Is Rock Still Relevant?

[III]

Since the 50’s, rock has been a defining part of American culture. It reflected and helped define social attitudes, politics, and fashion. But in the past decade, rock seems to have lost its relevance.

50’s
Elvis
Rock represented the emergence of the underside of squeaky clean America. Fast cars, teenage rebellion, and the birth of Rock and Roll.

60’s
Woodstock
Rock was tied to the hippie movement and political upheaval of the decade.

70’s
Aerosmith
Rock became all about the rock. The big arena shows. Straight forward rock ‘n roll in its purest sense. AC/DC, Led Zepplin, The Who. Loud, raw, energy.

80’s
Metal / Glam
The flashy, over-the-top, party lifestyle of the Regan 80’s.

90’s
Grunge
The anti-glam bleakness of grunge defined the style and mood of Generation X in the 90’s.

00’s
Nickelback
Blasé, generic, observational, radio friendly rock with no agenda and no cultural relevance.

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?

[ChunkyC]

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.

[rugcat]

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.

[jst5150]

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

[III]

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.

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.

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.

[cletus]

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

[jst5150]

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.
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. :)
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.
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. :)
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.
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.

[C.bronco]

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?
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. :)

[RG570]

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.

[jst5150]

Well said.

[III]

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. :)


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.

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. :)

Oh, I'm definitely not talking about music sales figures. In fact, music sales figures are, in a way, the opposite of the relevance of rebellion. Sales figures are the aftershock of the earthquake. Jay Z may sell a billion albums and be a "big star", but he's not a revolutionary musical force like Run DMC or Public Enemy.


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.

That's definitely essential - the shared sociology of rock - that's what's missing. You make a great point about the iPod marketing of "individual expression". That encapsulates so much. I guess it also says something that MTV doesn't consider music videos important (relevant) enough to merit more than a few hours as overnight filler. What would we have said in the 80's if someone told us that MTV would stop caring about music altogether?

[III]

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


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".

[jst5150]

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.
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.

[RG570]

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".

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.

[III]

So who would we list as the most culturally relevant acts - the ones that had the biggest impact on society, art, and the industry; the ones who made a change by virtue of their authenticity.

Pink Floyd is the first band that sprung to my mind. Although now their music has been co-opted into the monolith (to use RG's phrase).

Also, has the relevance of drugs declined and has that helped kill the focus of Rock N Roll? Would a new drug spark a new genre of Rock?

[jst5150]

Can you narrow the timeframe a bit, Jay?

Elvis was culturally relevant. So is Radiohead. :)

[Bluebug32]

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).

[III]

Can you narrow the timeframe a bit, Jay?

Elvis was culturally relevant. So is Radiohead. :)

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:

Elvis
Pink Floyd
Sex Pistols
Nirvana
The Who
AC/DC
Guns N Roses

[maestrowork]

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]

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).

Great to have you with us in the Cooler, Bluebug!

Y'know, I was thinking about Rage Against The Machine. There's a good argument to be made for them as a culturally relevant and even iconic band. They were, if not pioneers, at least in the forefront of the merger of metal / rap and a big part of the underground. They certainly had a strong message and a devoted following and the argument could be made that the Rock / Rap style has personified the 00's.

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.

I loved your insight about feeling like your parents having fought the social issues - that's very telling.

[jst5150]

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:
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.

[MattW]

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

[Bluebug32]

But no one cares about self-indulgent crybabies.

http://static.flickr.com/118/317073169_5170a5632d_m.jpg

[KTC]

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.

[maestrowork]

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.


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

[Devil Ledbetter]

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.The 90s produced Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Blind Melon, Nirvana, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, Nine Inch Nails, Primus, Filter, Alice in Chains and Rage Against the Machine. Holy crap, KTC. If those aren't rock bands, I don't think there is any such thing as a rock band.

Now go get yourself a copy of Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger, listen to it a few times, and come back and explain to me how that isn't rock?

ETA: I'll make it easy for you. (http://www.metalsucks.net/track/Soundgarden-MindRiot.mp3)

[Inky]

I'll post here, but if I come across as Rock Ignorant, forgive me.

I hated rock. A child of the 60's, 70's and 80's, I loved Beatles, Janis Jopling, Eagles, and Tom Petty--pussy rock, or so my Aerosmith friends were quick to inform me.

I also secretly like Chuck Mangioni (sp).

I HAAATED Led Zeplin..that Stairway to Heaven song...Jesus...could there ever be a longer song? Gag!

I loved pop. Loved it. Danced to it. Inhaled it. It was my addiction.

And then....music changed.

It was almost as if song writers went out in hordes and bought rhyme books...if every other word rhymed, this--THIS was passed off as music. What happened to the days when music told a story? Made you wanna get up and dance? Made you close your eyes and envision it was YOU on that stage, singing, beebopping, shocking your friends with your kick ass skill on the guitar?

And then it happened. Driving home...flipping stations...Led Zeplin...Kashmir...I wasn't just swayed, I was sucked into a vortex of loving this stuff...and suddenly...rock music....I GOT IT!!! I FELT IT!!!

And I was like a junkie! Thank God for Amazon...ordered what's now considered the classics...Led Zeplin, Aerosmith...(forgive the spelling errors..not the issue anyway)...

You know what else...my kids were LOVING this stuff!!!

So, it's not so much that rock is dead...it's that many of us are late bloomers....which I think is why those classic rock bands are still in the high sales arenas to this day...but lets face it...those 'sounds' are hard to match, but I'm grateful for the bands attempting to create a new sound, yet keep to the format of 'telling a story'
Staind
Linkin Park
Nirvana
Others I'm still ignorant of, but don't mind a list...

If you're going to scream, and shred strings, at least give me a story, otherwise, it's just another rhyme book...which is what rap-crap is to me: oooh, loook, he/she can rhyme. Such talent--not!

Oh, and pop?
Fucking hate the stuff! It's so bubble gum. I mean, just that Barbie song makes me want to throw myself from a speeding car...on the autobahn...naked...


ps
I now BLAST Stairway to Heaven on the Bose...and dare anyone to tell me TURN THAT SHIT DOWN!!!

[KTC]

The 90s produced Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Blind Melon, Nirvana, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, Nine Inch Nails, Primus, Filter, Alice in Chains and Rage Against the Machine. Holy crap, KTC. If those aren't rock bands, I don't think there is any such thing as a rock band.

Now go get yourself a copy of Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger, listen to it a few times, and come back and explain to me how that isn't rock?

ETA: I'll make it easy for you. (http://www.metalsucks.net/track/Soundgarden-MindRiot.mp3)

I love all of those bands...I would not, however, classify them as rock. Sorry. I lived through the 70s...I refuse to call those most excellent bands ROCK.

[Devil Ledbetter]

I love all of those bands...I would not, however, classify them as rock. Sorry. I lived through the 70s...I refuse to call those most excellent bands ROCK.I lived through the 70s too, and suffered through the 80s.

So, what would you call those 90s bands?

[KTC]

Inked one: I was a punk rocker for the first half of the 80s...and even for the late 70s, to be exact. I think it was 79 when I first heard the CURE and became a life long addict...that's when my Sex Pistols punk desire started to falter a bit and I fell in love with the words, etc, of the newing 80s stuff. But throughout, because I was around music as a young kid, I still loved all the 70s rock. T-Rex was, in my opinion, the grand-daddy of 80s punk. They almost had nothing in relation to the Pistols punk...the angry punk...but their glam and glitter birthed the next generation...

Cool that you found the Zep the way you did. It's good to appreciate the classic rockers.

I love the 90s stuff that David listed...but still, not Rock to me.

[KTC]

I lived through the 70s too, and suffered through the 80s.

So, what would you call those 90s bands?


Listen, bub...you say toemaytoe, I'll say toemahtoe.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Listen, bub...you say toemaytoe, I'll say toemahtoe.
At the risk of sounding like Haskins, define "rock."

[KTC]

At the risk of sounding like Haskins, define "rock."


okay. sure. it's a stone. i pick it up. i throw it at you. ROCK.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Rock has always been relevent to YOUNG people.

Maybe you guys are just too old to recognize what the current relevent trend in rock is.

Ya bunch of old farts. :tongue

[Devil Ledbetter]

okay. sure. it's a stone. i pick it up. i throw it at you. ROCK.
And how are you not getting "I throw a rock at you" out of a band like Rage Against the Machine? Because that's what it's all about.

[KTC]

Rock is rock, man. I can't define what it is in my head that makes me go, "That's rock" when I hear it. Those bands don't smack ROCK to me. I might call that shitstain Nickleback rockish...but that blight on Canada is the furthest thing from relevant.

[Inky]

At the risk of sounding like Haskins, define "rock."

*begins spasmotic shuddering...evolves into full blown quaking...convulsing...*

Cray...Yo! Battery Boy...I neeeed aaa cchhhhaarrrrgggeee......*more shaking ensues...*

[Inky]

I would say Staind is more 'rock' than Nikleback...but I'm a late diehard...I've yet to hear something equivelent to: Stones, Aerosmith, Zeplin, Hendrix....

[Devil Ledbetter]

Rock is rock, man. I can't define what it is in my head that makes me go, "That's rock" when I hear it. Those bands don't smack ROCK to me. I might call that shitstain Nickleback rockish...but that blight on Canada is the furthest thing from relevant.Nickleback isn't rock. It's, it's ... yeah, shitstain pretty much covers it.

I guess I see the 90s stuff as rock because I grew up in the 70s listening to what we both appear to agree was real rock. Then the 80s came and there was nothing but corporate crappy dreck on the radio. I mean Billy Squires and Starship. Ack! We had no underground or college radio stations in my area. So we took refuge in our older siblings record collections. The Who, Neil Young, Hendrix, Todd Rundgren, Old pre-sucky-era Rolling Stones, Iggy Pop, Bowie, The Doors, etc. And we listened to this stuff like it was new.

So when that wave of 90s music hit, my reaction was "wow, they're finally playing rock again."

[Devil Ledbetter]

I would say Staind is more 'rock' than Nikleback...but I'm a late diehard...I've yet to hear something equivelent to: Stones, Aerosmith, Zeplin, Hendrix....Sweetie, get thee some Pearl Jam.

Aerosmith's first four albums rock, but after that I've no use for them.

ETA: If you're looking for a blistering live rock album that's current, I recommend My Morning Jacket, Okonokos.

[III]

Rock has always been relevent to YOUNG people.

Maybe you guys are just too old to recognize what the current relevent trend in rock is.

Ya bunch of old farts. :tongue

Part of me is scared that's true, but I try to listen to and search out new rock constantly. If the next great rock movement is out there, it's hiding under the ground waiting to be discovered. Of all the popular bands on the radio right now, I think System Of A Down is probably the closest to making truly revolutionary rock.

I'm enjoying the discussion about the grunge bands too. I always thought AIC was a different style of metal, as was Soundgarden. They were like metal played at 45 RPM instead of 72. Pearl Jam was probably the purest "Rock" band of the grunge movement since they really stayed rooted in the blues. Nirvanna defined the essence of grunge - stripped down circular punk chord progressions, no guitar solos, no blues, unpolished singing. RHCP is a funk band. But they were all relevant. Lollapolooza defined the 90's.

[Shadow_Ferret]

The 80s were just corporate dreck?

What about Talking Heads? U2? The Cars? XTC? The Squeeze? The Stranglers? The Police? Men at Work? Joe Jackson? Graham Parker? Nick Lowe? Elvis Costello? The Pretenders? The Clash? The Boomtown Rats? Ian Dury?

Part of me is scared that's true, but I try to listen to and search out new rock constantly. If the next great rock movement is out there, it's hiding under the ground waiting to be discovered. Of all the popular bands on the radio right now, I think System Of A Down is probably the closest to making truly revolutionary rock.
I like some of their stuff, but overall. Eh. I'm liking My Chemical Romance.

[III]

Nickleback isn't rock. It's, it's ... yeah, shitstain pretty much covers it.


They're the Bon Jovi of the 00's. Radio friendly posturing, and absolutely nothing to say.

[Devil Ledbetter]

The 80s were just corporate dreck?

What about Talking Heads? U2? The Cars? XTC? The Squeeze? The Stranglers? The Police? Men at Work? Joe Jackson? Graham Parker? Nick Lowe? Elvis Costello? The Pretenders? The Clash? The Boomtown Rats? Ian Dury?


I like some of their stuff, but overall. Eh. I'm liking My Chemical Romance.Sorry, Ferret. Not wanting to write a dissertation, I didn't make myself clear. I know very well that a lot of fabulous stuff came out in the 80s. The Smiths and the Cure are at the top of my list. However, I'm talking about what was getting airplay on so-called "rock" radio in my hometown. Especially in the early 80s, when I was a teen, it was mostly craptastic pap like Eddie Money and corporate stuff like Journey and Foreigner. And cheesiod rock like Cheap Trick. There wasn't some easy way to "find" new music - this was before MTV or the internet.

I forgot about the cars. Crap. When I was in highschool, my nickname was Candy-O. ;)

[III]

I like some of their stuff, but overall. Eh. I'm liking My Chemical Romance.

Yeah, I really like MCR too. They're a cut above the Emo scene in their musicianship and song construction. Plus they're Iron Maiden fans.

[Shadow_Ferret]

However, I'm talking about what was getting airplay on so-called "rock" radio in my hometown.
Air play? Screw air play! The best rock has never gotten air play. Top 40 crap always gets air play. Very few of my favorite bands in the 70s ever got airplay and those were the days of AOR and more experimental radio than today.

I'd even argue that the 60s, with the Beatles and Stones, were a fluke. Because even then, a lot of Top 40 was Neil Sedaka, Englebert Humperdink, and other adult contemporary artists with songs like "Downtown" and "Fly with me in my beautiful balloon" and crap like that.

[althrasher]

I think that you guys are addressing the new way people listening to music, but not looking at the music people listen to in that real way. The music that is the undercurrent of a culture is not being played on the radio. Look at some of the more "indie" groups: Bright Eyes, The Decemberists, Arcade Fire, Neutral Milk Hotel, just to name a few.

There are a lot of groups doing some innovative things, Rush and Radiohead seriously bringing out irregular meter, (sorry, but the constant 4/4 of a lot of the great groups mentioned gets really boring,) new harmonic progressions and lyrical themes. You want a song that tells a story? Try "The Mariener's Revenge" by The Decemberists. There's a lot of really good rock that is defining cultural changes, but as our culture gets more individualized and less mainstreamed, the music switches to defining smaller sub-groups.

But as far as mainstream goes, no one mentioned Greenday. I think they're worth noting.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Air play? Screw air play! The best rock has never gotten air play. Top 40 crap always gets air play. Very few of my favorite bands in the 70s ever got airplay and those were the days of AOR and more experimental radio than today.

I'd even argue that the 60s, with the Beatles and Stones, were a fluke. Because even then, a lot of Top 40 was Neil Sedaka, Englebert Humperdink, and other adult contemporary artists with songs like "Downtown" and "Fly with me in my beautiful balloon" and crap like that.Ed, all I'm saying is that the stuff being passed off as "rock" in the early 80s pretty much sucked.

I don't know why you want to argue.

[KTC]

Yes it did suck. 80s rock was a wash. But 80s music, other than rock...I loved quite a lot of it. I was into Bauhaus, Siouxsie, Cure, The Glove, Nightmares in Wax, Nina Hagen, etc, etc, etc...But I loved pulling out the 70s rock and educating my batcave friends.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Yes it did suck. 80s rock was a wash. But 80s music, other than rock...I loved quite a lot of it. I was into Bauhaus, Siouxsie, Cure, The Glove, Nightmares in Wax, Nina Hagen, etc, etc, etc...But I loved pulling out the 70s rock and educating my batcave friends.The girl across the hall from me in college brought her Cure LP into my dorm room and demanded I play Close To Me, which she called "the breathing song." You could say we bonded over Head on the Door. All these years later, she's still my best friend. And I may even let her stay my best friend, if she'll hurry up and finish beta reading my novel.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Ed, all I'm saying is that the stuff being passed off as "rock" in the early 80s pretty much sucked.

I don't know why you want to argue.
I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out that the stuff that passed as "rock" on the radio has pretty much sucked every decade. It's the stuff off radio that was relevent.

[Bluebug32]

I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out that the stuff that passed as "rock" on the radio has pretty much sucked every decade. It's the stuff off radio that was relevent.

This (and the fact that Clear Channel is abominable) was the main reason why I switched to XM radio. Sure, there's still crap, but you can just avoid those channels.

[Devil Ledbetter]

This (and the fact that Clear Channel is abominable) was the main reason why I switched to XM radio. Sure, there's still crap, but you can just avoid those channels.But see, Bluebug, Ferret and I were discussing rock in the early 80s -- at a time when there was no such thing as satellite radio, and one might need to resort the record bins of older siblings to find something listenable.

Welcome to AW!

[Bluebug32]

But see, Bluebug, Ferret and I were discussing rock in the early 80s -- at a time when there was no such thing as satellite radio, and one might need to resort the record bins of older siblings to find something listenable.

Welcome to AW!

Right, but as unsettling as it may be, most of the younger generations don't even know how to use a record player and will sooner download an mp3. Is it sad that music isn't even tangible anymore? The artists and records/CDs we used to spend hours pouring over and alphabetizing (at least I did), are now lost in the void of a hundred gig hard drive.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Right, but as unsettling as it may be, most of the younger generations don't even know how to use a record player and will sooner download an mp3. Is it sad that music isn't even tangible anymore? The artists and records/CDs we used to spend hours pouring over and alphabetizing (at least I did), are now lost in the void of a hundred gig hard drive.I welcome the technology. The internet and MP3s have chopped the former musical gatekeepers off at the shins. I still have yet to hear My Morning Jacket on local radio, and I don't watch MTV but I doubt they're on there either. Yet I was introduced to them through a message board, ordered their albums online (because the local chain record store didn't have them), converted the CDs to MP3s and loaded them onto my Zen. I can listen to them anywhere, anytime, without phoning some loudmouth DJ to beg for it.

A band doesn't have to be some huge "success" via some corrupt payola-style system before I hear them. There are scads of great blogs covering new music all the time. And The Hype Machine online.

I'd have given anything for this easy access to new music as a kid. I'm just glad it arrived during my lifetime.

And my PC organizes my album files in alphabetical order.

This probably shows my age, but I still buy CDs and keep my music organized in album collections. I don't buy single tunes.

[HeronW]

Rap is full of drugs, hos, guns, and making money. Seems like more rap singers have died of OD's, or been murdered than any other music genre. Considering the anti-social lyrics, the repetitive 5 yr old type rhyming, stealing lyrics and music from other genres, ripping records on needles and 'phump'ing into the microphone was it ever really an original type of music?

[mikeland]

Let me nudge us back to the original question of the thread: Is rock still relevant?

Let's assume that we've answered no. (Though I point out that we are talking about this on a societal scale, not an individual scale. As the nostalgia fest in this thread shows, music will always have relevance to those who are experiencing it at the moment.)

OK, then. Why?

I've got some theories to throw on the table.

I'll start with this.

Rock (and pop and rap and music in general) is no longer dangerous.

By this, I mean, there is no longer a generational divide where the parents think that rock music is a threat to their kids.

Elvis' pelvis was so dangerous, you couldn't show it on TV. The Beatles and the Stones created frenzies that seemed cult-like. The bands of Woodstock were telling kids to turn their backs on everything their parents created. Punk rock preached anarchy. One generation didn't understand the music of the next, and therefore it scared them.

Then, in the 80s, we started to all realize rock wasn't really a threat. There were still pockets of fear. Tipper Gore thought lyrics made kids
commit suicide. Iron Maiden was even put on trial. And then came rap -- Public Enemy and N.W.A. definitely scared the bejeezus out of some folks.

But the fact is that the 80's parents were the 60s kids. They understood rock. And the 00's parents are the 80's kids -- they've got two generations of rock under their belts.

Seriously, is anyone worried about the effect rock music has on anything anymore? Can rock be relevant if it doesn't pose a threat? Can anyone name a single band that scares parents?

Anyway, that's my first theory. Thoughts?

[scottVee]

I have to agree that the danger element is gone. It's not even subversive. It's everywhere. But what bugs me is that the innovation is gone -- every new band either sounds like Pink Floyd or Michael Jackson or Metallica or just a generic guitar-bass-keyboard-drum thing. Good songwriting still stands out, but there's a huge gap between the pioneers who created the sound and the new bands playing their take of a copy of copy of copy of that sound. And no real way to avoid it either. There are only so many notes and sounds. But American Idol doesn't help.

[poetinahat]

Rap is full of drugs, hos, guns, and making money. Seems like more rap singers have died of OD's, or been murdered than any other music genre. Considering the anti-social lyrics, the repetitive 5 yr old type rhyming, stealing lyrics and music from other genres, ripping records on needles and 'phump'ing into the microphone was it ever really an original type of music?
I'd say yes. Run/DMC, Public Enemy, and the Beastie Boys are a few examples. (I don't run very deep on hip-hop, so I can't talk about the less famous acts with any degree of knowledge.) Aerosmith combined with Run/DMC to perform 'Walk This Way', and Anthrax covered 'Bring the Noise'. That was an indication that music doesn't have to be Us vs. Them. It's all music.

There are many, many ordinary rap acts for every great one, but I'd propose that you can say exactly the same thing about rock. Or jazz. Or pop. Or country/western. Or R&B. Or classical. Or zydeco. Or reggae.

Grandmaster Flash's "The Message" still hits like a ton of bricks, a quarter of a century later. The Beastie Boys, for all their puerile posing, really have done some formidable work. And they can play, too -- on 'Check Your Head' and 'Ill Communication', they play as a band.

Yeah, there's a lot of hip-hop I can't stand. But there's just as much rock I don't like. Please don't ask me to choose between, say, Snoop Dogg and, oh, Bon Jovi. Neither one does anything for me at all.

[jst5150]

Since it's a chunk of the discussion, the first cassette music that mattered to me was "Upstairs at Eric's" by Yaz. I was 13.

When you're 17 and immortal, you're concerned more about things like rebellion and having a soundtrack to fight the rebellion amidst. The songs also refuel you for more journies into that so-called breach. Music mattered more at 17 because the message matters more; it's an idealistic submersion. It's the same psychology that leads young men and women to join the military service. David Baerwald said it best: "Let the little boys pretend that they're 10 kinds of Supermen with uniforms and alibis ... some flag to defend ... things too young to do." My aunt loved music: Boston, Kiss and more. LOVED it. Then, she got older and it just didn't matter as much. As she grew, the messages evolved into raising her daughters and holding on to the things she'd earned. She still liks the music, but it's a memory, not a mantra.

The rebellion and ideology moved from rock to hip-hop. And while many believe hip-hop's edge has dulled, it still holds sway over the conversation. Until someone else steps in and offers something new. And to the person who body-slammed hip-hop as a ripoff, shame on you. You've never cued a De La Soul or Public Enemy record before. To someone's point on "ripping off" other artists, ask an African-American bluesman his opinion about Eric Clapton and most of the 1960s era rock movement ripping off the music of the Delta. The answer would sound eerily similar to yours. :)

However, I return to my original point: the mechanism must be in place for the music to spread and catch like a wildfire across SoCal hillsides. Marketing, viral or otherwise, someone or something to help build and sustain the energy. Otherwise, it's just an bright isolated burn.

[Hobbes]

Boston - my first two albums were their first two releases. They were way ahead of their time.

As for the relevency of rock...I think the concept of it is still viable, but the reality is only about money. There isn't any real "music" being created. When you think about classic rock now, that's music that will be around for a long time to come. But what's being produced now, what's current, is mostly shredding guitars and screaming. The lyrics are mostly about the individual singing, i.e. "look at me, look at how great I am," or "look at me, I'm a victim." There's no substance and the songs won't last to become "classic."

Just a thought

[III]

Rock (and pop and rap and music in general) is no longer dangerous.

By this, I mean, there is no longer a generational divide where the parents think that rock music is a threat to their kids.


Excellent, excellent post, Mike. I think that's so true and right on target of the topic. When I was a teenager my parents wouldn't let me listen to a band like Motley Crue (much less put up a poster of them) because they were so heavy into the devil thing (Tipper convinced them it was more than just a gimmick). Now I play "Shout At The Devil" on guitar hero with my 8-year-old son. My older girls (12 & 11) love metal and whenever we're in the car we crank it up and I pontificate about the music (System of a Down, Disturbed, Red, Ozzy, etc.)

There's still some creepy stuff out there that I wouldn't want my kids getting into. Marilyn Manson comes to mind because he's just SO disgusting, but I know it's just his act and in a way I'm glad that there's someone out there who's still going the extra mile to keep rock a shocking spectacle.

So maybe the next big wave of rock will have to be something that's shocking to parents who grew up with Metallica and Slayer. That means either a) baby killing rock or b) squeaky-clean Leave It To Beaver rock. Could teenagers go back to duck tail hair-do's and cuffed, starched jeans just to shock their parents?

[Dawnstorm]

I'm wondering what "relevant" means. I'm thinking of the late sixties 67 onwards, a lot of it was influenced by the "hope I die before I get old" sentiment. And in the middle of that there's Ray Davis (the Kinks) making a record about...

...British country side sentimentalism. Um, what? Did he think that people would rush to the stores and buy that? The very first line: "Picture yourself growing old..." The last thing they'd want to do. Dangerous? Let me laugh.

And yet.

The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation Society is one of my favourite records coming out of that area. I don't care about the definition of Rock, or things like that, in the end. Village Green is quite far away from what defined the period then. It's [EDIT: the period, not "Village Green". Argh! Pronoun reference!] more early Floyd, Velvet Underground, late Beatles, that sort of stuff.

So I wonder.

[III]

MODERATOR NOTE: I split off the rest of this thread to a new one called General Music Discussion (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91214). The conversation was good, but it was too ironic that a thread about relevancy was drifting so widely :D

[mikeland]

Let me throw something else out here.

For rock music to be relevant, it doesn't have to stand for something. It has to stand in opposition to something.

The late sixties set the watermark for relevance. But that standard seems to be music that was protest. Music that opposed the status quo. Statements were being made -- and there were no other voices to say them. It was counterculture, and therefore it was relevant.

There's something happening here. Four dead in Ohio. The time's they are a-changing.

Those were all statements. Attempts to change the situation, I suppose. These artists wanted things to be different and the only access they had to the powers that be was through their music.

Now, rock stars with a cause are more likely to make their appeals directly to the Senators and Governors and Presidents than to sing about them.
They stand with those folks, rather than against them. Look at Bono. His lobbying on behalf of third world debt relief has far more real world relevance than Jimi Hendrix playing the national anthem on his guitar ever could.

Is it that rock stars can have a mainstream voice now and don't need to be counterculture to be heard? Why write a protest song when you can sit down with the guy in charge and deliver your message in person?

Maybe the shift came with Live Aid and Band Aid in the 80s. The message in the music itself didn't matter. It was the larger act of leveraging fame and talent for a cause -- and raising a lot of money -- that became the goal.

You still get some bands like Rage Against the Machine and Public Enemy that overtly put their message in the music. But do they make more of a difference in the world -- have more relevance -- than those artists that keep the message and the music separate?

[maestrowork]

There's still some creepy stuff out there that I wouldn't want my kids getting into. Marilyn Manson comes to mind because he's just SO disgusting, but I know it's just his act and in a way I'm glad that there's someone out there who's still going the extra mile to keep rock a shocking spectacle.

So maybe the next big wave of rock will have to be something that's shocking to parents who grew up with Metallica and Slayer. That means either a) baby killing rock or b) squeaky-clean Leave It To Beaver rock. Could teenagers go back to duck tail hair-do's and cuffed, starched jeans just to shock their parents?

There are still creepy, disturbing stuff out there -- "rape your girlfriend and shoot your wife" stuff... WTF? But I think it's true that young people (and their parents) are so desensitized now, and the only time when something become shocking or alarming is when something like Columbine or Virginia Tech happens. But even then, we tend to chalk it up as individual cases. Not the kind of "mass hysteria" our parents or their parents tended to think about Rock.

Also, I think I talked about a few months ago... I think kids nowadays are not "angry." The cultural/generation gap really isn't that great anymore -- we're not talking about the big divide in the 50s/60s, or the 70s/80s. In fact, the 90s and 00s are almost indistinguishable in many ways. It's as if the generations have blended together. E.g. Jay is able to share his metal with his kids, despite the age differences. Really, you see a lot of young parents (30s, 40s) liking the same things as their kids now, as opposed to, say, my parents and me.

Kids just aren't angry and anti-culture anymore. In fact, I'd say they're more apathetic than ever. They want their YouTube and FaceBook and cell phones, but they don't really get involved. If you go on YouTube or MySpace you don't see relevant, angry stuff. You see stupid teenage boys doing Jackass stunts. Rock to them is just another piece of the entertainment puzzle. They don't say anything. They're not about expression anymore. It's just something to fill the empty nooks in their lives. It's not relevant to them as they did to us when we were young.

[Mjollnir13]

To me, it all depends on what you see "Rock" as. Rock used to be anything parents deemed loud and damaging to youth. As Rock evolved, different genres appeared like Hard Rock, Soft Rock, Heavy Metal, Arena Rock, Country Rock, Glam Rock, etc. Then, these genres even became more broken down especially Heavy Metal. Example, there used to be just Heavy Metal then came Speed Metal, Glam Metal, Thrash Metal. Now there's Death Metal, Black Metal, Progressive Metal, Nu Metal, I've even heard of Evil Metal...etc. I guess what I am saying is, it's all considered Rock.

Rock is still around and relevent, it's just that it has become more independent like indie movies. With the internet, the death of radio, and the death of MTV, Rock isn't as "in your face" anymore. Everybody has Ipods, Mp3s, CD players. The days of hearing the new hit on the radio are gone. I get all my info from friends and Blender. I don't get to watch Headbanger's Ball anymore looking for a new band. Sure there are a few video channels out there, but I think their impact is nothing like it was with MTV in the 80's. Remember MTV world premiere's?

As for relevant bands...Foo Fighters are very under appreciated. Somebody mentioned MCR... a great band, you have The Killers, Avenged Sevenfold, Rage Against the Machine, Against Me, and yes, there are some good Emo bands out there, just give them a chance. I gave Fall Out Boy's latest, Infinity on High, a chance and I can't get the songs out of my head...a great album. Green Day's American Idiot is an incredible album, so is World's Apart by ...And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Dead....oh, and Audioslave. Mix all these with the fact that masters like Iron Maiden, Megadeth, and soon (hopefully it's good) Metallica are still making great albums. In fact, I work with someone whose 16 yr old son just burned all of my Iron Maiden CDs.

I do think Rock is relevant. It is alive and kicking and has never had such a broad range...ever.

[Mjollnir13]

There are still creepy, disturbing stuff out there -- "rape your girlfriend and shoot your wife" stuff... WTF?


There have been lyrics like this around forever...usually just not as blunt. But for a blunt example, look at the Misfits Last Caress (1979)...

I got something to say
I killed your baby today
And it doesnt matter much to me
As long as its dead

Well I got something to say
I raped your mother today
And it doesnt matter much to me
As long as she spread

Sweet lovely death
I am waiting for your breath
Come sweet death, one last caress

Go

Sweet lovely death
I am waiting for your breath
Come sweet death, one last caress

Well, I got something to say
I killed your baby today
And it doesnt matter much to me
As long as its dead

Sweet lovely death
I am waiting for your breath
Come sweet death
One last caress

One last caress, sweet death
One last caress, sweet death

Oh oh oh oh oh
Oh oh oh oh oh oh oh
Oh oh
Oh oh oh oh oh

I'd say pretty dark.

You are correct, we have become a much more desensitized society, but I blame the news more then music/movies/games.

[bluntforcetrauma]

I do not look to pop musicians for opinions. Music is entertainment. So, in that sense, it's still relevant. Just my 2 pennorth.

[Angelinity]

relevancy can cause branching off. relevant to what -- today?

today is gone, tomorrow's 'round the corner and the future has no name.