What's Gone Wrong With Rock?

[Jazzjet]

I guess like many on this forum I have a fair number of rock albums alongside the bulk of jazz, funk, soul etc. However, most current rock leaves me totally cold and its a long while since I bought a rock album. Of course this might be due to my taste changing and, indeed, most modern rock is not aimed at my generation. However, it does seem that rock has lost its edge with a lot of very average bands trying to sell to a diminishing market. UK rock, in particular, is full of bands characterised by limp vocals ( often in fake cockney accents ) and minimal songwriting talent. The subject matter isn't very inspiring either.

Am I missing something or do others notice the same decline?

[7/4]

I started to notice this about 35 years ago and it just gets worse every year.

yawn.

.

[Aggie87]

It's probably an age thing, where you simply grow out of what's popular, and stick with what was popular when you were a certain age.

Teens today will probably look back with nostalgia about the music they're listening to now, once they reach our ages, just as we do with the music we liked back then.

[Niko]

It's probably an age thing, where you simply grow out of what's popular, and stick with what was popular when you were a certain age.

Teens today will probably look back with nostalgia about the music they're listening to now, once they reach our ages, just as we do with the music we liked back then.

you mean it is not consensus that the early nineties with, say, Oasis and Nirvana were still a pretty good time in rock?

[JETman]

It's probably an age thing, where you simply grow out of what's popular, and stick with what was popular when you were a certain age.

Teens today will probably look back with nostalgia about the music they're listening to now, once they reach our ages, just as we do with the music we liked back then.

you mean it is not consensus that the early nineties with, say, Oasis and Nirvana were still a pretty good time in rock?

Definitely not! As a matter of fact, the declaration that Kurt Cobain was the next John Lennon caused me to finally leave rock behind and seek out other forms of musical enjoyment.

[Hot Ptah]

My 12 year old daughter and her friends, who are all quite intelligent and articulate for their age, have talked to me often about how the rock music from the late 1960s and early 1970s is so "lame", so "simple-minded" and "not nearly as good as what we have today." They view the rock and pop that they listen to as far superior, in terms of objective quality.

Our neighbors behind us were playing their outdoor speakers too loudly and we were serenaded all weekend by a playlist which would have been popular in 1972. I made some comment about "these kids playing their music too loud." My daughter and her friends said that "only really old people would play music that bad."

[Niko]

It's probably an age thing, where you simply grow out of what's popular, and stick with what was popular when you were a certain age.

Teens today will probably look back with nostalgia about the music they're listening to now, once they reach our ages, just as we do with the music we liked back then.

you mean it is not consensus that the early nineties with, say, Oasis and Nirvana were still a pretty good time in rock?

Definitely not! As a matter of fact, the declaration that Kurt Cobain was the next John Lennon caused me to finally leave rock behind and seek out other forms of musical enjoyment.

i am certainly not cobain's biggest fan (not even among his 10 million biggest fans i guess, actually), but i still like to hear their albums (don't have to own them for this) though not the way i like to hear, say, kenny doham... as aggie said memories have a lot to do with this...

[Van Basten II]

The primeral use of rock music is to piss off previous generations, so, the fact you hate it the current proves its effectiveness. Start liking the music that your teenage son or daughter enjoys and you can be pretty sure it will make him reach for other kinds of music.

[JETman]

As 7/4 mentioned earlier, rock has pretty much been going downhill for at least the last 35 years. Examples can be found in the Stones, who haven't put out a good album since 1972, and in Clapton, whose guitar playing hasn't been the same since Layla. I guess it's all a matter of perspective, but that's the way I see it. So if I happen to listen to rock today, it's the same rock I enjoyed when I was 15!!! No progress has been made since then, least of all with the likes of Nirvana, Pearl Jam and all the other grunge rockers. Even my 11 year old son and 8 year old daughter can see this!!!

[felser]

It's probably an age thing, where you simply grow out of what's popular, and stick with what was popular when you were a certain age.

Teens today will probably look back with nostalgia about the music they're listening to now, once they reach our ages, just as we do with the music we liked back then.

Not sure about that. It's been 44 years since the Beatles hit in 1964. 44 years before that was 1920. Don't know that our parents/grandparents looked back as fiercely on Al Jolson or Bing Crosby or whatever as my generation does on the classic rock era. I agree with the comment that rock music has been in a 35 year decline. Some touchstones:

1 - the death of 60's idealism (think Charles Manson and Altamont) and the ascendancy of Cocaine in the rock world, which destroyed the populist aspects of the rock experience. Granted, much of the 60's idealism was a fairy tale, but it was a fairy tale with an awesome soundtrack.

2 - the firing of Clive Davis by Columbia. They were a very daring company in the late 60's, as was Warner/Reprise. A lot of great albums got made then by those companies which would not be today

3 - the ascendancy of the singer/songwriters and country rock groups on one hand and the hard rock/heavy metal groups on the other, which polarized rock music and made other styles a niche.

4 - The AOR format, which eliminated the free-form FM format on one hand and trivialized AM top 40 playlists on the other hand.

5 - The elimination of the ability of independant labels to break new music regionally and have it go national based on merit.

6 - Punk and Disco, which seemed at the time to immediately turn everything before it into dinasours. Granted, a lot of it had become fossilized prior to that, opening the doors for Punk and Disco.

7 - MTV was damaging on one hand, because the visuals became more important than the music in a lot of ways, and because it made it even more impossible for niche/local music to ascend to national status. On the other hand, there was a return to a focus on individual songs rather than albums for a brief time, and I would argue that the early-mid 80's were by far the strongest pop period of the last 35 years, even though much of the production sounds dated now. The writing was stronger than it had been in some time, and much much stronger than it has been since then. But MTV eventually led to the Britney's and Xtina's, via Madonna. Madonna had much musical merit at time, but that seems but a small part of her legacy, and much of the rest of that legacy has been pretty damaging on a lot of levels.

8 - Rap, while some has merit, further dumbed down a lot of musical values in many cases. I have to smile here, as my parents would say the same about rock, but there it is.

9 - There is still some good music to be heard on adult alternative rock stations (we have one of the best in the country, WXPN, here in Philly. David Dye's World Cafe originates from WXPN), but even there, the format is more rigid than we might wish, though a lot looser than on "for profit" commercial stations.

10 - When's that last time there was really something "new" of great value in music to draw the masses? Also, when's the last time a group seemed to grab the spirit of the populace the way groups like U2 or Big Country did in the 80's, and so many did in the 60's?

Just some ramblings from a 53 year old on his lunch break, this is by necessity overly simplistic, but maybe will raise some good discussion points.

[Niko]

lots of thngs i agree with totally (some of which i saw clearer than others) (some points i am to young/european to understand them)

3 - the ascendancy of the singer/songwriters and country rock groups on one hand and the hard rock/heavy metal groups on the other, which polarized rock music and made other styles a niche.

7 -... and I would argue that the early-mid 80's were by far the strongest pop period of the last 35 years, even though much of the production sounds dated now. The writing was stronger than it had been in some time, and much much stronger than it has been since then.

while the music as a whole did not reach greater heights or whatever i think there have still been some fine songs (even albums) in more recent years (listened to elliot smith, bonnie prince billy, jeff buckley (at olympia) and some the cure recently - all stuff which is maybe not innovative but nice to have around at least for me) (and is it rock?)

[Hot Ptah]

I understand that there are contemporary indie rock forums, much like Organissimo, devoted to today's rock. It would be very interesting to get the perspective of those who post heavily there to the comments made on this thread.

Let me guess---they might respond something like, "today's rock is the best, but you jazz people are so far out of it that you have never even heard of the incredibly esoteric indie rock artists we worship, which are making music which is billions of times better than the old wretched stuff that you are clinging to from your youth."

I have heard young people say things like this in response to someone who has praised 1960s or 1970s rock.

[Niko]

I understand that there are contemporary indie rock forums, much like Organissimo, devoted to today's rock. It would be very interesting to get the perspective of those who post heavily there to the comments made on this thread.

Let me guess---they might respond something like, "today's rock is the best, but you jazz people are so far out of it that you have never even heard of the incredibly esoteric indie rock artists we worship, which are making music which is billions of times better than the old wretched stuff that you are clinging to from your youth."

would be really interesting to get that perspective (i mean - if a rock fan came over here worshipping jazz artists from the 60's and 70's we would probably rather direct him to lesser known jazz artists from the 50s and 60s than to contemporary stuff... always thought in rock there was a similar tendency to look back - though maybe not as strong as in jazz)

but i might be completely wrong...

Edited June 23, 2008 by Niko

[clifford_thornton]

How many of the posters here, in this very thread, dig deep into current rock music, especially that released by independent labels in either the US or Europe? There is a fair amount of great shit out there. I suspect y'all weren't digging much deeper than Cream (great as they were) in 1969 either.

[clifford_thornton]

I'll add that, though their career is almost 30 years on and their newer albums aren't to my tastes, Sonic Youth are a no-brainer, one of the greatest rock bands of our time.

Edited June 23, 2008 by clifford_thornton

[clifford_thornton]

And, finally, John Lennon isn't all that history has made him out to be.

[JETman]

And, finally, John Lennon isn't all that history has made him out to be.

And Kurt Cobain even less so. If the Beatles were an inch, Nirvana wouldn't even be a micron.

And, btw, how is Sonic Youth a no-brainer?

Finally, fwiw, the best rock musician I ever heard was Miles Davis!

[Niko]

the beatles... i find a lot to admire in their songs, creativity, humour, cleverness, whatever... (similar with david bowie) but i can't say that their music really reached me on an emotional level the way, say my favorite aztec camera, syd barrett, nick drake, stars song has reached me... maybe a generations thing... i would immediately agree that kurt cobain's 30 best songs can't compete at all with the Beatles' 30 best songs (and to a lesser extent i would agree with 5 best songs ) but in terms of finding my own feelings expressed i clealy prefer cobain (and someone who died in the US when i was 12 is not completely my generation anymore i'd say)

[sjarrell]

A: The bad thing about rock is that it's not all as good as Supergrass' Diamond Hoo Ha. Or Gruff Rhys' Candylion. 95% of everything is still crap, always has been, and if you're not seeking out the good stuff, it's not gonna find you.

B: I'm old enough that I hear everyone's influences, and it makes it hard for me to take what the kids play seriously. Just like when the old guys were bustin' on my Mary Chain lps in college, saying they were just riffing on the Velvets. Sure they were. But they were cooler.

I'm sure the kids think their 4th generation Kevin Shields wannabes are cooler than MBV ever was.

Edit: Oasis were monstrously good (in an idiot sort of way) for exactly one album (Definitely Maybe) and one single (Whatever). Then the ideas went away.

I can't listen to Nirvana anymore. Not because it's not good, but the time just seems past.

Edited June 23, 2008 by sjarrell

[clifford_thornton]

I mean, YMMV and it always will.

How does one define "greatness" in music? Again, YMMV.

Syd Barrett

Roky Erickson

Captain Beefheart

The Grateful Dead

Jack Bruce

Sonic Youth

Velvets

Roxy Music (Eno & Ferry)

Mudhoney/Green River

Come

Bitch Magnet

Lungfish

Talking Heads

Nikki Sudden/Swell Maps

Can

The Clean

The Vaselines

Eric Gaffney

Rhys Chatham

Theoretical Girls

(early) Kraftwerk

Neu! (the first record)

The Band

Byrds

Kevin Ayers

Groundhogs (at least the first couple of recs)

...are all better than good to me...

[clifford_thornton]

I liked Nirvana well enough in about 1990-1992 but they don't hold up too well.

Get me some John Doe.

[WorldB3]

As said above 90% of everything is and was crap, now its just harder for the good stuff to rise to the top.

What wrong with Rock?

I think there is certain lack of risk takers, as mentioned above the majors are not going to hold onto a artist that doesn’t sell. If 14-18 year old males spend the most disposable income on music then the stuff they like is what will get marketed the most. I think around 24 for most is when you start to move away from musical crushes you had when you were a kid and are able to develop a wider range of taste. Even when catering to older rock audiences the majors will more likely come with something manufactured like Velvet Revolver.

As much as I support indie rock I think it is suffering from a kind of safeness and corporate branding and exploitation, kind of like Safeway saying its sells Free Trade Coffee or organic foods, its just another corporation looking at market share. While its great that an indie band that is worth hearing can get some exposure and paid with a song being on the “OC” or in a commercial it sucks when you have a million copy cat bands that want to sound like Modest Mouse that wasn’t a good band to begin with but was successful.

There is also the good and the bad of Pro Tools.

What’s right?

Bands and artists are having more control over their art by not being beholden to majors.

If you look for the good stuff you will be rewarded. There are lots of creative and intelligent songwriters out right now. Spoon and Wilco continue to be consistent and put out excellent and forward thinking recordings. The last records by Neko Case (Fox Confessor..) and Iron and Wine (Sheppard’s Dog) stand up with the best records of the 60’s and 70’s. Then there is the Radiohead phenomenon where they bypassed record company completely and made millions by offering people to pay pennies for it to download it and sold it to them again when the official release came out on Vinyl and CD.

Again its not all bad you just have to look a little harder.

Edited June 23, 2008 by WorldB3

[felser]

I suspect y'all weren't digging much deeper than Cream (great as they were) in 1969 either.

Well that's a pretty snotty response! As far as digging deep, I actually own and have heard more rock albums/CD's than jazz albums/CD's. How deep do you want to go late 60's/early 70's? H.P. Lovecraft deep? Hampton Grease Band deep? Frumious Bandersnatch deep? I can keep up with you. As far as digging that deep today, my experiences are that it isn't anywhere near worth it, and I defer to the younger generation, will stay at the Beth Orton level and see what catches my ear from the radio. Not meant to be hostile, but hopefully to recast your view on this somewhat.

Edited June 23, 2008 by felser

[A Lark Ascending]

It's probably an age thing, where you simply grow out of what's popular, and stick with what was popular when you were a certain age.

Teens today will probably look back with nostalgia about the music they're listening to now, once they reach our ages, just as we do with the music we liked back then.

That's how I see it too. I gave up on rock c. 1976-8 (punk killed my interest) but I still love the rock I cut my teeth on the late 60s/early 70s (even the not so good or rather twee records!).

I find the four-square beat of rock off-putting now - it was always there but seems to be much more up front now. I also don't care for the way that all the spaces get filled in, often with a synth.

But that's just me; to others it's a great appeal and 70s bands sound limp by comparison.

I don't worry - there's so much music in so many different genres out there to keep me interested for the rest of my life.

[Jazzjet]

It's probably an age thing, where you simply grow out of what's popular, and stick with what was popular when you were a certain age.

Teens today will probably look back with nostalgia about the music they're listening to now, once they reach our ages, just as we do with the music we liked back then.

Not sure about that. It's been 44 years since the Beatles hit in 1964. 44 years before that was 1920. Don't know that our parents/grandparents looked back as fiercely on Al Jolson or Bing Crosby or whatever as my generation does on the classic rock era. I agree with the comment that rock music has been in a 35 year decline. Some touchstones:

1 - the death of 60's idealism (think Charles Manson and Altamont) and the ascendancy of Cocaine in the rock world, which destroyed the populist aspects of the rock experience. Granted, much of the 60's idealism was a fairy tale, but it was a fairy tale with an awesome soundtrack.

2 - the firing of Clive Davis by Columbia. They were a very daring company in the late 60's, as was Warner/Reprise. A lot of great albums got made then by those companies which would not be today

3 - the ascendancy of the singer/songwriters and country rock groups on one hand and the hard rock/heavy metal groups on the other, which polarized rock music and made other styles a niche.

4 - The AOR format, which eliminated the free-form FM format on one hand and trivialized AM top 40 playlists on the other hand.

5 - The elimination of the ability of independant labels to break new music regionally and have it go national based on merit.

6 - Punk and Disco, which seemed at the time to immediately turn everything before it into dinasours. Granted, a lot of it had become fossilized prior to that, opening the doors for Punk and Disco.

7 - MTV was damaging on one hand, because the visuals became more important than the music in a lot of ways, and because it made it even more impossible for niche/local music to ascend to national status. On the other hand, there was a return to a focus on individual songs rather than albums for a brief time, and I would argue that the early-mid 80's were by far the strongest pop period of the last 35 years, even though much of the production sounds dated now. The writing was stronger than it had been in some time, and much much stronger than it has been since then. But MTV eventually led to the Britney's and Xtina's, via Madonna. Madonna had much musical merit at time, but that seems but a small part of her legacy, and much of the rest of that legacy has been pretty damaging on a lot of levels.

8 - Rap, while some has merit, further dumbed down a lot of musical values in many cases. I have to smile here, as my parents would say the same about rock, but there it is.

9 - There is still some good music to be heard on adult alternative rock stations (we have one of the best in the country, WXPN, here in Philly. David Dye's World Cafe originates from WXPN), but even there, the format is more rigid than we might wish, though a lot looser than on "for profit" commercial stations.

10 - When's that last time there was really something "new" of great value in music to draw the masses? Also, when's the last time a group seemed to grab the spirit of the populace the way groups like U2 or Big Country did in the 80's, and so many did in the 60's?

Just some ramblings from a 53 year old on his lunch break, this is by necessity overly simplistic, but maybe will raise some good discussion points.

Agree with most of your points. One I would add is the takeover of control in the music business of accountants, probably from the mid-80s. Creativity was severely compromised as a result and many of the albums we cherish now ( Pet Sounds for example ? ) might never have got made once the accountants took over. Arguably, the decline in rock and pop dates from this time.