Is Rock and Roll Dead???

[sempai]

Rock and roll was dead before it began.
Never had a chance.

The very best rock and roll has to offer doesn't stand a ghost of a chance when pitted against truly great art.

I quote Glen Gould.

"Their's [the Beatles'] is a happy, cocky, belligerently resourceless brand of harmonic primitivism... In the Liverpudlian repertoire, the indulgent amateurishness of the musical material, though closely rivaled by the indifference of the performing style, is actually surpassed only by the ineptitude of the studio production method. (Strawberry Fields suggests a chance encounter at a mountain wedding between Claudio Monteverdi and a jug band.)"


More than 200 years after Beethoven's death we still know, perform and celebrate his magnificent compositions.

Can we say the same about "I Want To Hold Your Hand"
Or " (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction"

I think not.

At best rock will be a very short footnote in music history.

Art

 

[Tom Brennan]

You create a false dilemma Sempai. Rock and Roll doesn't have to be as important as Classical to be important and it doesn't have to be as good as Classical to be good.

And to say it was dead before it began is frankly nonsensical; you imply it never existed and it obviously does.

When I sit at my piano sometimes I play Beethoven and sometimes I play Danny and the Juniors.

 

[sempai]

Well, President Obama just honored Led Zeppelin and Buddy Guy at the Kennedy Center over the weekend.

Will any of today's youngsters receive such tribute in the future? I'm kinda doubting it, mainly for a lot of the reasons already cited.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/...-zeppelin-at-kennedy-center-event-150852.html

British rock at it's peak was rife with plagiarism
Case in point.
Whole Lotta Love.
In 1962 Muddy Waters recorded "You Need Love", written for him by Willie Dixon.
In 1985 the case against Led Zepp was settled in favour of Willie Dixon.

Shame on Jimmy Page for stealing and then denying any guilt.
He doesn't deserve such an honour.
And certainly not along side Buddy Guy.

And it wasn't just the Brits.
White rock artists starting way back with Elvis were all guilty.

Art

 

[tubed]

British rock at it's peak was rife with plagiarism
Case in point.
Whole Lotta Love.
In 1962 Muddy Waters recorded "You Need Love", written for him by Willie Dixon.
In 1985 the case against Led Zepp was settled in favour of Willie Dixon.

Shame on Jimmy Page for stealing and then denying any guilt.
He doesn't deserve such an honour.
And certainly not along side Buddy Guy.

And it wasn't just the Brits.
White rock artists starting way back with Elvis were all guilty.

Art

How naive.

 

[sempai]

How naive.

The naivety is on the part of the public who have no knowledge of the history of American music.

Jimmy Page thought Willie Dixon was a naive uneducated black man in the southern states somewhere who would never catch on to his plagiarism.

Jimmy thought he would never have to pay Willie any royalties.
That's naive.

Art

 

[tubed]

The naivety is on the part of the public who have no knowledge of the history of American music.

Jimmy Page thought Willie Dixon was a naive uneducated black man in the southern states somewhere who would never catch on to his plagiarism.

Jimmy thought he would never have to pay Willie any royalties.
That's naive.

Art

I meant naive in nice youthful way

 

[sempai]

I meant naive in nice youthful way

So kind of you to refer to a gray haired, crotchety old b***tard as youthful.

Art

 

[richmu]

As much as liked led zeppelin, the bad woman wronged good man lyrics got a bit tiresome after a while. And don't get me started about that Stairway to Heaven abomination- although i felt they more than redeemed themselves with Physical Graffiti. We sure listened to some crap- Ted Nugent, Eagles, Journey, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, some garbage I only remember as Dog Man Soldier, Golden Earring, ZZ Top, Grand Funk Railroad and whole heap of tiresome and trite jazz fusion like Bob James and Dave Grusen.

That said, just like today there were some $&@)ing great bands like Ten Years After, Roxy Music, Joni Mitchell and LA Express, Little Feat , Blue Oyster Cult and probably Supertramp.

To those that say rock is dead- what bands are you basing that assertion on? I not a fan of Muse, Kings of Leon or The Strokes either.

I better stop posting. I'm a bit snappy after being forced to cull my music collection.

 

[beginnersluk]

Well again everything comes down to individual taste, personally I think its unfair to generalize too much on music and there is simply too much variety...this is coming from someones who's shuffle list just went from savoy brown, to kesha, to journey, to johnny cash... etc etc

 

[Rapidan]

Glen Gould was crazier than a ****-house rat. Quoting that "rock music is the decline of civilization, now get off my lawn" sort of crap (from 40 years ago) makes me feel like -

ROCK & ROLL IS ALIVE!!!!!

And it is alive in spite of Steeleye Span, Led Zeppelin in tuxes, Skittle Music (stupid candy companies co-opting our music!) and all the other forces ( money and the music industry) which have conspired to kill it.

Classical has mainly provided a template for the AOR jukebox rock so many enjoy today. Take the same 100 pieces, play endlessly, repeat. Rather than using past forms as a springboard for creating new art, idolize a handful of performers and composers and compare them unfavorably to what comes after.

Rock and roll was dead before it began.
Never had a chance.

The very best rock and roll has to offer doesn't stand a ghost of a chance when pitted against truly great art.

I quote Glen Gould.

"Their's [the Beatles'] is a happy, cocky, belligerently resourceless brand of harmonic primitivism... In the Liverpudlian repertoire, the indulgent amateurishness of the musical material, though closely rivaled by the indifference of the performing style, is actually surpassed only by the ineptitude of the studio production method. (Strawberry Fields suggests a chance encounter at a mountain wedding between Claudio Monteverdi and a jug band.)"


More than 200 years after Beethoven's death we still know, perform and celebrate his magnificent compositions.

Can we say the same about "I Want To Hold Your Hand"
Or " (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction"

I think not.

At best rock will be a very short footnote in music history.

Art

 

[zebra03]

The big problem is getting exposed to new music that you like . I really enjoy prog and there is a bunch of new bands that I really like .

Rock is not dead .

 

[Notnilc]

Shinedown would be the next Rock and Roll band that is huge. They sell a million albums still today. They may not be the typical rock and roll band but they're damn close.

 

[Theo Simon]

The big problem is getting exposed to new music that you like . I really enjoy prog and there is a bunch of new bands that I really like .

Rock is not dead .

The trouble with most 'rock' is that it is too simple, for me.

The Italian prog stuff is more to my taste.

 

[Doc Zinger]

It's exactly that time!

Actually, all that I was going to say is that music is consumed differently now, and those who are the types that really would have been into the Stones in the past, now have a hundred indie bands to choose from instead of just the Beatles or The Stones to fight over. And because everybody's taste is a bit different, everybody gets their own band. That's part of indie's charm, and part of its curse. The shared culture of a giant band is missing, but you get to have this thing that is almost exactly to your taste, and shared with just a few people. A lot of bands today aren't in it to fill stadiums (though they probably wouldn't mind). They're happy with a small cult following.

I love the Stones but I don't know that we'll ever see anything like them, or Zeppelin, or The Beatles phenomenon again. Music consumption is different, music itself takes up less of a share of the cultural pie (video game franchises are the youth hits of today, and I don't say that with derision, its just something else to be into and they're very well done).

But yeah, I will say that you can't look at 2012 through the lens of 1972 and find anything like that. It ain't dead, its gone into hiding.

After being off the net for over a week due to a break down (it sucked) I come back to this 20+ page thread, one had to decide weither to slog through it or not. Thanks to the bright inteiligent guys on this forum it had been a great read, some great posts, ideas, and info, thanks.

But, had to add my 2 cents too. I've experienced what John describes, following a group new to me that's not on the mainstream public's awareness but never the less has a siginicant following online and plays alot of small venues, clubs, and festivals. Grace Potter, she and her band haven't made it big but have used the not so main stream route of being able to make a enough of a living that they can continue playing music and stay in the quest for bigger things.

As to being a rocker Grace can stand with anyone playing today, maybe because she hasn't stuck with just rock and roll but switches genres even on the same album, she hasn't built the big following in the rock world.

Like John said you can find artists and music you like in different ways than the past. An artist or group doesn't have to have mega sales potential to put out product they can aim for a smaller market /nitch and have success. Also even if some or alot hate the artist/group you like, they can have success despite this, and it won't make a damm bit of difference to their success, just as my hating (whoever) didn't keep them from going to the bank.

 

[KrisM]

After being off the net for over a week due to a break down (it sucked) I come back to this 20+ page thread, one had to decide weither to slog through it or not. Thanks to the bright inteiligent guys on this forum it had been a great read, some great posts, ideas, and info, thanks.

But, had to add my 2 cents too. I've experienced what John describes, following a group new to me that's not on the mainstream public's awareness but never the less has a siginicant following online and plays alot of small venues, clubs, and festivals. Grace Potter, she and her band haven't made it big but have used the not so main stream route of being able to make a enough of a living that they can continue playing music and stay in the quest for bigger things.

As to being a rocker Grace can stand with anyone playing today, maybe because she hasn't stuck with just rock and roll but switches genres even on the same album, she hasn't built the big following in the rock world.

Like John said you can find artists and music you like in different ways than the past. An artist or group doesn't have to have mega sales potential to put out product they can aim for a smaller market /nitch and have success. Also even if some or alot hate the artist/group you like, they can have success despite this, and it won't make a damm bit of difference to their success, just as my hating (whoever) didn't keep them from going to the bank.

I'm OK with the whole niche thing, myself. Lots of rock n roll out there, but you have to look.
I was at a festival this summer, and a group named Tyler Bryant & The Shakedown played, and man did they rock. It reminded me of seeing Johnny Lang as a fourteen year old unknown, full of piss & vinegar. He was actually playing the same festival, and his set was almost sleep inducing at some points. Anyway, if they are smart about it, they will have a lifelong career. Twenty years ago they might have been courted as "the next big thing" by a big label. But in this day and age, they'll need to do it themselves by doing shows, and using the internet. That's a good thing, IMO.
I should also mention that the group's other guitar player is Brad Whitford's(Aerosmith) son. Speaking of groups that used to be rock n roll.
So, yeah, the whole stadium rock, world's biggest rock n roll band thing is dead, but rock n roll isn't. And I don't care.

Funny you should mention Potter. I've heard of her, but never checked her out. I was watching an animated movie with my kid, and the song playing over the credits was decent pop music. I checked who it was and it was her. I just assumed for some reason that she was a gritty rock and blues singer.

 

[Jack Lord]

After being off the net for over a week due to a break down (it sucked) I come back to this 20+ page thread, one had to decide weither to slog through it or not. Thanks to the bright inteiligent guys on this forum it had been a great read, some great posts, ideas, and info, thanks.

But, had to add my 2 cents too. I've experienced what John describes, following a group new to me that's not on the mainstream public's awareness but never the less has a siginicant following online and plays alot of small venues, clubs, and festivals. Grace Potter, she and her band haven't made it big but have used the not so main stream route of being able to make a enough of a living that they can continue playing music and stay in the quest for bigger things.

As to being a rocker Grace can stand with anyone playing today, maybe because she hasn't stuck with just rock and roll but switches genres even on the same album, she hasn't built the big following in the rock world.

Like John said you can find artists and music you like in different ways than the past. An artist or group doesn't have to have mega sales potential to put out product they can aim for a smaller market /nitch and have success. Also even if some or alot hate the artist/group you like, they can have success despite this, and it won't make a damm bit of difference to their success, just as my hating (whoever) didn't keep them from going to the bank.

I don't think anyone necessarilly disgrees with that notion.

History confirms that very few people were buying albums by the Velvet Underground or Frank Zappa back in the 60s. However few did was apparently enough to keep them from quitting music and taking up used car sales. Thankfully.

However, it is hard to condemn the then record buying public for bad taste when they were enabling Let It Bleed, Tommy, Are you Experienced, and others to sell well. The end result was a stellar mainstream and perhaps an equally stellar non-mainstream.

Nowadays we seem to have only one half of the pie.

 

[JohnVF]

Nowadays we seem to have only one half of the pie.

I agree that that's true, but it doesn't matter to me personally. I really don't care what the masses are listening to. I don't care what they're doing at all, actually, until it impedes on my life. And rarely does their musical choice affect me in any way. Except when I do happen to like something everybody else does, and I end up paying $450 for two tickets to The Wall.

 

[Jack Lord]

I agree that that's true, but it doesn't matter to me personally. I really don't care what the masses are listening to. I don't care what they're doing at all, actually, until it impedes on my life. And rarely does their musical choice affect me in any way. Except when I do happen to like something everybody else does, and I end up paying $450 for two tickets to The Wall.

It might indicate the R&R has indeed become a niche art form.

btw- I walked out of the Wall. Pretentious excess and ego casting. Reminded me why Punk came about back in the day.:thumbsdn: A Camera Obscura gig would have been better.

Just my opinion of course. Judging from the crowd, I was the extreme minority.

 

[Tom Brennan]

Just my opinion of course. Judging from the crowd, I was the extreme minority.

Because you were awake?

 

[JohnVF]

It might indicate the R&R has indeed become a niche art form.

btw- I walked out of the Wall. Pretentious excess and ego casting. Reminded me why Punk came about back in the day.:thumbsdn: A Camera Obscura gig would have been better.

Just my opinion of course. Judging from the crowd, I was the extreme minority.

Camera Obscura the punks or Camera Obscura the twee Glaswegians? Or Camera Obscure that totally unheard of early '80s synth pop band?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcyvRM9j-iA

There's so many bands they're recycling names twice. I prefer the twee Glaswegians. My Maudlin Career is a great listen.