# Is rock music in decline?



## KJohnson (Dec 31, 2010)

This article is one of the many on the web, claiming rock is in decline.

I don't know what to make of it. I'm pretty old fashioned when it comes to rock and haven't been listening any of the new songs.

Is that what's going on?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Sure. Started in the late '70s.


----------



## KJohnson (Dec 31, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sure. Started in the late '70s.


I must be really old-fashioned then.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

commercially, maybe. I dunno what's the band that get the hypes like Guns N' Roses nowdays.

but community-wise, rock and metal music is growing as ever. The factor is modern technology in home/laptop recording, information sharing tools like youtube,myspace etc. also it is much easier to learn new tricks in guitar (and other instrument) now compared to decade past, with plenty of lesson resources available online. all this factors culminate in arise of band that play rock and metal music. 

I follow the European metal music scene and literally everyday there is a worth album release with enough fun quality to enjoy (at least once listening) via youtube / myspace.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sure. Started in the late '70s.


Bang on. It pretty much coincided with the transition from hard rock to heavy metal in the youth culture popularity contests, aided by the extremely short supernova of punk, plus the increased affordability of synths.

Since rock started declining, we've also had the rise of both dance and hip hop, both of which are currently at the point in decline where rock was in the 80's. That doesn't mean good rock music isn't being made nowadays because there is, just that _most_ of it is either irrelevant or heavily commercialised.

Classical and jazz have been commercially dead for years, and I think some absolutely great stuff is being produced in those genres (in the loosest possible definition) nowadays.

Here's what the cool kids listen to:
















I've no problem with that at all. However, I'm not into all the Animal Collective (or is it Fleet Foxes, I get confused between the two) type of bands.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

I think I'll pass on the animal action also {unless it's Eric Burdon and The Animals, of course} and stick to "classic" groups like The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, ELP , Jethro Tull and Yes etc. etc....


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

I think that music which is popular is in decline, while very good quality rock music is still being produced, but it doesn't get the popularity. We could argue that it is the public taste that is actually in decline.

And yes, I agree, even the good music is too often _irrelevant_ today.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Whistlerguy said:


> I think that music which is popular is in decline, while very good quality rock music is still being produced, but it doesn't get the popularity. We could argue that it is the public taste that is actually in decline.
> 
> And yes, I agree, even the good music is too often _irrelevant_ today.


Could you just define what you mean by "irrelevant" in this context?


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

For example some indie band or art rock band makes a great album but it still lacks the passion of the early rock'n'roll and doesn't have the ambition to change the world. At the same time the album is popular only to some small group of people, and even to them it is not as important as some albums were to rock fans in 60s, 70s and even 80s and 90s.

Even the great albums and songs today seem to be not as BIG as before.

The big stuff has almost disappeared since around 1995 or few years later.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Whistlerguy;162458
Even the great albums and songs today seem to be not as BIG as before.
The big stuff has almost disappeared since around 1995 or few years later.[/QUOTE said:


> Maybe a way to look at it is that you are bigger, so those albums and songs seem smaller?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

One needs only browse the comments of YouTube classic rock videos to see (allegedly) young people lament that they weren't born 40 years ago to have seen it all in the flesh. We never said that about The Andrews Sisters, did we? Well, I didn't anyway. 

But I don't think there is any less great rock. I just think there's a lot more of everything. So it's harder to wade through the chaff. I also think that rock or any other style for that matter is not being promoted by the music industry. They are merely promoting midriffs.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

There was a great little article on BBC web site right on the money a while ago that is still very much relevant, I suppose. I wanted to link to it back then, but couldn't decide where I should do so, because I thought that it could make quite an interesting read for classical music lovers as well, as it touched on future music trends in general, I felt. But the laziness got the best of me as it does most of the time.

Anyhow, here it is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11664781


----------



## KJohnson (Dec 31, 2010)

Weston said:


> But I don't think there is any less great rock. I just think there's a lot more of everything. So it's harder to wade through the chaff.


Very interesting opinion. This answers a lot of questions.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Rock music? Isn't that **** stuff like this?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Weston said:


> One needs only browse the comments of YouTube classic rock videos to see (allegedly) young people lament that they weren't born 40 years ago to have seen it all in the flesh. We never said that about The Andrews Sisters, did we? Well, I didn't anyway.


Those people who say things like that wind me up. They are either too lazy to look for the good new music or are ignorant enough to believe there is no music beyond the charts and mainstream.

Plus I'm sure there were guys growing up in the 70's wishing they could have been around to hear Charlie Parker, Woody Guthrie, John Coltrane, Robert Johnson, Django Reinhardt etc in person.

As far as popularity, then rock still holds it's own against other genres.

When I mentioned irrelevancy earlier, I was talking about these new rock bands being unable to capture the Zeitgeist as much as newer genres. Nirvana and Oasis did it in the 90's, but I'm not sure what rock band did that for the 2000's. Maybe, Radiohead?

After all, rock is the music of my generations parents, it shouldn't be as relevant to the youth.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

A few decades ago rock was popular, now we have classic rock to harken back to those days and indie rock. The mainstream is obsessed by hip hop and auto-tune. At least rock being more indie now can free it up from crass commercialization!


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> After all, rock is the music of my generations parents, it shouldn't be as relevant to the youth.


So what kind od music SHOULD be relevant to today's youth?

Lady Gaga?!?!

I hope not!


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

haydnfan said:


> A few decades ago rock was popular, now we have classic rock to harken back to those days and indie rock. The mainstream is obsessed by hip hop and auto-tune. At least rock being more indie now can free it up from crass commercialization!


Rock is still extremely popular. Coldplay, Kings of Leon and those kind of bands sell out massive stadium arenas, plus the old bands have attracted many younger fans. Even 'indie' bands like Arcade Fire, The Arctic Monkeys, The Kaiser Chiefs, Franz Ferdinand etc have strong fanbases. Mumford and Sons seem to be pretty big at the minute.

I'd just argue that a lot of these bands aren't bringing much new to the table.



Whistlerguy said:


> So what kind od music SHOULD be relevant to today's youth?
> 
> Lady Gaga?!?!


To be succinct: YES.

Lady Gaga can be seen as what Elvis was to kids in the 50's, or The Beatles in the 60's, Led Zeppelin and The Sex Pistols in the 70's, Madonna and Metallica in the 80's, Nirvana and The Spice Girls in the 90's. She dominates the media and has become a household name even to the most square of music listeners.

I don't think any of these were the best bands around at those times, but they did and do represent the youth culture at the time.

You can probably add Justin Beiber to that list now as well.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Even though some Gaga's songs are completely OK, she herself is not OK. Unlike other bands you mentioned she is much more the product of music industry and her image is provocative for the sake of provocation. She just want to shock everyone and to be popular, and unfortunately she succeeds in this. Justin Bieber is also just the product of industry. Gaga wants to change the world, but in which direction? In song "born this way" she promotes biological determinism and universal acceptance of all the tendencies in ourselves no matter how disgusting they are. After all, no matter what kind of **** we do, we are born this way, so we are not to be held accountable for anything.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

As some forum members argue, much of it' been mostly the same in terms of characteristics (e.g., two to four minutes long, a few bars of music, a melody that's easy to follow, etc.), so there's probably no need to refer to its decline.


----------



## KJohnson (Dec 31, 2010)

Argus said:


> You can probably add Justin Bieber to that list now as well.


Oh yeah! Easily. Just take a look at the view count on his videos on YouTube. See how it dwarfs the Beatles videos, in comparison. There must be a major shift in teenage taste, their capacity to appreciate musical art. The ones listening to Bieber would be listening to the Beatles in the 60s.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

KJohnson said:


> Oh yeah! Easily. Just take a look at the view count on his videos on YouTube. See how it dwarfs the Beatles videos, in comparison. There must be a major shift in teenage taste, their capacity to appreciate musical art. The ones listening to Bieber would be listening to the Beatles in the 60s.


I think that those listening to Bieber would have been listening to New Kids on the Block, Wham, the Bay City Rollers or David Cassidy in the days of old. They would maybe also have listened to the Beatles, but the Beatles were cute enough to appeal to little girls and serious enough to appeal to their long haired older brothers. They were liked liked by everyone from teenyboppers to hippies and everything inbetween.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Ralfy said:


> As some forum members argue, much of it' been mostly the same in terms of characteristics (e.g., two to four minutes long, a few bars of music, a melody that's easy to follow, etc.), so there's probably no need to refer to its decline.


There has a big stylistic difference between pre-punk rock and post-punk rock. Most pre-punk rock has it's roots in the blues, most post-punk rock hasn't.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Ralfy said:


> As some forum members argue, much of it' been mostly the same in terms of characteristics (e.g., two to four minutes long, a few bars of music, a melody that's easy to follow, etc.), so there's probably no need to refer to its decline.


Let me guess. You don't listen to much rock music?

Long jams have been a staple since the late 60's.

Exhibit A:






Exhibit B:








jhar said:


> I think that those listening to Bieber would have been listening to New Kids on the Block, Wham, the Bay City Rollers or David Cassidy in the days of old. They would maybe also have listened to the Beatles, but the Beatles were cute enough to appeal to little girls and serious enough to appeal to their long haired older brothers. They were liked liked by everyone from teenyboppers to hippies and everything inbetween.


Yeah, I was being a bit facetious with the Bieber comment.

I can't believe I forgot about Michael Jackson for the 80's.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Bands like Foo Fighters, and Radiohead are very popular. There are literally thousands of indie, metal, and progressive rock bands making music all over the planet. I mainly follow progressive rock, and modern jazz. You have to visit online radio shows, YouTube, or Bandcamp to hear this stuff. FM radio is pretty much dead, and so are the major labels when it comes to presenting interesting new music.

I find out about a lot of music through the Progressive Ears Forum. 
http://www.progressiveears.com/default.asp?bhcp=1

And some cool specialty retailers like Wayside Music, Laser's Edge, ReRUSA, Squidco.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

jhar26 said:


> I think that those listening to Bieber would have been listening to New Kids on the Block, Wham, the Bay City Rollers or David Cassidy in the days of old. They would maybe also have listened to the Beatles, but the Beatles were cute enough to appeal to little girls and serious enough to appeal to their long haired older brothers. They were liked liked by everyone from teenyboppers to hippies ]
> However, I do think that in this context it should be remembered that the Beatles really evolved from just a "mop top'' band from England basically doing covers of older songs--with some of their own thrown in--into what might well be called the first "progressive rock" group {probably before there was even such a term} after albums like _Rubber Soul and Revolver. _I guess it begs the question of whether the teenyboppers {especially of the female variety} still liked them for their music or simply their good looks. I know--being an older brother of a sister who simply loved them from the jump and got all their early albums and watched them religiously on Ed Sullivan--that I really didn't start listening to them in a "serious way" until _after Rubber Soul_. Just wondering how prevalent this reaction to them was among other males of my generation {no Who puns, please!} :scold:


----------



## KJohnson (Dec 31, 2010)

What's striking is how many people here, who love and understand classical music, also know the smaller genres, like rock, jazz, pop, etc... This is rarely true the other way around. It sort of proves that this form of music is somewhat superior, since it obviously takes more knowledge and a more diverse tastes.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Argus said:


> Let me guess. You don't listen to much rock music?
> 
> Long jams have been a staple since the late 60's.
> 
> ...


Actually, my arguments come from the fact that I've heard more than enough rock music. I think "long jams" and sidelong epics aren't "staple," more like an exception to the rule. From what I gathered, most pop music is around three to four minutes minutes long, use a few chords and several bars of music, employ verses and refrain, can easily be followed, etc.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

samurai said:


> jhar26 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that those listening to Bieber would have been listening to New Kids on the Block, Wham, the Bay City Rollers or David Cassidy in the days of old. They would maybe also have listened to the Beatles, but the Beatles were cute enough to appeal to little girls and serious enough to appeal to their long haired older brothers. They were liked liked by everyone from teenyboppers to hippies ]
> ...


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

KJohnson said:


> What's striking is how many people here, who love and understand classical music, also know the smaller genres, like rock, jazz, pop, etc... This is rarely true the other way around. It sort of proves that this form of music is somewhat superior, since it obviously takes more knowledge and a more diverse tastes.


Superior? Maybe in terms of complexity and sophistication, but other than that this notion could go right against the very nature of music, as I understand it anyway. I mean, any music that "works" on a person could probably be considered far superior by that person than any other music that doesn't work for him\her. I personally would take the most primitive (primitive or deeply basic, really?) of the tribal beats that put me to trance rather than some overworked finesse that does for me absolutely nothing (or, worse yet, irritates me to no end), any day.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Ralfy said:


> Actually, my arguments come from the fact that I've heard more than enough rock music. I think "long jams" and sidelong epics aren't "staple," more like an exception to the rule. From what I gathered, most pop music is around three to four minutes minutes long, use a few chords and several bars of music, employ verses and refrain, can easily be followed, etc.


This thread isn't about pop music, it's about rock music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

It doesn't take any more knowledge to enjoy classical music as opposed to rock. It just takes a pair of ears and a brain that is engaged.

Most of the interesting stuff in the rock world is happening below the radar of the infotainment media.


There are many excellent progressive bands making great music, and it's not all 25 minute epic fare. Try some groups like Thinking Plague, Univers Zero, Helmet Of Gnats, Frogg Cafe, Mike Keneally, or Echolyn.

There is also a ton of great stuff being re-issued that never got any airplay in the states back in the day. Check out the Esoteric Records site.

Countries like Italy have a huge legacy of accomplished rock bands.


----------



## KJohnson (Dec 31, 2010)

Serge said:


> Superior? Maybe in terms of complexity and sophistication


Well, yes. That's what I meant. I shouldn't have used the word "superior" but music that is based on the principles of development, refined architecture, etc.. has more substance to me than melody-based music.


----------



## KJohnson (Dec 31, 2010)

starthrower said:


> It doesn't take any more knowledge to enjoy classical music as opposed to rock.


I wish that was true. If you take, say, a Bartok quartet and play it to someone who hasn't heard enough music and to someone who's been more curious in exploring different kinds of music genres, ten times out of ten, their reaction to Bartok will be trivially predictable. Appreciating music is a skill too.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Ralfy said:


> Actually, my arguments come from the fact that I've heard more than enough rock music. I think "long jams" and sidelong epics aren't "staple," more like an exception to the rule. From what I gathered, most pop music is around three to four minutes minutes long, use a few chords and several bars of music, employ verses and refrain, can easily be followed, etc.


If I may be so bold as to inquire if you've ever listened to any of the progressive British rock produced by such groups as Emerson Lake and Palmer, Yes, Jethro Tull, and the Beatles after _Rubber_ _Soul_? I don't think--in all fairness--that this type of rock can be placed in the same pigeonhole as in your above description. With all due respect--and, of course--IMHO.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

the fact that we,classical music lover, can listen and enjoy rock music but not vice versa... actually should be handle in worry and negative thinking , is classical music *enjoyeable* by everyone? ;p


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KJohnson said:


> I wish that was true. If you take, say, a Bartok quartet and play it to someone who hasn't heard enough music and to someone who's been more curious in exploring different kinds of music genres, ten times out of ten, their reaction to Bartok will be trivially predictable. Appreciating music is a skill too.


It is true. Knowledge is not required for the enjoyment of music. I went from rock to Bartok, not because I studied composition, but because I'm interested in listening to all kinds of music.


----------



## KJohnson (Dec 31, 2010)

starthrower said:


> I went from rock to Bartok


I doubt you'd go from Bartok to rock though.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

> This thread isn't about pop music, it's about rock music.


Yeah, but typical alt rock almost always follows the standard pop song structure. You might say most of what is called rock is pop in disguise.

Anyway, rock is such a hazy umbrella term with so many bland commercial grey spots and niche extremities at this point, it's pointless to make sweeping statements about it. Nevermind subgenres that have practically disconnected and created their own insular idioms, like metal and punk. One must really narrow it down because rock is less of a genre and more of a marketing convenience.

I can't say I'm a fan of the "indie" fad, though. It feels like a disposable and twee reaction to the banal darkness of the 90s/early 2000s, and the best of it steals its tricks from Swans and krautrock.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Argus said:


> This thread isn't about pop music, it's about rock music.


Most rock music have the characteristics I just mentioned.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

samurai said:


> If I may be so bold as to inquire if you've ever listened to any of the progressive British rock produced by such groups as Emerson Lake and Palmer, Yes, Jethro Tull, and the Beatles after _Rubber_ _Soul_? I don't think--in all fairness--that this type of rock can be placed in the same pigeonhole as in your above description. With all due respect--and, of course--IMHO.


Yes, I have, but as I said earlier, I don't think they make up the majority of rock music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KJohnson said:


> I doubt you'd go from Bartok to rock though.


Why not? I'm not a classical snob.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Ralfy said:


> Most rock music have the characteristics I just mentioned.


Well, there's nothing wrong with keeping it simple if that's what's most effective. I mean, if you have a three minute song with two or three chords that sounds great, why add extra ballast that would only ruin it?


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

I don't believe so. Commerical music has been shallow and worthless with a few exceptions here and there for ever but there are good rock bands out there for sure (depending on your tastes of course).





















eh, I could go on forever but I'll stop.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> Well, there's nothing wrong with keeping it simple if that's what's most effective. I mean, if you have a three minute song with two or three chords that sounds great, why add extra ballast that would only ruin it?


It's possible that this form copies short folk songs that are found in many cultures, i.e., what people sing while they're planting crops by hand or resting after a day of work.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Late 70's?...such ignorance for a group of supposedly knowledgable folks...rock is rock and while it has been on a decline along with music as a whole, it isn't going anywhere...just like what you like and let the next guy do the same


----------



## flippergv (May 19, 2011)

jurianbai said:


> the fact that we,classical music lover, can listen and enjoy rock music but not vice versa... actually should be handle in worry and negative thinking , is classical music *enjoyeable* by everyone? ;p


Yes, but like with most "harder" to approach musical genres (classical, fusion, jazz, metal, ambient), you need to put into actual effort to get into it. But when you do, boy that is one rewarding experience.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Of course, the main reason any style is more difficult than another (differences in complexity aside) is conditioning. I wonder how many people would call Motorhead "abstract noise" if we somehow all grew up hearing drone metal and musique concrete on the radio and in commercials.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Of course, the main reason any style is more difficult than another (differences in complexity aside) is conditioning.


Absolutely. And the fact that the listener may actually like certain music, but thinks that he's not supposed to like it because it isn't in line with the image he has created of himself in his mind. People are not only trying to break down barriers, they are also building others to prevent them from listening to music they otherwise would enjoy.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

Came across this. I'm possibly thinking of rock/pop rather than rock specifically but IMHO there's certainly been music that's as great and 'big' in the last ten years as the best of that which preceded it. The media has observed that rock no longer seems to have the power, or even the will, to 'change the world', which strikes me as what you're really getting at. I think that has far more to do with a much larger shift in the general culture than anything about the music itself.

Decline? In terms of its position of primacy in the culture as a whole, then sure. Rock and Pop's thunder was stolen by Hip-Hop and Dance long ago. The thing is that it's not dieing. The broader culture just seems to be fragmenting increasingly and I think there is far less of a sense of one form dominating and uniting people. For good or ill... or perhaps for good and ill.

Oh, and Argus I disagree with your diagnosis of punk as shortlived. That's taking the narrow, and inaccurate, view of punk. You should bear in mind that things like 'New Wave' and 'Indie' were euphemisms for punk in its broader sense than just the fast/loud axis. Punk's influence was so widespread and long lasting that it pervades pretty much all popular music nowadays and became so disparate that it can no longer even be regarded as a genre (if it ever could?). Indeed, IMO, it has burrowed its way deep into the very fabric of the general culture.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

I don't think it's only because there are more groups to choose from. 
There were many groups in the 60's and 70's as well (of course not as much as today) but the best ones were the ones to stay and to be remembered.
I just wonder what rock bands are going to be remembered as the 00's leaders by us and by our children. 
I doubt that you can find such ingenuity that was achieved by Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa, King Crimson (In The Court Of The Crimson King is still in my opinion the best progressive rock, or even rock as a whole, album ever recorded) these days, and i'm afraid the future doesn't hold a place for them as well.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Chrythes said:


> I doubt that you can find such ingenuity that was achieved by Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa, King Crimson (In The Court Of The Crimson King is still in my opinion the best progressive rock, or even rock as a whole, album ever recorded) these days, and i'm afraid the future doesn't hold a place for them as well.


I've found plenty of great stuff over the past several years. In addition to TC, the other forum I visit everyday is Progressive Ears. Many of the forum members are enormously talented progressive rock artists. They are uncompromising, independent artists that I would never have discovered without joining that forum.


----------

