Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 12:22:47 GMT 10
I seem to remember both here and on inthe00s, at least from around fall 2017 to roundabout spring/summer 2018, there was a whole hubbub about how rock was coming back, there was a revival on the radio. Sure, you had hits like Royal Blood's Lights Out or Neck Deep's In Bloom. You also had a bunch of new rock bands rising to prominence like waterparks and Greta Van Fleet, and other more established bands like Stone Sour, Papa Roach, and Foo Fighters receiving resurging interest. However, all in all, this renewed interest in rock music seems to be largely confined to summer and fall 2017 and maybe spring 2018.
Yes, I think the time of rock music and rock culture being the mainstream voice is done, and this time for good. We have an entire generation of kids who grew up without rock being the mainstream genre, not to mention that to many Gen Z's and Alphas, rock is probably regarded as "dad's" or "granddad's" music. I mean, think about it: even if you're a late Millennial/early Gen Z and your parents grew up in the '70s, that means many of what we regard as the classics - Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Fleetwood Mac, Rush, Jethro Tull, Kiss - these are all now dad rock. For many young kids these days, these are probably their grandparents' music. Yeah, the radio has borne it out, but logically speaking, I think it's easy to see that rock music is not and no longer can be the music of rebellion, and the rock lifestyle isn't appealing anymore.
But I was listening to a bunch of jazz over the weekend and contemplating its rise and fall, and came to an important realization: this is not only normal, but perfectly fine. In fact, rock music, as all musical or pop cultural movements, was destined to be toppled, but I don't think that means it's dead. It's not dead: it's just no longer king, and for good reason. That's a perfectly good thing, and it's for one crucially important reason: there is nowhere for rock to innovate or evolve anymore.
I think we've reached the apex point in rock music - there's just nowhere to go after post-grunge and emo. I mean sure, you could get super-experimental or maybe there is something that hasn't been thought of yet, but according to our current means, it seems there is nowhere left to go. Indeed, I think trying to get experimental at this point also means leaving relevance behind, maybe more so than just no longer being the dominant genre. I think that means getting so esoteric, like jazz, that rock gets left to the underground.
I think further evolution is going to happen in another genre or set of genres, maybe electronic music or hip-hop. This is not a bad thing - rock is going the way of jazz, or as orchestral music did before jazz. Vaporwave represents the pioneering side of electronic music, so maybe we are going to eventually get something out of that experimentation that ends up not only on the radio but completely changing the cultural zeitgeist, as rock music did. I mean, that really is the magnitude of change we are dealing with here: just as rock music resulted in the explosion of teen culture in the 1950s, so too maybe electronic music will cause its own waves to not only popular culture but societal culture itself.
tl;dr - Rock music is not dead but it's not going to define the voice of our culture as it once did, because it's been taken to its logical endpoint like jazz was in the 1960s. It will probably be succeeded by something like electronic music, which will become the cultural "default" like rock was.
SharksFan99 likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Sept 9, 2019 12:41:58 GMT 10
The Late 2000s were really the last era in which rock not only dominated the music scene, but also still had the quality of being rebellious and "edgy". However, even during the Late 2000s, the death knell was ringing. I'm still of the belief that rock can make a full-fledged return to the mainstream in some way, however it needs to become the voice of the current generation of teens and it has to happen soon. Part of the reason why I think Trap is doing so well is because it is the only genre in the Top-40 that has the appeal that rock 'n roll once had. It's rebellious, parents don't understand it and it's easily accessible.
You're right, rock is still very much alive in the underground and the recent success of the Bohemian Rhapsody biopic has shown that the interest in the mainstream is still there. The genre just needs to reevaluate itself and work out how it can go forward in the streaming age. These next few years are critical for rock to have any hope of making inroads back in to the Top-40. If rock is still in the same state in three years time, by which point 2020s culture should have mostly established itself, then that truly will be the final curtain on the genre. There have been a few rock songs which have become genuine hits this decade. As unlikely as it's chances of coming back are, it isn't entirely out of the question. It just needs to happen before it's too late.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 21:34:44 GMT 10
The Late 2000s were really the last era in which rock not only dominated the music scene, but also still had the quality of being rebellious and "edgy". However, even during the Late 2000s, the death knell was ringing. I'm still of the belief that rock can make a full-fledged return to the mainstream in some way, however it needs to become the voice of the current generation of teens and it has to happen soon. Part of the reason why I think Trap is doing so well is because it is the only genre in the Top-40 that has the appeal that rock 'n roll once had. It's rebellious, parents don't understand it and it's easily accessible. Well I think here you've just seized on why I think there is no coming back for rock music. It's not rebellious or edgy anymore because it's been the cultural default for more than half a century at this point. There's no kind of rock music that parents can't come to understand, even if it seems strange at first blush. Hell, I know 50+ year olds who listen to Linkin Park, and even I'm arguably a fogey for listening to them at all, let alone being age 30 and listening to stuff like that. It's not possible for rock to be associated with youth anymore because there are so many generations of listeners who have been engulfed in that culture. The Swing Generation in the 1920s and '30s were able to express themselves through swing jazz, which was so revolutionary at the time because their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and great great grandparents - if they had access to music at all - were listening to orchestral music (I am of course accounting for the fact that only their parents would have had access to recorded music by that point). Orchestral music had been the default since the late Victorian Age, before which most of the world outside of the aristocratic class had been listening to folk-produced music. In other words, orchestral music, at the time, had been the default since around the 1880s or 1890s, again about 30-40 years. I just think rock has past its expiration date not only as a form of music, but as the cultural zeitgeist. Nothing lasts forever, even ways of looking at the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by rainbow on Sept 9, 2019 23:23:29 GMT 10
The Late 2000s were really the last era in which rock not only dominated the music scene, but also still had the quality of being rebellious and "edgy". However, even during the Late 2000s, the death knell was ringing. I'm still of the belief that rock can make a full-fledged return to the mainstream in some way, however it needs to become the voice of the current generation of teens and it has to happen soon. Part of the reason why I think Trap is doing so well is because it is the only genre in the Top-40 that has the appeal that rock 'n roll once had. It's rebellious, parents don't understand it and it's easily accessible. Well I think here you've just seized on why I think there is no coming back for rock music. It's not rebellious or edgy anymore because it's been the cultural default for more than half a century at this point. There's no kind of rock music that parents can't come to understand, even if it seems strange at first blush. Hell, I know 50+ year olds who listen to Linkin Park, and even I'm arguably a fogey for listening to them at all, let alone being age 30 and listening to stuff like that. It's not possible for rock to be associated with youth anymore because there are so many generations of listeners who have been engulfed in that culture. The Swing Generation in the 1920s and '30s were able to express themselves through swing jazz, which was so revolutionary at the time because their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and great great grandparents - if they had access to music at all - were listening to orchestral music (I am of course accounting for the fact that only their parents would have had access to recorded music by that point). Orchestral music had been the default since the late Victorian Age, before which most of the world outside of the aristocratic class had been listening to folk-produced music. In other words, orchestral music, at the time, had been the default since around the 1880s or 1890s, again about 30-40 years. I just think rock has past its expiration date not only as a form of music, but as the cultural zeitgeist. Nothing lasts forever, even ways of looking at the world. Rock music probably isn’t coming back in the 2020’s. A lot of people my age (myself included) aren’t big fans of rock, so I doubt it’ll come back.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Sept 9, 2019 23:49:19 GMT 10
Well I think here you've just seized on why I think there is no coming back for rock music. It's not rebellious or edgy anymore because it's been the cultural default for more than half a century at this point. There's no kind of rock music that parents can't come to understand, even if it seems strange at first blush. Hell, I know 50+ year olds who listen to Linkin Park, and even I'm arguably a fogey for listening to them at all, let alone being age 30 and listening to stuff like that. It's not possible for rock to be associated with youth anymore because there are so many generations of listeners who have been engulfed in that culture. The Swing Generation in the 1920s and '30s were able to express themselves through swing jazz, which was so revolutionary at the time because their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and great great grandparents - if they had access to music at all - were listening to orchestral music (I am of course accounting for the fact that only their parents would have had access to recorded music by that point). Orchestral music had been the default since the late Victorian Age, before which most of the world outside of the aristocratic class had been listening to folk-produced music. In other words, orchestral music, at the time, had been the default since around the 1880s or 1890s, again about 30-40 years. I just think rock has past its expiration date not only as a form of music, but as the cultural zeitgeist. Nothing lasts forever, even ways of looking at the world. I can see the point you're making, but if rock continues to evolve stylistically and distance itself from the aesthetics/sound of previous incarnations of the genre, there is nothing stopping it from still creating an impression on the youth of today. It just needs to discover a new niche which will drive it forward. I don't really buy the argument that parents will come to understand any new innovations or developments which happen in rock music, tbh. They may happen to understand everything there is to know about the existing sub-genres of rock, but there's no barriers when it comes to what direction musicians can take rock music in. No one during the 1950s would have ever envisioned that sub-genres such as alternative-rock, blues rock or punk rock would be developed. I mean sure, any new innovation in rock would need to partially or entirely use the traditional drum and guitar set-up for it to be a "rock" song, but the production could be handled in such a way that it isn't like anything we've heard before. The "50-year" rule shouldn't be seen as being the definitive factor in determining a genre's lifespan in the mainstream. For instance, I could see hip-hop continuing the influence the trajectory of mainstream music for many years to come, thanks to the continued advancement of technology and great accessibility. Also, rock music itself had already been the cultural default for well over half a century when the Emo scene was at the peak of it's popularity (which I consider to have been 2007), yet that didn't jeopardize the extent to which the scene resonated with the teens of the day. I agree that nothing lasts forever in music, but I feel as though a genre can continue to prosper for an indefinite period of time as long as the interest in the music is still there. Honestly, I believe rock was more a victim of it's own wrongdoing rather than a genre of music which had simply ran past it's 'used by date'. I personally consider 2008-2011 as having been the period in which rock gradually died off, with 2008 being the first year the genre started showing serious signs of decline and 2011 as the year that it became "dead". These are the factors which I think killed rock as a mainstream force: * Nickelback, who were arguably still the biggest band in the world at the time, had been one of the most defining bands of rock for several years and were really starting to cop a lot of backlash for their questionable lyrics, formulaic releases and overall mediocrity. * Concurrently, the Emo scene was also starting to fall out of favour and heavily mocked for it's androgynous nature and overly-emotional lyrics. * IMO, rock music itself had been on the nose of people since at least the turn of the millennium, primarily due to the Nu-Metal and "post"-post-grunge ilk popularised by bands such as Limp Bizkit, Creed, 3 Doors Down etc. Combine that with the stigmatization that Emo received, it really painted rock in a bad light by the end of the 2000s. * The breakthrough of electropop was perceived as being refreshing at the time and the genre was a stark contrast from the aesthetics that were popular for most of the 2000s. Rock was still caught in the "alternative" zeitgeist that it had been stuck in since the emergence of Grunge, with songs continuing to focus on themes such as alienation, self-hate, depression and breakups. Electropop, on the other hand, was generally based around the idea of partying and having a good time in general. Rock really needed to evolve from the "alternative" zeitgeist for it to have had any real hope of continuing on well into the 2010s, especially given the fact that electropop was gaining a lot of momentum and eventually went on to dominate the Top-40 charts. If either of these factors had not occurred, I genuinely believe rock would still be in the Top-40 in some form today. Like I mentioned in my previous post, there have been a number of rock songs which have in fact become reasonably successful this decade, such as Walk The Moon's "Shut Up and Dance" and Paramore's "Still Into You". There is still an appetite for rock music. In fact, up until as recently as 2017, rock was still the most consumed genre of music in the United States. The challenge for rock now is that it needs to somehow tap into that interest, while also offering something new and becoming ingrained with the teens of today. It's a huge ask, but one which I don't believe is impossible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 12:24:09 GMT 10
As usual, Calvin & Hobbes has nailed it: 
|
|
