What's Gone Wrong With Rock?

[Alexander]

Nothing's gone wrong with it. It just might not be aimed at you anymore.

That's true. Unfortunately, though, it's not aimed at you, either.

Don't care who it's aimed it. I'll take it anyway!

[Alexander]

Nothing's gone wrong with it. It just might not be aimed at you anymore.

That's true. Unfortunately, though, it's not aimed at you, either.

I think part of this goes back to my original comment in post three that it's an age thing. I think JETman has simply grown out of the age group that contemporary rock/pop/etc is made for, whether he can accept that or not.

And there's nothing wrong with continuing to think Clapton is the greatest guitar player ever. If he does it for you, enjoy it and be happy.

My daughter currently likes Chris Brown, Rihanna, Lil Wayne, etc. I don't see it as breaking any new ground, but ultimately who cares? It's not stuff that touches me, but she enjoys it. And she will look back at it fondly some day, as her mother did to ABBA (and other things that make me shudder). As you look back on Clapton now.

edit - I agree with impossible too, in that there's plenty of music out there that's "aimed" at me, that may have been recorded 10, 20, yrs ago or whenever. It's just up to me to discover it, not just look at what's out there today and bemoan that stuff.

I have Rihanna's "Good Girl Gone Bad." It's pretty good, actually.

[sjarrell]

You and I are the same age, dude. I guess that makes you an old fart too.

I was just using Clapton as an example. That's all. I haven't liked anything he's done in the last 35 years or so. But surely you're joking by citing Strummer and Jones as examples of superior songwriters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And if it's really about the tunes, name some great songs from the last 5 years.

Listen, I'm not gonna get in a spitting contest with you, but what I'm sensing is maybe a little bit of geographic jealousy on your part.

Any jealousy sensed is a (very strange) product of your imagination.

Strummer/Jones did write great tunes, and your inability/unwillingness to see that is pretty much the problem here.

I don't keep up with the rock the way I used to. 'Cause I am old. I don't write it off w/out listening, though.

And now, my favorite tune from the last 5 years:

The Good the Bad and the Queen, Friday Night in the Kingdom of Doom

Let's compile a list, folks.

First of all, aren't you the one who said that New Yorkers had everything spoonfed to them? Sounds like jealousy to me.

My dislike of the Clash is not a problem from where I sit. Just a matter of taste. It's very strange on your part that you seem to believe that great discussions are only the product of complete and total agreement.

Let's say for argument's sake that the Clash wrote a few good tunes. Still comes nowhere close to the number of GREAT tunes written by Lennon, McCartney or both, or even Pete Townshend or even Bruce/Brown as mentioned above or Page/Plant. The list goes on. I can appreciate a good tune in today's music. As a matter of fact, before I went whole hog into jazz about 16 years ago, I tried really hard to LIKE the music of the day. I researched, I spent loads of money on cd's, etc. I found nothing, and I knew I couldn't just limit myself to classic rock. That's when I found King Crimson. They in some way appealed to my burgeoning jazz sensibilities. I still buy their cd's to this day.

I also do not keep up with rock the way I used to. I choose to focus on my love of jazz. The only reason I even still listen to rock these days is because it gives me another way to circumvent the generational divide between me and my children. I listen to their music -- even Green Day, hip-hop, rap, Disney Corporate pop, etc. But every once in awhile I'll take the opportunity to share the music I grew up on with them. And believe it or not, it gives us something other than sports scores and play dates to talk about!!!

Anyway, I understand differences of opinions, and maybe I was being too aggressive in sharing mine. But, it's just that -- my own opinion.

4+ years and I've never used the Ignore Member feature. Let's see how that thing works.

[JETman]

4+ years and I've never used the Ignore Member feature. Let's see how that thing works.

Very odd given my last post.

[sjarrell]

4+ years and I've never used the Ignore Member feature. Let's see how that thing works.

Very odd given my last post.

Honestly, you lost me with the reassertion of the jealousy thing.

Not good at ignoring, obviously. But I'll keep trying, and I will never, never agree that popular music since Bonham died is without merit and so impossibly far from greatness that it can never again be achieved.

My iPod is loaded with an obsessive amount of Blue Note Material, a stack of Mosaics/Selects, 6 years worth of EMusic OJCs, Babyshambles, Zeppelin, Radiohead, The Ramones, the Clash, Super Furry Animals, Supergrass, Blur, Oasis, Game Theory, Fishbone, Ellington, Hodges, Public Enemy, Cheap Trick, Gorky's Zygotic Mynci, Gilberto Gil, Gal Costa, Marisa Monte, Baby Huey, Pixies, Brownie, Roach, Chet Baker, Kool and the Gang, Zombies, Smiths, Tribe Called Quest, Small Faces, Specials, Orange Juice, Posies, Art Pepper, JAMC, Euros Childs, Gruff Rhys, Nick Drake, Elliott Smith and Big Star. The common thread is that, obviously, I like it all. And I'm sure there's music I've never heard that I'd love if I did. If I'm lucky, I'll find it, or it'll find me.

Edited June 26, 2008 by sjarrell

[JETman]

is this the dorkiest debate ever?

Thanks, I needed that.

[sjarrell]

is this the dorkiest debate ever?

That looks an awful lot like a big-ass fork.

[JETman]

Honestly, you lost me with the reassertion of the jealousy thing.

This is you from post #115. It seems like you need to be reminded:

I grew up in NC, where I had to learn how to forage for goodness in lieu of having it served up. But we had music here when I was 3 too. I was six when I missed Monk's week at the Frog & Nightgown. I did see the Monkees that year. My memory's pretty vague, but it's my understanding that Hendrix opened that tour.

My 5 year old likes the Monkees.

New Yorkers have nothing served up to them...........unless your name is Donald Trump!

[sjarrell]

Reacting to this:

"The only difference is that I have been listening to music since I was three, in a place -- NYC -- where I was exposed to any and all types of music."

Just saying that we had music here, too. You misinterpreted.

Now, really. Fork.

[Jazzjet]

Something else to float - and I'm open to being corrected on this. It's my impression (and I'm talking gut-reaction here) that rock in the 60s to 70s drew from a wide range of influences outside of rock - blues, jazz, folk, even classical. And that sort of rock, although it might not have made much of an impact on the singles charts, had healthy album sales.

In the last twenty years or so rock seems to have largely drawn from other rock, earlier rock. That's certainly the impression I get from the more popluar rock music I half-hear. Maybe things are different in the indie sphere.

As I say, more exploratory thoughts than a statement of fact. And not an attempt to judge relative quality - though it might explain why I find little of nourishment in it.

I think your impression is correct. Rock has become more self-referential over the last 20 years or so. Probably the same is true of jazz over the same period. Not sure what this says about the life-cycles of musical forms, given that jazz has evolved over a much longer period than rock.Maybe things are just quickening up due to the variety of media and cultural channels now existing. Still, individuals still flourish in this framework, eg Bjork, Sigur Ros etc.

[Shawn]

When it comes to discussions of music why does it always seem to devolve into a "this era was better than that era", "this dude could play circles around that dude", "this style of music is superior to that style"...all variations of "my Dad could kick your Dad's ass"?

As I've said before, if you feel it and it moves you then listen to it...if it doesn't then don't waste your time thinking about it. Pretty simple idea actually.

It's beginning to feel like every topic on this board is turning into an argument these days, it's making me tired.

[clifford_thornton]

Something else to float - and I'm open to being corrected on this. It's my impression (and I'm talking gut-reaction here) that rock in the 60s to 70s drew from a wide range of influences outside of rock - blues, jazz, folk, even classical. And that sort of rock, although it might not have made much of an impact on the singles charts, had healthy album sales.

In the last twenty years or so rock seems to have largely drawn from other rock, earlier rock. That's certainly the impression I get from the more popluar rock music I half-hear. Maybe things are different in the indie sphere.

As I say, more exploratory thoughts than a statement of fact. And not an attempt to judge relative quality - though it might explain why I find little of nourishment in it.

I think your impression is correct. Rock has become more self-referential over the last 20 years or so. Probably the same is true of jazz over the same period. Not sure what this says about the life-cycles of musical forms, given that jazz has evolved over a much longer period than rock.Maybe things are just quickening up due to the variety of media and cultural channels now existing. Still, individuals still flourish in this framework, eg Bjork, Sigur Ros etc.

Why would the form not become self-referential as its history develops?

[Aggie87]

It's beginning to feel like every topic on this board is turning into an argument these days, it's making me tired.

I think maybe it's partially because on-line people get to think they're the expert on something, instead of being open to other's opinions and points of view. And they try to steer everyone else into the mindset that works for them, because it is the "right" one.

[Teasing the Korean]

For those about to rock:

Be glad that some of us have checked out. YOU'LL HAVE LESS COMPETITION WHEN DIGGING THROUGH THE BINS!

[Shawn]

trying to keep current is like being the teacher wearing high tops (and angling for....)

probably white high tops.

rock is popular music, isn't it? sign o' the times? so what's the problem here? shouldn't you like stuff that was popular when you were driving around smoking cigarettes? isn't that how it works? isn't that what would connect with you? keep your ears open, don't be a codger. but it is popular music. disposable. mutating. permutating. keeping current. no one is obligated to keep up.

this isn't math. it isn't a surprise if you don't like something that wasn't made to speak to you.

and about licks and chops....shit was cool because it was being done for the first time. but now it has been done. so what if someone can play as good as hendrix or is as fluid as jeff beck? it was cool when it happened but it happened. no longer a means to an end.

and these are genres. self-defining. what do you want people to do? a genre is a genre. if it's been around for forty years, of coure it's going to blob back on itself. genre is still a box and notions and that is hard to break out of. i think what rock is has been established by now. same with jazz.

Great post.

[Jazzjet]

trying to keep current is like being the teacher wearing high tops (and angling for....)

probably white high tops.

rock is popular music, isn't it? sign o' the times? so what's the problem here? shouldn't you like stuff that was popular when you were driving around smoking cigarettes? isn't that how it works? isn't that what would connect with you? keep your ears open, don't be a codger. but it is popular music. disposable. mutating. permutating. keeping current. no one is obligated to keep up.

this isn't math. it isn't a surprise if you don't like something that wasn't made to speak to you.

and about licks and chops....shit was cool because it was being done for the first time. but now it has been done. so what if someone can play as good as hendrix or is as fluid as jeff beck? it was cool when it happened but it happened. no longer a means to an end.

and these are genres. self-defining. what do you want people to do? a genre is a genre. if it's been around for forty years, of coure it's going to blob back on itself. genre is still a box and notions and that is hard to break out of. i think what rock is has been established by now. same with jazz.

I agree completely with your point that the music that means most to you is the music that you grew up with, had your formative experiences with. That doesn't stop music obsessives - and I guess that covers most people on this forum - maintaining an interest in where the music is going, how its developing. Of course this can come across as ' music was better in our day' and that's unfortunate. But I guess we all want music to be exciting, vibrant, meaningful and we get depressed if we don't see it that way anymore. Doesn't mean we're right but at least we care.

Also, there is an interesting point about how music 'blobs back on itself'. Of course this is natural but the key is how quickly this evolves and why. The breakdown of most types of music into endless sub-genres etc. Is this simply because communication is quicker, multi - faceted etc? Do people get bored more quickly? Or some other reason?

[Big Beat Steve]

I agree completely with your point that the music that means most to you is the music that you grew up with, had your formative experiences with.

If this really was so then I ought to have dug (and still dig) hard rock and/or disco of the 70s (the pop music of my muscially formative years that you just could NOT avoid) in a BIG way. Actually I never did - reminiscences of the days of youth that are sentimentalized by 70s hard rock bands still are very few and far between, and my attitude towards this music has only softened and become more receptive in VERY isolated cases, and I still HATE the disco and funk of those times.

Instead, it had always been 50s rock'n'roll/rockabilly, jazz (swing and modern), blues and R&B for me from Day One, but I've since broadened quite a bit from THOSE starting points (which weren't the musical mainstream then either and still aren't now). But the then-current 70s rock/pop music that actually was around me all the time back then (and of which I remember quite a bit though I virtually never bought any of those records) still isn't something I'd prefer listening to (and I certainly wouldn't want to go out and buy those records now just to recapture my youth). In fact I found some of the more recent Brit-Pop bands (that style-wise reach back to 60s British bands) more enjoyable on an occasional (!) listening basis than the 70s rock bands I was supposed to grow up with. Now where did I faill?? :D

Also, there is an interesting point about how music 'blobs back on itself'. Of course this is natural but the key is how quickly this evolves and why. The breakdown of most types of music into endless sub-genres etc. Is this simply because communication is quicker, multi - faceted etc? Do people get bored more quickly? Or some other reason?

More and more music is shoved down the throats of (actual and would-be) musical consumers each and every day - through the multiplication of media exposure but also through more and more business-minded characters trying to grab a share of the market and turn a buck QUICK, with more and more of them steering the same, predictable formulaic route that promises a hit (which makes it harder for individualism to GROW naturally and to make itself heard).

Edited June 27, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[Niko]

In fact I found some of the more recent Brit-Pop bands (that style-wise reach back to 60s British bands) more enjoyable on an occasional (!) listening basis than the 70s rock bands I was supposed to grow up with. Now where did I faill?? :D

to me this sounds like you didn't really grow up with that music (nothing wrong with that, actually i am a vaguely similar case i didn't start to listen to pop music until i was in my early twenties - although i did of course hear pop music before... once in a while i recognize a song i heard during driving lessons or the like - wouldn't call these formative experiences though... (in my case the difference is of course barely noticeable, six years, moreover these six years, don't make that much of a difference))

[Jazzmoose]

and then there's Jazzmoose. What the hell was he thinkin'????

I've never been accused of that before...

[Big Beat Steve]

It all depends, Niko. What do you consider "growing up with"? I can't tell you how hard it was to AVOID that music back then. (You know you can't (and shouldn't, really) run away from your classmates and buddies and dig a foxhole to crawl into. ) The exposure to the music definitely was there. First it was Slade, Gary Glitter, T. Rex etc. all over the place, soon to be followed by TYA, Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull, Genesis, Deep Purple, those Southern Rock bands, all that "Deutschrock" stuff, etc. etc. AND YET I didn't dig it at all, except for some bluesy TYA stuff (see above). But formative it was in more ways than one. If only to show me clearly how those "far-out" changes and endless solos then all the rage in the rock music of the day had been around in jazz a good 20 years earlier (I remember one occasion, in particular, when I went on a record buying spree with a buddy, he bought his hard rock, I bought an early Sonny Rollins LP and when we played the records to each other afterwards he had to admit those cats had something going back in those 50s that many rockers were only just exploring in the 70s. ;. Musicologically an invalid comparison for sure, but formative it was!)

Edited June 27, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[Jazzmoose]

A couple of comments after reading this thread...

I'm firmly in the camp of "what's wrong with rock is you grew up".

While I admittedly like stuff from the sixties and seventies, I found rock I liked through the grunge period, and even afterward (primarily Garbage and Bjork, but I'll admit that what's left of my sex drive may have influenced me with both). I've found stuff I like that's even more recent, but I think the fracturing of the audience has a lot to do with the problem of the music. In the sixties it was a lot easier to get exposure to the whole of the form, whereas now it isn't.

I have to admit I'm puzzled by those who hold up Led Zeppelin as an example of great song writing. I'll admit that their novel approach to the blues was intriguing (anyone who was around can surely remember that "WTF are they trying to do???" feeling when their first LP came out), but reworking Willie Dixon, et al. is hardly great writing, is it?

[Van Basten II]

When it comes to discussions of music why does it always seem to devolve into a "this era was better than that era", "this dude could play circles around that dude", "this style of music is superior to that style"...all variations of "my Dad could kick your Dad's ass"?

As I've said before, if you feel it and it moves you then listen to it...if it doesn't then don't waste your time thinking about it. Pretty simple idea actually.

It's beginning to feel like every topic on this board is turning into an argument these days, it's making me tired.

Amen.

Rock may produce less iconic figures but it still produces worthwhile music today. Have ever wondered if the iconic heroes of yesteryears would have still been able to become those icons if they started today. Think the way music is produced , marketed and sold is somewhat diferent than today and the management of a career is a little bit tougher than it was in terms of artistic content. No Myspace music sensation back then to spin the world for a few weeks

PS As a Montrealer , little ashamed to have not brought Arcade Fire into the interesting acts of today

[Shawn]

I have to admit I'm puzzled by those who hold up Led Zeppelin as an example of great song writing. I'll admit that their novel approach to the blues was intriguing (anyone who was around can surely remember that "WTF are they trying to do???" feeling when their first LP came out), but reworking Willie Dixon, et al. is hardly great writing, is it?

Well, that was only a part of the band and even then primarily on their first couple albums. Zep to me seemed to be a synthesis band, they grabbed bits and pieces from many different genres and mixed them together in ways that nobody had thought of at that point. In the long term this is one of the things that helped them achieve their "sound" and I think it's that personality that still appeals to newer generations and keeps some of us "semi-old" farts still listening.

[A Lark Ascending]

Led Zeppelin did a bit more than rework Willie Dixon. Just as Charlie Parker did a bit more than rework Jerome Kern or George Gershwin; and as Vaughan Williams did a bit more than rework Tudor church music and English folk song.

I suspect if I heard them now for the first time I'd have absolutely no interest. But at the time they were a sound to behear; and I retain an affection for them, even if I generally find heavy metal more than a bit plodding.

[Shawn]

Led Zeppelin did a bit more than rework Willie Dixon. Just as Charlie Parker did a bit more than rework Jerome Kern or George Gershwin; and as Vaughan Williams did a bit more than rework Tudor church music and English folk song.

I suspect if I heard them now for the first time I'd have absolutely no interest. But at the time they were a sound to behear; and I retain an affection for them, even if I generally find heavy metal more than a bit plodding.

I've never considered Zep to be heavy metal, but other than that I totally agree with your post. To me there is a vast difference between hard rock & heavy metal.