|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Jun 7, 2018 23:35:19 GMT 10
I know we've discussed in great detail about when rock music fell out of the mainstream, but when do you think rock lost it's rebellious image? Rock music has always been associated with rebellion, as it was an outlet for the youth to vent and to express themselves creatively. However, for over a decade now (at least), it has seemingly lost the rebelliousness which made the genre so popular for several decades.
From my own personal experience, rock music lost it's rebellious image sometime around 2008. I would honestly consider 2008 to be the death knell for rock as a strong cultural force. It remained in the mainstream for a few more years, however it has never quite had the same influence or significance since that time. It's hard to explain, but it just felt like rock was starting to come to an end. It even felt that way to me at the time, as a 9 year old.
People are likely to have different opinions as to when rock lost it's rebelliousness, but for anyone who shares the same opinion as me, I wonder why it seemingly did so in 2008? Maybe it was the fact that there weren't as many significant rock releases in 2008? It's strange, because I remember rock music still felt edgy back in the Mid 2000s and even just a year earlier (in 2007), especially with the rise (and peak) in popularity of the Emo scene, pop-punk groups such as Green Day and The Veronicas, as well as other established rock bands, like Linkin Park, Foo Fighters and Evanescence. It was still "cool" to be into rock music at that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by #Infinity on Jun 8, 2018 1:56:43 GMT 10
It actually temporarily lost much of its rebellious image around 1959 and 1960, when all of its biggest figures got derailed in some way and the genre instead became represented by ultra-tidy musicians such as Cliff Richard and Roy Orbison. It got grittily rebellious again, though, by 1965, when it started to get harder and more lyrically anti-authority.
Telso and astropoug like this
|
|
|
|
Post by longaotian on Jun 8, 2018 7:10:31 GMT 10
Yeah, 2007 seemed to be the last year it was really a thing. It declined during 2008-2010.
|
|
|
|
Post by al on Jun 8, 2018 8:43:18 GMT 10
I think rock has lost its edge more than once, but historically what has happened is that another "cooler" subgenre takes over. Take for example how hair metal, which got fairly pop-y by the end of its run and had gained relative mainstream acceptance, got overthrown by something fairly opposite. To be truly rebellious, something cannot be followed/done by everyone and their soccer mom (this also happened to facebook, tattoos, etc). What's odd about rock in current times however is that this cycle seems to have temporarily stopped. I agree about the late 2000's being that last era which rock was still considered edgy yet fairly popular. It was still a thing when I started high school, then no longer when I graduated in 2012. At least, rock became a niche thing by then, as did emo. One could argue about the hardcore and metal scene still being a stronghold, but it just does not have the mainstream awareness or accessibility that it used to.
What exactly "killed" rock is probably a complicated matter. Emos? Hipsters? Maybe. I think it's interesting to take a look at where the former target has gone. Of course you have die hards who haven't gone anywhere, and your people who just listen to whatever the hell they want, but about those who like what's popular and just wanna get trashed at a concert and would have liked Nickelback or even Dave Matthews ten or fifteen years ago? They I believe have gone to country, maybe alternative; they've gone to this partial electronic music with sprinklings of rock. But I couldn't say what is considered "badass" anymore. I see it plenty in fashion though.
SharksFan99 and astropoug like this
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Jul 7, 2018 0:04:09 GMT 10
I think rock has lost its edge more than once, but historically what has happened is that another "cooler" subgenre takes over. Take for example how hair metal, which got fairly pop-y by the end of its run and had gained relative mainstream acceptance, got overthrown by something fairly opposite. To be truly rebellious, something cannot be followed/done by everyone and their soccer mom (this also happened to facebook, tattoos, etc). What's odd about rock in current times however is that this cycle seems to have temporarily stopped. I agree about the late 2000's being that last era which rock was still considered edgy yet fairly popular. It was still a thing when I started high school, then no longer when I graduated in 2012. At least, rock became a niche thing by then, as did emo. One could argue about the hardcore and metal scene still being a stronghold, but it just does not have the mainstream awareness or accessibility that it used to. What exactly "killed" rock is probably a complicated matter. Emos? Hipsters? Maybe. I think it's interesting to take a look at where the former target has gone. Of course you have die hards who haven't gone anywhere, and your people who just listen to whatever the hell they want, but about those who like what's popular and just wanna get trashed at a concert and would have liked Nickelback or even Dave Matthews ten or fifteen years ago? They I believe have gone to country, maybe alternative; they've gone to this partial electronic music with sprinklings of rock. But I couldn't say what is considered "badass" anymore. I see it plenty in fashion though. I think the death of rock as a cultural movement can be contributed to a number of factors. The popularity of Post-Grunge and Emo almost certainly played a huge role in the demise of the genre, IMO. It arguably didn't help matters that the two sub-genres were divisive in their nature; one was a more-polished, commercialised product of the last true movement in rock (Grunge), while the other was a youth-orientated scene which sported gothic-style clothing, high-pitched vocals and make-up. By 2010, I remember Nickelback were basically ridiculed by everyone. They may have been the "face" of rock music, but they were also the laughing stock of Top-40 radio. A lot of kids at my school used to make jokes about them as well. Their longevity in the mainstream ultimately intertwined with the perception people had of rock music. With that said, I don't think Nickelback can be entirely blamed for the decline of rock. I actually think Post-Grunge, as a genre, overstayed it's welcome in the mainstream. I know this is hypothetical, but imagine if the genre had been phased out shortly after the release of songs such as "Hanging By a Moment", "How You Remind Me" and "Wherever You Will Go". If Post-Grunge had of come to an end in the Early 2000s, there likely wouldn't have been such a huge backlash against the genre in the Late 2000s/Early 2010s and rock music potentially could have survived for a few more years. Another factor which I believe strongly influenced the longevity of rock music, is simply how the world has progressed over the course of time. In a way, I think it was inevitable that rock would ultimately suffer the fate that it did; it was just a matter of when. Society is becoming increasingly more digitalised and old, analogue forms of technology are going by the wayside. Someone can easily create their own song on their home computer through the use of audio-editing software and share it onto social media, where it could be streamed by thousands of people. As for what happened to the people who liked contemporary Top-40 rock music and regularly went to concerts, it's hard to say. I do agree that a lot of them have probably since moved onto country, but there would be a lot of others who would have moved onto bands such as Imagine Dragons and Maroon 5, IMO.
al likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by al on Jul 7, 2018 14:38:42 GMT 10
By 2010, I remember Nickelback were basically ridiculed by everyone. They may have been the "face" of rock music, but they were also the laughing stock of Top-40 radio. A lot of kids at my school used to make jokes about them as well. Their longevity in the mainstream ultimately intertwined with the perception people had of rock music. With that said, I don't think Nickelback can be entirely blamed for the decline of rock. I actually think Post-Grunge, as a genre, overstayed it's welcome in the mainstream. I know this is hypothetical, but imagine if the genre had been phased out shortly after the release of songs such as "Hanging By a Moment", "How You Remind Me" and "Wherever You Will Go". If Post-Grunge had of come to an end in the Early 2000s, there likely wouldn't have been such a huge backlash against the genre in the Late 2000s/Early 2010s and rock music potentially could have survived for a few more years. Another factor which I believe strongly influenced the longevity of rock music, is simply how the world has progressed over the course of time. In a way, I think it was inevitable that rock would ultimately suffer the fate that it did; it was just a matter of when. Society is becoming increasingly more digitalised and old, analogue forms of technology are going by the wayside. Someone can easily create their own song on their home computer through the use of audio-editing software and share it onto social media, where it could be streamed by thousands of people. As for what happened to the people who liked contemporary Top-40 rock music and regularly went to concerts, it's hard to say. I do agree that a lot of them have probably since moved onto country, but there would be a lot of others who would have moved onto bands such as Imagine Dragons and Maroon 5, IMO. You present an interesting what-if scenario in regards to Post-Grunge having been able to fade out a few years earlier. This is true in a lot of areas of entertainment, where quality has been suffered for the sake of unnecessary quantity or at least prolongation. Of course we know this happens for one reason: $$$! But in this particular example, it really represents poor foresight, as it aided in the murder of an entire genre. Extreme phrasing, perhaps, but at least from a big commercial viability standpoint, it's not that far removed from reality. While it's certainly not the sole cause of death, it is very true that Nickelback was heavily ridiculed by 2010. At its core, rock thrives on the cool factor, and it was absolutely gone by that era. They and their contemporaries went from being what we call in this decade "basic" to just, well, something you didn't admit to listening to. Now it's almost like it's taking some time for the public to forget their conceptions of what current rock is supposed to be. At least to be optimistic, "what's out is in", as they say. In my opinion that's why bands like Greta Van Fleet and Palaye Royale are taking off, your four or five piece rock band is currently something different. And if anything is going to save rock and its image, it's being the underdog. Rock feeds off the bottom of the barrel. No I don't think we'll truly be tired of electronic music anytime soon, but if history tells us anything, I don't think we'll really lose the alternatives either.
SharksFan99 likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Jul 8, 2018 17:44:22 GMT 10
You present an interesting what-if scenario in regards to Post-Grunge having been able to fade out a few years earlier. This is true in a lot of areas of entertainment, where quality has been suffered for the sake of unnecessary quantity or at least prolongation. Of course we know this happens for one reason: $$$! But in this particular example, it really represents poor foresight, as it aided in the murder of an entire genre. Extreme phrasing, perhaps, but at least from a big commercial viability standpoint, it's not that far removed from reality. While it's certainly not the sole cause of death, it is very true that Nickelback was heavily ridiculed by 2010. At its core, rock thrives on the cool factor, and it was absolutely gone by that era. They and their contemporaries went from being what we call in this decade "basic" to just, well, something you didn't admit to listening to. Now it's almost like it's taking some time for the public to forget their conceptions of what current rock is supposed to be. At least to be optimistic, "what's out is in", as they say. In my opinion that's why bands like Greta Van Fleet and Palaye Royale are taking off, your four or five piece rock band is currently something different. And if anything is going to save rock and its image, it's being the underdog. Rock feeds off the bottom of the barrel. No I don't think we'll truly be tired of electronic music anytime soon, but if history tells us anything, I don't think we'll really lose the alternatives either. I agree. I mean, it's hard to say what would have happened if Post-Grunge had been phased out earlier. I'm not sure if it was ever actually intended for Post-Grunge to have a hand in the demise of rock as a cultural movement; I just think it's how things naturally played out. If i'm not mistaken, "How You Remind Me" was one of the biggest U.S. hits of 2001 and that was the song which catapulted Nickelback to stardom. Who knows, if "How You Remind Me" had only been a minor hit, it really could have resulted in Post-Grunge ending much sooner than it actually did. Yeah, I agree that rock had definitely lost it's "edge" by the start of this decade and in retrospect, it's not hard to see why. Emo and Post-Grunge were both on their last legs, whilst the indie-scene was concurrently gaining momentum. There were essentially no bands left that really continued on the core characteristics of rock; that being an art form which rebels against authority and promotes socially conscious lyrics. I'm not sure what you thought of this at the time, but to be honest, when "Pumped Up Kicks" and "Somebody That I Used To Know" were massive hits back in 2011, I thought indie-rock would have become one of the most popular genres later on in the decade. It has had a significant influence on the music scene in the 2010s, but it didn't become as huge as what I thought it would have. In regards to the last paragraph, that's a very good point. I would love to see rock make a comeback into the mainstream (especially if it was through bands like Greta Van Fleet), but I have my doubts that it will happen, to be honest. I personally believe that if rock music doesn't make a comeback by 2022, it's unlikely that it ever will. Time is working against the genre and for any hope of rock becoming relevant again, it needs to enter back into the mainstream very soon. There is essentially a generation of kids/teens who were either very young or weren't even born yet when rock was still popular. The current group of High School Freshmen were only 6 years old in 2010. Unless they are exposed to it through their parents listening to it, those kids/teens are not likely to have an affinity with rock music, as to them, it would basically be "old people's" music.
al likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by al on Jul 15, 2018 13:28:01 GMT 10
Yeah, I agree that rock had definitely lost it's "edge" by the start of this decade and in retrospect, it's not hard to see why. Emo and Post-Grunge were both on their last legs, whilst the indie-scene was concurrently gaining momentum. There were essentially no bands left that really continued on the core characteristics of rock; that being an art form which rebels against authority and promotes socially conscious lyrics. I'm not sure what you thought of this at the time, but to be honest, when "Pumped Up Kicks" and "Somebody That I Used To Know" were massive hits back in 2011, I thought indie-rock would have become one of the most popular genres later on in the decade. It has had a significant influence on the music scene in the 2010s, but it didn't become as huge as what I thought it would have. In regards to the last paragraph, that's a very good point. I would love to see rock make a comeback into the mainstream (especially if it was through bands like Greta Van Fleet), but I have my doubts that it will happen, to be honest. I personally believe that if rock music doesn't make a comeback by 2022, it's unlikely that it ever will. Time is working against the genre and for any hope of rock becoming relevant again, it needs to enter back into the mainstream very soon. There is essentially a generation of kids/teens who were either very young or weren't even born yet when rock was still popular. The current group of High School Freshmen were only 6 years old in 2010. Unless they are exposed to it through their parents listening to it, those kids/teens are not likely to have an affinity with rock music, as to them, it would basically be "old people's" music. I too thought Indie Rock would have more staying power in the mainstream. Around 2008 it began to steal nearly all of the cool factor away from Hardcore and whatever was lingering of rock. Not that it isn't still around obviously, but I do think Indie became a victim of taking itself too seriously. The whole hipster, a band isn't cool if everyone has heard of it thing that blew up in the early 10's made the genre rather pretentious. Now you have artists like Chainsmokers that fit a bit better into the pop genre perhaps because it makes alternative more palatable. I'm not really all that optimistic about the resurgence of rock, though I don't know if the youngest generation having little familiarity with it is necessarily the worst thing. Again, rock is at its best when it's not considered cool, and if kids don't think Nickelback when they think today's rock, then I consider that beneficial. But I really think the problem right now is that there aren't nearly enough bands doing what we're considering rock right now. Who's there to compete with GVF? One band alone can't start or cause a resurrection of anything on their own. I remember a few years ago when people thought The Struts would make rock cool again. I think they do well touring but nothing has happened. For starters I don't think they've had a ton of new music, but then, who else sounds like them? A random band, even a successful one, rarely defines an era. Right now I feel like one genre cluster will sound exactly the same, or you will have a unique artist who stands out but accomplishes nothing. I think there needs to be enough of a demand for new bands, and enough really good songs to help create some of that demand, to really get anything to reemerge.
SharksFan99 likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Jul 16, 2018 11:38:28 GMT 10
I too thought Indie Rock would have more staying power in the mainstream. Around 2008 it began to steal nearly all of the cool factor away from Hardcore and whatever was lingering of rock. Not that it isn't still around obviously, but I do think Indie became a victim of taking itself too seriously. The whole hipster, a band isn't cool if everyone has heard of it thing that blew up in the early 10's made the genre rather pretentious. Now you have artists like Chainsmokers that fit a bit better into the pop genre perhaps because it makes alternative more palatable. I'm not really all that optimistic about the resurgence of rock, though I don't know if the youngest generation having little familiarity with it is necessarily the worst thing. Again, rock is at its best when it's not considered cool, and if kids don't think Nickelback when they think today's rock, then I consider that beneficial. But I really think the problem right now is that there aren't nearly enough bands doing what we're considering rock right now. Who's there to compete with GVF? One band alone can't start or cause a resurrection of anything on their own. I remember a few years ago when people thought The Struts would make rock cool again. I think they do well touring but nothing has happened. For starters I don't think they've had a ton of new music, but then, who else sounds like them? A random band, even a successful one, rarely defines an era. Right now I feel like one genre cluster will sound exactly the same, or you will have a unique artist who stands out but accomplishes nothing. I think there needs to be enough of a demand for new bands, and enough really good songs to help create some of that demand, to really get anything to reemerge. I think indie rock took on it's role largely as a response to the music scene. The Hipster movement has undoubtedly played a part in it as well, however I believe a lot of it simply has to do with what is currently popular on Top-40 radio. In the eyes of many, EDM and Trap could be perceived as being manufactured, inauthentic music that is strictly based on consumerism. Because Indie-Rock is such a stark contrast to those two genres, people have naturally perceived it as being more of a "serious" and authentic form of music. If you were to compare Foster the People with Drake, for example, it would be easy to see why people would think the former is in that same mold. That perception has ultimately manifested into the work of indie-rock artists. I agree that there needs to be a strong demand for new bands in order for rock to become a mainstream movement again. Unfortunately though, it's almost as if there is a subconscious mindset among the public that rock, as a cultural movement, is done. The only time rock still receives headlines, is when established bands such as the Foo Fighters or Green Day are about to release a new album or have performed at the iHeartRadio festivals. Beyond that, rock barely receives any coverage in the media. It is strange though that there is such little demand in new bands, because there are a lot of underground bands out there who could help spur a revival of rock music. For instance, I've heard that Punk is thriving in the underground at the moment, but again, I can't see it making a resurgence in the mainstream if the bands aren't receiving any form of recognition. It will likely remain relegated to the underground.
|
|
