| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: April 10 2009 at 21:38 |
Rock (& Roll) Music has been fragmented since the 1950s and has always been associated with one youth subculture or another - what has become more fragmented is not necessarily the music genres, but the subcultures that adopt the music as their anthem have become less defined - the music is less exclusive than it once was and the subcultures are less selective about what they listen to. This, I believe, is more like the situation in the 1970s.
What is, and what is not, "popular" was once dictated by the relative popularity of those subcultures within the youth population (Teds, Greasers, Mods, Rockers, Hippies, Freaks, Skins etc.) - Conversely Prog was popular in the 70s because the youth scene at that time was receptive to it even though there wasn't a distinct subculture to support it - Prog was probably the only music movement where the 'subculture' was the music and not the dress-code. It was popular because the alternatives were unattractive to "single-white-teenage males" and the Mainstream was too 'safe' and too far removed from youth music.
That balance tipped back in the 80s, kick-started by Punk, which provided a complete package, with an ideology and identity that those people could connect with, relate to and buy into (ironically for a movement whose battle cry was I, Individual), and although it never became mainstream, it spurned a whole range of styles that were and lead to an increase in music-related subcultures that lasted well into the 1990s.
Now, youth no longer holds dominion over what is popular - the album charts reflect more what older people are buying than any measure of what the latest youth movement is and the Mainstream is less clearly defined now than the underground music scene because of that, the people that buy it are not of a fixed demographic and do not belong to a specific subculture - they simply buy what they like. It is not so much fragmentation than dilution - now buying trends are governed more by Amazon availability and recommendations than chart position - the buying public will pick and chose from a broader selection of music. The predominant feature of that particular demographic is they are not early adopters, they are buying what they are use to and not exploring new music - that is still the prerogative of teenagers and slightly older youths (ie anyone between 10 and 30).
So, the point I'm getting to is that the future of Rock and Roll (as we define it) is not dictated so much by the music industry or even album sales and popularity, but by the teenagers that buy into it, and they have an amazing knack of rebelling, rejecting trends and going against the swim. Over a short time period successive generations give the impression that they are adopting the music as it evolves but that is because there is no defined break between generations - the whole concept of generations is artificial - my "generation" spanned Psychedelia, Prog, Glam, Punk, New Wave, NWOBHM, New Romantic, Neo Prog and Goth. Music evolves in steps, often driven by technology or social change, any musician who produces music for a specific subculture or genre is an evolutionary throw-back, they may be the present, but they're not going to be the future of music.
At the moment those future teenagers who will be setting the future trends currently think that 'The Wheels On The Bus' is a pretty good song, we have no way of predicting what they will latch onto and adopt as their own.
|
|
What?
|
 |
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 18:47 |
 Negoba wrote:
Henry,
You crack me up. |
I try.
| My original point stands...it depends on what you count as rock. |
Then what are you counting as rock?
| In 1980 nothing resembling Gojira existed. In 1980 nothing resembling Maps and Atlases existed. But those bands do stand on the shoulders of musicians from those times who stand on early rockers who stand on country blues artists prior to electric instruments. |
I wasn't disputing that. But since nobody seems to be understanding each other at this point, I took that to mean that nothing interesting has happened in the past 30 years (which is a view some legitimately share, just talk to WalterDigsTunes), not that anyone is completely free of any influences/theft.
| BTW, it was the Stones Henry. |
Yeah, after I posted it I realized I got it wrong. But he can still be making fun of them, they're almost as bad as KISS.
Toaster Mantis wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
You're viewing it from the wrong angle, this generation hasn't produced any group as popular as Floyd or Zeppelin because the music scene has fragmented tremendously. |
Actually, that's exactly what I meant to say: Today's generation of rock musicians mostly write music meant to be exclusively by and for small subcultures, which is the result of a process that began in the 1980s and doesn't look like it's slowing down. 
I might have formulated it in a long-winded way that was a bit hard to piece together. However, that was because I wanted to cut everything out in cardboard and provide a detailed explanation only for the whole OP to take much longer to write than I had expected, so I rushed the conclusion a bit.  |
Huh, I thought you were talking about the evil labels and kids these days. I would attribute the fragmentation to the increasing availability of music that the labels and musicians are acting in response to. Which maybe is what you are saying?
By the way, while I admit that Ornette Coleman isn't on a major label anymore, The Mars Volta, Mr Bungle, and Boredoms are.
Edited by Henry Plainview - April 10 2009 at 18:57
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
mr.cub
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2009
Location: Lexington, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 971
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 11:45 |
I believe what Daltrey was trying to say was that at that point in time, their was really nothing new The Who could produce. It was probably more an assessment of his own band than it was of rock music in general. Listen to Who Are You and you get lyrical themes from Townsend about the inevitability of complacent and rehashed ideas. Moon's death only quickened the inevitable for The Who. For the next 5 years they really went through the motions with no purpose other than playing in Moonie's memory.
As for the future of rock...well I have high hopes. And that fact that it will not be as popular as it once was only makes it more appealing. The artist will only become more honest and sincere as he will know his audience. Hence better music for all of us...but as you mention Mantis, it could work out for the worst in such a situation
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 08:29 |
Henry,
You crack me up.
My original point stands...it depends on what you count as rock.
All art depends on the artists before it. That doesn't detract from it. Just because Daltrey got old enough to see it just shows his arrogance. Did he think he was doing anything more original than any other generation? Certainly he wasn't.
In 1980 nothing resembling Gojira existed. In 1980 nothing resembling Maps and Atlases existed. But those bands do stand on the shoulders of musicians from those times who stand on early rockers who stand on country blues artists prior to electric instruments.
It is a common blindness to dismiss the creativity of those both older and younger than ourselves.
BTW, it was the Stones Henry.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Mandrakeroot
Forum Senior Member
Italian Prog Specialist
Joined: March 01 2006
Location: San Foca, Friûl
Status: Offline
Points: 5851
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 08:21 |
|
Lacuna Coil are very popular in MTV Italy and ALL Music (another Italian musical TV)... But is this a merit?
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 03:03 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
You're viewing it from the wrong angle, this generation hasn't produced any group as popular as Floyd or Zeppelin because the music scene has fragmented tremendously. |
Actually, that's exactly what I meant to say: Today's generation of rock musicians mostly write music meant to be exclusively by and for small subcultures, which is the result of a process that began in the 1980s and doesn't look like it's slowing down.  I might have formulated it in a long-winded way that was a bit hard to piece together. However, that was because I wanted to cut everything out in cardboard and provide a detailed explanation only for the whole OP to take much longer to write than I had expected, so I rushed the conclusion a bit. 
|
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
Keltic
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 06 2009
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 69
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 02:11 |
Nirvanna, like Oasis and many, many others, borrowed ( nay, make that stole ) indiscriminately from other artists. Even Kurt Cobain admitted as such.
It's hardly news. They all do it and will continue to do it.
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 01:50 |
Oh, and I question the OP's assertion that guitars are dying (not that I would care, guitars suck, F*** FRETS MAN REAL MUSICIANS DO IT BY EAR!). You're viewing it from the wrong angle, this generation hasn't produced any group as popular as Floyd or Zeppelin because the music scene has fragmented tremendously. But there's still all those alt-rock/mainstream rock groups I won't bother naming.
Keltic wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
Keltic wrote:
As for the topic itself - Roger Daltrey summed it up nearly three decades ago when he said that everything that will be been done in rock music has been done and what we'll get in the future is just a re-hashing of ideas and styles.
How right he was. |
That was a stupid thing for him to say, and if you agree with that you haven't been paying attention. |
Oh such a plain view, Henry ! 
Yes, I do agree with him , and yes, I was paying attention. |
Maybe you think you have, but if you think nothing has been done since 1979, you haven't, and I'm speaking purely from an objective standpoint here. Unless you're talking about popular music, but even then, no, Nirvana does not sound like Zeppelin.
Edited by Henry Plainview - April 10 2009 at 02:00
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
Keltic
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 06 2009
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 69
|
Posted: April 10 2009 at 01:48 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
Keltic wrote:
As for the topic itself - Roger Daltrey summed it up nearly three decades ago when he said that everything that will be been done in rock music has been done and what we'll get in the future is just a re-hashing of ideas and styles.
How right he was. |
That was a stupid thing for him to say, and if you agree with that you haven't been paying attention. |
Oh such a plain view, Henry !
Yes, I do agree with him , and yes, I was paying attention.
Oh and Toaster, old sock, Daltrey was right then as he is now. For rock, read all popular music. Whether it's Can, Canned Heat or Caravan; The Stranglers, The Sex Pistols or OMD; Frank Zappa or Rufus Wainwright and beyond, the basic premise is the same - it's all just a variation and re-gurgitation of old themes which have preceded them.
Take our beloved prog rock, for instance. How progressive is it really ? Come on, think about it - Throw in some classical music, with a touch of rock, add a pinch of folk, a smithering of r n b, a hint of blues ( you get the picture ); mix it up, then re-arrange it a bit, drag out the mellotron, synthesizers, bass pedals, and off you jolly well go. Next thing you know, you are called YES or ELP, or some other band name with a three letter title.
So, you see, in effect, old Roge was right. 
Edited by Keltic - April 10 2009 at 02:05
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: April 09 2009 at 23:47 |
I think rock as in heavy, guitar based music will still be popular for some time. It will probably cede ground to electronica as the genre of choice in the mainstream but it will still find an audience, mainly the youth. Think about it, people still haven't quite found a way to give the electronic stuff the sheer - um, for want of a better word - sex appeal of the electric guitar. I am generalizing sure but take a look at little kids playing air guitar with that badass look on their faces  , so you see why rock still has the capacity to survive in the mainstream. Whether it will be any good though is a matter of preferences and tastes. I have started taking interested in contemporary electronic based prog because I don't find much new on offer in modern rock based prog, from MY perspective, anyway. But it takes a long time and a lot of music just to get to that point, so I am not representative of the mainstream audience.
However, I do think the potential to make interesting, challenging rock music with mainstream appeal is on the wane. Though I am not personally fond of Nirvana's music, at least one good thing Cobain achieved with Nevermind was to arrest the increasing corporatisation and genre-fication of rock music, where rock was all about super-involved guitar gymnastics and huge stadiums and to hell with that rebellious attitude, and after that I don't think anybody else has made a similar impact in mainstream rock again. That was the last time the labels really took a punt on an unpredictable, "dangerous" band and it worked bigtime for them, we haven't seen anything like that again for a long while now.
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: April 09 2009 at 21:56 |
Rock is never going to stop being one of the dominant forces in popular music, but even if it were, I don't care, let it burn. It wasn't much better back in the '70s anyway.
Negoba wrote:
When Peter Gabriel sings 'It's only rock n' roll but I like it" at the end of the Lamb, already it's irony because the music had more in common with classical music, jazz, and theater than rock. |
I haven't heard all of The Lamb, but I would strongly disagree with the last part of your statement, and theater is not a genre. :/ But I would be happy to listen to a song that you think is closer to jazz or classical than rock. I am pretty sure he's just making fun of KISS.
Keltic wrote:
As for the topic itself - Roger Daltrey summed it up nearly three decades ago when he said that everything that will be been done in rock music has been done and what we'll get in the future is just a re-hashing of ideas and styles.
How right he was. |
That was a stupid thing for him to say, and if you agree with that you haven't been paying attention.
Edited by Henry Plainview - April 09 2009 at 22:00
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
|
Posted: April 09 2009 at 15:27 |
Keltic wrote:
As for the topic itself - Roger Daltrey summed it up nearly three decades ago when he said that everything that will be been done in rock music has been done and what we'll get in the future is just a re-hashing of ideas and styles.
How right he was. |
Nearly 3 decades ago? That'd be 1980 or so... and that statement only makes sense if you really, really generalize or count the most fringey rock subgenres as not really rock. (and to be fair, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, the further-out parts of for example metal don't have much to do with traditional rock'n'roll) Then again, as early as the late 1960s you had stuff like Can and Mothers of Invention not sounding much like ordinary rock music but still widely accepted, even to this day, as rock, so... yeah. Not sure if I'm buying Mr. Daltrey's argument.
|
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
Keltic
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 06 2009
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 69
|
Posted: April 09 2009 at 06:36 |
Negoba wrote:
When Peter Gabriel sings 'It's only rock n' roll but I like it" at the end of the Lamb, already it's irony because the music had more in common with classical music, jazz, and theater than rock.
|
He doesn't sing that.
What he actually sings is, "It's only knock 'n' knowall but I like IT ! "
IT was Gabriel having a subtle swipe at the music press and more importantly, the critics of Genesis' music and prog rock in general - " If you think that IT's pretentious, you've been taken for a ride; look across the mirror sonny, before you choose, decide. "
As for the topic itself - Roger Daltrey summed it up nearly three decades ago when he said that everything that will be been done in rock music has been done and what we'll get in the future is just a re-hashing of ideas and styles.
How right he was.
Edited by Keltic - April 09 2009 at 06:36
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
|
Posted: April 09 2009 at 05:20 |
npjnpj wrote:
How popular it gets will depend entirely on whether anyone can figure out how to make big bucks out of it. |
I disagree. As ineptly run as the bigger record labels are today, even if they got their act together the entire independent label infrastructure (including internet distros) and the DIY attitude among rock artists are so well entrenched that it's limited how big a slice of the pie the big labels can get. Today's generation of underground rock musicians have it on their backbone that it's better to have 500 fans who fully understand your music than 500,000 who don't and the best career path is to stay on labels too small to financially get away with screwing you over. Those who don't are exceptions, and have been becoming fewer and fewer. As for why the exceptions are shrinking in number? You have to remember the case of the Melvins. They signed to Atlantic Records around 1993. They got Kurt Cobain to serve as producer on their Houdini album and even that didn't get them many more fans for a very simple reason: Their signature style, as flexible as it is, happens to be too damn surreal to make much sense to people who aren't dedicated enough listeners to also go out of their way to buy their favourite music through mail order and specialist shops in the other side of the country. So, it didn't take long before the Melvins retreated back into the independent label circuit. In the end it didn't make much difference for their popularity.
|
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: April 09 2009 at 04:21 |
There will always be enough people around to produce good (in our sense?) music.
How popular it gets will depend entirely on whether anyone can figure out how to make big bucks out of it.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65251
|
Posted: April 09 2009 at 02:44 |
|
AC/DC
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
|
Posted: April 09 2009 at 02:38 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Your second point seems to just be a preference related to timbre that will probably cycle over time, but in regards to your second point, the same kinda of thing already happened in the mid 20th century with "classical" music. |
That's a good observation, really. I didn't really make the connect, but it's relevant. Maybe we'll see something like the 1960s folk music revival, but with rock instead?
| And the respond would be who cares? As Milton Babbitt said much better than I can in his essay "Who Cares If You Listen?" it is not necessarily conducive to the composer or the music that it have a wide audience. |
Of course not. I said earlier in the threat that it could be a good thing that rock is becoming an underground genre like how it started, but at this point in rock history I'm not at all sure.
|
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: April 08 2009 at 16:03 |
The death of rock n' roll has been yelled from the rooftops for decades now. But most of "Rock Music" is only related to rock n' roll in its forebearers, and it's been that way for awhile.
When Peter Gabriel sings 'It's only rock n' roll but I like it" at the end of the Lamb, already it's irony because the music had more in common with classical music, jazz, and theater than rock.
The electric guitar, bass, and trapset as standard instruments are the only thing that really connects Buddy Holly with Opeth. And that combo is still going as strong as it has since the early 70's when prog brought keys more to the forefront.
Obviously, that combo is not going to be the basis of popular music forever, but I don't see it any less now than during the computer / key craze of the 80's.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: April 08 2009 at 15:42 |
|
Your second point seems to just be a preference related to timbre that will probably cycle over time, but in regards to your second point, the same kinda of thing already happened in the mid 20th century with "classical" music.
And the respond would be who cares? As Milton Babbitt said much better than I can in his essay "Who Cares If You Listen?" it is not necessarily conducive to the composer or the music that it have a wide audience.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
DJPuffyLemon
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 18 2008
Location: L
Status: Offline
Points: 520
|
Posted: April 08 2009 at 14:56 |
We need to wait for about 20-30 years to be able to see whether this is right, as its only now that we are realizing that some bands from the 70s and 80s are still popular.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Future of Rock Music
