It is not dead but it really isn't the music of choice of young people anymore, Hip Hop and R&B have replaced rock as the sound and culture of youth.

Quote
Beast
RIP rock'n'roll? Professor of pop reads the last rites
Rock songs in the charts fall to lowest level in 50 years, with only three tracks appearing in the top 100 best-sellers

So that is why the Rolling Stones are a funk band these days. Well, at least Bob Dylan says so.

Yes, that's why I cringe when I listen to Mick talking about Champagne & Reefer in SAL, none of those young model girls in the front rows have no idea who's Muddy Waters, who's Buddy Guy, and don't really care.

This has no significance whatsoever - it's been said for eons. And it is certainly not true and never has been.

Yeah, agree with skipstone. I remember watching one of those History of Rock 'n' Roll series things about 20 years ago (maybe more), where Sting and Bono were pompously pronouncing rock 'n' roll dead. "What a couple of knobs", I recall thinking.

Rock and roll will always be. It'll go down in history.

I don't care what people say. Rock and roll is here to stay.

Comercially speaking, rock 'n' roll is maybe doing well. But artistically speaking, it has nothing new to say.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS
The last band that brought anything new to rock? Was there a power duet before the White Stripes?

I'm just depressed because that Robert Plant article hit home. The Stones have stopped rolling in the studio. I just listened to cuts from Voodoo Lounge and there's nothing new. Bridges to Babylon had some new sounds but it didn't sound like the Stones had touched them. A Bigger Bang had a pretty cool sound update with 'Rough Justice', but the rest was rehash. Somewhere along the line they lost the ability to meld their sound with something current, ala 'Miss You'. It's beginning to look like there will no future glory, only a celebration of the past.

Unless they go the Robert Plant route, and do an album of duets with say, KD Lang (whom they've already found inspiration from on Bridges).

Hey, maybe a whole album of duets with various artists...I don't think that's ever been done!

BB King did it a few years ago. One of the acts on the album happened to be the Stones themselves.

Most of the duet albums by any artists are pretty bad. I can't imagine what a Stones duet album would sound like.

Quote
stones78
Most of the duet albums by any artists are pretty bad. I can't imagine what a Stones duet album would sound like.

Pretty bad!

The BB King one was very good, actually.

I think it's folly to expect it to have anything new to say at this late date. I interviewed the great Andy Shernoff, mastermind of the mighty Dictators, a few years ago. He had written a ripping tune called Who Will Save Rock 'n' Roll? I asked him if anyone or anything would save rock 'n' roll and his response was "Not a chance". He went on to opine that the 50's, 60's and 70's represented a unique time that would never, could never be duplicated, given what's come since. I agree but I would argue that just because it's no longer "dangerous" doesn't mean it can't continue to thrive. There are lots of great bands out there, it just takes more of an effort perhaps to find them and there are always going to be talented young people falling in love with the music and channeling that into their own beautiful noise.

They took the roll out of the rock way back in the mid sixties with the demise of top 40 radio, to make way for art, heavy, progressive, metal and all those other rock labels. FM radio and AOR radio stations didn't help either and it got a little too complicated for my liking. Rock'n'Roll is music to dance to and sound good over your am car radio.

I don't know if what's being said is that rock music will be kept alive by bringing new ideas to the genre or if it simply will live on as long as it sells no matter how bad it is.

Rock'n'roll is dead?

That explains the Zombeatles.

Keith's opinion:

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rip This
...I like the Black Keys...

great

Ditto!

Quote
paulywaul
The problem lay, in part, with shortsighted record labels investing less in the talent of the future and more in instantly profitable acts such as former X Factor stars, said Gambaccini. "I feel sorry for rock artists today, because record labels have started chasing the quarter-term profit rather than long-term development."

How true, & how sad

"Promoters are panicking, because in 10 years these artists will retire and then where will they be?" said Gambaccini.

Well, they've only got themselves to blame, the dickheads they are

About the record companies, Zappa was commenting on that with 'Tinsel Town Rebellion.' Find the live version to listen too with slightly altered, but more precise and cutting lyrics.

The future of Rock might have to be more of a Phish, Dead approach, just keeping playing live and acquire a reputation for being a live act with growing crowd numbers and hopefully the music industry will come to you.

Love the Phish, Dead approach, as long as it's not the Phish or the Dead playing.

According to Keith (in Life), by the early sixties rock'n roll had died and gone pop, which is why they called their music rythm'n blues.

Quote
Carnaby
Once a form of music is here, it's here. May not always be front and center, but it's still here.

But it's not vital and moving forward, it's fossilized like classical music. I understand there are contemporary classical composers, but when you go to see a symphony or chamber music concert, you expect to hear the old masters. What they play on classical music stations is predominantly music composed hundreds of years ago.

Rock music has long been moving in this direction. It didn't have to be this way. I blame the music industry for not promoting or developing new talent, and seemingly not being able to recognize quality musicians. But it's too late now, the music industry is dead on its feet. Nirvana - and the crop of bands that came in with or just after them in the early 90's, like Pearl Jam & AIC - was the last gasp of rock 'n roll.

Quote
Claire_M

Quote
Carnaby
Once a form of music is here, it's here. May not always be front and center, but it's still here.

But it's not vital and moving forward, it's fossilized like classical music. I understand there are contemporary classical composers, but when you go to see a symphony or chamber music concert, you expect to hear the old masters. What they play on classical music stations is predominantly music composed hundreds of years ago.

Rock music has long been moving in this direction. It didn't have to be this way. I blame the music industry for not promoting or developing new talent, and seemingly not being able to recognize quality musicians. But it's too late now, the music industry is dead on its feet. Nirvana - and the crop of bands that came in with or just after them in the early 90's, like Pearl Jam & AIC - was the last gasp of rock 'n roll.

depending on how you definite "rock'n'roll" - it is a very limited form of music, which arguably ran its course within 15 years. i've cited this before - but the liner notes to an early jeff beck group album indicated as far back as 1968 that rockn'roll had ceased to evolve. i tend to agree.

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Due to the 3-headed monster:

1. Rap
2. MTV - formerly a music channel
3. Kobain and other grunge crap

...back in 1985...





"... too much is never enough..."

Wasn't Grunge the last struggle in Rock'n'Roll? OK Strokes had 1 OK rock-album after that, and Dinosaur Jr's Beyond and Subways, babyshambles...eh Hey! Rock'n'roll isn't Dead!

2 1 2 0