Is it finally time to declare the Rock and Roll era over?
- Thread starter Flint
- Start date
And we've talked about that. All music is based on the artists of the past, even the seemingly brilliantly creative stuff flowed freely in the 60s and 70s. But music is no longer as critical to the human experience as it was back then. Think about it - in 1974, aside from music (LP, 8-Track, and Radio), a teen or young adult has access to 4 to 6 TV channels (depending on where they lived), a few local events, and books anywhere from 3 to 6 movie theater screens, and magazines. There was no internet, no video gaming, or much of anything else to do besides talk, take drugs or just hang around. Individuals needed music as an escape and outlet. They had free time, they had a little money and for the most part they were not pressed to help the family survive. By the 1980s we had video games, the early days of computers, and dozens to a hundred TV channels in addition to the things above. Megaplex cinemas were being built, movie budgets were growing exponentially and more movies were being released every year, and more kids were in situations where they could drive almost anywhere they wanted, within reason.
Today there is no limit to the number of things to occupy a young adult's attention - and in fact most of us are very easily bored and need multiple simultaneous sources of stimulation. I see people staring at their handheld screen at the same time they are listening to music, watching TV or movie, or attending live performances. This is a new time - how can anyone become one with a rock recording when they are only partially paying attention to any of the music they listen to anymore.
I keep pondering why the last Van Halen album wasn't the biggest album made in the past 20 years. It was everything all the Van Halen fans claimed they wanted since David Lee Roth left the band, yet no one cared and it sold surprisingly poorly and far fewer copies than the label and marketers expected. When I talk to Van Halen fans, most didn't even know it came out and those who did gave a listen, liked it, but didn't really need more Van Halen music in their lives - not really. They were glad it came out, but it didn't mean anything in the current cultural environment.
So, while I am writing about the "death of Rock and Roll", in many ways I am writing about the death of music which the young adults soak into their souls and which influences them for the rest of their lives. Rock used to play that role. Hip Hop and Rap started out playing that role, but it was quickly appropriated by suburban whites who thought it was written about them, but it was a fantasy of imagined suffering and lack of position those white kids were missing in their opulent and easy lives.
Today it seems the young adults are more moved by participating in the political world of global warming activism, cancel culture and "wokeness" more than much else. That's why I claim "EDM" is the only music truly moving a generation. It isn't because EDM is as powerful as Rock was, but it is the only music that seems to be really impacting people.
Xgm3
Active Member
I really liked that Van Halen album. I listened to it for like a month straight and saw them on the Tour. I still listen to it every once in awhile.
Yeah, I loved it, too. We are among the million or so fans who loved it. They expected it to sell by the tens of millions on release day and there would be a few hits on the billboard charts.
Here's another argument supporting the death of rock music...
I've noticed a trend in shows and podcasts relating to the history of rock and roll. There is a huge nostalgia movement going on right now as there are massive numbers of shows, podcasts, both professional and amateur documentaries, and such based on the topic of rock and roll and the musicians and stories of the past rock era. That alone could be proof the era of rock & roll is over as we are emotionally gobbling up anything pertaining to the history of the period.
But, here's where I think it gets more poignant....
These productions rarely, if ever, play entire full-length versions of the very music they spend hours talking about. I saw an official documentary about Jethro Tull's breakout "Living in the Past" single and over the course of the 42 minute show, not once did they play the entire song. It was all talking, with photo montages, archival and current interviews, and random celebrities talking about the period or music.
In the 1980s a radio program designed as a expose on a band or album (often broadcast on Sunday morning or evening) was mostly the music - full-length songs - with interviews and historical stories presented between the songs. Generally most of the hour, or two, program was music - not talking.
My belief that the art follows the audience tastes, this new way of "experiencing" rock and roll, which is about stories and not music, is a reflection of what WE want from Rock and Roll. We've heard the music, the impact was made, and it doesn't touch us the way it did back then, so we want to re-experience it through learning about the people, period and events that created it and how it impacted the world.
I am convinced, though my sample sizes are far to small to say this definitively, that current rock lovers rarely listen to music the way they did when they discovered and loved it. Instead, in the modern culture over-populated with entertainment content AND hobbies which occupy our expanding free time, we just put on the music in the background and have tiny moments of "I remember this song - I love it!" instead of setting aside 45 minutes to an hour to sit down and only listen to an album.
Even my turntable loving friends show no signs of actually sitting and listening to full albums. Instead, from what I've observed, they play one track off one LP, then another off another, and so on, to experience their rigs during "serious listening sessions." The only time they play full albums is when they put on some music while doing dishes, cleaning up, or finishing off the daily work emails.
Rock, as we knew it as kids, is dead. It is still a major influence on our lives, but now that influence is in the form ghosts we revisit in our lives.
I've noticed a trend in shows and podcasts relating to the history of rock and roll. There is a huge nostalgia movement going on right now as there are massive numbers of shows, podcasts, both professional and amateur documentaries, and such based on the topic of rock and roll and the musicians and stories of the past rock era. That alone could be proof the era of rock & roll is over as we are emotionally gobbling up anything pertaining to the history of the period.
But, here's where I think it gets more poignant....
These productions rarely, if ever, play entire full-length versions of the very music they spend hours talking about. I saw an official documentary about Jethro Tull's breakout "Living in the Past" single and over the course of the 42 minute show, not once did they play the entire song. It was all talking, with photo montages, archival and current interviews, and random celebrities talking about the period or music.
In the 1980s a radio program designed as a expose on a band or album (often broadcast on Sunday morning or evening) was mostly the music - full-length songs - with interviews and historical stories presented between the songs. Generally most of the hour, or two, program was music - not talking.
My belief that the art follows the audience tastes, this new way of "experiencing" rock and roll, which is about stories and not music, is a reflection of what WE want from Rock and Roll. We've heard the music, the impact was made, and it doesn't touch us the way it did back then, so we want to re-experience it through learning about the people, period and events that created it and how it impacted the world.
I am convinced, though my sample sizes are far to small to say this definitively, that current rock lovers rarely listen to music the way they did when they discovered and loved it. Instead, in the modern culture over-populated with entertainment content AND hobbies which occupy our expanding free time, we just put on the music in the background and have tiny moments of "I remember this song - I love it!" instead of setting aside 45 minutes to an hour to sit down and only listen to an album.
Even my turntable loving friends show no signs of actually sitting and listening to full albums. Instead, from what I've observed, they play one track off one LP, then another off another, and so on, to experience their rigs during "serious listening sessions." The only time they play full albums is when they put on some music while doing dishes, cleaning up, or finishing off the daily work emails.
Rock, as we knew it as kids, is dead. It is still a major influence on our lives, but now that influence is in the form ghosts we revisit in our lives.
I think that could be said of music as a whole right now. Even the stuff that is current and popular is background noise. I do not know any younger people who sit down and listen to an album of any kind of music. Perhaps it is not that rock is dead so much that music as a stand-alone experience is dead, outside of concerts.
I was talking to some local austin musicians last week and they were telling me that their club gigs have turned into jukebox shows. People go out of their way to go see a specific band, then the sit in groups shouting at one another through the majority of the performance. From time to time the band will start a song one group or another "loves" and that group will leap up and demand the band pjay louder and sing along and dance. After that song ends, the sit back down and proceed yelling over the music at each other in conversation.
Yet another exhibit that Rock is dead -
Here's a group of extremely talented musicians dedicated to perfectly recreating the music of the Beatles performing to a bunch of people who likely bought this album the day it was released.
They are incredibly good at imitating the sound and performances of the Beatles and people are paying good money to see them. The Analogues have their own Wikipedia page and legally license the music without issue.
This sort of thing is becoming more and more common. It looks, to me, almost identical to how we enjoy classical music, and big band music, and straight ahead and piano jazz music, and other such genres which "died" decades or centuries ago.
Here's a group of extremely talented musicians dedicated to perfectly recreating the music of the Beatles performing to a bunch of people who likely bought this album the day it was released.
They are incredibly good at imitating the sound and performances of the Beatles and people are paying good money to see them. The Analogues have their own Wikipedia page and legally license the music without issue.
This sort of thing is becoming more and more common. It looks, to me, almost identical to how we enjoy classical music, and big band music, and straight ahead and piano jazz music, and other such genres which "died" decades or centuries ago.
I had to drive yesterday morning to pick up the grandson, and the local radio station was doing this year in rock, which happened to be 1969. I don't remember which song it was, but it was by the Who, and it got me thinking, Bill Hailey and the Comets had their hit only 15 or 17 years before that, and the Who were drastically different than them. Rock progressed so rapidly during that time and to look at what it was 17 years ago from now, maybe it is dead, or at least stagnant.
Another bit of evidence that Rock & Roll has died...
In a debate with a good friend about the death of RnR, he sent me a link to the video below:
This guy does an amazing job of recording a cover of Jethro Tull's brilliant "Nothing is Easy," making a note for note copy of the original. Every sound, every instrument, every mistake, even. That's great, I love hearing it, but I also own the original version and can listen to it anytime I want, and I often do.
So, what's the point? It takes zero creativity to copy someone else. He doesn't break any new ground in his playing, performance, or emotions. Basically, he recreated a great piece of rock and roll history, and he did it very well. Good for him.
Now, in another 20 years, or more, when the newness of discovery is gone, someone doing a great cover of a classic song might be of artistic value, the same way huge productions of The Ring Cycle or the 1812 Overture are of artistic value.
In a debate with a good friend about the death of RnR, he sent me a link to the video below:
This guy does an amazing job of recording a cover of Jethro Tull's brilliant "Nothing is Easy," making a note for note copy of the original. Every sound, every instrument, every mistake, even. That's great, I love hearing it, but I also own the original version and can listen to it anytime I want, and I often do.
So, what's the point? It takes zero creativity to copy someone else. He doesn't break any new ground in his playing, performance, or emotions. Basically, he recreated a great piece of rock and roll history, and he did it very well. Good for him.
Now, in another 20 years, or more, when the newness of discovery is gone, someone doing a great cover of a classic song might be of artistic value, the same way huge productions of The Ring Cycle or the 1812 Overture are of artistic value.
Well, suppose you and I differ on opinions. I don't want to see someone's artistic recreation of a cover. Cover the cover in its purest form and pay homage to the song that you loved enough to cover.
I don't even like it when artists change their own songs. I saw John Waite a few years back and he had COMPLETELY rearranged all of the songs I went to hear. I hated it.
CMonster
Well-Known Member
I think Flint's point was this guy has talent but he's "wasting" it on performing a perfect cover instead of creating something new and original.
Here's a cover you'll hate:
Why bother making a cover at all if ut is an exact duplicate of the readily available original?
I mean, that Johnny Cash cover album was a far cry from the originals, yet it was one of the best albums released that year.
Once again, paying homage to the original. Why not put your own artistic twist on the Star Spangled Banner, Roseanne did and that turned out well.
I am merely stating my preference. I like brussel sprouts and cauliflower too.
In your opinion? I didn't care for it. And, I like Johnny Cash. I grew up listening to Johnny Cash.
I simply don't see someone making a cover that is true to the original being justification for Rock and Roll being dead. That's all.
I understood his point and I respect his opinion. I just don't think that negates mine.
Didn't hate it at all. Now, Mumford and Sons on the other hand.
And, that cover wasn't a great departure form the original. I think she did a pretty good job.
This isn't a debate about you being right or wrong. This is just a debate that is fun to talk about. I don't want to prove you wrong, I want to debate with you in a pleasant way. We are debating, not fighting. And it would be really boring if we suddenly agree and have nothing to talk about anymore.
I love and sometimes hate covers.................
But, we do have a thread for that:
But, we do have a thread for that: