Jump to content

The future of rock music


liers

Recommended Posts

With all the rock legends we've lost the past few years (Bowie, Cornell, Weiland, Frey, etc) and the amount of bands that are retiring (Aerosmith, Rush, etc) I've been thinking about what the future is for rock music. I'm curious what bands, frontmen, etc you see becoming more popular. Or do you think that rock is just going to slowly fade away? Do you think rock will make a comeback anytime soon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatcha mean goin' to slowly fade away, there ain't been any decent rock music in 20 odd years.  And good thing too, move on, music is music and there's a shitload else to be done and it won't be done by pretending to be your own grandad.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GNR is one of the best - maybe the best - rock bands of all time.

I start with that because I believe it and because of what I'm about to say.

 

So if we talk about a future of rock, we acknowledge that rock is in motion and progresses.

Theres an argument out there that GNR set the progression of rock music back 20 years.  In the 80's there was some really creative and forwarding thinking things happening in rock.  Bands like Talking Heads.  I like a lot of that scene too. But not like I love GNR.  Anyways, I think that the forward lineage of rock was kinda broken when business people had to decide, should they follow the culture of rock to all these new and exciting places or should they go by the established methods of making millions? There were tried and true sounds and attitudes that made millions and then there was these quirky, subversive art rockers.  So, even as popular as this new sound and identity in rock was, tried and true got the investment money.  Thats capitalist thought - culture doesn't mater, in fact culture is often the enemy.  Weird how the aesthetics of blues, outlaw county, punk and metal all seemed familiar to execs, but i guess it felt safer then the actual mainstreaming and popularization of irony, postmodernism, political subversion and the untested business models required to support that work.

By the time I was coming of age Third Eye Blind and Match Box 20 were considered rock bands.  Something went terribly wrong.  And maybe the 'GnR setting music back' (by way of corporate risk-weighing) theory is an answer to what went wrong?

 

I saw Arron Lewis of Staind open for Willie Nelson last year and he spoke of the record execs telling them "Rap rock is the thing now, so you gotta do that sound and wear these clothes..."  Which is identical to what Ive heard Amy Lee from Eanessene say.  In that case she admits the label forced them to have rap on their early singles.  Or there's Incubus who's debut was rap metal and second album was pop rock - more true to themselves in that case.  

What would AFD5 say to those label demands?  I believe they'd say: "Fuck Off!"

Somewhere along the way it got to the point where up and coming musicians wanted to look and feel like rebels, but started voluntarily calling albums "products" and bands "brands."  The trade publications and guitar mags conditioned those of weak enough resolve to be ready to say "sure, Ill put a rap on my song, whatever you say boss."

You put a leather wrist band on and apparently your Duff?  Nope.

 

I think something can be said about how when hip hop became mainstream many of its giants were mysteriously killed, bankrupted, publicly humiliated or imprisoned.  And on a different stroke, we are currently painfully aware that the grunge and early 90s rockers weren't kidding about the misery they expressed in their lyrics.  And in addition to misery they were rejecting bigotry in their lyrics . Bigotry is part of the status quo.  Now many are no longer with us.  And what the fuck did the biz do to Axl for all those years?!?  Conspiracy?  Well, only if the pressures of the market place are a conspiracy imo. 

 

The Who and GNR have very little to do with one another on the cultural front.  Hard rock is about the only connection (other then the seeker!).  But they'll play shows together soon.  Because execs know that consumers like a big rock show. And capitalism wants to/ need to grow non-stop.  So what does this logic produce?  

They think: "big rocks shows make oodles of dollars!"

"How can we grow the big rock show market?"

"Twice as big, big rock show!"

"How?"

"Twice as many big rock bands in one big rock show!!!!!" 

 

So, Im saying that rock n rolls greatest strength is pure rebellion and rejection of the elites.  And as in all art there is a devastating reality of the market place.  A market place ruled by those very same authorities.  Rock cant live in the market place during the  age of crony capitalism (read: the violent death throws of capitalisms end).  So thankfully its not.  

 

But it will return.  Again and again and again and again... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by soon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, soon said:

GNR is one of the best - maybe the best - rock bands of all time.

I start with that because I believe it and because of what I'm about to say.

 

So if we talk about a future of rock, we acknowledge that rock is in motion and progresses.

Theres an argument out there that GNR set the progression of rock music back 20 years.  In the 80's there was some really creative and forwarding thinking things happening in rock.  Bands like Talking Heads.  I like a lot of that scene too. But not like I love GNR.  Anyways, I think that the forward lineage of rock was kinda broken when business people had to decide, should they follow the culture of rock to all these new and exciting places or should they go by the established methods of making millions? There were tried and true sounds and attitudes that made millions and then there was these quirky, subversive art rockers.  So, even as popular as this new sound and identity in rock was, tried and true got the investment money.  Thats capitalist thought - culture doesn't mater, in fact culture is often the enemy.  Weird how the aesthetics of blues, outlaw county, punk and metal all seemed familiar to execs, but i guess it felt safer then the actual mainstreaming and popularization of irony, postmodernism, political subversion and the untested business models required to support that work.

By the time I was coming of age Third Eye Blind and Match Box 20 were considered rock bands.  Something went terribly wrong.  And maybe the 'GnR setting music back' (by way of corporate risk-weighing) theory is an answer to what went wrong?

 

I saw Arron Lewis of Staind open for Willie Nelson last year and he spoke of the record execs telling them "Rap rock is the thing now, so you gotta do that sound and wear these clothes..."  Which is identical to what Ive heard Amy Lee from Eanessene say.  In that case she admits the label forced them to have rap on their early singles.  Or there's Incubus who's debut was rap metal and second album was pop rock - more true to themselves in that case.  

What would AFD5 say to those label demands?  I believe they'd say: "Fuck Off!"

Somewhere along the way it got to the point where up and coming musicians wanted to look and feel like rebels, but started voluntarily calling albums "products" and bands "brands."  The trade publications and guitar mags conditioned those of weak enough resolve to be ready to say "sure, Ill put a rap on my song, whatever you say boss."

You put a leather wrist band on and apparently your Duff?  Nope.

 

I think something can be said about how when hip hop became mainstream many of its giants were mysteriously killed, bankrupted, publicly humiliated or imprisoned.  And on a different stroke, we are currently painfully aware that the grunge and early 90s rockers weren't kidding about the misery they expressed in their lyrics.  And in addition to misery they were rejecting bigotry in their lyrics . Bigotry is part of the status quo.  Now many are no longer with us.  And what the fuck did the biz do to Axl for all those years?!?  Conspiracy?  Well, only if the pressures of the market place are a conspiracy imo. 

 

The Who and GNR have very little to do with one another on the cultural front.  Hard rock is about the only connection (other then the seeker!).  But they'll play shows together soon.  Because execs know that consumers like a big rock show. And capitalism wants to/ need to grow non-stop.  So what does this logic produce?  

They think: "big rocks shows make oodles of dollars!"

"How can we grow the big rock show market?"

"Twice as big, big rock show!"

"How?"

"Twice as many big rock bands in one big rock show!!!!!" 

 

So, Im saying that rock n rolls greatest strength is pure rebellion and rejection of the elites.  And as in all art there is a devastating reality of the market place.  A market place ruled by those very same authorities.  Rock cant live in the market place during the  age of crony capitalism (read: the violent death throws of capitalisms end).  So thankfully its not.  

 

But it will return.  Again and again and again and again...

You could've just named a few up and coming bands, mate. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

You could've just named a few up and coming bands, mate. :lol:

haha!  that is very true.  

not resisting the dreadful impacts of corporatism and capitalism on culture isn't one of my strong suits! 

And... I cant think of any up and coming bands

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If rock is your culture and its destroyed by nefarious forces one should not just get over it.  Luckily these destructive forces produce resistance to themselves.  If rock is a useful tool of resistance it will rise to the call.  If it s not useful for rebellion now, it ought to be maintained and celebrated as a rich part of our social fabric.

Edited by soon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, soon said:

GNR is one of the best - maybe the best - rock bands of all time.

I start with that because I believe it and because of what I'm about to say.

 

So if we talk about a future of rock, we acknowledge that rock is in motion and progresses.

Theres an argument out there that GNR set the progression of rock music back 20 years.  In the 80's there was some really creative and forwarding thinking things happening in rock.  Bands like Talking Heads.  I like a lot of that scene too. But not like I love GNR.  Anyways, I think that the forward lineage of rock was kinda broken when business people had to decide, should they follow the culture of rock to all these new and exciting places or should they go by the established methods of making millions? There were tried and true sounds and attitudes that made millions and then there was these quirky, subversive art rockers.  So, even as popular as this new sound and identity in rock was, tried and true got the investment money.  Thats capitalist thought - culture doesn't mater, in fact culture is often the enemy.  Weird how the aesthetics of blues, outlaw county, punk and metal all seemed familiar to execs, but i guess it felt safer then the actual mainstreaming and popularization of irony, postmodernism, political subversion and the untested business models required to support that work.

By the time I was coming of age Third Eye Blind and Match Box 20 were considered rock bands.  Something went terribly wrong.  And maybe the 'GnR setting music back' (by way of corporate risk-weighing) theory is an answer to what went wrong?

 

I saw Arron Lewis of Staind open for Willie Nelson last year and he spoke of the record execs telling them "Rap rock is the thing now, so you gotta do that sound and wear these clothes..."  Which is identical to what Ive heard Amy Lee from Eanessene say.  In that case she admits the label forced them to have rap on their early singles.  Or there's Incubus who's debut was rap metal and second album was pop rock - more true to themselves in that case.  

What would AFD5 say to those label demands?  I believe they'd say: "Fuck Off!"

Somewhere along the way it got to the point where up and coming musicians wanted to look and feel like rebels, but started voluntarily calling albums "products" and bands "brands."  The trade publications and guitar mags conditioned those of weak enough resolve to be ready to say "sure, Ill put a rap on my song, whatever you say boss."

You put a leather wrist band on and apparently your Duff?  Nope.

 

I think something can be said about how when hip hop became mainstream many of its giants were mysteriously killed, bankrupted, publicly humiliated or imprisoned.  And on a different stroke, we are currently painfully aware that the grunge and early 90s rockers weren't kidding about the misery they expressed in their lyrics.  And in addition to misery they were rejecting bigotry in their lyrics . Bigotry is part of the status quo.  Now many are no longer with us.  And what the fuck did the biz do to Axl for all those years?!?  Conspiracy?  Well, only if the pressures of the market place are a conspiracy imo. 

 

The Who and GNR have very little to do with one another on the cultural front.  Hard rock is about the only connection (other then the seeker!).  But they'll play shows together soon.  Because execs know that consumers like a big rock show. And capitalism wants to/ need to grow non-stop.  So what does this logic produce?  

They think: "big rocks shows make oodles of dollars!"

"How can we grow the big rock show market?"

"Twice as big, big rock show!"

"How?"

"Twice as many big rock bands in one big rock show!!!!!" 

 

So, Im saying that rock n rolls greatest strength is pure rebellion and rejection of the elites.  And as in all art there is a devastating reality of the market place.  A market place ruled by those very same authorities.  Rock cant live in the market place during the  age of crony capitalism (read: the violent death throws of capitalisms end).  So thankfully its not.  

 

But it will return.  Again and again and again and again... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think it is dead, but it seems like the industry has been trying to kill it for years. I agree with all of what you said. I don't understand why rock keeps being ignored by the award shows and radio. It is obvious that rock fans will spend money, just look at all these only rock festivals and cruises. They make a ton of money! All these award shows don't even have actual rock bands in the rock categories anymore. It has become ridiculous. Just look at how the Grammy's had Beyonce in the rock category lat year. 21 Pilots have a few songs I like, but they are not rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is rather dead.

We are now in rock's final phrase I'm afraid, a period in which the final oldies, acts from the sixties through to the (early) nineties, allow their plastic corpses, with hair from their arsecheeks replanted in their cranium, to be reeled out for cash. When they pass away, that is it: gone!

It rather betrays that there was always something vacuous in this rock n' roll enterprise really - from the very beginning. With a few exceptions (e.g. Springsteen, Neil Young) the majority of them shut up shop and became museum pieces. The fanbases are as guilty really; current rock fans seem to enjoy throwing stupendous amounts of money at fifty percent of a historic act (there are always pivotal members missing for various reasons, usually death). The band then proceed to trot out the familiar.

It is incredibly depressing, devoid of musicality, innovation and/or rebellious intent. It will be over soon though, to put us all out of our misery.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, soon said:

If rock is your culture and its destroyed by nefarious forces one should not just get over it.  Luckily these destructive forces produce resistance to themselves.  If rock is a useful tool of resistance it will rise to the call.  If it s not useful for rebellion now, it ought to be maintained and celebrated as a rich part of our social fabric.

I was taking the piss. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is rather dead.

We are now in rock's final phrase I'm afraid, a period in which the final oldies, acts from the sixties through to the (early) nineties, allow their plastic corpses, with hair from their arsecheeks replanted in their cranium, to be reeled out for cash. When they pass away, that is it: gone!

It rather betrays that there was always something vacuous in this rock n' roll enterprise really - from the very beginning. With a few exceptions (e.g. Springsteen, Neil Young) the majority of them shut up shop and became museum pieces. The fanbases are as guilty really; current rock fans seem to enjoy throwing stupendous amounts of money at fifty percent of a historic act (there are always pivotal members missing for various reasons, usually death). The band then proceed to trot out the familiar.

It is incredibly depressing, devoid of musicality, innovation and/or rebellious intent. It will be over soon though, to put us all out of our misery.

Now I'm fucking depressed. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

I was taking the piss. :lol:

I know. :) still made me think of something I wanted to say.  But yeah, sorry for any confusion 

19 minutes ago, Tourettes2400 said:

I don't think it is dead, but it seems like the industry has been trying to kill it for years. I agree with all of what you said. I don't understand why rock keeps being ignored by the award shows and radio. It is obvious that rock fans will spend money, just look at all these only rock festivals and cruises. They make a ton of money! All these award shows don't even have actual rock bands in the rock categories anymore. It has become ridiculous. Just look at how the Grammy's had Beyonce in the rock category lat year. 21 Pilots have a few songs I like, but they are not rock.

I think its very suspect indeed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rock empire is falling. It was kind of built in the 60s and those bands that created the industry slowly got swallowed up by the industry. The 90s was like a roman orgy of rock. But after that the artists kind of bowed down and accepted the loot. So now the industry is selling itself off or eating itself. The music is still out there but the mechanism isn't working anymore. I doubt that 60s-70s golden era will happen again until after a violent revolution. Whether it would be rock that is the vehicle for that kind of creative burst is also debatable. As we've seen with Guns it's not only about the music, there became too much industry control and too much of a set career to follow for rock bands to generate real cultural impact or phenomenon. The business model if anything discourages what once made rock great. Easy money has replaced rebellious fiah. 

I'm sort of looking out for a band that just has no industry ties, just puts out music as mp3s but then sells 100 million mp3s and can play stadiums without any interference. Without any social media. That's the new defiance. Who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have someone as mercurial - and at times, seemingly artsy fartsy - as Rose turning fat and trotting out the hits for cash, you know you have problems. Just to show I'm not picking on ginger I'll also throw in Rotten and Iggy Pop and those butter and insurance ads.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, wasted said:

The rock empire is falling. It was kind of built in the 60s and those bands that created the industry slowly got swallowed up by the industry. The 90s was like a roman orgy of rock. But after that the artists kind of bowed down and accepted the loot. So now the industry is selling itself off or eating itself. The music is still out there but the mechanism isn't working anymore. I doubt that 60s-70s golden era will happen again until after a violent revolution. Whether it would be rock that is the vehicle for that kind of creative burst is also debatable. As we've seen with Guns it's not only about the music, there became too much industry control and too much of a set career to follow for rock bands to generate real cultural impact or phenomenon. The business model if anything discourages what once made rock great. Easy money has replaced rebellious fiah. 

I'm sort of looking out for a band that just has no industry ties, just puts out music as mp3s but then sells 100 million mp3s and can play stadiums without any interference. Without any social media. That's the new defiance. Who knows?

When the machines rise and take over it will return. Robot Rock is the future. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rock is too much trouble, they prefer pop rock not the real thing. People now for the real fire. It stil has some mass appeal. But without those kinds of bands there's no way to relight the fire. It's stuck at this corporate stadium rock thing. U2 is what they want, Coldplay - essentially pop rock in suits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If you have someone as mercurial - and at times, seemingly artsy fartsy - as Rose turning fat and trotting out the hits for cash, you know you have problems. Just to show I'm not picking on ginger I'll also throw in Rotten and Iggy Pop and those butter and insurance ads.

There sure are problems. And these examples are all pressures of the market.

Fat shaming is one of the forces used by the market that will produce rebellion.  And rock may be once again a useful form of rebellion.

The rest of this I completely agree with

Edited by soon
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tons of bands will come, in different directions than you may prefer, and you can either like it, or hate it.

 

However, the so called rock connoisseurs (@DieselDaisy and @Len Cnut) will most likely hate them all, because their opinions are not subjective, they are fact.

And if it ain't that old time rock n roll, it ain't good

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...