Will rock music ever make a commercial comeback?

[rocknroll41]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The problem with newer rock bands is it is too easy to discern the influences. You hear a certain band and you detect where they enter 'Beatles mode', employ Zeppelin rifferage, or a Floyd soundscape. It begs the question, why listen to a third rate Kinks knock-off when you can listen to The Kinks? The baggage of the pre-1980s generation - the '60s above all else - looms too large for any budding rocker. When the 1960s' generation were in their formative period, rock was still relatively new, and there was not this baggage of entire legacies. Further, we now have entire discographies at our disposal - music is no longer something to be dug out. How can you, an aspiring musician, compete with the entire discography of Elvis and The Beatles? It cannot be done.

Agreed. Hence why I think aspiring Rock n rollers shouldn't even try to "compete" at all and just play music for the sake of playing music. 

With that being said, however, I would argue that with enough influences, someone could probably come up with a new genre fusion that hasn't been done before. But I do agree that these days it seems less likely since so many tonal combinations have already been done. Plus, trying to fuse too many influences could cause the music of said artist to lack direction or "focus," so to speak. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to not rely too much on influences at all and just do whatever comes natural? Even then, it's still best to approach music as a form of self-satisfaction more than anything else, I suppose.

[Len Cnut]

5 hours ago, rocknroll41 said:

Agreed. Hence why I think aspiring Rock n rollers shouldn't even try to "compete" at all and just play music for the sake of playing music. 

With that being said, however, I would argue that with enough influences, someone could probably come up with a new genre fusion that hasn't been done before. But I do agree that these days it seems less likely since so many tonal combinations have already been done. Plus, trying to fuse too many influences could cause the music of said artist to lack direction or "focus," so to speak. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to not rely too much on influences at all and just do whatever comes natural? Even then, it's still best to approach music as a form of self-satisfaction more than anything else, I suppose.

I disagree, i think they should compete and have a healthy sense of arrogance and desire to be the best thing in the world otherwise you'll just be boring.  You need to be bold about it, if someone started bangin' off good songs right now folks'd jump on em as much as any era, it just ain't happening, and i wager this reverence of the past is half the problem, you can see the beginnings of hip hop getting that way too, hip hops in its mid 70s prog rock phase right now, or stadium rock phase

[john lennon]

No, I don't, and it really pisses me off. It's not that I necessarily need or want it to be the biggest thing in the world or anything, but could rock music just please raise from the dead? Seriously though, I think it's all due to Nirvana. I love Nirvana as much as anyone, but man are they fucking overrated, and why the fuck has every "alternative" rock band since them sounded like them?

I liked that 80s revival thing that happened maybe ten to fifteen years ago. You know, all these new hair metal bands. I'm not even really  a fan of hair metal, but it was better than everything else around. 

[SoNobodyToldYaBaby]

"Rock" bands these days dont even build there songs around riffs. If youre in the UK and turn on kerrang! TV and theres something called like "top 10 hottest tracks right now!" Not one of the songs will have a memorable riff the guitars are extremely minimal and are just there for the sake of it. And thats without getting into the whiney skinny jeans wearing fagwots who are playing the songs. 

[Len Cnut]

Everything has it's time and it's era and when it's time to go then it's time to go. 

[HeartbreakerWoman]

We live in a post subculture age. The time of any music having dominance culturally is over with in general. We live in an age now where it is cool to practically like anything. The internet, spotify and things along those lines have made it so the music industry, and thus music taste, is fragmented. The old system of a hot genre or a dominant artist, is dead. So in a sense, every genre is alive, because we live in an age where everyone listens to a bit of everything due to music being so accessible. So will rock make a "comeback"? No, neither will Hip Hop. Because neither have truly gone away. Not in the way classical music did. Both are relevant parts of pop culture now because pop culture, as it was understood from the 1920s - 1990s (as a period of trends) doesn't exist anymore. We live in the freest time in history, where you can wear whatever you like and also listen to whatever you like and you won't be uncool.

[Len Cnut]

2 hours ago, HeartbreakerWoman said:

We live in a post subculture age. The time of any music having dominance culturally is over with in general. We live in an age now where it is cool to practically like anything. The internet, spotify and things along those lines have made it so the music industry, and thus music taste, is fragmented. The old system of a hot genre or a dominant artist, is dead. So in a sense, every genre is alive, because we live in an age where everyone listens to a bit of everything due to music being so accessible. So will rock make a "comeback"? No, neither will Hip Hop. Because neither have truly gone away. Not in the way classical music did. Both are relevant parts of pop culture now because pop culture, as it was understood from the 1920s - 1990s (as a period of trends) doesn't exist anymore. We live in the freest time in history, where you can wear whatever you like and also listen to whatever you like and you won't be uncool.

An interesting aside to that is i think its gonna contribute to whatever degree to a more divided society eventually.  People understate the power of music, on a grassroots level, to bring people together.  Not in some all encompassing John Lennon-esque peace on earth kind of way but in a more direct sense in that it crosses cultural boundaries and presents you with an experience that is alien to yours.  Music and musical subcultures, for the working class of this country, is probably more responsible for bring people of different cultures together more than any other thing.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Len B'stard

[HeartbreakerWoman]

17 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

An interesting aside to that is i think its gonna contribute to whatever degree to a more divided society eventually.  People understate the power of music, on a grassroots level, to bring people together.  Not in some all encompassing John Lennon-esque peace on earth kind of way but in a more direct sense in that it crosses cultural boundaries and presents you with an experience that is alien to yours.  Music and musical subcultures, for the working class of this country, is probably more responsible for bring people of different cultures together more than any other thing.

What makes you think it will contribute to a more divided society eventually?
I agree with your second point, but I think the age where music can be this almost transcendental experience is sadly over. Buying a record, and hearing it for the first time and sharing in that magical moment with friends and joining a sort of communal group of underground geeks - that's gone thanks to the Internet. In one way, this is good IMO and in another it's bad - it's just another piece of human social interaction killed by the internet. Like in days of old, you'd have kids sitting around the turntable listening with awe to the newest Muddy Waters or the newest Stones or Led Zeppelin or Nevermind the Bollocks - it created special little niches which gave kids without any hope a sense of belonging, an identity, something to look up to, a niche...I don't think that sort of experience that you describe will ever be again. It's a good thing in the sense that, like, if you want to listen to say, Beethoven, no one's gonna look at you and be like, "You fuckin' square, whatchu on about with this classical shite?". In that way, the ending of musical subcultures is sorta a good thing. I mean look how many fist fights Disco inspired back in the day. I don't see music having that unifying power anymore cause its all so fragmented. I mean on paper, Adele is the biggest star on Earth, as big as The Beatles were if you go by numbers alone, yet she's not impacting on society in any meaningful way. I mean, after Nirvana for rock in America (and Oasis in England) and Eminem for Hip Hop, when's the last time you saw any artist really shake and move the nations and unify kids or shake things up socially? Arguably really Tupac was the last big force like that for hip hop overall as distinct from a youth movement IMO.

Edited April 21, 2016 by HeartbreakerWoman

[Len Cnut]

2 hours ago, HeartbreakerWoman said:

What makes you think it will contribute to a more divided society eventually?
I agree with your second point, but I think the age where music can be this almost transcendental experience is sadly over. Buying a record, and hearing it for the first time and sharing in that magical moment with friends and joining a sort of communal group of underground geeks - that's gone thanks to the Internet. In one way, this is good IMO and in another it's bad - it's just another piece of human social interaction killed by the internet. Like in days of old, you'd have kids sitting around the turntable listening with awe to the newest Muddy Waters or the newest Stones or Led Zeppelin or Nevermind the Bollocks - it created special little niches which gave kids without any hope a sense of belonging, an identity, something to look up to, a niche...I don't think that sort of experience that you describe will ever be again. It's a good thing in the sense that, like, if you want to listen to say, Beethoven, no one's gonna look at you and be like, "You fuckin' square, whatchu on about with this classical shite?". In that way, the ending of musical subcultures is sorta a good thing. I mean look how many fist fights Disco inspired back in the day. I don't see music having that unifying power anymore cause its all so fragmented. I mean on paper, Adele is the biggest star on Earth, as big as The Beatles were if you go by numbers alone, yet she's not impacting on society in any meaningful way. I mean, after Nirvana for rock in America (and Oasis in England) and Eminem for Hip Hop, when's the last time you saw any artist really shake and move the nations and unify kids or shake things up socially? Arguably really Tupac was the last big force like that for hip hop overall as distinct from a youth movement IMO.

Didnt used to post around here under the name of Miser by any chance did you?

[wasted]

Audience consumers have sort of decided by voting for nostalgia. The majority of rock fans shit on nu forms of rock as an allegiance to the old guard. And I'm like that nothing can touch The Doors or the Eagles when a dick tube is being inserted. Really rock is about freedom, and there's was sense of freedom back then. Nowadays you get blown up going to see a Batman movie. We all bought into corporate control for safety reasons but we listen to rock nostalgiacally for that feeling of better times. Inbetween terror attacks we like to listen Back in Black at barbqs. 

[Len Cnut]

I think a band like The Stone Roses could do really well even today.  Something dance orientated and contemporary but still kinda rooted in the rock sphere. 

[wasted]

It's not the music though it's the audience isn't there. I went in a club last year and everyone had iphone headphones on listening to the music the club was playing. 

We are talking rock in the mainstream so you sort of need these stars even like GNR to sell it. Even the Stone roses lads wanted to be them. My guess is Stone Roses didn't sell many records, they are a respected indie band that built on their rep. Cool but they aren't the Eagles or Stones are they? 

I'm not really sure what a regular dude or lad looks like these days? But that's who needs to pick up a guitar and find GNR and NWA and make a record. But would itunes culture make them more diverse. Just like so eceletic that it comes out very broad. 

I was on a long escalator journey and thought Rock bands arent ambitious enough or aren't making rock records that really reflect this diversity. If I'm going to but a cd I want 12-14 entertaining tracks, almost like a mixtape of various styles of rock which I don't need to change. Like invent a new format of album. Whether it's 3 bands on one album or just wildly different tracks. Because you are competing with the ever shifting almost infinite playlists on itunes. Or just albums as art. But these 10 track albums with 9 filler tracks won't shake the world. 

I think more interactive albums or cds which give you a suite of media that plugs into your devices. The music but also videos, interviews, tour material, much more visual to support the music. But keep the price the same. So bands presenting themselves for the digital age will win. 

[Apollo]

Doesn't this argument just boil down to what the kids like?

When I was a kid it was hair metal and pop rock (GnR, Van Halen, Bon Jovi, etc). 

When my eldest was a kid it was linkin park and matchbox 20. At some point it was snoop dog and all these hip hop guys, Usher and songs like "get low" - not sure who sings it. 

Then we had the female run of Beyoncé and Alicia keys and Adele  

Then there was fhe Taylor swift / Kayne / Bieber stage. 

Whatever the 13-20 years olds like - that is what will be popular. Whatever genre tickles their fancy. 

Maybe the next run will be rock. Maybe rap. Who knows.