|
Post by Captain Nemo on Mar 15, 2021 13:35:57 GMT 10
Thread inspired by a conversation I had with SharksFan99 recently. Do you think that rock music has reached its creative peak? Over the past few years, there have been several music acts coming out trying to keep the rock genre alive, which is all well and splendid given the genre has been dormant in the mainstream since the tail end of the '00s decade. Examples of this include Greta Van Fleet (classic rock), White Reaper (garage rock) VOIID (grunge), as well as acts to revive emo and "butt-rock" as well.
However, once catch to all of this is that these music acts are only reviving sub-genres of rock that were successful in years past instead of creating new ones.
Granted, the reason they are likely doing this is because these subgenres which they are trying to revive already have an established following to them, whom will have an interest in that type of music, which is a much smarter and less risky avenue to take compared to starting from scratch with not only a new genre, but also trying to create a new fanbase for said new genre, which is a deed doomed to failure in an era when rock music in general is not mainstream anymore.
However, if all of these acts succeed in bringing rock music back into the mainstream, would that be a good time to start from scratch with a new sub-genre, and if so, how experimental can they get when creating this new genre as well as getting a song on their album on the radio, without the song at hand being a Bohemian Rhapsody or Black Parade knockoff, or the album being a Sgt. Pepper knockoff, or their new genre ending up like all those "core" subgenres?
Now, if you've been following music back in the late '00s and early '10s, chances are you may have heard of bands such as Black Veil Brides, Asking Alexandria, Attack Attack!, Escape the Fate, Falling in Reverse, Blood on the Dance Floor, BrokeNCYDE, The Millionaires, 3OH!3, Dot Dot Curve, iwrestledabearonce, and Design the Skyline, amongst numerous others, which had a following but received tons of backlash from music critics everywhere, and may have also heard these bands be referred to as under a certain "core" genre.
The "core" suffix in these genres references hardcore punk, typically screamo, and there are actually numerous sub-genres with the "core" suffix which mix a certain genre of music with screamo and other hardcore punk variants. These include metalcore, deathcore, thrashcore, nardcore, mathcore, grindcore, christiancore, digitalcore, jazzcore, crunkcore, crabcore, nintendocore, easycore, and there's even bluegrasscore (Blood & Banjos), ans well as bands that can be considered reggaecore (Skindred). That's a lot of core! You could make the argument that all of this means that hardcore punk is a heavily versatile genre if you could seemingly create infinite "core" genres by just taking any music genre and adding screamo to it, (ambientcore, anyone?) but really, none of these sub-genres are really popular outside of niche circles. Granted, a large reason for that is because screamo music and hardcore punk in general is not versatile audience-wise, but also, most fans of one core genre are fans of another core genre as well, since the core (ha! pun intended!) style of all these sub-genres are mostly the same, and again, for the most part, all of these core genres are underground, with only a few singles from a select few of these genres having mainstream success. Any newly created "core" genre would just become one of the bunch, and would only have a small-level niche following at best.
Now, rock music that isn't hardcore punk or metal (I'll get to metal in the next paragraph) has more potential to reach a wider audience, but you still need to make your radio hits presentable to an average person who is just listening to their car radio trying to drive from Point A to Point B, and that is difficult to do when you're trying to experiment with creating a new sub-genre of rock music.
I think there is potential for a new sub-genre of rock to be created, but it's still a long way from becoming a mainstream reality at this point.
As for metal music, there's tons of potential for experimentation there, since metal as a whole is relatively artistic to begin with, as well as because metalheads are one of the few factions of music fans left who prefer albums over singles, and there are plenty of experimental metal bands I do enjoy who are very experimental and creative in their musical structure. But again, none of this will ever become mainstream, as metal music is inherently a niche genre.
Anyways, what do you all think on this subject at hand?
|
|
|
Post by slashpop on Mar 15, 2021 14:25:04 GMT 10
Thread inspired by a conversation I had with SharksFan99 recently. Do you think that rock music has reached its creative peak? Over the past few years, there have been several music acts coming out trying to keep the rock genre alive, which is all well and splendid given the genre has been dormant in the mainstream since the tail end of the '00s decade. Examples of this include Greta Van Fleet (classic rock), White Reaper (garage rock) VOIID (grunge), as well as acts to revive emo and "butt-rock" as well.
However, once catch to all of this is that these music acts are only reviving sub-genres of rock that were successful in years past instead of creating new ones.
Granted, the reason they are likely doing this is because these subgenres which they are trying to revive already have an established following to them, whom will have an interest in that type of music, which is a much smarter and less risky avenue to take compared to starting from scratch with not only a new genre, but also trying to create a new fanbase for said new genre, which is a deed doomed to failure in an era when rock music in general is not mainstream anymore.
However, if all of these acts succeed in bringing rock music back into the mainstream, would that be a good time to start from scratch with a new sub-genre, and if so, how experimental can they get when creating this new genre as well as getting a song on their album on the radio, without the song at hand being a Bohemian Rhapsody or Black Parade knockoff, or the album being a Sgt. Pepper knockoff, or their new genre ending up like all those "core" subgenres?
Now, if you've been following music back in the late '00s and early '10s, chances are you may have heard of bands such as Black Veil Brides, Asking Alexandria, Attack Attack!, Escape the Fate, Falling in Reverse, Blood on the Dance Floor, BrokeNCYDE, The Millionaires, 3OH!3, Dot Dot Curve, iwrestledabearonce, and Design the Skyline, amongst numerous others, which had a following but received tons of backlash from music critics everywhere, and may have also heard these bands be referred to as under a certain "core" genre.
The "core" suffix in these genres references hardcore punk, typically screamo, and there are actually numerous sub-genres with the "core" suffix which mix a certain genre of music with screamo and other hardcore punk variants. These include metalcore, deathcore, thrashcore, nardcore, mathcore, grindcore, christiancore, digitalcore, jazzcore, crunkcore, crabcore, nintendocore, easycore, and there's even bluegrasscore (Blood & Banjos), ans well as bands that can be considered reggaecore (Skindred). That's a lot of core! You could make the argument that all of this means that hardcore punk is a heavily versatile genre if you could seemingly create infinite "core" genres by just taking any music genre and adding screamo to it, (ambientcore, anyone?) but really, none of these sub-genres are really popular outside of niche circles. Granted, a large reason for that is because screamo music and hardcore punk in general is not versatile audience-wise, but also, most fans of one core genre are fans of another core genre as well, since the core (ha! pun intended!) style of all these sub-genres are mostly the same, and again, for the most part, all of these core genres are underground, with only a few singles from a select few of these genres having mainstream success. Any newly created "core" genre would just become one of the bunch, and would only have a small-level niche following at best.
Now, rock music that isn't hardcore punk or metal (I'll get to metal in the next paragraph) has more potential to reach a wider audience, but you still need to make your radio hits presentable to an average person who is just listening to their car radio trying to drive from Point A to Point B, and that is difficult to do when you're trying to experiment with creating a new sub-genre of rock music.
I think there is potential for a new sub-genre of rock to be created, but it's still a long way from becoming a mainstream reality at this point.
As for metal music, there's tons of potential for experimentation there, since metal as a whole is relatively artistic to begin with, as well as because metalheads are one of the few factions of music fans left who prefer albums over singles, and there are plenty of experimental metal bands I do enjoy who are very experimental and creative in their musical structure. But again, none of this will ever become mainstream, as metal music is inherently a niche genre.
Anyways, what do you all think on this subject at hand?
There really hasn’t been anything groundbreaking since the mid to late 90s that’s on a wow and lifechanging level with a few exceptions. Early 2000s was the final part and last gasp of what started in the mid 90s, kind of like a final chapter. There really hasn’t been anything that groundbreaking from 2005 onwards outside of niche genres, more access to more music and people rehashing older styles or crossing genres both underground and mainstream. I don’t find most variations of current rock to have the same level of high caliber creative ambition or energy and craftsmenship as music from earlier eras as recent as 1995. It seems that it’s all about fitting into a genre and endlessly making similar sounding music that doesn’t aim to change the game the way others have done before and there isn’t this universal crazy high ambition to create life changing music that David Bowie, The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain and Marilyn Manson have created in past decades.
|
|
|
Post by #Infinity on Mar 26, 2021 13:30:41 GMT 10
I feel like rock music can never be truly powerful again because it has lots its importance as a counterculture movement. The accessibility of so much rock is also irrelevant in an era where DIY songs are more readily made on computers, so TikTok pop and rap, as well as bedroom pop are the new home of rock's classic ethos. Nowadays, the only bands even pretending to be rock pander to advertisers or only play rock as part of a wider fabric of influneces.
|
|
|
Post by slashpop on Mar 26, 2021 22:09:50 GMT 10
I feel like rock music can never be truly powerful again because it has lots its importance as a counterculture movement. The accessibility of so much rock is also irrelevant in an era where DIY songs are more readily made on computers, so TikTok pop and rap, as well as bedroom pop are the new home of rock's classic ethos. Nowadays, the only bands even pretending to be rock pander to advertisers or only play rock as part of a wider fabric of influneces. It doesn’t help that a lot of modern underground bands are stuck emulating past genres from the 70s to the 2000s with sometimes a formula that keeps them stuck with one particular style. I think what made past genres produce quality was a deeper understanding of pop or universal appeal and musical dynamics related to it and the competition, rewards, and motivation for success that was built around traditional media models.
|
|
|
Post by John Titor on Mar 27, 2021 0:09:15 GMT 10
I feel like rock music can never be truly powerful again because it has lots its importance as a counterculture movement. The accessibility of so much rock is also irrelevant in an era where DIY songs are more readily made on computers, so TikTok pop and rap, as well as bedroom pop are the new home of rock's classic ethos. Nowadays, the only bands even pretending to be rock pander to advertisers or only play rock as part of a wider fabric of influneces. www.instyle.com/celebrity/pop-punk-boyfriend-machine-gun-kelly-megan-fox"There are plenty of explanations for why pop-punk has returned. We're living in dark times! The isolation of quarantine calls for power chords! But even if pop-punk wasn't back in fashion, the notion that couples like Fox and Kelly or Barker and Kardashian are a "glitches in the simulation" feels outdated "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 4:11:48 GMT 10
I feel like rock music can never be truly powerful again because it has lots its importance as a counterculture movement. The accessibility of so much rock is also irrelevant in an era where DIY songs are more readily made on computers, so TikTok pop and rap, as well as bedroom pop are the new home of rock's classic ethos. Nowadays, the only bands even pretending to be rock pander to advertisers or only play rock as part of a wider fabric of influneces. www.instyle.com/celebrity/pop-punk-boyfriend-machine-gun-kelly-megan-fox"There are plenty of explanations for why pop-punk has returned. We're living in dark times! The isolation of quarantine calls for power chords! But even if pop-punk wasn't back in fashion, the notion that couples like Fox and Kelly or Barker and Kardashian are a "glitches in the simulation" feels outdated " Absolutely none of this represents anything resembling counterculture. If anything, it’s the clearest manifestation of corporatized youth culture we currently have going. If this ever becomes popular enough to not just be an Internet forum conversation piece, I expect it to die quickly.
|
|
|
Post by John Titor on Mar 27, 2021 4:53:36 GMT 10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 22:37:40 GMT 10
Oh hey, look: a bunch of Internet conversation pieces. You can't call it a genre revival when exactly one artist - one - is carrying the entire weight of the "revival," as shown in the Billboard 100. Not to mention it's only 2 singles by that same artist. It's like saying salsa is coming back if Lou Bega manages to chart after disappearing for 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by jaydawg89 on Mar 27, 2021 23:03:06 GMT 10
I always felt that the 1960s was the creative peak, as there was always new stuff being done with the genre all the time. Sadly, I don't think Rock music will ever be popular again (to a mainstream level, like to what Hip Hop is now). For example, take Jazz, it was the most mainstream genre of the 1930s (I think) and pretty much no where to be seen in the mainstream by the 1970s (it definitely saw its biggest drop in popularity around the early 1960s, after starting its decline around the mid 1950s).
|
|
|
Post by John Titor on Mar 28, 2021 1:34:18 GMT 10
Oh hey, look: a bunch of Internet conversation pieces.You can't call it a genre revival when exactly one artist - one - is carrying the entire weight of the "revival," as shown in the Billboard 100. Not to mention it's only 2 singles by that same artist. It's like saying salsa is coming back if Lou Bega manages to chart after disappearing for 20 years. it's more then internet conversation pieces, pop punk is starting to seep it's way back into top top 10 music , it's not just one artist either, even tho MGK did pull a ton of weight. But since you say Pop punk revival is only one person... JUST LMAO you refuse to see that it's becoming a trend, and then when articles are saying its the new trend you down play Spin magazine by saying it's an internet conversation piece. That is like me saying CNN making an article about a tornado or something is a "conversation piece" What you fail to realize is after a trend keeps happening and has a domino like effect it becomes "a thing" Here is Polygon doing a article on it a few weeks ago. this isn't just "Internet conversation piece" it's becoming pop culture MAIN STREAM
Billboard, Spin, Polygon, AP, TMZwww.polygon.com/2021/3/2/22298265/tiktok-emo-music-video-celebrities
|
|
|
Post by slashpop on Mar 29, 2021 4:07:43 GMT 10
All I’m going to say is I don’t think music genres necessarily always have to enter the charts, or a certain positions to be become part of popular culture or the mainstream, however this is still true to a great degree.
I think the power of social media, internet culture, Spotify and viral popularity can make music genres mainstream at least in some cases. That’s how micro genres like sea punk gained popularity to a large extent prior to Rihanna’s music video that borrowed the aesthetic and so forth.
I just think strict definitions of what defines something as mainstream is still to some extent stuck in the 90s and 2000s, and honestly it’s been a bit different now for over a decade and a lot of what constitutes as boundaries of the mainstream will continue to change.
|
|
|
Post by slashpop on Mar 29, 2021 6:45:44 GMT 10
Oh hey, look: a bunch of Internet conversation pieces.You can't call it a genre revival when exactly one artist - one - is carrying the entire weight of the "revival," as shown in the Billboard 100. Not to mention it's only 2 singles by that same artist. It's like saying salsa is coming back if Lou Bega manages to chart after disappearing for 20 years. it's more then internet conversation pieces, pop punk is starting to seep it's way back into top top 10 music , it's not just one artist either, even tho MGK did pull a ton of weight. But since you say Pop punk revival is only one person... JUST LMAO you refuse to see that it's becoming a trend, and then when articles are saying its the new trend you down play Spin magazine by saying it's an internet conversation piece. That is like me saying CNN making an article about a tornado or something is a "conversation piece" What you fail to realize is after a trend keeps happening and has a domino like effect it becomes "a thing" Here is Polygon doing a article on it a few weeks ago. this isn't just "Internet conversation piece" it's becoming pop culture MAIN STREAM
Billboard, Spin, Polygon, AP, TMZwww.polygon.com/2021/3/2/22298265/tiktok-emo-music-video-celebritiesCharts help but it could also get even bigger without the help of them, genres can become mainstream in more than one way with all that is out there which is good for pop punk . It happened before with sea punk. I remember punk rock mba doing a video or videos on potential and popularity of pop punk revival.
|
|
|
Post by 10slover on Jul 4, 2021 5:49:09 GMT 10
Yes, every rock song these days is either too experimental to be a hit, or a throwback song to previous decades
slashpop likes this
|
|
|
Post by slashpop on Jul 4, 2021 17:12:37 GMT 10
Yes, every rock song these days is either too experimental to be a hit, or a throwback song to previous decades The last decent phases for rock were 1997-1999 and 2002-2004.I've yet to see anything surpass those periods in terms of quality, one can argue things were decling even then but you still had real talent in the mainstream in midst of many commericialed and sellout bands. I think people could say 2005-2008 and 2010-2012 may have been good but to me objectively speaking still seem like a bit lacking in terms of the efforts and quality found in earlier periods, to the point where I can't say they are on the same level as previous eras. The problem is people shouldn't be limited to creating music based on nostalgia cycles, we need people who are interesting in pushing boundaries, obsesesed with crafting amazing music and innovating something that has mass appeal. It seems like people are into being comfortable or doing anything for a buck. Also, I think music is trivialized because of how free and omnipresent it is everwhere, plus there are tons of media that is is competing with, so it lost that value that is had back as recent as 2003-2004. But maybe someday the system changes and things get better.
10slover likes this
|
|