• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Is Rock and Roll Dead???

Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnVF said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are probably correct.

In your opinion, are any of these indie bands as good as, let's say, the Stones or Cream music wise? Forget filling up stadiums, are they as good? Do they play songs that are as good as Sway or Sunshine of your Love?

I listen to Indie stuff, believe it or not (good for the old bones). Certainly good stuff to be found, but nothing that compares to the aforementioned 1960s or even the alternative stuff of the 1980s (REM, Replacements, etc).

I read some random posting somewhere where someone was asking if DC still had a great local music scene like we did back in the 80s. Somebody answered that guys do not form bands anymore as they are too busy creating blogs.

I do not know if that is true, but it has haunted me since.
 
Jack Lord said:
You are probably correct.

In your opinion, are any of these indie bands as good as, let's say, the Stones or Cream music wise? Forget filling up stadiums, are they as good? Do they play songs that are as good as Sway or Sunshine of your Love?
Click to expand...

I don't look at it as a competition. I think there are bands just as good, but in different ways. For my tastes, the '90s band Pulp is more interesting than Cream 7 days of the week. But I grew up in a different time period. Now that it's 2012 and not 1997 anymore, I sit around with my aging '90s hipster friends asking "Where's the next Pulp?" instead of "Where's the next Beatles?". But it comes from the same place. I get it. And kids from the 2000s will ask "Where's today's Interpol?" and today's youth will ask "Where's the next M83?"

But check out that My Morning Jacket link I posted..that's some serious rockin', from a band still current, even though they've been out for about 10 years. It's in more of a Southern Rock tradition, though.

Even in the '70s, you had a whole genre, punk, come about because much of what is being called "rock" here, was thought of then as bloated corporate pandering and about showing off technical skill rather than rocking out. The Romones were just going back to the '50s. Punk is The Trashmen. It's Surfin' Bird.
 
Last edited:
"are any of these indie bands as good as, let's say, the Stones or Cream music wise?"

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...................................Pretty much all of them are as good as Cream.

"I read some random posting somewhere where someone was asking if DC still had a great local music scene like we did back in the 80s."

DC had a good music scene in the 80's because a few good punk bands came out of there. The type of stuff you like wasn't present at all.
 
I think Rock and Roll started going downhill when Elvis went in the Army and Doo-Wop went out of fashion. The 60s made Rock and Roll self conscious and turned it into "Rock".

Oh, there has been plenty of good Rock and Roll made since the early 60s but as a form it has long since lost it's freshness and novelty. It's a simple form afterall and if you get away from the simplicity you lose the form itself and it becomes something else. I've been listening to Rock and Roll a long time, I saw Elvis on Ed Sullivan, and in retrospect I think the early rockers did it best and I've little need to listen to later rockers. I still have a taste for the Ramones and Thin Lizzy but I don't care if I never hear another Led Zeppelin, Cream or Jeff Beck song. And now my favorite Beatles songs are the ones in which McCartney does his Little Richard shtick like Back in the USSR and Lady Madonna.

Pink Floyd is no more a Rock and Roll band than Lawrence Welk's band was.

I think that guy Seagal in the videos was bad. Manic with no drive, no roll. You gotta have the roll as well as the rock, what we called the "**** beat"; "Roll With Me Henry". Terrible drummer too. Reminds me of The Cramps.
 
Last edited:
JohnVF said:
I don't look at it as a competition. I think there are bands just as good, but in different ways. For my tastes, the '90s band Pulp is more interesting than Cream 7 days of the week. But I grew up in a different time period. Now that it's 2012 and not 1997 anymore, I sit around with my aging '90s hipster friends asking "Where's the next Pulp?" instead of "Where's the next Beatles?". But it comes from the same place. I get it. And kids from the 2000s will ask "Where's today's Interpol?" and today's youth will ask "Where's the next M83?"

But check out that My Morning Jacket link I posted..that's some serious rockin', from a band still current, even though they've been out for about 10 years. It's in more of a Southern Rock tradition, though.
Click to expand...

Well ok, but to clarify, I was 3 when Cream called it quits and 5 when the Beatles called it a day. Consequently, I do not remember them as "existing bands". The first Stones album I recall being released was Black & Blue and those guys scared me.

What this means is I am not looking at that era from a "my music" or coming of age perspective. I like all rock from Elvis up to Deertick. But looking at it objectively, there are peaks and valleys and we are in a very deep valley. Set aside 1967 and consider 1977. That was a banner year for rock.
 
halftime said:
"Coming of age during a time when the likes of Hendrix, Jagger/Richards, Clapton, Lennon/McCartney and others has us longing for the good old days,"

Oh please with the exception of The Beatles( a boy band at the time) and few Stones tunes baby boomers weren't listening to that stuff when they were teens.
Click to expand...


WTF are you talking about? Were you there then? I was and I know what folks were listening to..:rolleyes:
 
"Romones were just going back to the '50s. Punk is The Trashmen. It's Surfin' Bird."

100% agreed, I remember watching a PBS documentary a few years ago that tried to link punk's roots to reggae. It's much more rooted in the surf music of Dick Dale, The Trashmen, and Link Wray...............
 
"It's a simple form afterall and if you get away from the simplicity you lose the form itself and it becomes something else."

Agreed there is nothing worse than a Rock and Roll concept album from the sixties or seventies. Do Beatles fans realize they are essentially listening to a bunch of overproduced show tunes ?
 
halftime said:
"Romones were just going back to the '50s. Punk is The Trashmen. It's Surfin' Bird."

100% agreed, I remember watching a PBS documentary a few years ago that tried to link punk's roots to reggae. It's much more rooted in the surf music of Dick Dale, The Trashmen, and Link Wray...............
Click to expand...

Multiple theories and timelines on that. The late great Lester Bangs traced it back to Ritchie Valens', La Bamba.
 
halftime said:
"It's a simple form afterall and if you get away from the simplicity you lose the form itself and it becomes something else."

Agreed there is nothing worse than a Rock and Roll concept album from the sixties or seventies. Do Beatles fans realize they are essentially listening to a bunch of overproduced show tunes ?
Click to expand...

Genesis embraced the notion with The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. They celebrated it.
 
Jack Lord said:
Well ok, but to clarify, I was 3 when Cream called it quits and 5 when the Beatles called it a day. Consequently, I do not remember them as "existing bands". The first Stones album I recall being released was Black & Blue and those guys scared me.

What this means is I am not looking at that era from a "my music" or coming of age perspective. I like all rock from Elvis up to Deertick. But looking at it objectively, there are peaks and valleys and we are in a very deep valley. Set aside 1967 and consider 1977. That was a banner year for rock.
Click to expand...

But you're not looking at it objectively. You're looking at it from the very specific lens that is relative to your own taste in music. Like your comparison to Cream. A lot of people, even those really into rock, don't like Cream. They think they're a symptom of the beginning of rock's bloated excess that took over as it moved into the '70s. The "Supergroup" idea being so self-indulgent, which is what a lot of punk's tried to counter (until they themselves became just as bad).

I would say that of course 2012 doesn't have the same number of bands that sound like they're from 1973 as 1973 did...
 
halftime said:
"Coming of age during a time when the likes of Hendrix, Jagger/Richards, Clapton, Lennon/McCartney and others has us longing for the good old days,"

Oh please with the exception of The Beatles( a boy band at the time) and few Stones tunes baby boomers weren't listening to that stuff when they were teens.
Click to expand...

I sure did. Back then, I played Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed probably more often than anything else with the possible exception of The Doors, Little Feat, Ten Years After, Jethro Tull, Allman Brothers .... In your view, what was I listening to? KC and the Sunshine Band?
 
I think it is interesting how many fantastic albums were released in 1979. (check it out). The bands knew that an era was ending and wanted to get one last killer classic rock album out while it was still relevant. (IMHO)
 
Condorsat said:
I liked the clip ... 1st time I ever heard of them ... even though they have been around since 1998 according to Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

This kind of sums up why there aren't big stadium rock shows anymore. You have to look for this stuff, even the more popular of the current rock groups, as they're not really on radio (though I was first introduced to My Morning Jacket on NPR in LA, 2003). With it not just being out there, its hard for 50,000 people in every city to get into it. Doesn't mean its not out there, its just not unavoidable. And I have a feeling the Stones were probably unavoidable in the late '60s, much as they are now.
 
halftime said:
"It's a simple form afterall and if you get away from the simplicity you lose the form itself and it becomes something else."

Agreed there is nothing worse than a Rock and Roll concept album from the sixties or seventies. Do Beatles fans realize they are essentially listening to a bunch of overproduced show tunes ?
Click to expand...

All I need is "3 chords and a beat."And yeah the first time I heard A Day In The Life I thought it was a show tune :bs: :wtf:
 
"KC and the Sunshine Band?"

No, baby boomers were well into their twenties by the Disco era, but yes I'll blame Disco on baby boomers as well.

Look at what was charting in the late sixties and early seventies, I wasn't the Woodstock bands. A teen of that era was much more likely to be buying David Cassidy than Cream................
 
Jack Lord said:
Well ok, but to clarify, I was 3 when Cream called it quits and 5 when the Beatles called it a day. Consequently, I do not remember them as "existing bands". The first Stones album I recall being released was Black & Blue and those guys scared me.

What this means is I am not looking at that era from a "my music" or coming of age perspective. I like all rock from Elvis up to Deertick. But looking at it objectively, there are peaks and valleys and we are in a very deep valley. Set aside 1967 and consider 1977. That was a banner year for rock.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't live in England in the mid'90s but I love what's called Britpop, from that time. Blur, Pulp, Suede (I hate Oasis, though). What I'm saying is that arguing about music is like arguing about beautiful women. I'm wired for some reason to be really into petite East Asian or South Asian women. Why? I have no idea. But you're not going to convince me that a 6' blonde is better suited to me, or the right beauty for anybody else. We all like what we like. And its through that personal, subjective, lens, that we judge stuff like rock. There's no right or wrong in rock. I really don't like, say, Journey or Kansas or that whole type of '70s pop-rock....but of course many here do, and I can't say they're wrong. It moves them, it doesn't move me. But I'm happy we're all rocking to our own beat, so to speak, whatever it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom