After decades of premature pronouncements, rock may just really be dead this time around, at least as a living, breathing, forward-looking musical genre. Take a spin around the rock dial. There's the so-called alternative rock on the EDGE, which sounds as stale and mainstream and as unable to shock, offend or thrill as the bands of the late hair-metal era that were swept aside as the offal they were by Kurt Cobain and the grunge movement.
Meanwhile, even the hippest and coolest rock bands of the day -- the likes of the Strokes and the Darkness, the Kings of Leon and the Rapture -- all blatantly recycle past trends, both in their music and in their styles. One minute the small-b buzz bands are recycling the psychedelia of 1968; the next minute the blues-derived pre-metal of 1973 is the vibe du jour. Some young bands even unironically pay homage to bands such as Foghat and Bachman-Turner Overdrive. Nostalgia can take you only so far.
R.I.P
Started by
Guest_handsbloodyhands_*
, Dec 05 2003 02:15 PM
150 replies to this topic
#2
vitaminardi
-
- Shizzified
-
- 1,123 posts
Shizz Captain
- Location:Vancouver, B.C.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 02:38 PM
......Dig deeper. That's all I gotta say. There's always gonna be some freak somewhere, under the radar doing some shit nobody's ever heard of. Even the best "rock' of the seventies was relatively unknown what with shit like Journey on the airwaves.....The Strokes are merely more crap that doesn't even come close to the good stuff. The McDonald's Hamburgers are always the hardest to swallow, but would we call it the end of real food aswe know it? I Think not.
conquistador of the useless
#3
Guest_handsbloodyhands_*
Guest_handsbloodyhands_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 December 2003 - 02:56 PM
Dig deeper? I should learn Latin too. Thats another dead language.
#4
vitaminardi
-
- Shizzified
-
- 1,123 posts
Shizz Captain
- Location:Vancouver, B.C.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 02:56 PM
oops see the edit....
conquistador of the useless
#5
vitaminardi
-
- Shizzified
-
- 1,123 posts
Shizz Captain
- Location:Vancouver, B.C.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 02:58 PM
oops see the edit.... and learning a little latin might help your French.
conquistador of the useless
#6
Guest_handsbloodyhands_*
Guest_handsbloodyhands_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 December 2003 - 03:12 PM
I saw your edit. The fisrt one was at least funnier if not as lame as the second.
Why dont you dig deeper and think about what you wrote about the 70's and left out about rock in the 70's compared to now ,then maybe you can figure out whats wrong about what you wrote.
classical , ragtime , jazz , rock. Non relevant as a youth culture expression.
Why dont you dig deeper and think about what you wrote about the 70's and left out about rock in the 70's compared to now ,then maybe you can figure out whats wrong about what you wrote.
classical , ragtime , jazz , rock. Non relevant as a youth culture expression.
#7
vitaminardi
-
- Shizzified
-
- 1,123 posts
Shizz Captain
- Location:Vancouver, B.C.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 03:25 PM
Boy this is so much more fun than working! God I love arguing on the internet-- ain't nothing like anonymous one-upping
well, I give up....I'd like to think of a real smart-ass response to your last post....besides, you're not really playing fair, dude....answering my statement with a question?
why don't YOU tell ME what's wrong with what i said.
well, I give up....I'd like to think of a real smart-ass response to your last post....besides, you're not really playing fair, dude....answering my statement with a question?
why don't YOU tell ME what's wrong with what i said.
conquistador of the useless
#8
vitaminardi
-
- Shizzified
-
- 1,123 posts
Shizz Captain
- Location:Vancouver, B.C.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 03:27 PM
about the 70's.....I was born in the 70's. and I was poppin' in '81, and lockin' in '82.
conquistador of the useless
#9
raubhimself
-
- Shizzadmin
-
- 38,250 posts
CHAOS SPECIALIST
- Location:Phoenix, AZ
Posted 05 December 2003 - 03:33 PM
i agree with vitiminardi here.
rock isnt dead, just because there is a lot of shit and you dont like it doesnt mean its dead.
not everyband has to reinvent what rock is about either.
you can call Sonic Youth avante garde
you can call Tool space rock
you can call Bad Religion punk
but in the words of Billy Joel: "it's still rock and roll to me"
rock isnt dead, just because there is a lot of shit and you dont like it doesnt mean its dead.
not everyband has to reinvent what rock is about either.
you can call Sonic Youth avante garde
you can call Tool space rock
you can call Bad Religion punk
but in the words of Billy Joel: "it's still rock and roll to me"
sanitize.deodorize.pulverize
MINIBOSSIES NEVAR SAY DIE!
Good-Evil.net
MINIBOSSIES NEVAR SAY DIE!
Good-Evil.net
'the smuggest amongst us will always be the quickest to point out the most minor transgressions of others around them'- a quote i just made up and put quotes around to make it seem slightly fancier
#10
Guest_handsbloodyhands_*
Guest_handsbloodyhands_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 December 2003 - 03:42 PM
How about listing 3 bands relevant today? Not from 10 years ago.
#11
Guest_johnMFer_*
Guest_johnMFer_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 December 2003 - 03:46 PM
As the Mass Media shrinks in terms of ownership (what it is, five corporations that own 90% of the media nowadays), homogenization increases. As rock music is homogenized, it loses everything that made it so raw and powerful at its roots, which is why so many say, "Rock is Dead!".
As it is, sales of music are declining, and the RIAA would have us believe it's because of online piracy. The truth of the matter is (and I wish I could find the link to the source) that while sales of music were down by 8% in 2002, the record industry actually released 20% fewer albums. So actually, more people bought new releases in 2002 than the previous year. The point here is that if the Major Labels are releasing less music, assuming that the number of music fans growing at the same rate as the population, then there are more music fans listening to more and more of the same stuff. So, a record company doesn't have to take as many risks, and can spend more money on the next Brttany Spears record knowing full well they will receive a healthy return in sales from a homogenized fan base.
Rock only came to be because of the efforts of a few risk-takers affiliated with some of the many small record companies which were so prevalent before the mass conglomerates took over. Big companies aren't risk-takers, and therefore it is up to the smaller independent labels to shoulder the risk of new and unproven forms of rock. However, since the big companies control everything, from MTV to radio stations, they also get to decide who is going to get pushed (of course, their own signees) and who will not be heard of. Imagine if everyone suddenly starting buying CDs by bands on independent labels - the majors would go out of business. So, they are simply working to ensure their own survival, and the music fans in the United States and throughout the world are suffering because of it.
As it is, sales of music are declining, and the RIAA would have us believe it's because of online piracy. The truth of the matter is (and I wish I could find the link to the source) that while sales of music were down by 8% in 2002, the record industry actually released 20% fewer albums. So actually, more people bought new releases in 2002 than the previous year. The point here is that if the Major Labels are releasing less music, assuming that the number of music fans growing at the same rate as the population, then there are more music fans listening to more and more of the same stuff. So, a record company doesn't have to take as many risks, and can spend more money on the next Brttany Spears record knowing full well they will receive a healthy return in sales from a homogenized fan base.
Rock only came to be because of the efforts of a few risk-takers affiliated with some of the many small record companies which were so prevalent before the mass conglomerates took over. Big companies aren't risk-takers, and therefore it is up to the smaller independent labels to shoulder the risk of new and unproven forms of rock. However, since the big companies control everything, from MTV to radio stations, they also get to decide who is going to get pushed (of course, their own signees) and who will not be heard of. Imagine if everyone suddenly starting buying CDs by bands on independent labels - the majors would go out of business. So, they are simply working to ensure their own survival, and the music fans in the United States and throughout the world are suffering because of it.
#12
vitaminardi
-
- Shizzified
-
- 1,123 posts
Shizz Captain
- Location:Vancouver, B.C.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 03:48 PM
no. Thats too easy.
First, you tell me about the 70's, smarto.
give a little, get a little.
First, you tell me about the 70's, smarto.
give a little, get a little.
conquistador of the useless
#13
Guest_handsbloodyhands_*
Guest_handsbloodyhands_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 December 2003 - 03:51 PM
Bullshit. Major labels only jump on the bandwagon after they think they can make money on it. In this day and age they have even less influence on cultural tastes than an CBS sitcom. Majors are always one step behind the cultural wave. Thats why now they pair up with small hip hop labels. Like the Chess , Sun and Atlantic of the 50's.
#14
vitaminardi
-
- Shizzified
-
- 1,123 posts
Shizz Captain
- Location:Vancouver, B.C.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 03:53 PM
I'm going home-- time's up-- we'll have to continue this on Monday.
conquistador of the useless
#15
Guest_handsbloodyhands_*
Guest_handsbloodyhands_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 December 2003 - 03:54 PM
You allready answered your own question with your detailing about what you were into. Locking and poppin. This and the Big A in the circle were the 70's responses to stagnant rock and disco.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
