What's Gone Wrong With Rock?

[Noj]

I dig the Clash. "Ghetto Defendant," baby.

[.:.impossible]

Being of the generation that I am, I never thought much of Clapton because a) everyone I knew had that Columbia House Greatest Hits compilation that was about as awesome as The Eagles and b) I have never heard a great guitar solo by Eric Clapton that didn't sound like a great guitar solo by "insert name here" guitar player.

I just grabbed The Complete Buddy Holly 6 lp at the store yesterday and I am blown away by the early Lubbock, TX stuff. I don't really care what year the music was recorded. I hear tons of punk influence, among other things, in this stuff. And I hear tons of punk influence in music in recent years.

Music is a great, big tree and the branches did not stop growing, regardless of what you think. I'm certainly not looking for a rock superstar. As has been said before, that era is over. Rock is not what it was. It is diffuse and, for the most part, moving in lateral directions from its "golden age". Nothing's gone wrong with it. It just might not be aimed at you anymore.

[JETman]

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.

[7/4]

BUT - The "Rock" stopped rolling in 1960 or so (after Eddie Cochran's death and after the first bunch of artificially fabricated "beach party teen idols" drowned out the ROCKERS and before the British BEAT came along. :D

What you Americans (and everybody else) have had ever since is just plan ROCK but NOT rock'n'ROLL (with the exception of the neo-rock'n'roll/rockabilly subculture(s) within rock that came along every now and then and will continue to flourish).

'50's rock/Rockabilly...yet another generational divide.

[.:.impossible]

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 seem to find plenty that is aimed in my general direction, regardless of what year it was recorded, regardless of what continent it was recorded, regardless of what genre it was given. I'm listening to a Comets on Fire album right now that seems just fine. Nice and loud and rockin'. Yeah, lots of throwback stuff going on right now, but coming from a different generation. I'm ok with that.

[7/4]

Cactus.

.

[Aggie87]

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.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Aggie87

[WD45]

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 seem to find plenty that is aimed in my general direction, regardless of what year it was recorded, regardless of what continent it was recorded, regardless of what genre it was given. I'm listening to a Comets on Fire album right now that seems just fine. Nice and loud and rockin'. Yeah, lots of throwback stuff going on right now, but coming from a different generation. I'm ok with that.

Comets on Fire was one I was going to bring up to satisfy the virtuoso solo question. Their guitarist Ben Chasny is often on fire.

[A Lark Ascending]

Tell me truthfully, though -- do you hear any guitar solos today that make your hair stand on end? Like, for example, Clapton's duo of solos in Cream's live version of "Crossroads", which still gets me everytime. No need to flame, that's just one that does it for me. I do not hear the same kind of virtuousiticy in the rock and roll of the last 20 or so years.

In terms of what I like to listen to, I sympathise. I was never a huge Capton fan though I like some of his music; but I do like long, well played solos. Young and Stills sparing on 'Four Way Street' still thrill me.

But I think you miss a vital point. Long solos were written out of rock by punk. Although a lot of what was condemned then has returned (many rock musicians who started in punk became stadium fillers), the long solo remains a big no-no.

I may not like that; you may not like that. But it's how things are. Rock music is now judged by other standards. Rock music hasn't gone wrong; it's just changed.

************

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.

[Niko]

talking of divides... didn't notice until now that jetman and jazzjet are two different posters...?

[JETman]

Neither Clapton, nor long solos were ever the point!!! Insert the name of the virtuoso of your choice. It could be Norah Jones' dad for all I care. Wait, that's opening up a whole other can of worms.

[JETman]

talking of divides... didn't notice until now that jetman and jazzjet are two different posters...?

Yes, my "jet" are my initials, whereas his is the name of one of his 2 dogs.

[7/4]

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

[A Lark Ascending]

Neither Clapton, nor long solos were ever the point!!! Insert the name of the virtuoso of your choice. It could be Norah Jones' dad for all I care. Wait, that's opening up a whole other can of worms.

Well, maybe its just that the virtuosity that you seek is not so much lacking as less projected. The great player stepping up into the spotlight for a solo (with or without a bow!) ceased to be acceptable from the late 70s; but that does not mean that there's not some virtuosic playing going on in support of the overall music. There's perhaps less overt grandstanding (except, perhaps in metal).

I was a big King Crimson fan in the early to mid-70s. When I listened to the Discipline band in the early 80s I just didn't get it. Fripp seemed to have stopped playing. And it was interesting that later on he even cut out what I thought of as one of the great Fripp moments, the short solo on Matte Kudasai.

Much much later (late 90s) I tried again and the Discipline era made sense and I could hear that despite the lack of up front soloing there was a lot going on in the textures.

If the surface interested me I'm sure I could find plenty of virtuosity in contemporary playing.

We all have to learn that each of us can only ever see a small part of the whole. It's a grave mistake to assume that the parts we can't see are not of value.

[sjarrell]

You know, I think the era of the rock superstar is past. MSN regularly throws Britney, Paris, American Idol-ers at me- the media pumps celebrity at the receptive masses and kids don't just get to be stars on the back of actual talent. They used to could, I think.

It's not that talent and vision are gone. The star-makers are just busy elsewhere, pushing trainwrecks and mediocrity. Rock needs a new press agent.

You may be right, but the question remains: where are the stars? Stars of the past didn't need no stinkin' press agents. This is a function of today's corporate environment.

Tell me truthfully, though -- do you hear any guitar solos today that make your hair stand on end? Like, for example, Clapton's duo of solos in Cream's live version of "Crossroads", which still gets me everytime. No need to flame, that's just one that does it for me. I do not hear the same kind of virtuousity in the rock and roll of the last 20 or so years.

Please stop with the Clapton. Please. What went wrong with virtuoso rock? Punk stuck a big-ass fork in it.

Edited for extra snark.

Why so snarky, sj? Why not just stick to answering the question. Punk was not a reaction to virtuoso rock, it was a reflection of the changing times. It was what it was, and everybody knew it sucked (and had little staying power in order to stick a big-ass fork in rock, as you say), but they listened to it anyway just to be "hip". Did you actually think that bands like the Clash could "play" their instruments?

Again, please point me in the direction of music with staying power. I beg you. I'm open-minded, and young. I promise I'd be willing to listen.

A)Strummer/Jones wrote better songs than Clapton. Shelley/Diggle wrote better songs than Clapton. Paul Weller wrote better songs than Clapton, and occasionally still knocks one out of the park. It was never about virtuosity or star-power, it was about the tunes and passion. It was about youth and not about the old farts of the last generation.

B)There's a long list of current music with "staying power" in this thread. Go. Listen.

[JETman]

Neither Clapton, nor long solos were ever the point!!! Insert the name of the virtuoso of your choice. It could be Norah Jones' dad for all I care. Wait, that's opening up a whole other can of worms.

Well, maybe its just that the virtuosity that you seek is not so much lacking as less projected. The great player stepping up into the spotlight for a solo (with or without a bow!) ceased to be acceptable from the late 70s; but that does not mean that there's not some virtuosic playing going on in support of the overall music. There's perhaps less overt grandstanding (except, perhaps in metal).

I was a big King Crimson fan in the early to mid-70s. When I listened to the Discipline band in the early 80s I just didn't get it. Fripp seemed to have stopped playing. And it was interesting that later on he even cut out what I thought of as one of the great Fripp moments, the short solo on Matte Kudasai.

Much much later (late 90s) I tried again and the Discipline era made sense and I could hear that despite the lack of up front soloing there was a lot going on in the textures.

If the surface interested me I'm sure I could find plenty of virtuosity in contemporary playing.

We all have to learn that each of us can only ever see a small part of the whole. It's a grave mistake to assume that the parts we can't see are not of value.

I am a fan of Discipline era Crim.

[.:.impossible]

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 attempted to post something to this effect and didn't finish it.

[JETman]

You know, I think the era of the rock superstar is past. MSN regularly throws Britney, Paris, American Idol-ers at me- the media pumps celebrity at the receptive masses and kids don't just get to be stars on the back of actual talent. They used to could, I think.

It's not that talent and vision are gone. The star-makers are just busy elsewhere, pushing trainwrecks and mediocrity. Rock needs a new press agent.

You may be right, but the question remains: where are the stars? Stars of the past didn't need no stinkin' press agents. This is a function of today's corporate environment.

Tell me truthfully, though -- do you hear any guitar solos today that make your hair stand on end? Like, for example, Clapton's duo of solos in Cream's live version of "Crossroads", which still gets me everytime. No need to flame, that's just one that does it for me. I do not hear the same kind of virtuousity in the rock and roll of the last 20 or so years.

Please stop with the Clapton. Please. What went wrong with virtuoso rock? Punk stuck a big-ass fork in it.

Edited for extra snark.

Why so snarky, sj? Why not just stick to answering the question. Punk was not a reaction to virtuoso rock, it was a reflection of the changing times. It was what it was, and everybody knew it sucked (and had little staying power in order to stick a big-ass fork in rock, as you say), but they listened to it anyway just to be "hip". Did you actually think that bands like the Clash could "play" their instruments?

Again, please point me in the direction of music with staying power. I beg you. I'm open-minded, and young. I promise I'd be willing to listen.

A)Strummer/Jones wrote better songs than Clapton. Shelley/Diggle wrote better songs than Clapton. Paul Weller wrote better songs than Clapton, and occasionally still knocks one out of the park. It was never about virtuosity or star-power, it was about the tunes and passion. It was about youth and not about the old farts of the last generation.

B)There's a long list of current music with "staying power" in this thread. Go. Listen.

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.

[medjuck]

I'm old enough to remember the impact of Little Richard, Ray Charles and Elvis. Rocked my world. I was a jazz snob and didn't listen much to rock in my 20s. (I just didn't get Led Zepplin or Cream. I was introduced to Jimi Hendrix by Gil Evans.) Then I heard The Clash and Elvis Costello and started listening again. Now I have an 18 year old son who's into The Arcade Fire and the Broken Social Scene groups. Sound good to me. OTOH he wishes he was a teenager in Seattle in the late 80s.

[ep1str0phy]

For my money, Bruce/Brown, especially right after Cream broke up, were as good a songwriting team as anything.

[Big Beat Steve]

BUT - The "Rock" stopped rolling in 1960 or so (after Eddie Cochran's death and after the first bunch of artificially fabricated "beach party teen idols" drowned out the ROCKERS and before the British BEAT came along. :D

What you Americans (and everybody else) have had ever since is just plan ROCK but NOT rock'n'ROLL (with the exception of the neo-rock'n'roll/rockabilly subculture(s) within rock that came along every now and then and will continue to flourish).

'50's rock/Rockabilly...yet another generational divide.

7/4, would it comfort you if I told you I wasn't even born in the 50s yet? :D

(But in a way you are right about the "generational divide")

[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.

[JETman]

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.

[Jazzjet]

talking of divides... didn't notice until now that jetman and jazzjet are two different posters...?

Indeed. What's with all this Jet stuff anyway. In my case, Jet is one of my dogs ( Jazz is the other one ).

[Alexander]

Did you actually think that bands like the Clash could "play" their instruments?

Bad example. The Clash COULD play their instruments. They just wanted 'em to sound like that!