The Death of Rock Music

[Zappathustra]

Earlier today, in another thread, Scrotum Scissor wrote this about the death of rock music:

" Rock music was by-and-large a cross-generational phenomenon (approx. 1955-2005) defined by its overall cultural resonance. As such, its staying power as social-aesthetic force was equal to its generational ownership as trope of consistent development, and thus faced the obvious dilemma of "evolving away from itself". This was one of the main reasons why progressive rock was shunned and scorned in the first place; it was perceived as rushing on this process by deliberately destroying traits and virtues seen as foundational to the very intent of the initial form, and it did so through the "wrong" means and with the "wrong" aims and ends - whereas the Velvets and Faust and Can (etc.) were harbingers of nihilist coolness (although in reality they were merely a different take on the "progressive" impulse).

Rock music of today is entertainment through reminiscence, very little else. And the same goes for the "progressive" rendition of it, arguably with the exception of the most intensely cutting-edge exponents. The death of rock in general is also the clue as to why radically and successfully experimental contemporary progressive acts make little wave. We're better off with the past. Things were exciting then, seeing as the cultural reception was in place."

I find these 2 paragraphs very well articulated and containing a lot of interesting issues to discuss. For starters, if rock music is dead this also answers the frightening question of whether progressive-rock music is dead too. :-)

I tend to agree with the above. The crucial concept is the "overall cultural resonance". But I have reservations, mainly because of my age: what if I am just cut-off from the youth of today and do not see the way the teenagers connect with rock music, or with music in general? Thirty years ago my parents also shook their heads when I was bringing in the house LPs with dispeakable heavy metal covers, and they did consider rock music as some sort of aesthetic decadence.

But is it just rock music that is dying? Or music in general? Because a certain decline in all more sophisticated genres, like jazz or contemporary/classical music cannot really be disputed in my opinion. And if this is true, what is coming in its place?

Anyone caring to comment is most welcome.

[Scrotum Scissor]

End of discussion, Zappa-man!

[Scott Bails]

And if this is true, what is coming in its place?

Rap and Hip-Hop.

Unfortunately.

[Staun]

Rap and Hip-Hop.

Unfortunately.

Rap and Hip-Hop are unfortunate. As for rock, for me, it's rather simple. It's being done so badly and has been for quite some time. I start with the hair band metal phase. If there was what one calls, good rock, it would have been obscured by what was happening at the time and still is. My fear is, if rock was starring us in the face, would we recognize it since we have not heard or seen it in some time. Prog saved me. New ideas, new ways of doing things. It took me far away from this chaos. My musical mind became an empty blackboard waiting for more writings. I have not been disappointed.

[Facelift]

Earlier today, in another thread, Scrotum Scissor wrote this about the death of rock music:

" [I]Rock music was by-and-large a cross-generational phenomenon (approx. 1955-2005)....

I more or less agree. However, to be fair and objective, I do think that there has been a trend for at least 20 years now to proclaim the death of rock, and to select a year of death that is around 10 years prior to the proclamation. So, over the years, I've seen death dates that are, variably, 1980, 1985/6, 1995/6, 2000/1, 2005 (this one) and 2007 - and it's always made well after the end year in question.

Possibly, this is because the observers are looking for a time when whatever it is that they understood "rock" to be, ended.

A thought experiment, for all who consider rock to be dead: if all the legacy acts were to quit in the next 2 or 3 years and nothing "rock"-based was to replace them, would future historians (or, at least, people 10-20 years from now) look upon *those* years as the years in which rock died? I would have to think so - the narrative that "rock" as we know it was born between 1965 and 1970 and finally died off when the last legacy acts from the 1960s and 1970s quit would probably be too tidy to ignore.

[DocProgger]

If history has taught us anything, it is that art forms, including music, tend to recycle themselves. Look at the state of popular music back in the late 50s/early 60s after the initial wave of RnRoll via Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly etc. The rawness of early RnRoll was smoothed out and lost momentum, replaced by Pat Boone and Frankie Avalon and less threatening crooners, and folk music became more popular than rock and roll for a time period. Then the Beatles and the British Invasion happened. I think these things tend to go in cycles. Don't lose any sleep over it!

[JJ88]

Rap and Hip-Hop are unfortunate. As for rock, for me, it's rather simple. It's being done so badly and has been for quite some time. I start with the hair band metal phase.

I was going to say, that mid-late 80s period was really the first flowerings of a serious decline in inspiration, when it came to mainstream rock. (I mean the Poison/Warrant end of the music.) Worse still was the beginning of rock acts having writing credits by Desmond Child, Diane Warren etc.- the song doctors. The overall effect was to create a sort of mid-Atlantic blandola.

Some on here won't agree or like it, but the grunge/Britpop booms in the 90s gave rock a shot in the arm.

[Zonefish]

Rap and Hip-Hop.

Unfortunately.

Worse...it's the Disneyfication of music that propagates multi-media "creatures" who put out beige dance music. The Demi Lovatos/Selena Gomez/Nick Jonas and every other auto-tuned paint by the numbers You-Tube yahoo. They, or rather their producers, churned out a generation's worth of forgettable tunes during a transition period while 10 year olds were listening. While we were being shaped (at the same relative age) by the Beatles or the Eagles or Black Sabbath (insert your band here)--their touchstone was Britney Spears or In Sync. Yes, some of these creatures have talent and yes there have been pop princes and princesses throughout the history of the music industry, but it is the proliferation of this style and the movement away from innovation in favor of the manufactured "hit" that eventually supplanted the rock motif.

[Paulrus]

If history has taught us anything, it is that art forms, including music, tend to recycle themselves. Look at the state of popular music back in the late 50s/early 60s after the initial wave of RnRoll via Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly etc. The rawness of early RnRoll was smoothed out and lost momentum, replaced by Pat Boone and Frankie Avalon and less threatening crooners, and folk music became more popular than rock and roll for a time period. Then the Beatles and the British Invasion happened. I think these things tend to go in cycles. Don't lose any sleep over it!

It's fine to say that rock "recycles itself", but every recycle phase is like a weak Xerox copy of the original. So it's the original, vital era that only counts really.

So my question is this: if rock is dead (or in a nostalgic winding-down phase) and the popular music scene is owned by rap, hip-hop and glossy divas, then what comes next? IMO the rap/hip-hop phenomenon has been with us since the 80s (yeah, yeah -- I know it goes back farther) and has been growing in scale and power ever since. I wonder if the movie The Fifth Element didn't sort of predict the future of popular music where everything was just a techno-enhanced evolution of hip-hop.

It's sad to think we've reached the pinnacle of what human beings can do with melody, rhythm, and technology. I hope not.

[Tom]

Worse...it's the Disneyfication of music that propagates multi-media "creatures" who put out beige dance music. The Demi Lovatos/Selena Gomez/Nick Jonas and every other auto-tuned paint by the numbers You-Tube yahoo. They, or rather their producers, churned out a generation's worth of forgettable tunes during a transition period while 10 year olds were listening. While we were being shaped (at the same relative age) by the Beatles or the Eagles or Black Sabbath (insert your band here)--their touchstone was Britney Spears or In Sync. Yes, some of these creatures have talent and yes there have been pop princes and princesses throughout the history of the music industry, but it is the proliferation of this style and the movement away from innovation in favor of the manufactured "hit" that eventually supplanted the rock motif.

I think this confuses the process and the product. There's always going to be a large majority of people who want to listen to music that is (a) familiar and (b) what others are listening to. The "death of rock music," in the mass market, just means that today this music is hip-hop and country, not rock.

[JJ88]

^That's the teeny-bop end of things really, and has always been there. I find it hard to care about such music because it's not aimed at me...and wouldn't have been for me even when I was at that age!

In the UK though, there was a blurring of the lines- some of those so-called 'indie' bands weren't far removed from some of the boy bands of the time, and that's continued to be the case. Pretty boy types singing 'nice' songs.

A thought experiment, for all who consider rock to be dead: if all the legacy acts were to quit in the next 2 or 3 years and nothing "rock"-based was to replace them, would future historians (or, at least, people 10-20 years from now) look upon *those* years as the years in which rock died? I would have to think so - the narrative that "rock" as we know it was born between 1965 and 1970 and finally died off when the last legacy acts from the 1960s and 1970s quit would probably be too tidy to ignore.

We must be getting near that point, with McCartney, The 'Stones and Dylan well into their 70s, fast approaching their 80s.

Very revealing to me that Glastonbury Festival has resorted to having Adele and Ed Sheeran as being among the headliners in recent years. There simply aren't enough really big younger rock acts now.

[Staun]

I was going to say, that mid-late 80s period was really the first flowerings of a serious decline in inspiration, when it came to mainstream rock. (I mean the Poison/Warrant end of the music.) Worse still was the beginning of rock acts having writing credits by Desmond Child, Diane Warren etc.- the song doctors. The overall effect was to create a sort of mid-Atlantic blandola.

Some on here won't agree or like it, but the grunge/Britpop booms in the 90s gave rock a shot in the arm.

I certainly do agree with this. Grunge made me start to listen to the mainstream again.

[Zappathustra]

Rap and Hip-Hop.

Unfortunately.

This is an obvious and possibly true answer. But Rap and Hip-Hop have been around for 30 years. And I guess (I am almost clueless on the subject) they are not as uniform a genre as we may think. Possibly there is also quality stuff there. Possibly there is also a decline in the genre too the last 10 years, in quality terms. It seems to have become a completely mainstream and image-orientated form of mass entertainment. Whereas rock music was always supposed to be a non-conformist or even revolutionary cultural movement. What I am trying to say is that I don't see the analogy with Hip Hop music, as a cultural phenomenon, but maybe I am mistaken.

[Jerjo]

Mainstream music has been rather stale since the late 90s when corporate dance pop/boy bands/diluted hip-hop took over the airwaves. Any forward movement has been out on the edges but music has pretty much ceased being any cultural force. Zonefish is dead on.

[DocProgger]

It's fine to say that rock "recycles itself", but every recycle phase is like a weak Xerox copy of the original. So it's the original, vital era that only counts really.

So my question is this: if rock is dead (or in a nostalgic winding-down phase) and the popular music scene is owned by rap, hip-hop and glossy divas, then what comes next? IMO the rap/hip-hop phenomenon has been with us since the 80s (yeah, yeah -- I know it goes back farther) and has been growing in scale and power ever since. I wonder if the movie The Fifth Element didn't sort of predict the future of popular music where everything was just a techno-enhanced evolution of hip-hop.

It's sad to think we've reached the pinnacle of what human beings can do with melody, rhythm, and technology. I hope not.

There seems to always be returns to "roots rock". Punk in the mid 70s, followed by post punk. Grunge/indie rock in the late 80s/early 90s after a period of some fluff dominated by Madonna, MJackson, MBolton etc.
Your Fifth Element reference did remind me of a recent movie soundtrack that sounded very futuristic and techno (and even somewhat proggy)--Bladerunner 2049.

[Zonefish]

^That's the teeny-bop end of things really, and has always been there. I find it hard to care about such music because it's not aimed at me...and wouldn't have been for me even when I was at that age!

Weren't the Beatles and and the Stones considered teeny-bop in their early days? We develop our musical preferences at a generally young age and as *we* were raised on rock, our children (mine were born in the 90s) established a different musical vocabulary. So the teeny boppers became their (in general) touchstone--it proliferated and what we have today is the 2nd generation of a post-rock world. I am not saying rock will ever die )so to speak), but as Tom suggested, I don't think I am confusing product with process. I am looking at a transitional phase in preferences. I saw a lot of young faces at a recent Dear Hunter show, but it pales in comparison to an Ariana Grande concert.

[JJ88]

^Yes, it's definitely a fair point in terms of audience, but I think the Disney brigade are a specific type- prefab pop stars with 'light' songs (I'm assuming??) written by others. All The Beatles' hits were self-penned and most of The Stones' have been. I suppose you can go back to the days of Frankie Avalon and Fabian for the model, then The Osmonds/David Cassidy/Bay City Rollers etc. in the 70s.

I think Radiohead with OK Computer and Kid A provided an interesting blueprint for a mainstream rock that could still be adventurous. Few took up the challenge. This has, IMHO, been a lot of the problem.

[Zonefish]

JJ I am not disagreeing with you. However the pre-fab model has become the standard. Yes, there is Radiohead and a variety of other indie-alt bands out there and they are very good and very creative. They put more than 3 minutes of thought into a song and actually play instruments. But they will not get the audience proliferation necessary to change the conversation until the next Chuck Berry/Beatles/Nirvana breaks out. The industry (as a general whole) is stuck in a rut that I don't see them breaking out from any time soon. The best we can hope for is our own enjoyment by finding the next band that floats our own private boat.

[Staun]

In discussions like these, I always relate to what Bill Bruford once said. "We were allowed to create something".

[Supersonic Scientist]

A few brain-farts:

I have been watching with awe and aghast, the evolution of my, now 16 yr. old, granddaughter's musical journey.

In a nutshell:

0-5 yrs old: Animusic DVD's (that yours truly bought her)
5-9 yrs. old: Taylor Swift (She wanted and got a Daisy electric GTR (also that yours truly bought her)
10-14: the then-current Goth stuff (she started to dress that way too)
15-current: Filth-filled Rap of the worst kind: Gucci Mane, Lil Uzi + Death Metal: Animals eat my Insides

...It's this latest fad with her that really has me stumped. What happened in her mind to leap from Goth to Hard-core RAP. She even wants to dress "Black"....(wear false gold teeth, and gold chains with guns on it, etc>>???)

Did Rock music just plain & simple lose its "rebellious" allure in the eyes of a now, 16 yr. old girl?...and the "rebellious" camp now resides in Rap??
.
For point of reference: at age 16 (1974) I was deep into Black Sabbath which had my Mother throwing fits. !!!

[Scott Bails]

Worse...it's the Disneyfication of music that propagates multi-media "creatures" who put out beige dance music. The Demi Lovatos/Selena Gomez/Nick Jonas and every other auto-tuned paint by the numbers You-Tube yahoo. They, or rather their producers, churned out a generation's worth of forgettable tunes during a transition period while 10 year olds were listening. While we were being shaped (at the same relative age) by the Beatles or the Eagles or Black Sabbath (insert your band here)--their touchstone was Britney Spears or In Sync. Yes, some of these creatures have talent and yes there have been pop princes and princesses throughout the history of the music industry, but it is the proliferation of this style and the movement away from innovation in favor of the manufactured "hit" that eventually supplanted the rock motif.

Not sure that I agree with this. This element has always been around. Bubblegum is as old as rock 'n' roll.

[Zonefish]

Not sure that I agree with this. This element has always been around. Bubblegum is as old as rock 'n' roll.

True. But it has supplanted rock as the baseline musical vocabulary. It is now the de-facto standard.

[Scott Bails]

This is an obvious and possibly true answer. But Rap and Hip-Hop have been around for 30 years. And I guess (I am almost clueless on the subject) they are not as uniform a genre as we may think. Possibly there is also quality stuff there. Possibly there is also a decline in the genre too the last 10 years, in quality terms. It seems to have become a completely mainstream and image-orientated form of mass entertainment. Whereas rock music was always supposed to be a non-conformist or even revolutionary cultural movement. What I am trying to say is that I don't see the analogy with Hip Hop music, as a cultural phenomenon, but maybe I am mistaken.

I would respectfully say that you're mistaken. Rap and Hip-Hop has all of the qualities that you assign to rock music.

But it has also declined, IMO, though I'm far from an expert or even a fan. I like some of the early stuff from the 80s, but most of what would be considered "the good stuff" isn't aimed at me and therefore I just can't relate to it.

I guess you could argue that Hip-Hop is the new R&B, but I can relate to Wilson Pickett, Otis Redding and The Drifters. Stuff like Kendrick Lamar and Jay-Z just does nothing for me - I can't even appreciate it, artistically. People who know more about it than I claim that it's the best thing going these days, but it's just not for me.

[DocProgger]

I get the fear of rap/hip hop forever replacing rock and roll as we grew up with it. But to me, the real threat is the huge popularity of tepid formulaic corporate country schlock pop, which in many ways is the pop music of our day and dominates the radio and the summer outdoor shed circuit for concerts. Country music used to be real, sung by people who really grew up poor and who were actually influenced by southern gospel, some rhythm and blues etc. I was never a huge old time country fan, but I get singers like Johnny Cash, Tammy Wynette, Charley Pride etc, and I liked a lot of what used to be country rock (Poco, Outlaws, Allman Bros, Little Feat etc). Now what passes off and is popular to the mindless mainstream suburban masses are these faux cowboys who have slicked up country music until it just sounds like tepid formulaic pablum, without an ounce of originality---and people love this crap. Almost every concert at the summer outdoor shed near me is some kind of lame set of "country pop" acts which couldn't hold Johnny Cash's guitar pick. Most of the people who like this pablum couldn't identify a quality rock song if it knocked their faux cowboy hat off. Radio stations have abandoned "rock" music for these tepid country schlock formats. That stuff is mindnumbing and insidiously evil.

[Tom]

15-current: Filth-filled Rap of the worst kind: Gucci Mane, Lil Uzi + Death Metal: Animals eat my Insides

...It's this latest fad with her that really has me stumped. What happened in her mind to leap from Goth to Hard-core RAP. She even wants to dress "Black"....(wear false gold teeth, and gold chains with guns on it, etc>>???)

Did Rock music just plain & simple lose its "rebellious" allure in the eyes of a now, 16 yr. old girl?...and the "rebellious" camp now resides in Rap??
.
For point of reference: at age 16 (1974) I was deep into Black Sabbath which had my Mother throwing fits. !!!

It is certainly possible. [Hopefully] without getting too political, the existence of an apparently permanent black underclass gives "black" music a built-in advantage for conveying a rebellious attitude.