1. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:


    Depends on what you call Rock. If you consider Maroon 5 and/or Mumford and Sons or Lorde rock than it is still alive and doing fairly well. I would never consider Lorde rock but according to billboard magazine she is. Heavy metal and hard rock has pretty much gone underground with a few exceptions.



    This is one of the points made, actually.   Hits / singles (which is what 'charts' consist of) are one thing, and the top singles (and most of the people on this forum would never look at a chart in the first place) are predominantly *not* rock: far from it.  Even the singles that are considered "rock" in a chart, and they are a tiny per cent, would be laughed at by most fans of rock music.    So to get hold of decent rock music, right, you would not seek out what's charting, or count on "statistics" to tell you if rock music was dying.   

    It's become the norm for the consumer, then, to seek out the 'rock' music that they like on their own, or want to experiment with, because the music has gone more and more 'underground' for those rock fans.   



    It is easy to sneer at the charts but for a music to stay popular it has to exist on the charts. If you are no longer a chart factor you are no longer on pop radio which means you are dead to most teenagers which is where future audiences come from which sustains a music. Once Rock completely dies on the charts it becomes Jazz. Right now there are plenty of semi popular "indy" acts but without hits that is what they will stay. When I was growing up there would be new acts constantly breaking through and there was a healthy underground which would always pull another set of teenagers in every year. Just 10 years ago there were huge rock bands that you could make fun off but their success allowed the underground to flourish. Creed, Limp Bizkit, Kid Rock , Korn, Staind and Nickelback were huge and I hated all of them but they were gateway into the underground/alternative/indy rock that I loved for teenagers the way Journey, Foreigner and Styx were for me when I was a teenager. I would never have discovered Joy Division, Public Image Limited, Gang of Four or the Replacements without first discovering and loving "corporate rock". 

    Some people don't sneer at the charts, they just don't pay attention to them.  

    I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying here, with regard to the current day.   It's the former paradigm for sure, but most teenagers don't listen to the radio.  Heck, I find it surprising, but a large percentage of adults don't either.   I've listened to college radio all my life, actually, and still do, b/c we are fortunate to have that in Boston; not all metro areas have that good fortune. 

    I also am not sure of your definition of "indie" rock music, b/c I make no distinction between indie (it's just a label) and "rock" music, especially now since indie and alt rock are pretty much mainstream.    You may think that all bands strive to be arena bands, but they don't.  I find it hard to believe that you think a band is going into the dead zone b/c they're not on a chart of some kind.   Sorry if I've misinterpreted what you meant, or am being too linear (or dense). 

    If you're saying that awful rock music in the mainstream helps the underground because young audiences will seek (and be forced to find) alternative routes to music, then that's a good point.  So we owe a debt of gratitude to those bands?  :D

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:


    Depends on what you call Rock. If you consider Maroon 5 and/or Mumford and Sons or Lorde rock than it is still alive and doing fairly well. I would never consider Lorde rock but according to billboard magazine she is. Heavy metal and hard rock has pretty much gone underground with a few exceptions.



    This is one of the points made, actually.   Hits / singles (which is what 'charts' consist of) are one thing, and the top singles (and most of the people on this forum would never look at a chart in the first place) are predominantly *not* rock: far from it.  Even the singles that are considered "rock" in a chart, and they are a tiny per cent, would be laughed at by most fans of rock music.    So to get hold of decent rock music, right, you would not seek out what's charting, or count on "statistics" to tell you if rock music was dying.   

    It's become the norm for the consumer, then, to seek out the 'rock' music that they like on their own, or want to experiment with, because the music has gone more and more 'underground' for those rock fans.   



    It is easy to sneer at the charts but for a music to stay popular it has to exist on the charts. If you are no longer a chart factor you are no longer on pop radio which means you are dead to most teenagers which is where future audiences come from which sustains a music. Once Rock completely dies on the charts it becomes Jazz. Right now there are plenty of semi popular "indy" acts but without hits that is what they will stay. When I was growing up there would be new acts constantly breaking through and there was a healthy underground which would always pull another set of teenagers in every year. Just 10 years ago there were huge rock bands that you could make fun off but their success allowed the underground to flourish. Creed, Limp Bizkit, Kid Rock , Korn, Staind and Nickelback were huge and I hated all of them but they were gateway into the underground/alternative/indy rock that I loved for teenagers the way Journey, Foreigner and Styx were for me when I was a teenager. I would never have discovered Joy Division, Public Image Limited, Gang of Four or the Replacements without first discovering and loving "corporate rock". 

    Some people don't sneer at the charts, they just don't pay attention to them.  

    I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying here, with regard to the current day.   It's the former paradigm for sure, but most teenagers don't listen to the radio.  Heck, I find it surprising, but a large percentage of adults don't either.   I've listened to college radio all my life, actually, and still do, b/c we are fortunate to have that in Boston; not all metro areas have that good fortune. 

    I also am not sure of your definition of "indie" rock music, b/c I make no distinction between indie (it's just a label) and "rock" music, especially now since indie and alt rock are pretty much mainstream.    You may think that all bands strive to be arena bands, but they don't.  I find it hard to believe that you think a band is going into the dead zone b/c they're not on a chart of some kind.   Sorry if I've misinterpreted what you meant, or am being too linear (or dense). 

    If you're saying that awful rock music in the mainstream helps the underground because young audiences will seek (and be forced to find) alternative routes to music, then that's a good point.  So we owe a debt of gratitude to those bands?  :D



    I can't speak for all teenagers but mine and their friends are still radio crazy. Many of them can't afford to load up their ipods like adults can. I used to buy 1 or 2 new records a month when I was a teenager because part time jobs didn't pay for much.

    Not all bands thrive for hugeness (though most great cult bands like the Velvet Underground, The Stooges, The Replacements and the Ramones did). I may not listen to Casey Kasem no more but that doesn't mean I can't tell who is succesful and who isn't and why would any artist want to starve or fail and have to get a regular 9-5 job. Why is having a hit bad. Heck, Lou Reed (rip), Iggy Pop and the Butthole surfers had hits. I am not saying that a band that fails to have hits is an artistic failure. I love the Velvet Underground and they had no hits. My favorite punk band is Wire and they never had a hit (though they tried). I want great movies to be financially succesful, not because financial success is a proof of quality (far from it actually) but because I want to see more great movies. If Chinatown made as much money as Jaws we would have seen more Chinatowns (though I did like Jaws also). The hacks of course would have made Chinatown copies but the serious artists would have had more financial freedom to make quality. The reason the early 70's was a golden age for hollywood movies is because Bonnie and Clyde, Mash, Easy Rider and other films like that were huge hits. If those movies would have failed you would never have had the Godfather or Taxi Driver or those other 70's classics. The Godfather would have been pulp crap made by a hack like it was originally intended to be.

    If you grew up in the 70's and 80's, like I did, the word "indy" meant something different than it does now. Many "indy" bands were on major labels (at least in the USA). The Smiths, New Order and The Jesus and Mary Chain were all considered indy but were on Warner Brothers in the USA and in some cases thank goodness for that. The members of New Order were kept afloat by their American label. Factory records spent most of New Order's royalties on the Hacienda night club. 

    Yes, a healthy mainstream of crappy rock bands (and a few cool ones) will produce a healthier underground than what we have now. We will probably never see a 1965 type year again where the most innovative and coolest artists are the most succesful. Even in 1992, Billy Ray Cyrus sold a lot more albums than Nirvana did.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    I agree, if you are basing it on commercial success or appeal, rock is in trouble. Times have changed and what was primarily an album driven business has shifted to a more hit oriented business,. And when a good rock album, like El Camino hits the street, it is the excpetion and no longer the rule. This trend has been underway for a long time. One person said here it depends on your definition of rock. Yes. that about sums it up.  The music industry has broadened it's definition of rock to include artists that should not be there. It skewers sales, and gives a false impression that the genre is fine. 

    Big problem is that there are plenty of good rock bands whose music may appear once or twice on a stations like KEXP, WERS, but not in constant rotation, and not enough to matter. Music/program directors have a lot of say in what gets played, and how much. For many new rock bands, they will play it just enough, to see if listeners will respond , and request it. Most stations as well meaning as they are just have no real incentives to go beyond that, limiting exposure to many new bands and music, and choosing to play it safe with established bands like Radiohead. And there lies the catch.

    One of the things I enjoy about music festivals is getting to hear many up and coming new bands. I have stumbled onto some wonderful new artists over the years that I probably would not have heard much, or at all if I was to rely on traditional sources. We had a debate about Dawes here a while back, and said when I saw them at Coachella they were not all that good. I had heard them occasionaly on radio, but again, not enough to form an opinion. But seeing them live left just anough of an impression with me that I gave them a second listen and I'm glad I did. Other folks have said the same, and Dawes has taken off, mostly through hard work, and that is what it will probably take for many other rock bands in order to keep the genre relevent. 

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    Thanks, and so agree re: "the nineties were good" while they lasted.  I still consider that timeframe a favorite for music, and I continue to discover music from that decade, at times shocked that it's from the nineties.   The real manufactured crap that you mentioned made me laugh, but it is so true.   It's never been dead and it won't be ... it's just a cautionary tale that the music industry is always trying to psych out the general consumer market to decide who to promote.  Can be a zero sum game at times, but it's cyclical.   When some of the ultimate classic rockers (some call them the nostalgia acts -- haha) retire and stop touring, that's going to be a slow exodus.  So odd to think about who will be the nostalgia acts of "tomorrow" -- who will last?  Who will still be playing?   Will a new generation be as loyal to those artists, or will they throw them under the bus?  :)

     

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    I agree with this mid 90s comment, because that is true.  They were was a genuine desire to not let the record companies, Ticketmaster, etc, try to ruin it, but I am afraid it happened. It was inevitable. Great run, it was really cool for a short time, but then the MatchBox 20, Goo Goo Doll, Barenaked Ladies, Train crap all took over. Ugh. No offense to anyone who likes that stuff, but it was clearly a pre-meditated recipe of a sound and style to be sold. So, all those bands took the advice of the lawyers, the labels, they made a lot of money in a short span, but you just knew it was a formula and wouldn't last. That's why it kinda sucks overall. I put this at about 1997 or 1998.  That's when it sort of took shape.

    The monopoly of radio, record companies, ticket distribution with total control of the venues, made this is a reality. Not trying to bring politics in here but that 1996 De-Regulation Tele-Communications Act was a mistake.  It allowed the record companies, radio, the distribution and the venues to all form one big monopoly to water down the product to the point that people think the best material is what is on the radio, spoon fed to them.

    Good read and analysis here:

    http://futureofmusic.org/article/research/radio-deregulation-has-it-served-musicians-and-citizens

    Nashville's pop crap today is a perfect example. People lap that crap up and it all sounds the same.  All of it. Awful. It's not even Country. It's like a pop/rock thing with a hint of Country. Again, no offense to those who enjoy it. I just can't not mention it in these discussions. It's a huge moneymaker for the casual music fan who just wants a catchy song on the way to work.

    But, I don't think that means real rock and roll is somehow dead or permanently over. That doesn't make much sense, because someone, or some people will eventually discover those bands or artists, from the 1960s or 1970s or the ones that carried the torch in the 1990s, and break through with their own band or become a cool artist.  It's happening a lot, actually, they just won't get the record company investment, radio play, distribution and marketing like the older bands needed to have back in the day.

    Hell, the 1970s epic bands or artists way of marketing or communicating with fans was proving they could release an album EVERY YEAR and then tour. That doesn't happen anymore.

    Rock resurgences, they come in different ways. Just look back through history.  The tough part will be how the artist or band can sound new but not derivative, even if clearly influenced by those who came before.

    I think that was the key to the successful 1990s bands. They clearly pulled from the 60s or 70 influences, as well as those before them, but they also had their own sound, for the most part. So, it's not dead. It can't be dead.

    The songs have to be there, though. Have to be. You can't fake being a real rock band.

    Finally, Gallagher is talking about hugely popular bands anyway.  It's not a "fact", that real good rock and roll bands don't exist even if on a smaller scale. I go and see plenty of bands or artists I call "rock and roll" that aren't well known, but it's stick rock and roll.

    I think Billy Joel said that at one point. lol

    But, you gotta have the songs.  




     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    Some people don't sneer at the charts, they just don't pay attention to them.  

    I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying here, with regard to the current day.   It's the former paradigm for sure, but most teenagers don't listen to the radio.  Heck, I find it surprising, but a large percentage of adults don't either.   I've listened to college radio all my life, actually, and still do, b/c we are fortunate to have that in Boston; not all metro areas have that good fortune. 

    I also am not sure of your definition of "indie" rock music, b/c I make no distinction between indie (it's just a label) and "rock" music, especially now since indie and alt rock are pretty much mainstream.    You may think that all bands strive to be arena bands, but they don't.  I find it hard to believe that you think a band is going into the dead zone b/c they're not on a chart of some kind.   Sorry if I've misinterpreted what you meant, or am being too linear (or dense). 

    If you're saying that awful rock music in the mainstream helps the underground because young audiences will seek (and be forced to find) alternative routes to music, then that's a good point.  So we owe a debt of gratitude to those bands?  :D



    I can't speak for all teenagers but mine and their friends are still radio crazy. Many of them can't afford to load up their ipods like adults can. I used to buy 1 or 2 new records a month when I was a teenager because part time jobs didn't pay for much.

    Not all bands thrive for hugeness (though most great cult bands like the Velvet Underground, The Stooges, The Replacements and the Ramones did). I may not listen to Casey Kasem no more but that doesn't mean I can't tell who is succesful and who isn't and why would any artist want to starve or fail and have to get a regular 9-5 job. Why is having a hit bad. Heck, Lou Reed (rip), Iggy Pop and the Butthole surfers had hits. I am not saying that a band that fails to have hits is an artistic failure. I love the Velvet Underground and they had no hits. My favorite punk band is Wire and they never had a hit (though they tried). I want great movies to be financially succesful, not because financial success is a proof of quality (far from it actually) but because I want to see more great movies. If Chinatown made as much money as Jaws we would have seen more Chinatowns (though I did like Jaws also). The hacks of course would have made Chinatown copies but the serious artists would have had more financial freedom to make quality. The reason the early 70's was a golden age for hollywood movies is because Bonnie and Clyde, Mash, Easy Rider and other films like that were huge hits. If those movies would have failed you would never have had the Godfather or Taxi Driver or those other 70's classics. The Godfather would have been pulp crap made by a hack like it was originally intended to be.

    If you grew up in the 70's and 80's, like I did, the word "indy" meant something different than it does now. Many "indy" bands were on major labels (at least in the USA). The Smiths, New Order and The Jesus and Mary Chain were all considered indy but were on Warner Brothers in the USA and in some cases thank goodness for that. The members of New Order were kept afloat by their American label. Factory records spent most of New Order's royalties on the Hacienda night club. 

    Yes, a healthy mainstream of crappy rock bands (and a few cool ones) will produce a healthier underground than what we have now. We will probably never see a 1965 type year again where the most innovative and coolest artists are the most succesful. Even in 1992, Billy Ray Cyrus sold a lot more albums than Nirvana did.

    [/QUOTE]

    I wouldn't speak for a broad demographic either -- there's too much variety, and too much variation across regions, too.   I was thinking more in terms of college age I think, b/c as you say, HS kids only have so much money, unless they have a PT job.   Still, as my brother taught in one of the biggest (urban) high schools in the state, he said that all the kids listen to is hip hop and rap for the mostpart, and that does bear out what hits the charts.  It's a generalization and certainly not meant to imply they don't listen to anything else, it's just a very big part of the menu. 

    What you have said makes plenty of sense, in any event. 

    BTW and FYI,  I don't know if you just landed on the forum when you started posting recently, or if you read / lurked in the past, but the main focus is rock, and to a certain extent, classic rock.   We've had many, many discussions on bands, including the VU, the Smiths / Morrissey, all manner of rock, Americana, synth-pop, really, too many to list at this point.  I've started threads on some newer bands that don't get much traction, but the group still seems to appreciate hearing about bands they're not familiar with.   I've purchased a fair amount of music based on discussions we've had and on comments made by regular forum members, and since you mentioned the Jesus and Mary Chain, that happened to be one.   We also discuss movies occasionally, and other various topics pertaining to the broad, ill-defined topic called "art."   :)

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    No, rock music is alive and well.  It'll die the same time the planet does.  I hear lots of good stuff on 'Live 105' here.

    Rival Sons - Pressure and Time

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MA0m1K2jW4

    Then there's Slash, Wolfmother, the re-formed Stone Temple Pilots with the singer from Linkin Park, the latest from Alice in Chains etc.

    You just might have to do a bit more digging to find what looking for.



    Exactly and obviously, IMO, correct, Hf i.e. "digging"!  It's all there, it's always been there, it will always be there if one is sufficiently motivated. If one isn't?  Fine.  I lived in Boston through the 80s....went to thousands of gigs, literally.  That's neither a boast nor a shame, it's just a fact.  I love music above all other art forms.

    There are so many bands, everywhere, in every genre if one is interested (I have no dog in this fight, btw):

    • Dig Protopunk e.g. Stooges, Death and MC5?  New band in London called "Vertices"....nothing on YT, just one gig so far, IMO ace.
    • 1967 Pop/Psyche tickle your fancy?  The Hypnotic Eye:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCoTcDG84YM
    • Don't know how to describe Fat White Family, my new fave band
    • Etc.

    I know lots of Boston venues have closed since I were a lad.....but I know TT's is still there, Middle East, Get ploughed, see stars, LL, I'm sure there are other old ones and presumbably new ones.

    If one actually is into rock'n'roll, and has the ability to go out now and again....it's all there.  If one isn't, fine.

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:



    Exactly and obviously, IMO, correct, Hf i.e. "digging"!  It's all there, it's always been there, it will always be there if one is sufficiently motivated. If one isn't?  Fine.  I lived in Boston through the 80s....went to thousands of gigs, literally.  That's neither a boast nor a shame, it's just a fact.  I love music above all other art forms.

    There are so many bands, everywhere, in every genre if one is interested (I have no dog in this fight, btw):

    • Dig Protopunk e.g. Stooges, Death and MC5?  New band in London called "Vertices"....nothing on YT, just one gig so far, IMO ace.
    • 1967 Pop/Psyche tickle your fancy?  The Hypnotic Eye:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCoTcDG84YM
    • Don't know how to describe Fat White Family, my new fave band
    • Etc.

    I know lots of Boston venues have closed since I were a lad.....but I know TT's is still there, Middle East, Get ploughed, see stars, LL, I'm sure there are other old ones and presumbably new ones.

    If one actually is into rock'n'roll, and has the ability to go out now and again....it's all there.  If one isn't, fine.

     

     



    Yes, there probably are lots of bands for all kinds of tastes. My problem is not with the general, but with the specific. I love a lot of older music of the styles i may find today, but they are not performed by the specific artists who did it so well and so inimitably. Since I have recordings of them, I prefer to listen to them than to go out seeking an imitation. I know, I know, the live experience is a whole different thing. Still for me, the original artists are where it's at and I am not interested in a substitute. If one defines being into rock 'n' roll as being into the the live experience, that is not my definition. "Real" rock 'n' roll was born in the 50's, and since then everything else has been a variation on the basic theme, but it is not the equivalent, at least not for me. Don't tell me I'm not into rock 'n' roll if I'm not out there actively seeking the latest live acts. It just ain't my bag, man.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     

    Hi Yoga.  You know what I wanna write.  ;-)

    So I won't write it...

    I'll write it tangentially instead....if you don't go to lots of small gigs at little venues to see bands you might or might not know (those with evening obligations e.g. children get some slack)....if you don't have a good number of favourite record labels....if you have friends over and you don't have something new to play for them, etc.

    Then rock is dead for you.

    It ain't dead for me.

    Future Primitives, The Youth, Os Haxixins, Daddy Long Legs, Hex Dispensers, ad infinitum. 

     

     



    I'm on my way out the door to go to a *small* art show -- my favorite artist is local. :)

     

    I didn't write the article -- just reported on it.   This is what it says:  the music industry is going in one direction --- so if you don't like it --- go in the opposite direction.  

    You will do that, Sonics.  That I know.  :)

    But some people are fine with the direction they are given.   They don't question it. 

    The issue will just become more acute over time, b/c what it implies is that there is a generation being "groomed" to accept "what is" ...

    I wear color combinations that no one else would wear.  People always say to me, "I would *never* have thought of wearing those colors together ..." -- what do they mean, they never thought of it?? -- just throw them together!   But they don't ... until they see someone else do it.  

    Have a lovely day.   Off to look at some "art"  (whatever that means!)



    No!  Yoga, no!  I have no interest in what strangers think, I value my friends' opinions highly even if I sometimes disagree, but I think it's as shameful to follow the herd as it is to intentionally defy the herd.  Give me some credit!  :-)

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:



    Exactly and obviously, IMO, correct, Hf i.e. "digging"!  It's all there, it's always been there, it will always be there if one is sufficiently motivated. If one isn't?  Fine.  I lived in Boston through the 80s....went to thousands of gigs, literally.  That's neither a boast nor a shame, it's just a fact.  I love music above all other art forms.

    There are so many bands, everywhere, in every genre if one is interested (I have no dog in this fight, btw):

    • Dig Protopunk e.g. Stooges, Death and MC5?  New band in London called "Vertices"....nothing on YT, just one gig so far, IMO ace.
    • 1967 Pop/Psyche tickle your fancy?  The Hypnotic Eye:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCoTcDG84YM
    • Don't know how to describe Fat White Family, my new fave band
    • Etc.

    I know lots of Boston venues have closed since I were a lad.....but I know TT's is still there, Middle East, Get ploughed, see stars, LL, I'm sure there are other old ones and presumbably new ones.

    If one actually is into rock'n'roll, and has the ability to go out now and again....it's all there.  If one isn't, fine.

     

     



    Yes, there probably are lots of bands for all kinds of tastes. My problem is not with the general, but with the specific. I love a lot of older music of the styles i may find today, but they are not performed by the specific artists who did it so well and so inimitably. Since I have recordings of them, I prefer to listen to them than to go out seeking an imitation. I know, I know, the live experience is a whole different thing. Still for me, the original artists are where it's at and I am not interested in a substitute. If one defines being into rock 'n' roll as being into the the live experience, that is not my definition. "Real" rock 'n' roll was born in the 50's, and since then everything else has been a variation on the basic theme, but it is not the equivalent, at least not for me. Don't tell me I'm not into rock 'n' roll if I'm not out there actively seeking the latest live acts. It just ain't my bag, man.



    DD, I regret and withdraw my comment "If one actually is into rock'n'roll".  I didn't intend it to sound dismissive or aggressive in any way.  But while I - 52 and half - think it's unlikely there will ever be greater rock'n'roll bands than the Beatles, Stones and Kinks - I would say that, of course! - there are still many contempory bands that wildly excite me. And, to me, if one is interested in rock'n'roll, it ain't that hard to pick up free fanzines in Boston record shops and bars and once in a while drink a couple of over-priced beers with your partner and/or friends in a club when unknown bands like Pixies, Breeders, Lyres, Dogmatics, Muck and the Mires, Cars or St. Jonathan Richman are playing:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgRYncR1Nog

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:



    Yes, there probably are lots of bands for all kinds of tastes. My problem is not with the general, but with the specific. I love a lot of older music of the styles i may find today, but they are not performed by the specific artists who did it so well and so inimitably. Since I have recordings of them, I prefer to listen to them than to go out seeking an imitation. I know, I know, the live experience is a whole different thing. Still for me, the original artists are where it's at and I am not interested in a substitute. If one defines being into rock 'n' roll as being into the the live experience, that is not my definition. "Real" rock 'n' roll was born in the 50's, and since then everything else has been a variation on the basic theme, but it is not the equivalent, at least not for me. Don't tell me I'm not into rock 'n' roll if I'm not out there actively seeking the latest live acts. It just ain't my bag, man.



    DD, I regret and withdraw my comment "If one actually is into rock'n'roll".  I didn't intend it to sound dismissive or aggressive in any way.  But while I - 52 and half - think it's unlikely there will ever be greater rock'n'roll bands than the Beatles, Stones and Kinks - I would say that, of course! - there are still many contempory bands that wildly excite me. And, to me, if one is interested in rock'n'roll, it ain't that hard to pick up free fanzines in Boston record shops and bars and once in a while drink a couple of over-priced beers with your partner and/or friends in a club when unknown bands like Pixies, Breeders, Lyres, Dogmatics, Muck and the Mires, Cars or St. Jonathan Richman are playing:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgRYncR1Nog



    That's cool. Different strokes for different folks, as the song goes. For me, it's not that the new bands aren't as great, it's that they unfortunately are performing today with today's sounds and sensibilities. While I can't get in a time machine to enjoy my favorite artists of the past, I can put a CD (yes, CD) in the player and get a close facsimile of what it would be. Bands can still play jazz but they can't get the exact same feel as Duke Ellington's bands. Different place, different time, different sensibility.

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to devildavid's comment:



    That's cool. Different strokes for different folks, as the song goes. For me, it's not that the new bands aren't as great, it's that they unfortunately are performing today with today's sounds and sensibilities. While I can't get in a time machine to enjoy my favorite artists of the past, I can put a CD (yes, CD) in the player and get a close facsimile of what it would be. Bands can still play jazz but they can't get the exact same feel as Duke Ellington's bands. Different place, different time, different sensibility.



    I'm sorry mate, I have to strongly disagree...most contemporary bands do as you say, but many don't...and not just the primitive garage punk bands I bore you all about.  ;-)

    There are many very successful bands that deliberately record in analog, and/or in mono, and/or on vintage instruments in studios to tape on only vintage kit:

    • Toe Rag Studios?: White Stripes, Kills, Flaming Stars, Supergrass...
    • Ghetto Recorders?:  White Stripes, Dirtbombs, Fleshtones, Muck and the Mires...
    • Gizzard Recording?:  Mudhoney, Mark Ronson...

    It's all out there.  :-)

     

     

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:



    That's cool. Different strokes for different folks, as the song goes. For me, it's not that the new bands aren't as great, it's that they unfortunately are performing today with today's sounds and sensibilities. While I can't get in a time machine to enjoy my favorite artists of the past, I can put a CD (yes, CD) in the player and get a close facsimile of what it would be. Bands can still play jazz but they can't get the exact same feel as Duke Ellington's bands. Different place, different time, different sensibility.



    I'm sorry mate, I have to strongly disagree...most contemporary bands do as you say, but many don't...and not just the primitive garage punk bands I bore you all about.  ;-)

    There are many very successful bands that deliberately record in analog, and/or in mono, and/or on vintage instruments in studios to tape on only vintage kit:

    • Toe Rag Studios?: White Stripes, Kills, Flaming Stars, Supergrass...
    • Ghetto Recorders?:  White Stripes, Dirtbombs, Fleshtones, Muck and the Mires...
    • Gizzard Recording?:  Mudhoney, Mark Ronson...

    It's all out there.  :-)

     

     



    By todays sounds I mean that they are influenced by all the sounds that came before.Yyou just can't go back in time and re-invent rock 'n' roll. You can try to record the way they used to, but you can't replicate the times or the history of the actual performers who came from a much different place and time. The vibe can never be replicated. It's not their fault, it's just that they come from here and now and not back then.

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:



    That's cool. Different strokes for different folks, as the song goes. For me, it's not that the new bands aren't as great, it's that they unfortunately are performing today with today's sounds and sensibilities. While I can't get in a time machine to enjoy my favorite artists of the past, I can put a CD (yes, CD) in the player and get a close facsimile of what it would be. Bands can still play jazz but they can't get the exact same feel as Duke Ellington's bands. Different place, different time, different sensibility.



    I'm sorry mate, I have to strongly disagree...most contemporary bands do as you say, but many don't...and not just the primitive garage punk bands I bore you all about.  ;-)

    There are many very successful bands that deliberately record in analog, and/or in mono, and/or on vintage instruments in studios to tape on only vintage kit:

    • Toe Rag Studios?: White Stripes, Kills, Flaming Stars, Supergrass...
    • Ghetto Recorders?:  White Stripes, Dirtbombs, Fleshtones, Muck and the Mires...
    • Gizzard Recording?:  Mudhoney, Mark Ronson...

    It's all out there.  :-)



    By todays sounds I mean that they are influenced by all the sounds that came before.Yyou just can't go back in time and re-invent rock 'n' roll. You can try to record the way they used to, but you can't replicate the times or the history of the actual performers who came from a much different place and time. The vibe can never be replicated. It's not their fault, it's just that they come from here and now and not back then.



    But DD, it's all been done before!  Music is like math to me in the sense that: was mathematics invented or discovered by Man?  I'd say discovered.  Were musical notes/chords invented or discovered by Man? Again, IMO discovered.  After 60 years and 100s of thousands of teenagers around the world playing guitar is it credible that any riff is new?

    I understand and agree with the concept that, forgetting perceived "quality", the blank rock'n'roll canvas of the 50s/60s is gone forever.  But I also know that I hate and fight the belief that only poor kids can play proper rock'n'roll.

     

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:



    By todays sounds I mean that they are influenced by all the sounds that came before.Yyou just can't go back in time and re-invent rock 'n' roll. You can try to record the way they used to, but you can't replicate the times or the history of the actual performers who came from a much different place and time. The vibe can never be replicated. It's not their fault, it's just that they come from here and now and not back then.



    But DD, it's all been done before!  Music is like math to me in the sense that: was mathematics invented or discovered by Man?  I'd say discovered.  Were musical notes/chords invented or discovered by Man? Again, IMO discovered.  After 60 years and 100s of thousands of teenagers around the world playing guitar is it credible that any riff is new?

    I understand and agree with the concept that, forgetting perceived "quality", the blank rock'n'roll canvas of the 50s/60s is gone forever.  But I also know that I hate and fight the belief that only poor kids can play proper rock'n'roll.

     



    IMO, math and music came from man and would not exist without man. But that's neither here nor there.

    History creates certain things in our culture that only that time and place can create. Once the time is passed it can never really be recreated. For example, the Ramones were a garage band but they were a garage band with the sound and sensiblities of the times in which they performed and recorded. No one really can escape that. When I hear the Ramones I hear somthing unique which contains the influences of what came before but yet is still different and special because of the particular time and place in which it was created. It's not so much that only poor kids can play rock 'n' roll, it's that music reflects its times and attitudes even as it changes them.

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     



    IMO, math and music came from man and would not exist without man. But that's neither here nor there.

    History creates certain things in our culture that only that time and place can create. Once the time is passed it can never really be recreated. For example, the Ramones were a garage band but they were a garage band with the sound and sensiblities of the times in which they performed and recorded. No one really can escape that. When I hear the Ramones I hear somthing unique which contains the influences of what came before but yet is still different and special because of the particular time and place in which it was created. It's not so much that only poor kids can play rock 'n' roll, it's that music reflects its times and attitudes even as it changes them.



    DD, I couldn't disagree more strongly re math & music.  Is our base-10 counting system a direct result of our 10 digit pair of hands?  Possibly/probably IMO.....but if you were to ask most medium sized English men (say, 175 pounds) how much they weighed they'd say "twelve stone seven"....but most would struggle to say that in pounds.  Because, bizarrely, IMO, the dominant weight measurement in England is base-14.

    Remember when Man invented fire?  I don't.  But who could forget the moment when Richard Berry invented the notes G, C and D minor to create "Louie Louie"?

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     



    IMO, math and music came from man and would not exist without man. But that's neither here nor there.

    History creates certain things in our culture that only that time and place can create. Once the time is passed it can never really be recreated. For example, the Ramones were a garage band but they were a garage band with the sound and sensiblities of the times in which they performed and recorded. No one really can escape that. When I hear the Ramones I hear somthing unique which contains the influences of what came before but yet is still different and special because of the particular time and place in which it was created. It's not so much that only poor kids can play rock 'n' roll, it's that music reflects its times and attitudes even as it changes them.



    DD, I couldn't disagree more strongly re math & music.  Is our base-10 counting system a direct result of our 10 digit pair of hands?  Possibly/probably IMO.....but if you were to ask most medium sized English men (say, 175 pounds) how much they weighed they'd say "twelve stone seven"....but most would struggle to say that in pounds.  Because, bizarrely, IMO, the dominant weight measurement in England is base-14.

    Remember when Man invented fire?  I don't.  But who could forget the moment when Richard Berry invented the notes G, C and D minor to create "Louie Louie"?



    Math is one of the ways man invented to help describe reality, as is music, language, science, etc. These are the descriptive tools we use to attempt to make sense of the universe and everything. Fire exists with or without man. Man's concepts have no reality outside of man. Richard Berry used the musical notes that were invented by man at some point in history. It is all part of the evolution of man and man's brain.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     



    IMO, math and music came from man and would not exist without man. But that's neither here nor there.

    History creates certain things in our culture that only that time and place can create. Once the time is passed it can never really be recreated. For example, the Ramones were a garage band but they were a garage band with the sound and sensiblities of the times in which they performed and recorded. No one really can escape that. When I hear the Ramones I hear somthing unique which contains the influences of what came before but yet is still different and special because of the particular time and place in which it was created. It's not so much that only poor kids can play rock 'n' roll, it's that music reflects its times and attitudes even as it changes them.



    DD, I couldn't disagree more strongly re math & music.  Is our base-10 counting system a direct result of our 10 digit pair of hands?  Possibly/probably IMO.....but if you were to ask most medium sized English men (say, 175 pounds) how much they weighed they'd say "twelve stone seven"....but most would struggle to say that in pounds.  Because, bizarrely, IMO, the dominant weight measurement in England is base-14.

    Remember when Man invented fire?  I don't.  But who could forget the moment when Richard Berry invented the notes G, C and D minor to create "Louie Louie"?



    Math is one of the ways man invented to help describe reality, as is music, language, science, etc. These are the descriptive tools we use to attempt to make sense of the universe and everything. Fire exists with or without man. Man's concepts have no reality outside of man. Richard Berry used the musical notes that were invented by man at some point in history. It is all part of the evolution of man and man's brain.



    I disagree DD....I see math, fire, music, etc. as discoveries not inventions. You wrote "Fire exists with or without man".  I agree, I think it was discovered, not invented.  Who invented the notes C, G, D, and when was the last musical note, IYO, invented?  By whom?

    :-)

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to devildavid's comment:



    I'm sorry mate, I have to strongly disagree...most contemporary bands do as you say, but many don't...and not just the primitive garage punk bands I bore you all about.  ;-)

    There are many very successful bands that deliberately record in analog, and/or in mono, and/or on vintage instruments in studios to tape on only vintage kit:

    • Toe Rag Studios?: White Stripes, Kills, Flaming Stars, Supergrass...
    • Ghetto Recorders?:  White Stripes, Dirtbombs, Fleshtones, Muck and the Mires...
    • Gizzard Recording?:  Mudhoney, Mark Ronson...

    It's all out there.  :-)

     [/QUOTE]

    By todays sounds I mean that they are influenced by all the sounds that came before.Yyou just can't go back in time and re-invent rock 'n' roll. You can try to record the way they used to, but you can't replicate the times or the history of the actual performers who came from a much different place and time. The vibe can never be replicated. It's not their fault, it's just that they come from here and now and not back then.

    Well, you're not talking about just the audio aspect then ... your POV includes the context, the place, the time, the backdrop, as though those elements (now) give the music authenticity for you, or at least "speak" to you in some way.    It's as though you're saying that you can relate to "then" -- and not to "now" because the truth is, there was plenty of crap music (as we've discussed many times) "back then" that you'd have to include in the conversation.  What about the 'vibe' that was lacking in so much of the music that went by the wayside?   

    Too bad we can't give you an audio test of some music that you've never heard, some current, some decades old.   Do you think you could tell the difference in 100% of the samples played?   How would you perceive a 'vibe' if you'd never heard of the band and had no idea who they were?   Of course, maybe you could ... but if the only way you could ID if there was a vibe (or 'authenticity') was if you had knowledge of the band, your logic is a bit flawed.   

    How would you feel if some of the music that you thought was from a bygone era was actually current music, being played by a very current, emerging artist / band?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:



    I'm sorry mate, I have to strongly disagree...most contemporary bands do as you say, but many don't...and not just the primitive garage punk bands I bore you all about.  ;-)

    There are many very successful bands that deliberately record in analog, and/or in mono, and/or on vintage instruments in studios to tape on only vintage kit:

    • Toe Rag Studios?: White Stripes, Kills, Flaming Stars, Supergrass...
    • Ghetto Recorders?:  White Stripes, Dirtbombs, Fleshtones, Muck and the Mires...
    • Gizzard Recording?:  Mudhoney, Mark Ronson...

    It's all out there.  :-)

     [/QUOTE]

    By todays sounds I mean that they are influenced by all the sounds that came before.Yyou just can't go back in time and re-invent rock 'n' roll. You can try to record the way they used to, but you can't replicate the times or the history of the actual performers who came from a much different place and time. The vibe can never be replicated. It's not their fault, it's just that they come from here and now and not back then.

    Well, you're not talking about just the audio aspect then ... your POV includes the context, the place, the time, the backdrop, as though those elements (now) give the music authenticity for you, or at least "speak" to you in some way.    It's as though you're saying that you can relate to "then" -- and not to "now" because the truth is, there was plenty of crap music (as we've discussed many times) "back then" that you'd have to include in the conversation.  What about the 'vibe' that was lacking in so much of the music that went by the wayside?   

    Too bad we can't give you an audio test of some music that you've never heard, some current, some decades old.   Do you think you could tell the difference in 100% of the samples played?   How would you perceive a 'vibe' if you'd never heard of the band and had no idea who they were?   Of course, maybe you could ... but if the only way you could ID if there was a vibe (or 'authenticity') was if you had knowledge of the band, your logic is a bit flawed.   

    How would you feel if some of the music that you thought was from a bygone era was actually current music, being played by a very current, emerging artist / band?



    Well, I suppose I could be fooled. Anything is possible. And yes, every era has good and bad.

    For example, my all-time favorite Howlin' Wolf created great music and at the same time was a product of his times  and history that can never be replicated. He recorded for Chess which gave him a certain sound. The blues has carried on, but it has never sounded the same as this unique individual. All the factors that came together to create the great artist Howlin' Wolf are unique to a particular time and place.

    If I like music, it doesn't matter what time period it came from. I'm only saying that certain types of music happened during certain times and that was part of what created their unique sound. Not that I can't enjoy music from another time period, but every time period creates unique sounds and artists that are never really replicated.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

     



    IMO, math and music came from man and would not exist without man. But that's neither here nor there.

     

    History creates certain things in our culture that only that time and place can create. Once the time is passed it can never really be recreated. For example, the Ramones were a garage band but they were a garage band with the sound and sensiblities of the times in which they performed and recorded. No one really can escape that. When I hear the Ramones I hear somthing unique which contains the influences of what came before but yet is still different and special because of the particular time and place in which it was created. It's not so much that only poor kids can play rock 'n' roll, it's that music reflects its times and attitudes even as it changes them.



    DD, I couldn't disagree more strongly re math & music.  Is our base-10 counting system a direct result of our 10 digit pair of hands?  Possibly/probably IMO.....but if you were to ask most medium sized English men (say, 175 pounds) how much they weighed they'd say "twelve stone seven"....but most would struggle to say that in pounds.  Because, bizarrely, IMO, the dominant weight measurement in England is base-14.

    Remember when Man invented fire?  I don't.  But who could forget the moment when Richard Berry invented the notes G, C and D minor to create "Louie Louie"?



    Math is one of the ways man invented to help describe reality, as is music, language, science, etc. These are the descriptive tools we use to attempt to make sense of the universe and everything. Fire exists with or without man. Man's concepts have no reality outside of man. Richard Berry used the musical notes that were invented by man at some point in history. It is all part of the evolution of man and man's brain.



    I disagree DD....I see math, fire, music, etc. as discoveries not inventions. You wrote "Fire exists with or without man".  I agree, I think it was discovered, not invented.  Who invented the notes C, G, D, and when was the last musical note, IYO, invented?  By whom?

    :-)



    The invention of man's concepts was evolutionary in nature. I can't pinpoint it to an invention time or individual because it wasn't just invented by one individual but developed in social groups. It developed over time as did language, etc. Fire is a thing that is out there in the universe, regardless of man's existance. Music, math, language are inventions of man that do not exist in the universe without man first existing.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:



    IMO, math and music came from man and would not exist without man. But that's neither here nor there.

     

    History creates certain things in our culture that only that time and place can create. Once the time is passed it can never really be recreated. For example, the Ramones were a garage band but they were a garage band with the sound and sensiblities of the times in which they performed and recorded. No one really can escape that. When I hear the Ramones I hear somthing unique which contains the influences of what came before but yet is still different and special because of the particular time and place in which it was created. It's not so much that only poor kids can play rock 'n' roll, it's that music reflects its times and attitudes even as it changes them.



    DD, I couldn't disagree more strongly re math & music.  Is our base-10 counting system a direct result of our 10 digit pair of hands?  Possibly/probably IMO.....but if you were to ask most medium sized English men (say, 175 pounds) how much they weighed they'd say "twelve stone seven"....but most would struggle to say that in pounds.  Because, bizarrely, IMO, the dominant weight measurement in England is base-14.

    Remember when Man invented fire?  I don't.  But who could forget the moment when Richard Berry invented the notes G, C and D minor to create "Louie Louie"?



    Math is one of the ways man invented to help describe reality, as is music, language, science, etc. These are the descriptive tools we use to attempt to make sense of the universe and everything. Fire exists with or without man. Man's concepts have no reality outside of man. Richard Berry used the musical notes that were invented by man at some point in history. It is all part of the evolution of man and man's brain.



    I disagree DD....I see math, fire, music, etc. as discoveries not inventions. You wrote "Fire exists with or without man".  I agree, I think it was discovered, not invented.  Who invented the notes C, G, D, and when was the last musical note, IYO, invented?  By whom?

    :-)



    The invention of man's concepts was evolutionary in nature. I can't pinpoint it to an invention time or individual because it wasn't just invented by one individual but developed in social groups. It developed over time as did language, etc. Fire is a thing that is out there in the universe, regardless of man's existance. Music, math, language are inventions of man that do not exist in the universe without man first existing.



    I hope one day we can have 1 quiet beer and 19 loud ones in Boston and debate things like this.  To me, music, fire and mathematics were discoveries.....language(s) are inventions.

    Cheers, salud, skol....yes, si, da.....just inventions, there are 100s of ways to express ideas through language/sounds.

    How many different results can you imagine from 2 + 2?  

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Is Rock Dying? Agree / disagree? True / false?

    To address the OP, "Rock" died a long overdue yet merciful and, sadly, painful, death on 2 March 1984.  It left no survivors unless one includes the fictional character "Homer Simpson".

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share