Rock Music Needs A Kick In The Crotch

Back on topic please.

No.

It's related. And if you have anything to actually contribute that'd encourage discussion, feel free to go ahead without worrying about interrupting people.

edited 29th Apr '12 8:36:23 PM by 0dd1

I'm way late to this discussion, but all I can say is music discussions (or any other discussion involving one's taste in art or media) are kinda... well, inherently pointless, due to the subjective nature of taste. It always comes down to people's personal opinions- and inevitably a few of those with very strong/passionate opinions treat theirs as objective fact and rub people who disagree the wrong way. And thus are flame wars started...

I usually avoid these kinda discussions online for precisely this reason. But, having said that, I can sorta get behind the thesis here, though my opinion is not that Rock music is anywhere close to dead- no genre really is (or, alternately, every genre is dead and kinda always has been... Or genre's another arbitrary thing anyways... Whatever). What Rock music really needs isn't bands/artists making good music- there's a lot of that still (to be fair, there's also a lot that sucks, though that, like all else, is YMMV). What it needs is the equivalent of the 70s Punk Rock or Grunge revolution- something that actually manages to not only shake up Rock music, but effect the mainstream as well. Rock music's not really mainstream anymore...

Though ultimately, IMHO quality's not measured by chart placement, sales or popularity. It all depends on what you think is good. It's all subjective. Except Justin Bieber. He sucks ass...

I'd argue quality could probably be rated by influence. The reason most people cite The Beatles as one of the greatest bands of all time? Because they were the inspiration literally thousands of musicians since they came around (perhaps many more even) and revolutionized the industry with all the toying around they did in the studio and the kind of music they wrote. Doesn't matter if you can't stand listening to them or not—you can at least acknowledge that they're good in the sense that their influence is very far and wide reaching. Your opinion is just whether or not you like something, and you're entitled to like or dislike whatever you want. But it is also good to be conscientious of what is considered influential or important in media. That's where the quality lies, and even if you don't like it, the fact is that it has changed the game.

edited 20th Jan '14 9:41:55 PM by Odd1

As a side note, I'll submit that two separate-but-related things that are hurting rock right now are ProTools and the Loudness War. One reason I can't get into a lot of modern rock bands, aside from boring lyrics and/or irritating singing, is that they tend to fall into the trap of brickwalling and/or sounding like the prechoruses and choruses were copypasted in ProTools. Dammit, I don't want my rock sounding "perfect", I want to hear those changes in enunciation and pitch...I want to know that the singer is putting some genuine emotion into their work and that they're not taking the easy way out. I also want to be able to turn the stereo up to ear-blistering levels when I want to, not turn it down because it feels like my head's getting sledgehammered at volumes that were perfectly comfortable 10 years ago.

edited 21st Jan '14 6:36:53 AM by Willbyr

I don't mind meticulousness in making the songs sound "perfect", so to speak—while I appreciate some good, hard, raw music, even a lot of bands with that kind of sound work pretty meticulously to get the sound they want. You should try looking up how many takes the Beatles would do of their songs and how exact they tried to be with everything, or even with a lot of grunge bands who tried to make sure their music was just polished enough to be unpolished, so to speak. There's always some tinkering behind the scenes at least.

Rock music needs more Big Black's, more Fugazis, more Shellacs.

Maybe rock music's kind of overstayed its welcome.

I mean, it's been 60 years since the music first began; how much more can be done with it? Maybe we should just accept that we've probably exhausted all creative possibilities for rock.

My guess is that Rock music will become like Classical music: various reinterpretations made by various groups/combos/orchestras, with the occasional inovation happening in one or another remarkable artist or one or another experimental area/subgenre.

You talk about music from around the '30s all the time. That seems a bit hypocritical of a position to hold in that light.

Anyway, pointless necro of a thread that's probably not allowed anyway

edited 21st Nov '15 7:51:11 PM by Odd1

Enjoyment of the many great music genres that's been produced over the years doesn't mean some of them don't overstay their welcome. You can appreciate the great things the Beatles brought and still think rock's worn out and dried up.

Rock's been around for 60 years; you'd think all the good ideas would be used up by now. How much can you do with the forms at your disposal? Even if you want to try crossbreeding it with another genre, all those have probably been done too.

Music was best when we were just banging sticks together!

(Slightly) more seriously, most of my favorite crap is modern, but I know next to nothing about music theory so I probably judge it differently.

Good rock is still around, just not on the radio...

I'm tired of everyone saying there's no good rock acts anymore. I know, some people are busy and don't have time to look up more acts, but here, let me give a good list- And, if perhaps not objectively good, they're still rock without a doubt Radio Moscow All Them Witches Cherry Choke Old Blood (A brand spankin' new release, would ya look at that) Greenleaf Clutch

"Rock music has always been subject to Sturgeon General's Law" would be a more fitting title.

I think of it as a bell curve, but a potentially skewed one.

To explain my logic: Theodore Sturgeon was talking about science fiction, which was, at the time, a field saturated with pulp magazines and amateurs. The average quality of amateur and mass production pulp work is going to be lower than that of curated "slick" work, as the glossy magazine trade was known, but by definition there's a lot more of it. However, within the amateur sphere, the far ends of the curve are far more extreme as well: Conventionally "unpublishable" material may be strikingly original and incredibly innovative, unspeakably abysmal in every possible way, or some monstrous chimera with both qualities at once in some capacity.

Mainstream rock is something of a dying art, at least in its current incarnation, and yet heavily curated by a record industry somewhat disconnected from independent trends and innovations. As you go further down, there are fewer gatekeepers, and once you ditch the mainstream entirely, chaos reigns.

I can get that but I think the explanation is much simpler; namely that as individuals crafted by our own unique experiences and lifestyles, we tend to grow more particular with time and as that happens, we naturally get pickier and more jaded. Realistically, nobody is ever going to like 90% of a genre as much as maybe the 10% that click with them personally, ignoring the massive swathes of bands that either don't click or that they will never bother finding the time to check out. Hell, all you need to do is go to a Russian metal filesharing site or rateyourmusic and run through a whole genre year by year and you'll pile up bands you'll be glad time had forgotten very quickly.