Is Rock and Roll Dead???

[automojo]

Something already has, Internet Radio over WiFi.

I agree.
IMHO rock in roll in a broad term, took a dip when Buddy Holley died, still breathing for sure, and re-energized with the explosion of DIY, and indie label bands.
Those concepts of creative/ directional independence, with the aid of the internet, and digital music formats (and the demise of many of the major labels, and their "preferred mediums" and control-along with the "yes man" Clear Channel types (early) radio stations) rock again IMHO has never been stronger, and perhaps closer to it's own roots, and free(er) from commercialism that took away many of it's qualities.
Myself, I don't loose any sleep over the demise of the stadium rock genre. It was what it was, but it wasn't too endearing to me.
A learning curve, real music vs a produced commercial.
Again, all this music is clearly up to taste, and I'm not trying to knock anyone's favorite bands.
But from a semi discipline/historical point of view, it's pretty easy to hear the differences.

 

[Homerx]

Its easy enough to play internet radio in the Car. I've been meaning to try it and see how well the connection does over a long drive. Despite it being a low bit rate can't sound all that bad.

I don't think its dead. Just the interest of the masses has changed. they are fine with the Taylor Swifts and biebers of the world. Despite the music. they sell out stadiums to the point of fighting over tickets.

 

[Theo Simon]

I agree.
IMHO rock in roll in a broad term, took a dip when Buddy Holley died, still breathing for sure, and re-energized with the explosion of DIY, and indie label bands.
Those concepts of creative/ directional independence, with the aid of the internet, and digital music formats (and the demise of many of the major labels, and their "preferred mediums" and control-along with the "yes man" Clear Channel types (early) radio stations) rock again IMHO has never been stronger, and perhaps closer to it's own roots, and free(er) from commercialism that took away many of it's qualities.
Myself, I don't loose any sleep over the demise of the stadium rock genre. It was what it was, but it wasn't too endearing to me.
A learning curve, real music vs a produced commercial.
Again, all this music is clearly up to taste, and I'm not trying to knock anyone's favorite bands.
But from a semi discipline/historical point of view, it's pretty easy to hear the differences.

Don't forget the tragic incident at Cincinnati when a number of people were crushed to death in a line trying to get into a Who concert. I think a lot of people stopped going to concerts after that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster

 

[automojo]

Don't forget the tragic incident at Cincinnati when a number of people were crushed to death in a line trying to get into a Who concert. I think a lot of people stopped going to concerts after that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster

Sure, I remember.
Larger venues bring out more of the meat heads.
I've attended more then my share of large concerts in the past.
I try to avoid them if possible, as I enjoy small venues more by far. Your really a lot closer physically, emotionally and musically with the band. Much more relaxing, can have a few beers/Jim Beam/whatever (usually) and have a much more rewarding experience.
Not to mention dealing with thousands of people/parking getting in and out/etc.
Sames goes for me and sporting events. I'll either watch it, or usually listen on the radio, or just forget it.
As far as the big venue throwback to the Woodstock years, Mike Watt pretty much sums up my feelings on this issue, as far as this being part of the perceived success of a rock n roll band:
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/m/mike+watt/against+the+70s_20206290.html

 

[Jack Lord]

Sure, but there is a whole other world of musical access, and kids are more then aware of this.
Bands have many more ways of distributing their music.
I think your going by what your see on TV/hear on radio.
The stadium venue, as mentioned is a old model of success.
Lot's of successful bands that are doing fine, just not choosing to play stadium venues.
We Jam Econo, DIY, selling out stadiums for many bands isn't a measure of success for them, or even now radio play, as the Internet (NPR also) and XM, etc provide a lower cost, wider based medium for them.
Limiting your music listening to what's on the radio won't get you even close to all the new stuff out there (if it even did back in the day).
Categorizing, convince, packaging is still what most radio is about.
They want to make money, with little real effort, and still act like they are cutting edge.
The local 93X fm here is a classic case of this, for example, supposedly ALT/Hard cutting edge rock, not so, they are a bunch of dinosaurs that haven't moved beyond Nirvana...and Bevis and Butt Head...huh, huh,huh ....
Billy Joel was right-it's still Rock N Roll, new/old/ whatever, still alive and well. You just have to look at other sources for the new and fresh stuff.

Is it really that they are choosing not to play stadiums or that they simply could not sell enough tickets to justify playing in one?

I think there is a misunderstanding regarding stadium shows. I saw some great gigs in stadiums (the Who, Kinks, Stones) yet I have no love for that particular venue. Who really does? I would rather see any of those gigs in a club or small theater like the Beacon. I reckon most people would choose the same.

Stadium shows represent supply and demand. Springsteen or the Stones can sell out multiple nights in large arenad because the demand is there. End of story. Can those bands you name do the same? I tend to doubt it.

I previously mentioned stadium shows not because I have a hard on for watching a band from a seat where I need bottled oxygen. Hell no. I mentioned them, and I think others might have as well, because they exemplified at time when rock and roll spawned enough enthusiasm to create the demand (Econ 101 again) for stadium size gigs.

The second time I saw the Stones was from the nosebleeds at Shea Stadium. I enjoyed it very much. I would have enjoyed it much more had it been in some little club with a 1000 person capacity. But demand for the Stones made that very unlikely.

 

[automojo]

Well, as far, Mike Watt and/or the Missing Men, or other DIY/Indie bands wanting to sell out stadiums, I would recommend reading "Our Band Could Be Your Life" to get a small perspective on this (and before jumping to conclusions) and the growth of DIY out of distaste for what was happening to rock n roll/marketing commercialism, control, excess, etc, in the 60's/70's, among other things.
"All Over but the Shouting" is another good read.
No, not everyone/band has a interest in selling out a stadium, believe it or not, for varying reasons.
Each band of course is different, and has their own demons, and their ideas of success, financially and musically.
IMHO there in no one size fit's all.
That's the beauty of music, and other forms of art IMHO.
Some of us might also feel a portion of popular music in the past and present was more of a sales pitch/marketing venture then music, but that's besides the point. If you like it great, if not great as well-whatever works.
Again my first point was selling out a stadiums has little to do with a rock n roll bands overall success, and it doesn't even guarantee financial success-more then a few examples here.
Financial success has different levels as well, just like all walks of life, and can't always be measured purely with a supply and demand curve, or even a a balance sheet.
Perhaps your opinion of (overall) success of a band is selling out stadiums, or the supply and demand curve, and you are entitled to you opinion. I and I'm sure others disagree in part, but I can see your point as well.
I don't see the problem here.
Hard to say if people will really care, or measure their success on weather the Stones sold out Shea Stadium 1989, in 100 years or not. Or how much money they netted on the Tattoo You Tour. Probably the body of work I would say.
It would be interesting to peek in on that, especially if there was a lack of heavy commercial promoting of music, and people were more "left on their own" to make musical choices.
Music, like art are really measured in varying degrees of success, especially over a period of time, and it's very hard IMHO to put a universal stamp on it. Be it a supply and demand, balance sheet, what have you. It may be convenient, but IMHO I don't think it's totally accurate.
And second, that rock n roll is still going strong, IMHO to a large part do to the easy, inexpensive way bands can control their own musical, and financial destiny-DIY so there is really no need for them to sell out these large venues anyway.
Rock n roll is alive and well IMHO, I saw so many good shows this year, IMHO yes it is. And not just rehashed re-releases-new stuff.
By the way, I don't think I was quoting anything directly by Jack Lord till this post-so nothing to take personal or defend directly-even if you do disagree with part of my take, as it's just my opinion.

 

[steelglam]

Surely, rock and roll is not dead. That's a silly question. It's just splintered. Which is a good thing...it makes things more interesting.

Nevertheless, this thread got me thinking: what is the most popular band around today that is also a critical darling?

Because I think what the OP and others in this thread were implicitly implying were bands that both played arenas and were well-regarded by critics and music nerds/record geeks. And that really has become an outdated model/concept. The only bands that really play arenas these days are older rock artists (the musicians are at least 40+ in terms of age) or younger non-rock pop bands/artists.

So, to answer my own question (see above) I'm going to say: Arcade Fire. Two of their albums have gone Gold, yet they are on an indie label and receive lots of critical praise. That's the first band that come to mind. Yet I don't even think they play arenas, at least not in the United States (I think they do in Europe).

 

[automojo]

Surely, rock and roll is not dead. That's a silly question. It's just splintered. Which is a good thing...it makes things more interesting.

Nevertheless, this thread got me thinking: what is the most popular band around today that is also a critical darling?

Because I think what the OP and others in this thread were implicitly implying were bands that both played arenas and were well-regarded by critics and music nerds/record geeks. And that really has become an outdated model/concept. The only bands that really play arenas these days are older rock artists (the musicians are at least 40+ in terms of age) or younger non-rock pop bands/artists.

So, to answer my own question (see above) I'm going to say: Arcade Fire. Two of their albums have gone Gold, yet they are on an indie label and receive lots of critical praise. That's the first band that come to mind. Yet I don't even think they play arenas, at least not in the United States (I think they do in Europe).

Good points....

 

[shacky]

What about all the sales of re-releases like the Beatles, Stones, Dylan...

I'd say that's a sign rock is not dead. And it's not just us old farts buying them

 

[chicks]

As said above, that wasn't exactly what i was getting at. FM, to me, is, today, the way people that aren't into music look for music.

Here's a recent study that agrees with you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/radio-listening-youtube_n_1793808.html

 

[JohnVF]

Here's a recent study that agrees with you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/radio-listening-youtube_n_1793808.html

Not sure it agrees or disagrees but there's a lot of interesting stuff in that article. Thanks for the link.

 

[Jack Lord]

Well, as far, Mike Watt and/or the Missing Men, or other DIY/Indie bands wanting to sell out stadiums, I would recommend reading "Our Band Could Be Your Life" to get a small perspective on this (and before jumping to conclusions) and the growth of DIY out of distaste for what was happening to rock n roll/marketing commercialism, control, excess, etc, in the 60's/70's, among other things.
"All Over but the Shouting" is another good read.
No, not everyone/band has a interest in selling out a stadium, believe it or not, for varying reasons.
Each band of course is different, and has their own demons, and their ideas of success, financially and musically.
IMHO there in no one size fit's all.
That's the beauty of music, and other forms of art IMHO.
Some of us might also feel a portion of popular music in the past and present was more of a sales pitch/marketing venture then music, but that's besides the point. If you like it great, if not great as well-whatever works.
Again my first point was selling out a stadiums has little to do with a rock n roll bands overall success, and it doesn't even guarantee financial success-more then a few examples here.
Financial success has different levels as well, just like all walks of life, and can't always be measured purely with a supply and demand curve, or even a a balance sheet.
Perhaps your opinion of (overall) success of a band is selling out stadiums, or the supply and demand curve, and you are entitled to you opinion. I and I'm sure others disagree in part, but I can see your point as well.
I don't see the problem here.
Hard to say if people will really care, or measure their success on weather the Stones sold out Shea Stadium 1989, in 100 years or not. Or how much money they netted on the Tattoo You Tour. Probably the body of work I would say.
It would be interesting to peek in on that, especially if there was a lack of heavy commercial promoting of music, and people were more "left on their own" to make musical choices.
Music, like art are really measured in varying degrees of success, especially over a period of time, and it's very hard IMHO to put a universal stamp on it. Be it a supply and demand, balance sheet, what have you. It may be convenient, but IMHO I don't think it's totally accurate.
And second, that rock n roll is still going strong, IMHO to a large part do to the easy, inexpensive way bands can control their own musical, and financial destiny-DIY so there is really no need for them to sell out these large venues anyway.
Rock n roll is alive and well IMHO, I saw so many good shows this year, IMHO yes it is. And not just rehashed re-releases-new stuff.
By the way, I don't think I was quoting anything directly by Jack Lord till this post-so nothing to take personal or defend directly-even if you do disagree with part of my take, as it's just my opinion.

No offense taken. You make interesting points and I thought I would throw my 2 cents in.

I have no doubt those bands you cite are sincere. However, the history of rock and roll is full of bands who were not going to "sell out" and went on to embrace things that made them a lot of money. See my quote from Bono of U2 several posts back in this thread for a classic example.

Human nature is just that. Most people will take the money if they can. If these bands were to hit a level of popularity whereby they could sell out a stadium, they would do it in a heartbeat. Again, I believe you when you say it is presently not their intention. But it would be the inevitable consequence of great success.

And that is all I am saying. I am certainly not claiming that selling out a stadium is the only measure of sucess. Far from it. My favorite current band is Gov't Mule. I hope they never hit that level as I would not want to see them in anything bigger than a theater.

I also still follow the Fleshtones. They do not even sell out small clubs these days but I love them.

But the thing is, if either could sell out a stadium, they would do it in a heartbeat. To not do so would be somewhat irrational. I mean, would you turn down millions of dollars?

 

[nashvillebill]

If the original question is interpreted as "Is the era of Arena Rock dead?" To which I answer, yes, the late 60's/early 70's era of bands routinely selling out 80,000 seats is over. (Emphasis on the word routinely)

But is rock and roll dead?

Imagine a post-apocalyptic world years hence. Buried in the rubble, a teenage boy finds a Les Paul and Marshall amp...

Long live rock!

 

[Andyman]

Because I think what the OP and others in this thread were implicitly implying were bands that both played arenas and were well-regarded by critics and music nerds/record geeks. And that really has become an outdated model/concept. The only bands that really play arenas these days are older rock artists (the musicians are at least 40+ in terms of age) or younger non-rock pop bands/artists.

This seems to be a basic business misunderstanding here, that circles back to my original post. Some seem to be putting the cart before the horse

Arena/Stadium rock is not a genre per se, but a measure of a bands popularity. The reason they were in a stadium or arena is not because of the kind or style of music, but because they were so darn popular it had to be a huge venue to accommodate demand.

There's nothing outdated at all of the model or concept; you always want to fill your venue and the biggest one you can fill is the one you book. There's just not that kind of rabid demand in most cases anymore, and hence this topic/query.

Jack gets it :thmbsp:

If these bands were to hit a level of popularity whereby they could sell out a stadium, they would do it in a heartbeat....


I also still follow the Fleshtones. They do not even sell out small clubs these days but I love them.

But the thing is, if either could sell out a stadium, they would do it in a heartbeat. To not do so would be somewhat irrational. I mean, would you turn down millions of dollars?

 

[Tom Brennan]

This seems to be a basic business misunderstanding here......

Sensible post.

I never understood the notion of Rock and Roll performers "selling out". They're show people not artists and many come from hardscrabble backgrounds and look at performing as a job of work and they want it to pay. It's Pop music and the purpose is to become as popular as possible.

 

[Andyman]

Wasn't one of the main reasons David Bowie became a singer was to fund his dramatic acting aspirations?

 

[automojo]

Could be.
It's hard to walk in other people shoes. I don't pretend to know what someone would do, just based on my own preferences, even with good friends it's hard to predict.
IMHO it may have little to do with the notion of "selling out", from what I have read, people performers friends I have talked to over the years etc, more of a path chosen thing.
As people age, a lot of ways of thinking can change. Priorities change, a family, kid etc. Maybe a one shot deal at a sell out, for what ever reason, who knows.
Plus there are so many variables is the business, things happen, thing don't, you get lucky, you don't care etc.
Regardless-good points, and a excellent talking point thread-Thanks OP!

 

[steelglam]

This seems to be a basic business misunderstanding here, that circles back to my original post. Some seem to be putting the cart before the horse

Arena/Stadium rock is not a genre per se, but a measure of a bands popularity. The reason they were in a stadium or arena is not because of the kind or style of music, but because they were so darn popular it had to be a huge venue to accommodate demand.

There's nothing outdated at all of the model or concept; you always want to fill your venue and the biggest one you can fill is the one you book. There's just not that kind of rabid demand in most cases anymore, and hence this topic/query.

Jack gets it :thmbsp:

I never said arena/stadium rock was a genre. I'm not sure how that came across from my post, but that's not what I was claiming at all.

I basically agree with you that it's a business issue, at least partly. I'm just saying that most of the new/fresh/young rock bands that are well-respected and critical darlings are not selling out arenas. The only rock bands that are selling out arenas are older, established acts.

I also fundamentally disagree with the premise that rock and roll is dead because new/fresh/young rock bands that are critically-acclaimed aren't selling out arenas. The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. On any given night in any big city in this country, there are dozens of rock bands playing original music and people go to see it. Some of these are local, some are national touring acts. Even in medium-sized cities, there are still at least one, two, or three venues to see such acts.

In fact, in terms of the sheer number of rock bands gigging and touring, there are many more choices now than there were in the 60s and 70s.

The great thing about the punk and indie bands to which automojo is referring is that they built up this entire touring circuit of venues and spaces separate from the mainstream during the 80s, and that served as the foundation for the clubs and venues that exist today. They basically decided that if the mainstream and FM radio--which became increasingly centralized and corporatized during the 80s--weren't going to be interested in their sound, they were going to make their own noise and establish their own space and culture. It's not their fault that FM radio became solely interested in moving units rather than also playing adventurous music and full albums like it did in the 60s and early 70s.

 

[parman]

Rock isn't dead or dying. The music biz has changed and seeing indie bands at a club is a Hell of a lot better way to see a show than in a stadium ever was. I saw bands at smalll venues before there was stadium/arena shows and I'm glad to get back to the club/small theater shows.

 

[automojo]

Rock isn't dead or dying. The music biz has changed and seeing indie bands at a club is a Hell of a lot better way to see a show than in a stadium ever was. I saw bands at smalll venues before there was stadium/arena shows and I'm glad to get back to the club/small theater shows.

My feelings exactly:thmbsp: