Is Rock Still Relevant?

I think perhaps rap etc. have replaced rock as the voice of the rebellion. Rock and roll has hit middle age, so to speak. The big bands of the 40s were the voice of that generation's youth, and they were supplanted by Elvis et al. Heck, there was a time when Mozart was the outrageous upstart.

Much as I hate to say it, perhaps it's rock's turn to step aside for the next iteration.

I agree with Chunky.

There was a time when jazz, now considered by most as a rather effete, arcane music, was the music of its day, wildly popular.

Something new is coming, and I don't think it's hip hop. But we may still flounder around for another twenty years or so before we find out.

Ditto to Chunky. The rebellion and edge is with Hip-Hop.

It is to me, and that's all that matters.

III said:

So if Rock has lost its edge, do you think a band/genre will come along and save it, or was rock a fad that will fade into history? I'm really fascinated that you guys think rock's time might have passed.

Click to expand...

That would mean something would have to spurn Hip-Hop. And, well, given the collapse of the music industry, there's no mechanism in place to drive it. Change like that would be propelled by the new music delivery ventures, from Apple on down. Rock was spurned by post-war growth in Great Britain and the US. There was a new frontier and new ideals being crammed down our fathers and mothers throats. A lot of them didn't want those forced ideals. Rock evolved from it. Hip-hop probably would have came from that, too, but the racial climate wouldn't allow it or any other expression of anything other than white voices. A lot of things have been forced down throats of those involved in the Hip-Hop movement -- and there's a lot of material and market to play with.

III said:

Personally I think rap and hip-hop are in the same soulless stasis that rock has found itself in. Rap exploded in the 80's, matured and evolved in the 90's and infused rock throughout the 90's and 00's, but I don't see the next evolution of rap/hip-hop happening any more than I see the next revolution of rock.

Click to expand...

Music sales figures would disagree with you. In terms of that stasis, I agree. However, this applies to recorded music as a whole (and country music loves it because it's fan base enjoys stability like that; no radical change). Remember when metal got so ridculously theater? Then, along came Nirvana -- stripped down, lightly produced and garage. A lot of that exists now, but there's nothing to steer it, which brings us back to the squashed record industry and the weakening of its marketing muscle. We have Napster to blame for not being propelled into the next musical age.

III said:

The strange thing is, young people have more to be pissed off about in the 00's than they did in the 80's or 90's. That's why I wonder about the impact of the instant gratification / internet generation on the future of music.

Click to expand...

You don't have to wonder. You know what they wonder. I'll add this: there is something to the "collective" of people listening to music on radios. We have a sociology there -- we all hear the same songs and share them. We can associate with one another. We were woven together by music that way. iPods make music an individual expression (see response above mine). That social tapestry is torn. We are not mutually listening to one iPod. We all tote our own playlists around. And that's that.

In that sense, there's no "wonder." People have simply turned to narrowcasting rather than broadcasting (a farming term) to experience the music.

III said:

Rock in the 2000’s is wandering aimlessly, like tribes without a central government. Society is not shaped by it. Has the record industry finally reaped the rewards of its stranglehold and exploitation of artists? Has rock become the victim of the instant gratification generation, where any song can be pulled up at the click of a mouse? Is there a band that can save rock for the next generation?

What say you?

Click to expand...

But I like Nickleback....

RE the above quote: I felt that way in the early 90's, before Nirvana, when there was only Metallica left and Michael Jackson was at the top of the charts. Dontcha worry, Three (spelled III), we're just in a lull.

Rock has been appropriated and complicit in the monolith for 40 years. It's been irrelevant for longer than I've been alive.

There is no way to dig out of it. That's the way the monolith works. You can't undo it. There will be no more rock. Nobody will save it. People try all the time, and they end up being some stupid novelty throwback ironic band like The Darkness or Wolfmother. Crap.

Any honest attempt to move beyond complicity with the monolith doesn't really work. Post-rock kind of tried, and the music was good, but nothing really is happening with it.

The same thing happened to jazz. It's never coming back. Look at punk--there's a depressing story that proves how the monolith works. You had a good mobilization of dissatisfied working class, genuinely pissed and showing it. Now punk is nothing more than a bourgeois affectation. Girls like Avril Latrine think they're "edgy" and think they're stirring things up when they're the same as the pop queens they make fun of. There will NEVER be another Henry Rollins.

It's all just a warm cup of hot chocolate. That's all anything is now. The only acceptable music is anything that holds a mirror up to the bourgeois and allows them to appreciate their reflection.

Well said.

III said:

I guess what I'm looking for isn't so much the music industry creating the next movement as discovering it. The club scene in LA in the 80's was like an undiscovered oil reserve. All the industry had to do was tap it and put it on MTV and suddenly everyone in the country had long, feathered hair, a leather jacket and ripped jeans. Same thing with Seattle in the 90's. They had fermented their own brand of rock n roll and when the country was exposed to it, it spread like a fever. And then there were singular bands like Guns 'N Roses that were SO raw and SO good that they became culturally iconic and relevant, even though they didn't really fit into or spark a specific movement.

Click to expand...

Really, as well as a marketing, this is a physics problem.

The talent is the catalyst. The industry is the agent. The music buyer creates the reaction. The marketing arm of the industry is what sets it alight and sustains the flame. I'd offer that critics and peers are the match that sets it alight. As humans are a social creature, that sharing is crucial to the process. The industry and its marketing arm allow the human social network to engage. Now, that's iTunes. Or Rhapsody.

Book publishing is no different. For that matter, the entertainment runs on this model or something similar. The advertising and marketing models differ, as do the ad dollars.

Further, it doesn't mean duds don't get distributed with the winners. However, in every chemical reaction, there's always waste.

BTW, on a more personal note, while in San Diego last October, as I drove down Sports Arena Boulevard, I saw that Tower Records had gone out of business there. I can't tell you how my heart fell. And I think there's something to that emotion that builds the reaction.

III said:

Very interestping post. What do you mean by "irrelevant"? It seems like you mean it's been directed and used by "the man" as opposed to being a free and chaotic entity. Towards the end of your post where you contrast Avril Levigne to the roots of punk music - that's so totally dead-on. That's what I'm thinking of as "irrelevant", but I wouldn't apply that same term to the past 40 years of rock. "Incorporated" sure, but not "irrelevant".

Click to expand...

I guess I'm still hanging on to the idea that the goal of an artist is to somehow affect his society through his work. I know it's not cool to think like that anymore, but I do, for better or worse.

So given that, I say rock is irrelevant because it does not challenge. It reinforces. And I think an example even more plain and depressing is rap. When it started out, it was antagonistic as hell, questioning everything that the white patriarchy stood for. Now rap acknowledges its own impotence and calls attention to its own failure and its collaboration with the monolith by openly admitting that all anyone cares about is getting rich and doing ridiculous things with the money.

I think everyone's aware of this complicity, for the most part. There's just so much nihilism and apathy going on. It's like an endless referential spiral, but I do wonder if there's a point where it has to collapse into something more authentic.

Can you narrow the timeframe a bit, Jay?

Elvis was culturally relevant. So is Radiohead.

Good discussion.

I think the youth of today (I'll include myself in this because I'm 25) is much different than in the 80s and 90s. There's certainly a disconnect and it seems like less young people care about what's going on unless Stewart or Colbert are reporting it. Our parents generation did all of the hard work socially and politically. We can't even commit to buying cds anymore!

I have no idea what is happening with the rise of rap, but I do know that there are still bands out there busy speaking up and sticking it to the man (Radiohead, Rise Against, Arcade Fire, are the first that come to mind).

I do think Rock has lost its touch and seems to be rather aimless -- or rather, non-defining. Nothing really stands out. Rap/Hip-hop is the rage now. Pop, of course, is always popular, thus the name... with country crossing over.

I think for Rock to thrive again, they need a new sound...

III said:

Let's just say in the history of rock, which artists stand out as the most culturally relevant. And while an artist like Michael Jackson might have huge cultural relevance, I wouldn't say he had much "rock" relevance. So some that come to mind are:

Click to expand...

These immediately come to mind:

• The Clash
• Johnny Cash
• Tom Waits
• Bruce Springsteen
• The Byrds
• The Who
• Chuck Berry
• Grateful Dead
• Kiss
• Iron Butterfly
  ETA:
• The Beach Boys, otherwise this list is irrelevant. The BBs killed 50s rock as our parents knew it. See "American Graffitti."

All of this probably begins and ends with the Beatles.

III said:

What I guess I don't see is the wholehearted identification with the genre by the young masses. Like you were saying, to this generation it's just music, it's not a lifestyle. In the 80's metal was your identity. In the 60's the music was the Hippie movement. Now the music is just the music.

Click to expand...

Excepting Emo and Goth. But no one cares about self-indulgent crybabies.

MattW said:

But no one cares about self-indulgent crybabies.

Click to expand...

Sadly, I think Rock stopped as the 80s stopped. Gladly, there is nothing wrong with living in the past. The old stuff will always be relevant. The 90s and the 00s have not, in my opinion, produced Rock.

jst5150 said:

These immediately come to mind:

• The Clash
• Johnny Cash
• Tom Waits
• Bruce Springsteen
• The Byrds
• The Who
• Chuck Berry
• Grateful Dead
• Kiss
• Iron Butterfly
  ETA:
• The Beach Boys, otherwise this list is irrelevant. The BBs killed 50s rock as our parents knew it. See "American Graffitti."

All of this probably begins and ends with the Beatles.

Click to expand...

What about Queen? Pink Floyd? Rolling Stones? Or are we only counting American rock?