|
|
Post by al on Sept 22, 2018 11:09:02 GMT 10
This is my first time ever hearing that song. It's not too bad.  I personally have my doubts, to be honest. The concept of "classic rock" has existed since the '90s (possibly even earlier than that) and rock music was still driving forward as a genre at the time. People will always look favourably on songs from the past, but i'm not sure if people's sense of nostalgia is actually responsible for rock being in the state that it is currently in. Yeah I like the song, they're a pretty decent band. I think it's one of those concepts that has merit to it but maybe isn't exactly causal. I'll use for example the rock radio stations in my area. There are vaguely rock alt stations which may play the range from Nirvana to Imagine Dragons, what I would associate with the music itunes calls "alternative". Then you have the heavy station, which plays Motley Crue to Pretty Reckless. Most notoriously there is then classic rock radio which, well, we all know that beast. Same 200 songs over and over. The obvious difference between the latter station and the two former ones is that they play new music with older hits. There is at least something vaguely cohesive across them, rather than being pure mix stations. Hard rock and metal may have grown fairly niche, but they at least have their own little oasis. What new music gets to play next to The Rolling Stones or Fleetwood Mac? What kind of stations play Greta Van Fleet? Despite the radio playing increasingly less of a role in how we consume and find music, the human brain still loves to define and classify things. Given how many we know continue to define their taste as "Top 40", it seems as though these kinds of parameters, often the ones laid about by conglomerates like radio, keep influencing our perception. If there isn't a thriving familial genre, acts have a way of slipping into novelty. So I do think there is a degree of classic rock dominating the marketplace.
|
|
|
|
Post by al on Sept 22, 2018 11:12:04 GMT 10
Are women going to save rock?
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Sept 29, 2018 22:22:07 GMT 10
I think it's one of those concepts that has merit to it but maybe isn't exactly causal. I'll use for example the rock radio stations in my area. There are vaguely rock alt stations which may play the range from Nirvana to Imagine Dragons, what I would associate with the music itunes calls "alternative". Then you have the heavy station, which plays Motley Crue to Pretty Reckless. Most notoriously there is then classic rock radio which, well, we all know that beast. Same 200 songs over and over. The obvious difference between the latter station and the two former ones is that they play new music with older hits. There is at least something vaguely cohesive across them, rather than being pure mix stations. Hard rock and metal may have grown fairly niche, but they at least have their own little oasis. What new music gets to play next to The Rolling Stones or Fleetwood Mac? What kind of stations play Greta Van Fleet? Despite the radio playing increasingly less of a role in how we consume and find music, the human brain still loves to define and classify things. Given how many we know continue to define their taste as "Top 40", it seems as though these kinds of parameters, often the ones laid about by conglomerates like radio, keep influencing our perception. If there isn't a thriving familial genre, acts have a way of slipping into novelty. So I do think there is a degree of classic rock dominating the marketplace. It's interesting how rock stations in the US are formatted that way. I'm not sure if I really like the concept of it, to be honest. Even though it lends itself to more musical variety, the format immediately puts the "alternative" stations at a disadvantage. It's only natural that people are going to opt for the stations that play their favourite songs from yesteryear. How are new artists/bands expected to reach greater heights when they are restricted by the smaller audience share? We don't have separate "classic rock" or "hard rock" stations down here. Rock stations in Australia are based on the "modern rock" format, meaning that they play a wide variety of rock songs from different eras. In case you're interested, here is a list of the songs my local rock station (well it's technically a Sydney station, but I can receive it where I live) played within the past hour: The playlist ranges from a song which dates back to 1971 ("Eagle Rock"), to a current Top-10 hit (Panic! at the Disco's "High Hopes"). If American rock stations were based on that format, I think it would really be beneficial to rock artists/bands and the music industry in general.
al likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by al on Oct 2, 2018 4:31:27 GMT 10
We don't have separate "classic rock" or "hard rock" stations down here. Rock stations in Australia are based on the "modern rock" format, meaning that they play a wide variety of rock songs from different eras. In case you're interested, here is a list of the songs my local rock station (well it's technically a Sydney station, but I can receive it where I live) played within the past hour: The playlist ranges from a song which dates back to 1971 ("Eagle Rock"), to a current Top-10 hit (Panic! at the Disco's "High Hopes"). If American rock stations were based on that format, I think it would really be beneficial to rock artists/bands and the music industry in general. I agree and I really can't think of a local station that would play this kind of mix. Panic! and Poison on the same station? No way. Not unless it were a straight up "everything" station, where you might also hear Michael Jackson to Bruno Mars. But then there's the obvious problem with there being so much competition at that level. At least the alternative stations are far more likely to play some up-and-comers along with some beloved favorites, though there also tend to be tighter requirements to fit in with their sound. In the US there are no exaggeration some few hundred songs, though it feels more like 50, many you'll find consistently still charting on itunes, that get played over and over by the classic stations. The newest you may possibly get is Nirvana, though you're lucky to get GnR era. This is perhaps what supports the theory of rock cannibalizing itself more than anything else: 1960's to present has not been allowed to be a cohesive unit.
SharksFan99 likes this
|
|
|
|
Post by al on Oct 2, 2018 4:34:49 GMT 10
The decade rock grew a beard
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Oct 21, 2018 22:18:31 GMT 10
Yeah, those arrangements remind me of "Sail" by Awolnation, another song I would call "quintessentially 2010s rock song": One of the biggest sleeper hits of all time. IMO, you could arguably make the case that Awolnation are one of the most quintessential rock/indie artists of the 2010s. I'm not overly familiar with their songs, although I have listened to quite a few of their singles before (including "Sail") and all of them well and truly sound like products of the 2010s. "I Am" is actually one of my favourite songs of the decade. Here's another song which I think sounds quintessentially 2010s:
|
|
|
|
Post by al on Oct 22, 2018 6:54:14 GMT 10
Here's another song which I think sounds quintessentially 2010s: You know, even though The Killers were a more prominent band last decade, I think they resonate more with this decade somehow. Their sound and style seem to have been pretty influential.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Oct 23, 2018 17:25:33 GMT 10
You know, even though The Killers were a more prominent band last decade, I think they resonate more with this decade somehow. Their sound and style seem to have been pretty influential. I agree actually. It's surprising that The Killers have been able to maintain a level of relevancy in the 2010s, despite the fact that they haven't experienced Top-40 chart success this decade. I wonder why though? When "Mr Brightside" and "Somebody Tell Me" were released back in 2004, they were really just your standard, run of the mill 2000s rock band. Their sound wasn't exactly innovative or original in any way.
|
|
|
|
Post by #Infinity on Oct 24, 2018 9:43:53 GMT 10
You know, even though The Killers were a more prominent band last decade, I think they resonate more with this decade somehow. Their sound and style seem to have been pretty influential. I agree actually. It's surprising that The Killers have been able to maintain a level of relevancy in the 2010s, despite the fact that they haven't experienced Top-40 chart success this decade. I wonder why though? When "Mr Brightside" and "Somebody Tell Me" were released back in 2004, they were really just your standard, run of the mill 2000s rock band. Their sound wasn't exactly innovative or original in any way. They were part of the wave of indie-oriented rock that was allegedly influenced by '80s music (I say allegedly because it has absolutely none of the same spirit as true '80s music, not even the the more melancholic post-punk), but since "Somebody Told Me" and "Mr. Brightside" had such enormous hooks, they achieved far more mainstream success than most other songs of the genre, which remained more primarily popular with British audiences and college radio.
|
|
