Is Rock and Roll Dead???

[Condorsat]

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.

Yes ... I can see that now ... makes sense.

The music industry today must be like trying to heard cats.

 

[JohnVF]

"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................

That's how subjective this is. As much as we've been on the same side on the rock thing, I also like certain aspects of disco, or what led up to it (it did get terrible as it caught on). I think the electronic production of Giorgio Moroder, which influenced even Eno and Bowie, wouldn't have happened in the strict confines of '70s rock. Well, until say somebody like Bowie said it was OK...and those genres mixed and mutated, and you had Kraftwerk come in and people hated synths because they "weren't real instruments"...same old crap. Some purist holding onto their snobbery before they're passed by and nobody cares about what they were holding onto.

 

[Tom Brennan]

"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................

There's also the unsettling (to me) possibility that he people into Disco WERE cooler, more cutting edge and having a lot more fun than stick in the mud post Hippies smoking grass on their bean bag chairs and listening to Emerson, Lake and Palmer. I think I missed out on something.

 

[JohnVF]

Yes ... I can see that now ... makes sense.

The music industry today must be like trying to heard cats.

Trying to find good new music is certainly like trying to find your lost cat in a herd of them. There's a ton of it out there, and even more stuff that's not good, so you just start barking up trees hoping to find the right one.

 

[JohnVF]

There's also the unsettling (to me) possibility that he people into Disco WERE cooler, more cutting edge and having a lot more fun than stick in the mud post Hippies smoking grass on their bean bag chairs and listening to Emerson, Lake and Palmer.

I think that was probably the case with the FIRST people into disco. But even they hated it by the time it was over. I can't remember a single genre I was into that didn't travel that arc, though.

I don't really care for Nirvana but man, I feel sorry for those that did, seeing what terrible bands that they spawned in their wake. Even Dave Grohl said he knew they'd crossed a threshold when the people that used to beat them up were out in the audience pumping their fists in celebration.

 

[halftime]

That's how subjective this is. As much as we've been on the same side on the rock thing, I also like certain aspects of disco, or what led up to it (it did get terrible as it caught on). I think the electronic production of Giorgio Moroder, which influenced even Eno and Bowie, wouldn't have happened in the strict confines of '70s rock. Well, until say somebody like Bowie said it was OK...and those genres mixed and mutated, and you had Kraftwerk come in and people hated synths because they "weren't real instruments"...same old crap. Some purist holding onto their snobbery before they're passed by and nobody cares about what they were holding onto.

I sort of agree with you on that. I would much rather be stuck listening to disco than say the Allman Brothers.

 

[Tom Brennan]

I'm listening to "Get Back" by the Beatles. Good Rock and Roll.

Oh Christ, "Long and Winding Road" now. Man, McCartney was a lot like Elvis, he could go from sublime Rock and Roll to the most syrupy schmaltz without missing a beat. Both men were geniuses.

 

[finnbow]

"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................

Perhaps, but I'm a 1953 vintage and I was buying and listening to Dylan, Stones, Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Jefferson Airplane, Cream, CSN&Y, and such stuff and never warmed up to bubble gum/pop such as David Cassidy (nor did my brother or sister). We did listen to some Motown in the mid '60's though.

As for Disco, I never purchased a disco record (other than the Stones' Some Girls and Black and Blue ). During the peak of the disco era, I lived in New Orleans and listened almost exclusively to Dylan, John Prine, jazz, and local New Orleans music (which remained great through those ugly years).

As for what's charting at a given time, I'm not sure that's a good indicator. Today's good bands rarely show up on Rolling Stones' Top 40 albums, though they do show on the Rolling Stones' "College Radio Top 10 albums."

 

[Jack Lord]

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...

Cream had one of the top selling albums of 1967. They had one of music's best guitarist, best bassist, and best drummers respectively. They garnered rave reviews from the critics and when they reunited some years ago, sold out the shows on both sides of the Atlantic. Those facts constitute objective evidence of their substance and success. Whether I like them or not is irrelevant.

I mentioned them, along with other bands, to exemplify my statistical sample-- the year 1967. I am not interested in whether you like them or if other people do not like the Zombies, who I also mentioned. That is being subjective. They have a respected legacy and are a component of the year I chose to focus on. You can toss them out of the argument and 1967 would still blow 2012 off the map.

Now, back on topic. The way you describe today's scene could be a description of Jazz today. There is the Marsallis family, a few of the old guard (Jamal, Brubeck), and a host of lesser known but decent musicians. It is a far cry from the heyday when Miles, Dizzy, Monk, etc were everywhere.

I submit again that Rock is a niche art form.

 

[Ohighway]

Driving into work this morning, I'm listening to "Exile on Main Street" and the thought about The Stones being "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" back then, when I wondered who would hold that title today?

Asking who the greatest rock band is in this day and age is about as relevant as asking who the greatest swing band was back in the 60's and 70's.

 

[halftime]

" people into Disco WERE cooler, more cutting edge and having a lot more fun than stick in the mud post Hippies smoking grass on their bean bag chairs and listening to Emerson, Lake and Palmer."

That's one of the best comments I have ever encountered on a message board. Outstanding in every way...............

 

[halftime]

"They had one of music's best guitarist"

No they had the most overrated guitarist of all time.

 

[Einar72]

Saw them in '72, '81 and took my son in '05, all at Seattle. When Mick said "Vancouver" the audience roared in response! Happy 50th, boys!

 

[Andyman]

"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................

I love it when we get experts who tell folks who were there what was really going on...

Sure the Pop music charted more, it always has and always will. Herb Alpert sold more than Jimi Hendrix, so I guess he's the defining artist of the time. But as you mentioned, Woodstock was 1969, and the power of that event certainly shows that rock music was a force to be reckoned with.

I guess these folks are all wrong...

 

[Einar72]

" people into Disco WERE cooler, more cutting edge and having a lot more fun than stick in the mud post Hippies smoking grass on their bean bag chairs and listening to Emerson, Lake and Palmer."

That's one of the best comments I have ever encountered on a message board. Outstanding in every way...............

I suppose you like Duran Duran, Haircut 100 and Justin Bieber.

 

[JohnVF]

Cream had one of the top selling albums of 1967. They had one of music's best guitarist, best bassist, and best drummers respectively. They garnered rave reviews from the critics and when they reunited some years ago, sold out the shows on both sides of the Atlantic. Those facts constitute objective evidence of their substance and success. Whether I like them or not is irrelevant.

I mentioned them, along with other bands, to exemplify my statistical sample-- the year 1967. I am not interested in whether you like them or if other people do not like the Zombies, who I also mentioned. That is being subjective. They have a respected legacy and are a component of the year I chose to focus on. You can toss them out of the argument and 1967 would still blow 2012 off the map.

Now, back on topic. The way you describe today's scene could be a description of Jazz today. There is the Marsallis family, a few of the old guard (Jamal, Brubeck), and a host of lesser known but decent musicians. It is a far cry from the heyday when Miles, Dizzy, Monk, etc were everywhere.

I submit again that Rock is a niche art form.

For all of our bluster we'd probably have a good time sitting down listening to records.

I would argue (or rather, "discuss"), that those things you listed about Cream are evidence of their success only, and say nothing of their substance. But I'm also not offering that they have none, they're just not something I've really liked. I'd rather listen to Derek and the Dominoes if I'm digging through Clapton's work.

I'm listening to Eno's "Here come the warm jets" right now, and its way more interesting to me than Cream's output. But I also admit that its probably to odd to fill a stadium. I'm ok with that. But this album just fits "me". If I knew WAY more about music, and making music, and studio craft, its what I would want to do.

I don't want to play guitar like Clapton. I want to make an Eno album.

 

[halftime]

"There is the Marsallis family"

Branford isn't so bad, but Wynton, although a very proficient musician, plays the worst arrangements and dullest Jazz imaginable.

 

[JohnVF]

I suppose you like Duran Duran, Haircut 100 and Justin Bieber.

I like Duran Duran.

 

[Tom Brennan]

I guess these folks are all wrong...

That many folks can easily be wrong, think "Triumph of the Will".

 

[Andyman]

That many folks can easily be wrong, think "Triumph of the Will".

Tru dat, Tom, but we're talking about the popularity of music here, not political doctrine, and that crowd itself does show that rock was pretty popular back in 1969. That's all it means.