception of the detour into rock-as-wear, or own/share--exactly my point. It's meaningless. The same debate was had over jazz from the late 60s onward. The issue is the same: definitions on the borders. Certain things are well understood to be [genre], but as [genre] evolves, by definition that incorporates other genres, excludes original facets, tests boundaries. That's essential in keeping art forms vibrant but it also changes the thing itself. So when jazz is highly notated and arranged to resemble what we call classical (another form of music whose life has been questioned over the decades), is it jazz? When it loses its swing, is it jazz? When it's electric and has a 2-4 beat? Or is that rock? In rock, when it evolves to incorporate the aforementioned jazz, is that rock? What about dance music? What about rap?

The reality is that these things all evolve. If they didn't, they might as well die, because it would be so excruciatingly dull to have "new" work continue to be limited by those same initial boundaries or touchstones. If one accepts evolution of [genre], then it's inevitable that (especially older generations) are going to cry "it's dead." Whatever newly evolved versions exist by then aren't by or for them.

That I pointed out, there have been many different versions of rock over the past 60 years.  Rock has been infused with every genre out there. 

Unless I missed something, there have really been no new movements in rock since the rap rock movement of the late 90s / early 00s. 

Most new bands of the 2000s are derivative of something that came before.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing.  For example, one of my favorite new bands is Ghost, and they sound a lot like Blue Oyster Cult.  I love the music, but its not breaking any ground.  I think this is enough to sustain the genre. 

Granted I'm not a fan of his whatsoever, but Kid Rock has made a very lucrative career for himself doing a mix of metal, rap, country, southern rock, etc.  Keeps the genre alive, but again, not breaking any new ground. 

Plus, many artists from the old guard are still active with touring and recording. 

While I don't necessarily like the direction rock has taken over the last 20 + years, I can see the genre is still doing OK.  But it doesn't seem to connect with the youth of today in the same way that pop, rap, R&B, and even country have. 

My premise is that by only looking at what is recognized classically as "rock," you're already missing the "living rock" for the dead. The things that happen within the more traditionally defined boundaries are bound--by definition--to seem stale, and it's no surprise that younger generations (except when there are the inevitable, intermittent resurgences of dormant styles, such as with 80s sounding romantic pop right now) eschew them. The "evolved rock" is simply a new species that still maintains remnants, that still has the DNA trail, but just isn't the same thing. If one is looking at or for the vestigial touchstones, one is looking at the "dead" parts.

So that gets us back to some earlier posts by me and others in this thread: at that point, it's about definitions or about the question itself. If you want to limit the definition of rock (even including its previously pushed boundaries and subgenres), and if you want to define "dead" as not among the dominant forms of pop, then yes, it's at least (to quote "the Princess Bride") mostly dead. There is not much life within the traditional boundaries of rock, including its past boundary-pushing. It's not consistently, especially popular among the mainstream and hasn't been in decades. (I would argue traditional rock is most popular in modern country music, which is more or less classic rock with vocal twang, "country" subject matter to the lyrics, and usually unnecessary fiddles or other traditionally country instruments as window dressing.)

If, however, you want to define rock loosely to mean youth-oriented pop music infused with rebellious spirit, then it's not dead. Or if you want to define dead as meaning literally nonexistent, then no, obviously it isn't dead.

disclaimer: I mean this all in the nicest possible way, so no kind of negative attack is intended

Even in trying to define what "rock" is, or to define the question, means talking ourselves into knots, with qualifiers and added definitions. That's why i said that "is rock dead" is not the right question to ask. Because no meaningful answer can be given. Simultaneously saying yes, no and maybe, is not an answer.

Ovi was closer to the mark, imo, when he said that people have been saying "rock is dead" for 5 decades. The question "is rock dead?" is dead.

[JK]

Dreadful word, rock. Give me pop any day. At least pop doesn't die.

Amen. And bless you.

and what do you call pop music that isn't popular? Unpop?

Pop. I've never associated pop with popular for some reason.

[the captain]

disclaimer: I mean this all in the nicest possible way, so no kind of negative attack is intended

Even in trying to define what "rock" is, or to define the question, means talking ourselves into knots, with qualifiers and added definitions. That's why i said that "is rock dead" is not the right question to ask. Because no meaningful answer can be given. Simultaneously saying yes, no and maybe, is not an answer.

Ovi was closer to the mark, imo, when he said that people have been saying "rock is dead" for 5 decades. The question "is rock dead?" is dead.

I know what you mean, I just don't agree. Ovi has a good point, though.

[rn57]

They've been talking about "the death of rock & roll" for a while....since 1956 to be exact:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAAHkvp7Dd8

[JK]

They've been talking about "the death of rock & roll" for a while....since 1956 to be exact:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAAHkvp7Dd8

Oh yes. One for Brian's album, perhaps?