Rock music's current status

[glawster2002]

You are talking mostly mainstream heavy metal, which (for the last 20 years) is the most commercially healthy subgenre of rock. In a record store I used to co-run, the army of metalheads were always the best clients.

But this ain't rock music as a whole. And from an artistic point of view it's probably it's most uninteresting aspect i.m.o.

Happy New Year!

Bands like The Temperance Movement, Royal Blood, and The Graveltones, all three of which are young British bands who are really starting to make a name for themselves amongst the mainstream audience are a long way from "heavy metal". Royal Blood's debut album went straight to #1 in the UK album chart the week it was released and their spring 2015 UK tour sold out in minutes.

Each to their own, of course, but heavy metal as a genre is incredibly diverse and is always evolving.

[Just Eric]

spacefreak said:
But this ain't rock music as a whole. And from an artistic point of view it's probably it's most uninteresting aspect i.m.o.

More uninteresting than Punk? Ska? Pop Rock? Glam Rock?

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but general consensus is that Metal and it's subgenres are the most interesting and innovative of all rock related music these days.

[progholio]

I recently saw a CNN article that forecast no platinum albums for 2014, the only contenders being Lorde and Beonsay (spelling??, who f'king cares) which by no means anywhere close to rock. The disturbing part is this means the music industry is shrinking as a whole.
Rock is still alive and well, you just have to look a little harder to find it.
On any given week i can find about a dozen local bands playing high quality, original rock music in the clubs. It makes me feel warm inside.

[JKL2000]

It's Biyontsay.

[miamiscot]

I don't care about the RRHOF, but why is it in Cleveland, OH? Seems to me that RNR started in places like Memphis, TN, New Orleans, LA, and Nashville, TN, and even Chicago, where Chuck Berry recorded for Chess.

I love Cleveland and adore the Hall Of Fame. But I will not go again until Yes is inducted. (And Deep Purple and Moody Blues should be in there too. But whatever!)

[spacefreak]

More uninteresting than Punk? Ska? Pop Rock? Glam Rock?

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but general consensus is that Metal and it's subgenres are the most interesting and innovative of all rock related music these days.

You haven't read carefully. I didn't generalised heavy metal as uninteresting but the "mainstream heavy metal" like we all know from the 80s.

By the way, I'm a great thrash/black/death/grind/doom metal fan.

[spacefreak]

Royal Blood's debut album went straight to #1 in the UK album chart the week it was released and their spring 2015 UK tour sold out in minutes.

Each to their own, of course, but heavy metal as a genre is incredibly diverse and is always evolving.

Oh, what a great innovative band these Royal Bloods are!!! Truly, the next big chapter in rock evolution. Like these Strokes and White Stripes, some 14 years ago.

Proteges of the british music press of course. Seriously now... did they pay to Led Zeppelin and Mountain their royalties or they were lucky to avoid so, by playing on the third league? Anyway, if I need the modern retro style, I'm better off with the new Sienna Root, Smasara Blues Experiment or the Blues Pills... And hopefully these are not on No1 of the ...charts.

[Jay.Dee]

The reports of rock music's death have been greatly exaggerated. A lot of new exciting music continues to be recorded and released, without any help or involvement of professional saviours of rock like Jack White or Steven Wilson.

[Just Eric]

You haven't read carefully. I didn't generalised heavy metal as uninteresting but the "mainstream heavy metal" like we all know from the 80s.

By the way, I'm a great thrash/black/death/grind/doom metal fan.

My sincere apologies sir. As you can see, my gander is easily gotten.

Rock on.

[glawster2002]

Oh, what a great innovative band these Royal Bloods are!!! Truly, the next big chapter in rock evolution. Like these Strokes and White Stripes, some 14 years ago.

Proteges of the british music press of course. Seriously now... did they pay to Led Zeppelin and Mountain their royalties or they were lucky to avoid so, by playing on the third league? Anyway, if I need the modern retro style, I'm better off with the new Sienna Root, Smasara Blues Experiment or the Blues Pills... And hopefully these are not on No1 of the ...charts.

This thread is about the supposed "death" of Rock music and I was illustrating with these new, young, bands that it isn't the case in the UK.

Whether these bands appeal to you is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread.

[Prehensile Pencil]

As an aside, here's a thought from Derek Shulman:


“I think music itself –which is a very sad situation for me- has become a secondary culture to a couple of generations. I have two kids: my daughter is 35, my son is 31. Although the music is still an important and primal factor in their lives, it is not as important as the high technology world. Music in my era was the driving force of culture. It isn’t quite important anymore to anyone. It’s sad. Becoming a real musician and hoping that you are going to be famous or make money or whatever, does not happen in this day and age. It is almost impossible to garner mass appeal in a world where hi-tech computer programmers and producers who are the star makers are the focus.”

[Scrotum Scissor]

And hopefully these are not on No1 of the ...charts.

Not to mention the fact that you can be no.1 sporting sales of 20,000 units these days, whereas in the earlier days you'd have to turn ten times that amount of copies to reach that spot.

Other than that I think Dave's quote from Derek S. hits the state at point blank. Rock music as we knew it, is indeed dead and gone; there's no cultural driving force to it, and it is certainly not allowed to develop. Hell, look at the purported "progressive" rock for the latter point. Had "rock" at large been alive, its "progressive" branch would be out there anticipating the latest Thumpermonkey, Zs and Thinking Plague releases. Instead they're waiting for, er...

[Yodelgoat]

Who cares what is "popular"?

I dont think that Rock (or any music, for that matter) will ever be commercially viable again. The ship of Rock Stars and supergroups is quickly sailing past the event horizon, never to return. That is not to say there wont be great rock music. It just will never be "popular" again.

[Jay.Dee]

Not to mention the fact that you can be no.1 sporting sales of 20,000 units these days, whereas in the earlier days you'd have to turn ten times that amount of copies to reach that spot. [...] Rock music as we knew it, is indeed dead and gone; there's no cultural driving force to it, and it is certainly not allowed to develop.

Jazz ceased to be a driving cultural force in the 40s with the demise of swing era, both in terms of sales, concert attendance and mass culture presence, but no one would argue that it ceased to develop and produce great music in subsequent decades. I would not write rock off, simply because it is fell out of mass culture's grace.

Hell, look at the purported "progressive" rock for the latter point. Had "rock" at large been alive, its "progressive" branch would be out there anticipating the latest Thumpermonkey, Zs and Thinking Plague releases. Instead they're waiting for, er...

Here we enter the highly arguable area of preferences and personal expectations... I would say that the perceived weakness of modern progressive rock may lie in its very definition, which limits the music to either trad-prog revivalists or... math/chamber/fusion avantgardists , at least judging by this very forum. Many modern artists recording for Rune Grammofon, Clean Feed, Tzadik, Jazzland, Ninja Tune, Thirsty Ear, even Cuneiform, which could have been qualified as "progressive" rock back in the 70s, are today considered jazz, indie, electronica, etc.

Hence if one (wants to) look more broadly, beyond Transatlantic and Normal Love camps, there is much more "progressive" music to choose from. The choice between staunch traditionalists and ruthless experimentalists leaves a huge amount of music out of consideration and gives a false impression that we are forced to choose either living in the past or escaping into the future.

[Scrotum Scissor]

^^^

Well, yes.

To me, the relevant question remains "who's defining and by which standard?" - and the "jazz, indie, electronica etc." make for the main bulk of what I'd personally call progressive, I suppose. However, this does not imply that I can't accept "rock-based" music in earlier "progressive" tradition as equally defined along those lines - depending on what they actually accomplish, of course.

The Rune Grammofon label as example; many of those artists aren't really reinventing the wheel or coming up with anything near that invention, but what they're doing often opens new channels to the art of interpretation, resulting in something that's at least different.

[spacefreak]

Not to mention the fact that you can be no.1 sporting sales of 20,000 units these days, whereas in the earlier days you'd have to turn ten times that amount of copies to reach that spot.

Yes, that's true; I forgot.

[Facelift]

Who cares what is "popular"?

I used to think this way, but don't completely now. I usually don't care about the rock music that *is* massively popular, but it's good for the music that massively popular bands exist, because when something generates revenue, more of it gets made.
One of the reasons why musically interesting (to many of us) "semi-popular" bands existed on major labels and thriving genre scenes existed on indies between the '70s and the early 2000s is because the popularity of rock in general was bankrolling it. The huge success of bands like Led Zeppelin, etc. created a niche for bands even more musically adventurous to have careers. They got record contracts with stable labels, and regularly toured. With most of that now gone, that comfortable middle layer is getting cut out, which of course is bad for people who liked that middle layer. Yes, there's still a ton of music being made, because some of the barriers to entry have disappeared with the advent of home recording. But without rock stars, it pushes more bands towards the bottom, in terms of resources, distribution, and getting noticed. A lot more effort has to be made on the part of the fan insofar as finding things to like, and even if you find something, you may never be able to see that band perform live.
Much of what we have now is a remnant of that once-stable core. With the core greatly diminished, it would follow that the stuff on the tendrils is in trouble.

As far as prog goes, I'm actually rather surprised at how much of it was made in the last 10 years, considering all of the other problems with the industry in that time. We talk about lack of support in here a lot, but the number of prog bands out there world-wide would suggest that *somebody* is supporting them. It's almost an entirely closed system, though, because these bands have virtually no cross-over presence and have been (as all "genre" bands are) generally excluded from the discourse of rock music at large by the press.

[winkersnufs]

In considering the tone of some of the posts in this thread...

Just a thought - Is it possible that this BROAD realm of 'Progressive Music' seems to be 'bigger than it actually is'....in comparison to the overall realm of 'Rock Music'. We certainly have much more information available now - more information/resource than there ever has been. AND, and I feel this way as well, 'Progressive Music' is certainly NOT dead??

Chris Buckley

[mogrooves]

“I think music itself –which is a very sad situation for me- has become a secondary culture to a couple of generations.... it is not as important as the high technology world. ”

Technology is the new rock music.

Great minds, etc.......

[Just Eric]

facelift said:
We talk about lack of support in here a lot, but the number of prog bands out there world-wide would suggest that *somebody* is supporting them. It's almost an entirely closed system, though, because these bands have virtually no cross-over presence and have been (as all "genre" bands are) generally excluded from the discourse of rock music at large by the press.

I've often contended that bands within this closed system that want to reach a broader audience should look to the potential for cross-over appeal to younger audiences. By this I don't mean changing their art, but rather their expectations. Instead of looking to book prog gigs, look to open for more popular indie/metal, etc. bands. The recent Pain of Salvation tour is a perfect example. Instead of looking to book as a supporting act on a greater Metal bill, PoS was booked as a headliner on a Prog bill. Many of the shows were under-attended and the audience was, well let's just say a typical Prog audience rather than a young, enthusiastic audience.

[notallwhowander]

That's a pretty interesting thought on music/technology.

Among the kids I work with, there are only a handful that seem to have music as a major part of their identity. As I went through my adolescence in the '80s, music and identity were fused. The most popular music/identity by far is hip-hop, though there are some rockers around. It seems that hip-hop artists, and their promoters, have been much more effective in gaining access to and resonating with youth markets.

Keep in mind I grew up in a white suburb, and now I primarily work with the children of Asian immigrants in Silicon Valley. In whitebread suburbia of yore, I think a lot of us were looking for ways to differentiate from each other. The various music scenes, and their associated fashions, etc. were ready-made for that. In the melting pot of contemporary Silicon Valley, the tech thing pushing culture is effectively an article of faith among the adults, and the children have huge scoops of immigrant Islamic, or Indian, or Chinese identity to reckon with too. So seeking identity in a music scene probably doesn't occur to most of them.

[bob_32_116]

On this thread I see lots of complaints that great music is not being made anymore.

On another thread I see people's lists of what they own or what they acquired in 2014, and I swear some people have so much music on hand - actual CDs or LPs - that it's not pysically possible for them to have heard everything in their collection.

What's going on here? Is it a matter of too much of a good thing? Whateever it is, I very often find myself of listening to new music and thinking "That's quite good, but I don't need to buy it, it's not that different to band X and not as good.". That, to me, does not indicate that rock music is dying, or even that progressive rock is dying.

[bob_32_116]

. So seeking identity in a music scene probably doesn't occur to most of them.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I've never liked the idea of appropriating music as a means of identifying oneself with a certain tribe. As soon as you do that, it's no longer about whether the music is good, or about whenther this artist who used to sing good songs has now starting putting out stinkers, it's about whether your tastes are fitting in well enough with those of your mates.

[JKL2000]

This makes me glad my older son gets excited when Bohemian Rhapsody comes on the "radio," and wants to sit in the car till the current song ends. And he and his best friend have been listening to Piper at the Gates of Dawn.

There is hope...