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