Rock and roll is dead?

[Jay Mastro]

Check these guys out, they definitely rock, and they're super unique

 

[hrodbert696]

Examples of the rock-lite stuff I'm think of would be Arctic Monkeys, Black Keys, Imagine Dragons, Vampire Weekend, Cage the Elephant, etc. Almost ever night on at least one late night talk show there is a band with a forgettable obscure name to match their forgettable music that looks like they are on their way to Wes Anderson movie casting call. Its hard to remember them all.

I'm hearing a lot of what you don't like and not much of what you do. Apart from wardrobe, what specifically is missing from any of these bands' music to disqualify them as "rock?" What would be an example of a kind of band that doesn't exist any more?

Regarding wardrobe, it's been standard for out-of-touch elders to gripe about the stupid clothes the kids and their bands are wearing these days. So seems to me these guys must be keeping up the tradition on that front.

Its funny the different views. I consider Artic Monkeys, Black Keys, etc to be good rock bands. While to me, all the heavy stuff is obscure and forgettable. My point I guess is that rock is a bit broader than our own personal taste.

Gene only helps himself.

Just goes to show...I wouldn't really consider most of the bands you listed as the better examples of contemporary rock, at least in the most fundamental sense. Everyone has a different idea of what rock really is and what it means to them. To me, rock is essentially composed of an ensemble that plays electric instruments, deriving elements from forms such as early blues, country, jazz and R&B, with a minimalist approach to technological supplement in the recording and performance aspect. That's MY definition and is the measure by which I judge a band to be "rock".

It might be a stubborn perspective, but it's worked for me and has led me to discovering some really great bands, regardless of the context or genre they get lumped in with. Granted, my tastes run a little less mainstream, but to me it's all there is that doesn't suck.

... Slipknot is metal and Fall Out Boy is more Pop-punk as for the others band, from what I heard I wouldn't put them in the "rock" genre at all , more like Pop or Brit Pop stuff like that.

And yeah - the list of "not rock" bands mixes together some very different stuff. Vampire Weekend is an electro-pop type of group. So is Imagine Dragons, really. I don't think anyone thinks of them as "rock" bands other than in the broadest possible sense. Fall Out Boy did go and title their last album "Save Rock and Roll" but they're clearly pop-punk with emphasis on the "pop." But for the others on that list, I can't see anything that one could call Arctic Monkeys, Black Keys, or Cage the Elephant other than "rock," and all I'm hearing for evidence that rock is dead is that socialleper can't remember them and doesn't like their clothes. You may say they're forgettable but there's a generation of fans that love them - and that would roll their eyes at Kiss.

OK, different direction: one phenomenon I've noticed is a striking difference between some groups' style in the studio vs. how they play the same songs live. I noticed this with Bombay Bicycle Club and an obscure new group out of Nashville called Vinyl Thief. Listen to their recordings, and you'd classify them as "pop" - theirs synths and loops and a lot of restraint (at least that's the best I can put it). Then see them live and it's much more of a rock show, the guitars take over from the synths and the drums pounding harder. Anyone else noticed anything similar? I guess what it makes me wonder, on this topic, is if rock may be much more alive in live performance than it is on CDs or the radio.

 

[socialleper]

I'm hearing a lot of what you don't like and not much of what you do. Apart from wardrobe, what specifically is missing from any of these bands' music to disqualify them as "rock?" What would be an example of a kind of band that doesn't exist any more?

Regarding wardrobe, it's been standard for out-of-touch elders to gripe about the stupid clothes the kids and their bands are wearing these days. So seems to me these guys must be keeping up the tradition on that front.







And yeah - the list of "not rock" bands mixes together some very different stuff. Vampire Weekend is an electro-pop type of group. So is Imagine Dragons, really. I don't think anyone thinks of them as "rock" bands other than in the broadest possible sense. Fall Out Boy did go and title their last album "Save Rock and Roll" but they're clearly pop-punk with emphasis on the "pop." But for the others on that list, I can't see anything that one could call Arctic Monkeys, Black Keys, or Cage the Elephant other than "rock," and all I'm hearing for evidence that rock is dead is that socialleper can't remember them and doesn't like their clothes. You may say they're forgettable but there's a generation of fans that love them - and that would roll their eyes at Kiss.

OK, different direction: one phenomenon I've noticed is a striking difference between some groups' style in the studio vs. how they play the same songs live. I noticed this with Bombay Bicycle Club and an obscure new group out of Nashville called Vinyl Thief. Listen to their recordings, and you'd classify them as "pop" - theirs synths and loops and a lot of restraint (at least that's the best I can put it). Then see them live and it's much more of a rock show, the guitars take over from the synths and the drums pounding harder. Anyone else noticed anything similar? I guess what it makes me wonder, on this topic, is if rock may be much more alive in live performance than it is on CDs or the radio.

The endless parsing of genres that people engage in is of no consequence to me in the context of this discussion. If I was talking to someone about looking for bands they might like, that's different, be here we are talking about the "rock" genre, which it includes all of its sub-genres.

I did list some of the bands I like. Right now I'm on a doom/sludge/stoner kick with things like Mastodon, The Sword, Cathedral, Kylesa, House of Broken Promises, The Oath, Crowned By Fire, and Ultra Electric Mega Galactic; all of which is easier listening for me. I'm not saying the hipster rock bands I mentioned earlier are bad, I've just never understood why people would want to drink Coors Light when there is St. Bernardus or Highland Park to be consumed.

However, none of this is really germane to the article the OP started this thread about. Gene Simmons, in his typically self-absorbed way, voiced a concern for the health of all rock music that has been mentioned by others in many different ways. Big Media and record labels are turning their backs on rock music, live clubs are bars are moving more towards electric dance music, bands that want to play any kind of original rock music end up playing for free or paying to play. Independent recording, distribution, and advertising can only get you so far because everyone else is doing it too. Its a cluttered mess.
Gene and others aren't saying the music its self is dead, but are lamenting what seems to be the end of an era of rock stars. What they are saying is the days of being a "working", meaning profitable, rock band are gone for 99.9% of musicians. Some guys that have spent decades making music that has made them a fair amount of money are saying that trying to start in the business now isn't worth the effort. The saddest part of that is think of how much talent is being turned off to music because its a dead end? Who knows if the next big thing will never come because it became an accountant?

 

[blue4]

The endless parsing of genres that people engage in is of no consequence to me in the context of this discussion. If I was talking to someone about looking for bands they might like, that's different, be here we are talking about the "rock" genre, which it includes all of its sub-genres.

I did list some of the bands I like. Right now I'm on a doom/sludge/stoner kick with things like Mastodon, The Sword, Cathedral, Kylesa, House of Broken Promises, The Oath, Crowned By Fire, and Ultra Electric Mega Galactic; all of which is easier listening for me. I'm not saying the hipster rock bands I mentioned earlier are bad, I've just never understood why people would want to drink Coors Light when there is St. Bernardus or Highland Park to be consumed.

However, none of this is really germane to the article the OP started this thread about. Gene Simmons, in his typically self-absorbed way, voiced a concern for the health of all rock music that has been mentioned by others in many different ways. Big Media and record labels are turning their backs on rock music, live clubs are bars are moving more towards electric dance music, bands that want to play any kind of original rock music end up playing for free or paying to play. Independent recording, distribution, and advertising can only get you so far because everyone else is doing it too. Its a cluttered mess.
Gene and others aren't saying the music its self is dead, but are lamenting what seems to be the end of an era of rock stars. What they are saying is the days of being a "working", meaning profitable, rock band are gone for 99.9% of musicians. Some guys that have spent decades making music that has made them a fair amount of money are saying that trying to start in the business now isn't worth the effort. The saddest part of that is think of how much talent is being turned off to music because its a dead end? Who knows if the next big thing will never come because it became an accountant?

I have to admit that I'm confused. We're not parsing genres, we're responding to your assertion that certain bands aren't rock, or that they don't act or dress right.

As far as the rock industry goes, it is harder to be a rock star. But there are many bands sustaining success thru multiple albums. Pop will always rule as far as number of fans, but the country game is getting like the 80's glam bands where everyone sounds the same. Both of listeners and the musicians will start to come back to rock. I think the fact that the Black Keys are being played next to Arianna Grande on our local popular music station is a sign that this is starting to occur, IMO.

 

[hrodbert696]

It seems like what we are talking about keeps changing. I don't think anyone has disputed the change in the market that Simmons was talking about; there aren't going to be any more Beatles or Led Zeppelins or even Police in the foreseeable future, no more private jets for rock stars. Probably Nirvana or the Red Hot Chili Peppers were the last of that breed. I think we tend to assume that the glory days of the 70s were somehow "normal" and that the shrinking money pool represents a big decline. In a sense, it is, of course. But from another perspective, I think it's a bubble that's deflated and the music business is returning to something more normal in the long run; the massive, indulgent rock star was an anomaly, not the norm.

But a lot has been said on this thread going in other directions. We've been challenging Simmons' notion that "rock is dead" partly on the grounds that sales figures are not the best measure of the vitality of a style of music, and besides, there are still rock bands out there, some of them even pretty popular. The response to that has been that those bands don't count, because their music isn't "rock" enough or because they're not making enough money. I don't see how bands dressing in keeping with current fashion, or playing a style of rock that's a bit lighter than Mastodon, disqualifies them from counting as successful rock bands. Kiss wasn't as heavy as Mastodon - heck, Zeppelin wasn't, for that matter.

 

[socialleper]

It seems like what we are talking about keeps changing. I don't think anyone has disputed the change in the market that Simmons was talking about; there aren't going to be any more Beatles or Led Zeppelins or even Police in the foreseeable future, no more private jets for rock stars. Probably Nirvana or the Red Hot Chili Peppers were the last of that breed. I think we tend to assume that the glory days of the 70s were somehow "normal" and that the shrinking money pool represents a big decline. In a sense, it is, of course. But from another perspective, I think it's a bubble that's deflated and the music business is returning to something more normal in the long run; the massive, indulgent rock star was an anomaly, not the norm.

I agree with all of this 100%; sad though the truth of it may be.

"We've been challenging Simmons' notion that "rock is dead" partly on the grounds that sales figures are not the best measure of the vitality of a style of music"
This I have a little more trouble with. In the US money is the motivator for anything and everything so if something isn't going to help pay the bills its going to fall by the wayside. Kids would want to be "rock stars" for love of the music, the cool factor, and the money. If the money is gone and the cool factor has been drained out of it, just the love of it won't maintain that vitality. It will become like classical or big band where it is on the margins and mostly just covers.