Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Blogs
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Future of Rock Music
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Future of Rock Music
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
mr.cub View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 06 2009
Location: Lexington, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 971 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 10 2009 at 11:45
I believe what Daltrey was trying to say was that at that point in time, their was really nothing new The Who could produce. It was probably more an assessment of his own band than it was of rock music in general.  Listen to Who Are You and you get lyrical themes from Townsend about the inevitability of complacent and rehashed ideas. Moon's death only quickened the inevitable for The Who. For the next 5 years they really went through the motions with no purpose other than playing in Moonie's memory.
 
As for the future of rock...well I have high hopes. And that fact that it will not be as popular as it once was only makes it more appealing. The artist will only become more honest and sincere as he will know his audience. Hence better music for all of us...but as you mention Mantis, it could work out for the worst in such a situation

Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 10 2009 at 18:47
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

Henry,

You crack me up.
I try.
Quote My original point stands...it depends on what you count as rock.
Then what are you counting as rock?
Quote In 1980 nothing resembling Gojira existed. In 1980 nothing resembling Maps and Atlases existed. But those bands do stand on the shoulders of musicians from those times who stand on early rockers who stand on country blues artists prior to electric instruments.
I wasn't disputing that. But since nobody seems to be understanding each other at this point, I took that to mean that nothing interesting has happened in the past 30 years (which is a view some legitimately share, just talk to WalterDigsTunes), not that anyone is completely free of any influences/theft.
Quote BTW, it was the Stones Henry.
Yeah, after I posted it I realized I got it wrong. But he can still be making fun of them, they're almost as bad as KISS.
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

You're viewing it from the wrong angle, this generation hasn't produced any group as popular as Floyd or Zeppelin because the music scene has fragmented tremendously.


Actually, that's exactly what I meant to say: Today's generation of rock musicians mostly write music meant to be exclusively by and for small subcultures, which is the result of a process that began in the 1980s and doesn't look like it's slowing down. Wink 

I might have formulated it in a long-winded way that was a bit hard to piece together. However, that was because I wanted to cut everything out in cardboard and provide a detailed explanation only for the whole OP to take much longer to write than I had expected, so I rushed the conclusion a bit. Confused
Huh, I thought you were talking about the evil labels and kids these days. I would attribute the fragmentation to the increasing availability of music that the labels and musicians are acting in response to. Which maybe is what you are saying?

By the way, while I admit that Ornette Coleman isn't on a major label anymore, The Mars Volta, Mr Bungle, and Boredoms are.


Edited by Henry Plainview - April 10 2009 at 18:57
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 10 2009 at 21:38
Rock (& Roll) Music has been fragmented since the 1950s and has always been associated with one youth subculture or another - what has become more fragmented is not necessarily the music genres, but the subcultures that adopt the music as their anthem have become less defined - the music is less exclusive than it once was and the subcultures are less selective about what they listen to. This, I believe, is more like the situation in the 1970s.
 
What is, and what is not, "popular" was once dictated by the relative popularity of those subcultures within the youth population (Teds, Greasers, Mods, Rockers, Hippies, Freaks, Skins etc.) - Conversely Prog was popular in the 70s because the youth scene at that time was receptive to it even though there wasn't a distinct subculture to support it - Prog was probably the only music movement where the 'subculture' was the music and not the dress-code. It was popular because the alternatives were unattractive to "single-white-teenage males" and the Mainstream was too 'safe' and too far removed from youth music.
 
That balance tipped back in the 80s, kick-started by Punk, which provided a complete package, with an ideology and identity that those people could connect with, relate to and buy into (ironically for a movement whose battle cry was I, Individual), and although it never became mainstream, it spurned a whole range of styles that were and lead to an increase in music-related subcultures that lasted well into the 1990s.
 
Now, youth no longer holds dominion over what is popular - the album charts reflect more what older people are buying than any measure of what the latest youth movement is and the Mainstream is less clearly defined now than the underground music scene because of that, the people that buy it are not of a fixed demographic and do not belong to a specific subculture - they simply buy what they like. It is not so much fragmentation than dilution - now buying trends are governed more by Amazon availability and recommendations than chart position - the buying public will pick and chose from a broader selection of music. The predominant feature of that particular demographic is they are not early adopters, they are buying what they are use to and not exploring new music - that is still the prerogative of teenagers and slightly older youths (ie anyone between 10 and 30).
 
So, the point I'm getting to is that the future of Rock and Roll (as we define it) is not dictated so much by the music industry or even album sales and popularity, but by the teenagers that buy into it, and they have an amazing knack of rebelling, rejecting trends and going against the swim. Over a short time period successive generations give the impression that they are adopting the music as it evolves but that is because there is no defined break between generations - the whole concept of generations is artificial - my "generation" spanned Psychedelia, Prog, Glam, Punk, New Wave, NWOBHM, New Romantic, Neo Prog and Goth. Music evolves in steps, often driven by technology or social change, any musician who produces music for a specific subculture or genre is an evolutionary throw-back, they may be the present, but they're not going to be the future of music.
 
At the moment those future teenagers who will be setting the future trends currently think that 'The Wheels On The Bus' is a pretty good song, we have no way of predicting what they will latch onto and adopt as their own.
What?
Back to Top
hermosotrozo View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: December 04 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 22 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2009 at 17:14
i would say the future of rock is really good! with so many new bands coming in almost daily with strong music and lyrics, so it cant be bad. quality is a thing which we can discuss later
Back to Top
darkshade View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2009 at 22:26
i think because there are so many years of recordings out there now, especially compared to the 60s and 70s (even the 80s) and much easier access to them that people could be turned onto ANYTHING and i think within the next few years, we'll start to see something extraordinary in music (may it be rock or not, though it'll probably somewhat rock-influenced)
My Last.fm
Back to Top
AlbertMond View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 27 2008
Location: Namibia
Status: Offline
Points: 139 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2009 at 23:01
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

Electronic music is replacing guitar-based rock as the stuff most people listen to. This is not something that came out of the blue, either. There was disco in the 1970s and new wave in the 1980s, genres that may now only be acceptable to like out of nostalgia but electronica had already proven itself unstoppable by the 1990s with the rise of rave, techno, house etc. Today, at most parties I go to there's mostly electronic music played, and a great deal of mainstream/semi-mainstream critics not only consider synth-pop a valid artform but often prefer it to guitar music. Notice also things like Radiohead going electronic (though not a fan of their music, I won't deny that they're the major art rock group of our time), the fact that this decade has yet to produce a good guitar band to become as popular as Floyd or Zeppelin was in the 1970s and the growing amount of people who mosten listly electronic but don't care about rock-derived forms. This is, by the way, not meant as a knock against electronica as a low-brow genre catering only to the lowest common denominator.
I actually don't mind New Wave, Electronica, or even Disco that much. What truly irks me a bit, though, is when it feels like electronic music is trying to replace non-electronic. And in the worst way, too. A lot of rappers don't even make their own beats, now. Not everybody will agree with me, I guess, but I think rap used to be something great. Some underground rap is still alright, but most rap is nothing more than glorified retardation. Just look at Soulja Boy! But I'm getting off topic.
 
I liked it better back when synths were used to make synth sounds. Now they've got synths that sound like guitars, and not just a little bit! People write songs, think "This is gonna be a hit!", go into some big studio, have all the 'rock' instruments and a million effects generated on a computer, and they wail about how 'you' left them. Then the 'tr00 rock fans' look at it and sneer at the 'tr00 rap fans': "This is why our music is better! It's more real!"
 
Of course, everybody can afford this kind of thing, now. So you've got a million basement karaoke tracks flowing out. It's not hard to make an electronic beat. It's not hard to make one that sounds 'deep', 'catchy', or 'experimental'. You don't have to put your heart into it, nor do you even have to put time into it, or even a message. You don't have to be able to play it live, or improvise. Frankly, it's been done to death. Take groups like Brokencyde. Take substandard techno and generic post-hardcore and what do you get? A loyal cult following if you're these dum-dums.
Promotion so blatant that it's sad:
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2009 at 02:45
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Huh, I thought you were talking about the evil labels and kids these days. I would attribute the fragmentation to the increasing availability of music that the labels and musicians are acting in response to. Which maybe is what you are saying?


Not quite. What you mention is a factor too, and I did say in the OP that internet distros had made things much easier for the small labels, but that wouldn't matter if there wasn't an entire generation of rock musicians who think "screw it, we don't even want to appeal to normal people".

By the way, you forgot that I also said that the idea of good music having to be strictly avant-garde precedes the mid-1970s punk explosion and the music industry's reaction to it. It didn't just begin taking hold that much until then... and if I sound like I'm complaining about it, I apologize for the misunderstanding because I don't want to pass judgement on this development. Hell, it might be a good thing since it could rid us of some of the swine in front of the pearls or a sign of artistic integrity that you don't make any concessions to appealing to the mainstream. As I said, though, I'm not really sure.

Quote By the way, while I admit that Ornette Coleman isn't on a major label anymore, The Mars Volta, Mr Bungle, and Boredoms are.


Yeah, but are the Boredoms, Mister Bungle or even the Mars Volta as popular today as Yes were in 1973? I'm sure most people who aren't into experimental/progressive music haven't even heard of the Boredoms, or any noise rock band that isn't Sonic Youth. Wink
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2009 at 03:14
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Rock (& Roll) Music has been fragmented since the 1950s and has always been associated with one youth subculture or another - what has become more fragmented is not necessarily the music genres, but the subcultures that adopt the music as their anthem have become less defined - the music is less exclusive than it once was and the subcultures are less selective about what they listen to. This, I believe, is more like the situation in the 1970s.
 
What is, and what is not, "popular" was once dictated by the relative popularity of those subcultures within the youth population (Teds, Greasers, Mods, Rockers, Hippies, Freaks, Skins etc.) - Conversely Prog was popular in the 70s because the youth scene at that time was receptive to it even though there wasn't a distinct subculture to support it - Prog was probably the only music movement where the 'subculture' was the music and not the dress-code. It was popular because the alternatives were unattractive to "single-white-teenage males" and the Mainstream was too 'safe' and too far removed from youth music.


The situation in the 1970s you describe looks like a historical anomaly to me since progressive rock originated within the freak/hippie subculture of the 1960s, but managed to (somewhat) dissociate itself from it when that movement crashed and burned in the early 1970s.
 
Quote That balance tipped back in the 80s, kick-started by Punk, which provided a complete package, with an ideology and identity that those people could connect with, relate to and buy into (ironically for a movement whose battle cry was I, Individual), and although it never became mainstream, it spurned a whole range of styles that were and lead to an increase in music-related subcultures that lasted well into the 1990s.
 
Now, youth no longer holds dominion over what is popular - the album charts reflect more what older people are buying than any measure of what the latest youth movement is and the Mainstream is less clearly defined now than the underground music scene because of that, the people that buy it are not of a fixed demographic and do not belong to a specific subculture - they simply buy what they like. It is not so much fragmentation than dilution - now buying trends are governed more by Amazon availability and recommendations than chart position - the buying public will pick and chose from a broader selection of music. The predominant feature of that particular demographic is they are not early adopters, they are buying what they are use to and not exploring new music - that is still the prerogative of teenagers and slightly older youths (ie anyone between 10 and 30)


This is not the impression I get at all, but maybe that's because I have my music-subcultural background within the metal scene, and metal has always been critical of not just mainstream society but also other subcultures. This began with Black Sabbath criticizing the hippie movement in Hand of Doom, Faeries Wear Boots, Children of the Grave, Under the Sun and Megalomania. It might have tempered a bit with metal beginning to absorb influences from punk and gothic rock through the 1980s and 1990s respectively, but a lot of us metalheads are still at least suspicious towards other kinds of obscure rock music. I also get the impression that a lot of punk bands were initially disillusioned with the previous counterculture too, maybe not to the same extent as metal but still.
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2009 at 03:25
Originally posted by AlbertMond AlbertMond wrote:

I actually don't mind New Wave, Electronica, or even Disco that much.


Neither do I.

Quote What truly irks me a bit, though, is when it feels like electronic music is trying to replace non-electronic. And in the worst way, too. A lot of rappers don't even make their own beats, now. Not everybody will agree with me, I guess, but I think rap used to be something great. Some underground rap is still alright, but most rap is nothing more than glorified retardation. Just look at Soulja Boy! But I'm getting off topic


This happens to pretty much any genre which becomes a fad, with breaks given to lots of acts many of whom are substandard and don't really deserve the exposure, with those that are harder to market because they don't fit the stereotype sometimes getting left behind. It's just easier for this to happen in some genres than others.

However, I'm sure that 20 years from now Soulja Boy will be looked at the same way we look at MC Hammer or even Milli Vanilli today. LOL
 
Quote I liked it better back when synths were used to make synth sounds. Now they've got synths that sound like guitars, and not just a little bit! People write songs, think "This is gonna be a hit!", go into some big studio, have all the 'rock' instruments and a million effects generated on a computer, and they wail about how 'you' left them. Then the 'tr00 rock fans' look at it and sneer at the 'tr00 rap fans': "This is why our music is better! It's more real!"


Didn't they have guitar synths back and overdone digital production back in the 1980s too? Confused Then there was a revolt against that in the 1990s. It seems like this is a cyclical thing that's actually a separate phenomenon from electronic music taking over guitar rock's place in the sun.
 
Quote Take groups like Brokencyde. Take substandard techno and generic post-hardcore and what do you get? A loyal cult following if you're these dum-dums.


In the "defense" of Brokencyde (scare quotes intentional LOL), I don't think that band is meant as more than a joke and I hope most of their fans take it that way. If they don't... ShockedConfusedDeadAngry
Dead
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2009 at 04:31
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Rock (& Roll) Music has been fragmented since the 1950s and has always been associated with one youth subculture or another - what has become more fragmented is not necessarily the music genres, but the subcultures that adopt the music as their anthem have become less defined - the music is less exclusive than it once was and the subcultures are less selective about what they listen to. This, I believe, is more like the situation in the 1970s.
 
What is, and what is not, "popular" was once dictated by the relative popularity of those subcultures within the youth population (Teds, Greasers, Mods, Rockers, Hippies, Freaks, Skins etc.) - Conversely Prog was popular in the 70s because the youth scene at that time was receptive to it even though there wasn't a distinct subculture to support it - Prog was probably the only music movement where the 'subculture' was the music and not the dress-code. It was popular because the alternatives were unattractive to "single-white-teenage males" and the Mainstream was too 'safe' and too far removed from youth music.


The situation in the 1970s you describe looks like a historical anomaly to me since progressive rock originated within the freak/hippie subculture of the 1960s, but managed to (somewhat) dissociate itself from it when that movement crashed and burned in the early 1970s.
To some extent the hippy culture endured throughout the Prog era, though much reduced and more underground, in trippy "Head music" and as some middle-class parody in New Age. There was always some element of post-hippy to Prog but it wasn't all beads and kaftans. I still think the current "scene" is closer to the 70s with partisan attitutes towards music being of secondary importance - people are more receptive to other forms of music and less inclined to align themselves with any one single subculture today.
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

  
Quote That balance tipped back in the 80s, kick-started by Punk, which provided a complete package, with an ideology and identity that those people could connect with, relate to and buy into (ironically for a movement whose battle cry was I, Individual), and although it never became mainstream, it spurned a whole range of styles that were and lead to an increase in music-related subcultures that lasted well into the 1990s.
 
Now, youth no longer holds dominion over what is popular - the album charts reflect more what older people are buying than any measure of what the latest youth movement is and the Mainstream is less clearly defined now than the underground music scene because of that, the people that buy it are not of a fixed demographic and do not belong to a specific subculture - they simply buy what they like. It is not so much fragmentation than dilution - now buying trends are governed more by Amazon availability and recommendations than chart position - the buying public will pick and chose from a broader selection of music. The predominant feature of that particular demographic is they are not early adopters, they are buying what they are use to and not exploring new music - that is still the prerogative of teenagers and slightly older youths (ie anyone between 10 and 30)


This is not the impression I get at all, but maybe that's because I have my music-subcultural background within the metal scene, and metal has always been critical of not just mainstream society but also other subcultures. This began with Black Sabbath criticizing the hippie movement in Hand of Doom, Faeries Wear Boots, Children of the Grave, Under the Sun and Megalomania. It might have tempered a bit with metal beginning to absorb influences from punk and gothic rock through the 1980s and 1990s respectively, but a lot of us metalheads are still at least suspicious towards other kinds of obscure rock music. I also get the impression that a lot of punk bands were initially disillusioned with the previous counterculture too, maybe not to the same extent as metal but still.
I think the same thing happened in the Gothic subculture from the 80s and in the resurgence of the 90s - they were also suspicious towards other forms of rock music, especially Metal (I recall Daniel Ash of Bauhaus being lambasted for getting a bit too metal in his guitar playing in the 80s and Carl McCoy being criticised for producing a Black Metal album with The Nefilim in the 90s), but as time progressed and Metal bands started absorbing Goth Rock influences that partisan attitude lessened. There is still some unease between Metal and Goth, but I think the two are a lot more receptive than they once were. (Having said that, Goths will always be wary of younger gothic-flavoured trends like nu-metal, spooky kids and emo - not because of the music, but for the audacity of these young upstarts that adopt the dress-code and ignore the history Wink)
What?
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2009 at 04:41
Rock music is so ingrained in our western culture that it will probably be with us as long as our culture is around.  It is certainly an evolutionary beast...

By the way, has straight jazz or classical run its course or have I not been paying attention?


Edited by Slartibartfast - April 13 2009 at 04:44
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2009 at 11:39
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Rock music is so ingrained in our western culture that it will probably be with us as long as our culture is around.  It is certainly an evolutionary beast...

DB - the monkey's wrench with the term "Rock Music" , is that newer forms of music that get lumped in with it, often object to this association. In my view, it's mostly a front for distancing themselves form aspects they dislike. After all, Rock has essentially replaced Pop as the music consumed by the masses. So Celine Dion, Garth Brooks, Nigel Kennedy, Diana Krall, and others  are outside of it, but still fans within its' confines. So Rock has become that undiscriminating catch all.

By the way, has straight jazz or classical run its course or have I not been paying attention?


DB - actually Gay Jazz has taken over, and clerical is the new classical (music made by bureaucracies)
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13240 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2009 at 12:12
Rock, or rock n roll, will never die. Kids, and I mean angry teens and young people in general, will always want to listen to bands or artists who confirm to them their worldview that the arseholes running the show suck and there is a better way - it's why punk took off, mod before that, Presley before that. Its the rebellion thing, and a loud noise doing it just adds to the fun (it pisses off oldies like meLOL).

I think this is a good thing. I started off listening to heavy metal, and graduated to prog around my thirteenth birthday when my cousin got me GFTO (no disrespect, BTW, to heavy metal fans - I still love a lot of it). I am of the opinion that a lot of those angry young kids will realise, as did most of us, that there is more to life and music, listen to bands such as Radiohead, Muse, Porcupine Tree, to give but three modern examples, and then delve deeper into the mysteries of fantastic, complicated music.

In reality, the press think that prog dies with Rotten & Vicious gobbing on us all. They were wrong, it is still thriving, just not as commercially successful as it used to be, but still enthralling enough fans to make the best bands commercially viable. 
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Back to Top
darkshade View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2009 at 15:18
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:



However, I'm sure that 20 years from now Soulja Boy will be looked at the same way we look at MC Hammer or even Milli Vanilli today. LOL


i get the humor in this statement, however, i think even the BIGGEST HIT today is equivalent to a hit that barely made the top 40 back in the 80s. In other words, wont be as remembered as well as the hits from the 70s/80s/90s.

Too many people listen to different music, and many more people have given up on the radio as a source of music. Also the biggest hits also market to those who like modern hip-hop/r&b/pop, which i know many people DONT listen to. You gotta remember there are metalheads, punk heads, classic rock fans, prog rock fans, classical and jazz fanatics, jam band crazies, wanna-be hippies, real hippies, real-rap/hip-hop fans, ska fans, etc...
My Last.fm
Back to Top
progkidjoel View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: March 02 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19643 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2009 at 19:10
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Rock is never going to stop being one of the dominant forces in popular music, but even if it were, I don't care, let it burn. It wasn't much better back in the '70s anyway.

Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

When Peter Gabriel sings 'It's only rock n' roll but I like it" at the end of the Lamb, already it's irony because the music had more in common with classical music, jazz, and theater than rock.

I haven't heard all of The Lamb, but I would strongly disagree with the last part of your statement, and theater is not a genre. :/ But I would be happy to listen to a song that you think is closer to jazz or classical than rock. I am pretty sure he's just making fun of KISS.
Originally posted by Keltic Keltic wrote:


As for the topic itself - Roger Daltrey summed it up nearly three decades ago when he said that everything that will be been done in rock music has been done and what we'll get in the future is just a re-hashing of ideas and styles.

 How right he was.

That was a stupid thing for him to say, and if you agree with that you haven't been paying attention.


Wha..... Ho-w...............

How have you not heard all of The Lamb?

The Future Of Rock Music (Short-term) = PORCUPINE TREE.
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2009 at 00:18
Originally posted by progkidjoel progkidjoel wrote:

Wha..... Ho-w...............

How have you not heard all of The Lamb?

Because I didn't care enough to buy it. I got burned by The Wall already, and it's hardly an essential album.
 Well, maybe it is, but I don't care anymore.
Quote Future Of Rock Music (Short-term) = PORCUPINE TREE.
I don't think they are popular or progressive enough to count for that.
Quote Yeah, but are the Boredoms, Mister Bungle or even the Mars Volta as popular today as Yes were in 1973?
No, but they're also more progressive. ;-)
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

By the way, has straight jazz or classical run its course or have I not been paying attention?
Probably, unless you're, like, Wynton Marsalis. Someone needs to figure out a new genre already.
Back to Top
darkshade View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2009 at 00:28
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Rock music is so ingrained in our western culture that it will probably be with us as long as our culture is around.  It is certainly an evolutionary beast...

By the way, has straight jazz or classical run its course or have I not been paying attention?


straight jazz ran its course sometime in the 70s. maybe early 80s.
My Last.fm
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2009 at 02:21
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Rock music is so ingrained in our western culture that it will probably be with us as long as our culture is around.  It is certainly an evolutionary beast...


So is jazz, but as you said: Is jazz as popular today as it was in, say, the 1950s and 1960s? Of course not.
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
Toaster Mantis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2009 at 02:57
Originally posted by darkshade darkshade wrote:

Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:



However, I'm sure that 20 years from now Soulja Boy will be looked at the same way we look at MC Hammer or even Milli Vanilli today. LOL


i get the humor in this statement, however, i think even the BIGGEST HIT today is equivalent to a hit that barely made the top 40 back in the 80s. In other words, wont be as remembered as well as the hits from the 70s/80s/90s.


Humour? The smiley was because I found it funny that the general public doesn't seem to learn, but I meant it in all seriousness. Of course, 20 years you'll probably have people liking Soulja Boy only out of nostalgia like how people today reminisce nostalgically upon crap from the 1970s and 1980s because it's tangentially connected to fond memories of their youth. Confused
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2009 at 03:03
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Rock music is so ingrained in our western culture that it will probably be with us as long as our culture is around.  It is certainly an evolutionary beast...


So is jazz, but as you said: Is jazz as popular today as it was in, say, the 1950s and 1960s? Of course not.
If the 50s and 60s were the heyday of jazz, 60s and 70s were the heyday of rock, the 80s were the heyday of metal, and the 90s were the heyday of electronica, what is our current heyday? People are still making music, it stands to reason this time has to be the relative peak of something, just like like all the others.
 
And music sales haven't dilluted to the point that something can never be as popular as old crap. I guarantee you people will remember Soulja Boy because the people who like it now will still be alive. I have a friend who conditioned himself to like pop music because he thought Gwen Stefani was really hot in the Girlfriend video, and he embraces it because he says he is much happier enjoying it. I have to admit he has a point, my life would be much less irritating if I could tune out pop music instead of wanting to kill myself.
 
You know what's an awful song? Shake Shake Shake Your Booty. And people say music used to be good!


Edited by Henry Plainview - April 14 2009 at 03:07
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.164 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.