Is Rock And Roll Dead?

[spellbound]

Here is an interesting article on the death of rock and roll music.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-...b_3832003.html


Jerry A. Coyne

Professor, University of Chicago; Author, 'Why Evolution Is True'

Rock and Roll Is Dead

I woke up this morning and, during desultory browsing of the Internet, found an announcement of Avril Lavigne's latest song, "Rock." Have a listen, if you can stand it.



Here's what's wrong with this song, and with many rock songs and videos these days:

Blatant product placement
No musicality: shouting
Song shows no signs of creativity; sounds like many other songs on the air. Tune (if there is one) is dull; words forgettable.
Attempt to cover up lack of creativity with shock value: cursing; girl-on-girl kiss featuring Danica McKellar (think Katy Perry); superheroes; and even a shark beheaded by a buzzsaw. Other recent music videos have covered up the lack of interesting music with unclad women.
AUTOTUNING (voices are adjusted electronically): the curse of modern rock. Who had that bad idea, which is grossly overused?

When all these bells and whistles are used to gussy up what is essentially a mediocre song, you know there's something wrong. And the overweening thing wrong is that rock and roll is dead. It's had its run and now it's over. It is an ex-music form and sings with the choir invisible.

My theory, which is mine, is that eventually every art form, with the possible exception of movies and the novel, degenerates. Modern art is execrable, most modern classical music lame, especially in comparison to the greats of the 16th-19th century, modern jazz has degenerated to a cult embracing but a few aficionados. Modern poetry can be okay, but I'd rather read Shakespeare, Dylan Thomas, Wallace Stevens, or Yeats.

I know I will face push back here. People will say, "Hey, there are still some great rock songs around," or "Hey, what about this jazz musician?" But really, those are the equivalent of anecdotes. I'm talking about a trend. Can modern jazz really compare to that of the '30s, '40s, and early '50s, when Billie Holiday, Louis Armstrong, Lester Young, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Coleman Hawkins, Django Reinhardt, and innumerable greats held sway? You'd be hard pressed to make the case, for jazz has largely exhausted itself. The same holds for classical music. Do you believe that in 200 years symphony orchestras -- if they still exist -- will be playing largely the "classical" music composed today? I doubt it. It will be Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms.

And in 20 years, do you think the "oldies" rock stations will be playing the rock that is popular today? They should, because today's kids will be tomorrow's consumers, and presumably they'd want to conjure up their youth by listening to the music of their halcyon days.

But this is what they'd be hearing: stuff like this week's top ten songs on Billboard:

"Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke
"We Can't Stop" by Miley Cyrus (gag)
"Radioactive" by Imagine Dragons
"Get Lucky" by Daft Punk
"Holy Grail" by Jay Z (with Justin Timberlake
"Cups" by Anna Kendrick
"Treasure" by Bruno Mars
"Clarity" by Zedd
"Safe and Sound" by Capital Cities
"Love Somebody" by Maroon 5

Now not all modern rock songs are lame; there are some that I actually like. One of them, to use a band on the current charts, is Maroon 5's "Sunday Morning," but that's already nine years old. Songs like that are thin on the ground.

No, the songs on the oldies stations in 20 years will be pretty much what they are now: the Beatles, the Stones, the great soul music of the '60s and early '70s, the Band, Joni Mitchell, Eric Clapton, Ray Charles, Buddy Holly, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Neil Young, and... well, I can go on forever. Why will their music last? Because these people were artists, who produced interesting music with lovely tunes and (often) meaningful lyrics. That's simply not on tap these days. What we have is a crop of overhyped, oversold, autotuned mediocrities.

I am Professor Jerry Coyne, and I endorse this message.

[Banquo]

No.

[walt]

No, it just smells funny.

[ronmac]

No, but, commercially, it's on life support.

[spellbound]

My opinion? The article is mostly about modern pop music. Rock and Roll may yet be alive, but not where the author is looking. Recent threads about Alice Cooper's comments on what relation modern folk-pop has to do with rock and roll seem to make this a relevant topic for conversation.

1. The video. It is atrocious, IMO. I made it one minute in, and I wish I could unsee and unhear it. Total crap.
2. I agree with Coyne's commentary below the video insert.
3. "eventually every art form, with the possible exception of movies and the novel, degenerates"
Movies and novels have degenerated in modern times. There are, of course, exceptions, mostly among novels. But if the author is talking about a trend, and he claims to be, he should not exclude movies and novels.
4. "Modern poetry can be okay, but I'd rather read Shakespeare, Dylan Thomas, Wallace Stevens, or Yeats."
I defer to the rock and roll master:
"You keep all your smart modern writers
Give me William Shakespeare
You keep all your smart modern painters
I'll take Rembrandt, Titian, Da Vinci and Gainsborough" - Ray Davies, 20th Century Man
5.
"Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke
"We Can't Stop" by Miley Cyrus (gag)
"Radioactive" by Imagine Dragons
"Get Lucky" by Daft Punk
"Holy Grail" by Jay Z (with Justin Timberlake
"Cups" by Anna Kendrick
"Treasure" by Bruno Mars
"Clarity" by Zedd
"Safe and Sound" by Capital Cities
"Love Somebody" by Maroon 5
I don't see these as examples of rock and roll. They are pure pop fluff, as far as I know. I have heard only "Blurred Lines" (because I was informed the video featured female nudity--to those interested, find your porn elsewhere, the song is not worth sitting through), "Get Lucky" (I don't remember the song, but I have heard Daft Punk's latest album so I must have heard it), and "Treasure" (I don't remember this one either, but I have heard both of Bruno Mars's albums, so I must have heard it).
6. "What we have is a crop of overhyped, oversold, autotuned mediocrities."
I agree, Professor Coyne. I would not want to see the day when the noise on the radio now is played on oldies stations and considered "rock and roll." Then again, I don't expect to hear the prog music of today on the radio, ever.

[Vic2012]

The article is mostly about modern pop music. Rock and Roll may yet be alive, but not where the author is looking.

That sounds about right. Rock & Roll, or "Rock" is not mainstream. There are some legacy acts still creating a buzz (Black Sabbath for one). If The Rolling Stones drop a new album, it's mainstream, pop culture news. The real "rock scene" in the US is pretty much dead in the mainstream, or today's youth culture. There are 10,000 different reasons why it's dead or dying.

I agree with the author here:

My theory, which is mine, is that eventually every art form, with the possible exception of movies and the novel, degenerates.

[Just Eric]

I echo the sentiment repeated here multiple times, what the author is describing is not Rock or Rock & Roll, but rather Pop Music. I lasted all of 45 seconds into the video and at least 20 of that was thinking it was a commercial for Sony. I am embarrassed that people actually enjoy that as well as much of the crap produced today.

Rock in many forms is alive and well. It lives in clubs, in niche markets, in festivals, in homes, on the internet, and most anywhere that is not mainstream radio and network television.

[klothos]

One thing not mentioned is how Rock continually evolves: Jimi Hendrix sounded nothing like Bill Haley and the Comets of the previous decade, 70s bands like Boston didnt sound like Jimi, so forth and so on. Each generation will influence each other. New technology will also play into its evolution.......I do not understand why some people believe that Rock should morph itself into certain shapes, freeze there, and stay that way for eternity.......I may not like some aspects of its evolution but I also don't want to close my mind to changes like my parents when they would yell at me to "Turn that crap down!"

EDIT: The big irony here is the writer, Jerry A. Coyne, is the author of 'Why Evolution Is True'

[spellbound]

One thing not mentioned is how Rock continually evolves: Jimi Hendrix sounded nothing like Bill Haley and the Comets of the previous decade, 70s bands like Boston didnt sound like Jimi, so forth and so on. Each generation will influence each other. New technology will also play into its evolution.......I do not understand why some people believe that Rock should morph itself into certain shapes, freeze there, and stay that way for eternity.......I may not like some aspects of its evolution but I also don't want to close my mind to changes like my parents when they would yell at me to "Turn that crap n!"

An excellent point! As one who heard my share of "Turn that crap down!" as a youth, and as one with a young daughter, I try to keep an open mind toward new music. It isn't always easy, but I do try.

[Reginod]

So, does this guy think he's had some sort of new or unique revelation?

[spellbound]

The real "rock scene" in the US is pretty much dead in the mainstream, or today's youth culture. There are 10,000 different reasons why it's dead or dying.

One of those reasons is surely "delivery." At one time, you could learn about new releases on FM rock radio. Now, you have to learn about them on Youtube. The former is passive, you just listen to the radio and they tell you what you heard and when it will be released. Many are the records I bought that way. The latter is active, you must seek out the music you want to hear from amongst a multitude of crap. And you often have to watch a video designed to distract you from the emptiness of the song itself. With FM rock radio, you only listened. You liked the song on its own merits, or you did not. Hell, if videos mattered, then MTV would still be devoted to showing them full time, as opposed to, once a year, hosting a video awards show for the videos they failed to promote.

But FM rock radio (and television music video) is dead, and has been for some time.

Not only that, but the record companies seem to be intent on their own self-destruction. They have made it too costly for an entrepreneur to make a living selling CDs in an independent store, and have wiped out many chain stores as well (admittedly, the changing buying habits of the public played a role, but which came first, the lack of demand on the part of the consumer, or the lack of supply of affordable product and variety of product on the part of the record companies?). Sure, you can look for music to buy online, but that involves work, more work (and less fun) than browsing your local record store. You have to find a way to keep up with new releases, find a way to preview album tracks, then find a way to buy the new release you want in the format you want. Then you find out that the only way you can get the album you desire is to download it, or, worse, pay for a CD-R of it from Amazon, only too happy to charge you for something you can make yourself. You can't buy it at the local record store, because there is no local record store. Is it any wonder music piracy is at an all time high? I don't condone it, but I understand it. Record companies are pushing people in that direction. As is the economy. Not everyone has the fortitude to refrain from snagging a pirated album they want before the official release is available to them in the format they want for the price they can afford. I can refrain, but I still have the records I bought in the '70s to fall back on, until the time I can once again support the artists I like. I have met many people who have the attitude that, anything they can get for free, they should. The artist is the loser in this situation.

[trurl]

Society is dead.

[Vic2012]

Not only that, but the record companies seem to be intent on their own self-destruction. They have made it too costly for an entrepreneur to make a living selling CDs in an independent store, and have wiped out many chain stores as well (admittedly, the changing buying habits of the public played a role, but which came first, the lack of demand on the part of the consumer, or the lack of supply of affordable product and variety of product on the part of the record companies?). Sure, you can look for music to buy online, but that involves work, more work (and less fun) than browsing your local record store. You have to find a way to keep up with new releases, find a way to preview album tracks, then find a way to buy the new release you want in the format you want. Then you find out that the only way you can get the album you desire is to download it, or, worse, pay for a CD-R of it from Amazon, only too happy to charge you for something you can make yourself. You can't buy it at the local record store, because there is no local record store. Is it any wonder music piracy is at an all time high?

Good points all around. I've become apathetic in the last few years. I buy a lot less now that all the stores are gone. It's supposed to be "easier" to find music today with internet and streaming, youtube, etc. but I find myself buying less, and caring less. I still find myself buying CDs of bands from the 70s and 80s. Stuff that I wasn't into back then or just never got around to buying. All the new music that's out now (rock and prog) just doesn't interest me much. It just seems more work to spend hours playing youtube samples, ordering on-line, etc. All the fun is gone like you mentioned. It was part of the whole experience. You got out of the four walls, got up off your ass, and spent a couple hours browsing. In the old days the record store would play you some tracks from a new album if you asked them to. The last record store chain that had a big selection had listening stations where you scanned the bar code on the CD and you could play 1 minute samples. That's all gone now. It's all done now from the comfort of your La-Z-Boy. And yeah, it is no wonder why there is so much illegal downloading. Maybe we're just old, but I really find myself NOT wanting to discover "new" music. It's just more work than it's worth the hassle. And live shows? F'gettit. Travel, tickets, parking, crowds, overpriced refreshments. It's ridiculous.

One thing not mentioned is how Rock continually evolves: Jimi Hendrix sounded nothing like Bill Haley and the Comets of the previous decade, 70s bands like Boston didnt sound like Jimi, so forth and so on. Each generation will influence each other. New technology will also play into its evolution.......

Very good point.

[Supersonic Scientist]

Seriously?....It's the fucking Huffington Post....a total piece of shit rag.

[mogrooves]

Not dead, just irrelevant. Technology is the new rock 'n' roll.

One thing not mentioned is how Rock continually evolves

Is a point reached where the music is no longer identifiably itself?

[rcarlberg]

Seriously?....It's the fucking Huffington Post....a total piece of shit rag.

Huffington shows bias but it's at least fact-based... unlike the equivalent right-wing media.

I agree with Klothos and Spellbound here, people of my generation and of Coyne's generation (I assume he's 30 years younger than me) are in no position to judge the music that kids listen to today. We are genetically programmed to hate it on principle, "that's just noise, nobody plays instruments anymore, you can't hear the beat, it's mindless." This has happened to every generation since little Wolfgang pulled out his organ. Different strokes for different folks, it sounds like shit to me but my ears are too old.

[klothos]

Is a point reached where the music is no longer identifiably itself?

Excellent rhetorical question in which the answer is totally subjective and relative to each individual's concept about what rock music is. People that grew up with Rock meaning Elvis and Bill Haley may already feel that way. The younger generation that define rock on My Chemical Romance and 30 Seconds To Mars may view that music as just part of the evolutionary process

[Adm.Kirk]

What was it Roger Daltrey once said? "Rock has no future. It never did". I think, in many ways he was right. In the 50', 60's and the first half of the 70's the music was relevant. There weren't other outlets for people then. No 1000 channels on tv or video games or the internet. There was the movie theater, 3 to maybe 4 channels, the hot chick down the block who wouldn't give you the time of day, and music. Those were your entertainment options. By 1975 that had begun to change and by the 1980's cable tv was moving in to many neighborhoods and so were the video games and VHS players. Slowly music became less important. Not just rock, but all genres. Plus music has devalued itself. It's not something you save up your hard earned cash for it's now something you free up disc space for. I'm not saying there hasn't been anything worthy since the mid 70's. Every year there are great albums and songs produced. Some by new artists and some by the legendary acts but it has to fight an uphill battle against Madden, Grand Theft Auto, the 16 channels (or more) of sports programming, movie channels.....Sometimes for music to even really get noticed is for Miley Cyrus to do what she did the other night on the VMA's. Of course, it wasn't the music that got noticed it was her and her foam finger that got the attention no doubt in hopes her (most likely) lame album will sell a few extra downloads and CDs.

Notice how all those groups who used to do stadium concert tours are gone? McCartney, Who, U2, Genesis, Springsteen, Dead....they used to all fill up stadiums on huge mega tours. Those days are over. Perhaps the Stones could sell out a stadium of two still but I don't think they even want to try that anymore. I think alot of people, (not the PE crowd) but people in general are of the opinion that it's just some guys with guitars and lights. Who cares about that when we can go see Skrillex and dance. These DJ's are probably going to be the next touring sensation while most rock bands will be happy to sell out a two to five thousand seater. This is probably more indicative of the U.S. than in Europe or South America.

Someone asked Ian Gillan why Purple doesn't tour the States any more. He said he'd love to come and tour the U.S. but believes it's pointless when they can sell out 15-18,000 seat arenas in Europe and South America but struggle to get 1000 people to a U.S. show. Now What?! was a relatively huge seller all over Europe going to #1 or at least top 5 in many countries. In the U.S.? It didn't crack the top 200 on Billboard I don't believe, however it may have made the lower part of the chart for a week or two.

So in ways what is now called classic rock is dead and has been dying since 1975 but, as someone mentioned, there are new forms that are alive and if not well certainly surviving.

Bill

[klothos]

What was it Roger Daltrey once said? "Rock has no future. It never did". I think, in many ways he was right. In the 50', 60's and the first half of the 70's the music was relevant. There weren't other outlets for people then. No 1000 channels on tv or video games or the internet. There was the movie theater, 3 to maybe 4 channels, the hot chick down the block who wouldn't give you the time of day, and music. Those were your entertainment options. By 1975 that had begun to change and by the 1980's cable tv was moving in to many neighborhoods and so were the video games and VHS players. Slowly music became less important. Not just rock, but all genres. Plus music has devalued itself. It's not something you save up your hard earned cash for it's now something you free up disc space for. I'm not saying there hasn't been anything worthy since the mid 70's. Every year there are great albums and songs produced. Some by new artists and some by the legendary acts but it has to fight an uphill battle against Madden, Grand Theft Auto, the 16 channels (or more) of sports programming, movie channels.....Sometimes for music to even really get noticed is for Miley Cyrus to do what she did the other night on the VMA's. Of course, it wasn't the music that got noticed it was her and her foam finger that got the attention no doubt in hopes her (most likely) lame album will sell a few extra downloads and CDs.

Notice how all those groups who used to do stadium concert tours are gone? McCartney, Who, U2, Genesis, Springsteen, Dead....they used to all fill up stadiums on huge mega tours. Those days are over. Perhaps the Stones could sell out a stadium of two still but I don't think they even want to try that anymore. I think alot of people, (not the PE crowd) but people in general are of the opinion that it's just some guys with guitars and lights. Who cares about that when we can go see Skrillex and dance. These DJ's are probably going to be the next touring sensation while most rock bands will be happy to sell out a two to five thousand seater. This is probably more indicative of the U.S. than in Europe or South America.

Someone asked Ian Gillan why Purple doesn't tour the States any more. He said he'd love to come and tour the U.S. but believes it's pointless when they can sell out 15-18,000 seat arenas in Europe and South America but struggle to get 1000 people to a U.S. show. Now What?! was a relatively huge seller all over Europe going to #1 or at least top 5 in many countries. In the U.S.? It didn't crack the top 200 on Billboard I don't believe, however it may have made the lower part of the chart for a week or two.

So in ways what is now called classic rock is dead and has been dying since 1975 but, as someone mentioned, there are new forms that are alive and if not well certainly surviving.

Bill

I don't think that anyone should have been surprised with the advent of TV in the 50s and 60s that Music Videos would be a norm someday (80s). Robert Stigwood certainly tried to push visual appeal on the 70s as part of his entertainment concept. Videos added a new dimension to music - "the look" - and the corporate music industry put as much weight (or more) into visual appeal as talent.

Here is what makes the present so different: in the late 70s and 80s, a "new/not established" debut musician trying to "make it" successfully in the business had to conform with those polocies. By the visual 80s, it was even harder because all the talent in the world wasn't going to help an artist that lacked visual appeal.

The mistake that was made by the corporate music industry at large was greed: trying to change formats. 8-Tracks went away in the 70s so, if you owned an album on 8-track, you had to re-buy it on vinyl or cassette. When CDs were introduced, vinyl was faded so if you bought an album on 8-Track and re-bought it on vinyl, now you forced to buy it again on cassette or CD. By the early 90s, if you had rebought the album on cassette to replace the one on vinyl that you had bought to replace the 8-Track, you now had to buy it on CD.

The 90s was going to bring another change ( Its important to remember that Sony owned the patents on both the CD Player and CDs themselves and that the statute to make royalty claims on those two items was going to run out in the late 90s). The Corporate Industry at large (probably led by Sony) got with a failing computer company (Apple - can you imagine how rich anyone of us would be had we bought Apple Stock at the prices they were in the late 90s?) to make a player that would play a new format change (digital/MP3) that would, not only force you to rebuy that same album you just bought 4 times in 25 years, but that (important!) would also eliminate the distributor fees by allowing direct access to downloading the product........I call this "The Great Corporate Music Backfire" because what the industry did not forsee was the easy way that their product could be copied and pirated with ease.

How is this relevent to your post? At present, thanks to the digital backfire and the internet, you are no longer limited to the music labels, corporate or otherwise, puts out there. The playing-field is totally level now. You can be old, ugly, and hairy and still make music and put it out there (via the internet) for all the world to hear at your fingertips(internet). Even if you pressed an indie 45 or LP in the 70s and 80s, what were the chances of that artist getting it distributed worldwide?

Maybe stadium concerts aren't on the horizon for today's artist (of any age) but did 70s and 80s guys have an option like YouTube to upload live performance videos to the world at any time?

If you, as a listener, want to check out new Prog bands, blues bands, folk, whatever, you have Google at your fingertips and probably find all kinds of music you never heard (or saw) before without being limited to the selection that was in the average 70s neighborhood record store. Its easy to reflect on the good ol' days but I can easily debate that, in many ways, today is better.

[Dave (in MA)]

Can modern jazz really compare to that of the '30s, '40s, and early '50s, when Billie Holiday, Louis Armstrong, Lester Young, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Coleman Hawkins, Django Reinhardt, and innumerable greats held sway? You'd be hard pressed to make the case, for jazz has largely exhausted itself.

His cutoff date is just when things were starting to get interesting.

[GuitarGeek]

His cutoff date is just when things were starting to get interesting.

You feel that Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Louis Armstrong, etc were "not interesting"?!

[Jerjo]

I would say that he's ignoring that huge period of late 50s and early 60s jazz, when Coltrane, Miles, Mingus and Brubeck walked the earth as giants.

[GuitarGeek]

I would say that he's ignoring that huge period of late 50s and early 60s jazz, when Coltrane, Miles, Mingus and Brubeck walked the earth as giants.

Well, ok, but he said "modern jazz", presumably meaning the jazz of today. I imagine his point was that today's jazz doesn't compare to the classics of decades. You may feel he left out YOUR favorite classics, but I think the point is still the same.

[WeatherWiseCDC]

The Sheepdogs are a new band in Canada but have already experienced an incredible amount of success here. Their 2012 debut album peaked at #1 on the Canadian Albums Chart, and three of their five singles since 2011 have charted on the Hot 100. Their debut single was even certified Gold in Canada six months after its release. In addition, they won Single of the Year, Rock Album of the Year, and New Group of the Year at the 2012 Junos (essentially the Canadian equivalent of the Grammy Awards).





Rock 'n' Roll is alive and well up north.

[PeterG]

Rock n Roll? Rock n Roll died in 1960. To be replaced by some lame easy listening for a few years to be replaced by pop-rock in about 1965. Compare the Billboard top 100 for 1960, which is full of Rock & Roll and rockabilly with ditto for 1961, which is mostly easy listening and x-over country & you'll see what I mean.

However, as for rock and roll according to the US definition i.e. rock & pop music, I'd say it died in about 1982, after the new wavers and punks and post-punks and post-rockers had already delivered their best work.