I have seen a trend in the music critic world and even among some musicians and producers that the era of Rock & Roll is essentially over. Some of the arguments being made are that Rock & Roll originally grew as an escape path for young who specifically wanted to relate to a mostly anti-establishment form of music (much like Jazz was in the 1950s, but got too complex for simple non-musician youth) which flipped the bird at parents, religion, education, business, and government. It was a rebel calling card, but safe enough as to not cost you a job or scholarship. And it spoke directly to disaffected youth who didn't feel anyone really understood them. It grew with the original audience and new youth audiences were created with new versions of the genre over a 40 year period until, well, it lost that status and the phenomena ended. New rock music generally calls back in feeble attempts to recreate the fire which started the genre, but it fails to ignite its fans with the same devotion and doesn't change lives forever. Instead, the majority of the paying fans for Rock & Roll have become the very sorts of people they rebelled against as youth and swore they would never become and insisted things would be different if they were in charge.
Basically, Rock & Roll (in the common form we acknowledge) lasted from the early 60s (with early innovators starting the path in the 50s) until the mid-90s. By the 2000s it was a echo of the past and while some great music has been created, it is mostly enjoyed by older fans who reminisce about the music of their youth. The rebellion is over and Rock & Roll won. It is so engrained in every aspect of our culture that none of it shocks, none of it worries responsible authorities, and it's grit and power is limited to reminding us of what it did 30 to 60 years ago.
In a similar vein to how we categorize "classical" music genres into periods such as Renaissance (200 years), Baroque (150 years), Classical (80 years), Romantic (80 years) and Twentieth Century (70 years), maybe it is time to start considering the Rock & Roll period (40 to 50 years) as past its prime and now it is nothing more than a common pop culture affectation. That doesn't mean more great music won't get made and that we won't love listening to our favorite music. It is suggesting we stop believing it represents the change it once created and for which it provided the soundtrack.
As an example, here's an old guy ripping out a screaming guitar solo which is pretty good - is he the image of the future, the driver of change, the revolution of youth?
Basically, Rock & Roll (in the common form we acknowledge) lasted from the early 60s (with early innovators starting the path in the 50s) until the mid-90s. By the 2000s it was a echo of the past and while some great music has been created, it is mostly enjoyed by older fans who reminisce about the music of their youth. The rebellion is over and Rock & Roll won. It is so engrained in every aspect of our culture that none of it shocks, none of it worries responsible authorities, and it's grit and power is limited to reminding us of what it did 30 to 60 years ago.
In a similar vein to how we categorize "classical" music genres into periods such as Renaissance (200 years), Baroque (150 years), Classical (80 years), Romantic (80 years) and Twentieth Century (70 years), maybe it is time to start considering the Rock & Roll period (40 to 50 years) as past its prime and now it is nothing more than a common pop culture affectation. That doesn't mean more great music won't get made and that we won't love listening to our favorite music. It is suggesting we stop believing it represents the change it once created and for which it provided the soundtrack.
As an example, here's an old guy ripping out a screaming guitar solo which is pretty good - is he the image of the future, the driver of change, the revolution of youth?
