»

[Dave]

Rock isn't dead, but there's never going to be anyone that had such a wide-ranging impact as Elvis, The Beatles, Ray Charles, Dylan, Motown, The Velvet Underground or the Pistols, is there? Anything "new" in the rock genre can be traced directly to the influence of one or more of those parties. I know they all had their influences, too, but the body of work they produced, and the cultural impression that they made can never be emulated.

[spellchecker]

yep, bingo bango. i think saying the term rock music is misleading however. i was just trying to think of a term meaning all encompassing un-pop and off-playlist music, which i might have suggested was rock music, but perhaps not anymore.

however, at the time, i was very, very drunk.

in a small way, i was thinking about this very thread in my head whilst in bed instead of watching father ted, today. i thought that if you found yourself running out of music, then your musical spectrum is too narrow. don't get me wrong, i still run out of music and find myself playing old classics for medium-scale self-entertainment, however the thought crossed my mind that if you enjoyed enough variation of music, you would like so many bands, that at least one of them would be putting out a new record every couple of months or so, hence, you should never run out of music. i've actually done alright this year, and that new björk album is going to help.

coming back to the question however, to say that rock music is becoming or already is impotent, raises two questions. or two scenarios.

i can't believe the powercut didn't make my computer reset there. i heard the modem click, so i know it died. the computer has already reset twice, and it's got to be said, i'd be pretty fucked off it reset now after typing all this bullshit.

anyway, the scenarios. fuck, there it goes again. yes the scenarios. You either don't have enough variation in your musical spectrum; you need to broaden your musical horizons; you need to actively search for something that touches you in a different way. if you find rock music impotent, then why the fuck are you still pondering about that bored and tired genre. maybe the real question is, "why the fuck is good music not falling into my lap anymore?". now there's a deep question. your friends are boring? you are stuck in your ways and blinkered when it comes to other types of music? Music did used to fall into my lap, recommendations were easy and choices were good, but now I find that i have to live with my ears open and pay attention to what's going on around me; not necessarily musically, but quite possibly personably.

the second scenario of course being, rock really is dead. a certain part of me thinks that from around 1990 to 2005 rock music took an escalating form of extremism, whereby each new record had to in some way better, or beefierise (v. : to make more beefy), the last one. pixies -> nirvana, nirvana -> alice in chains, alice in chains -> guns 'n' roses, guns 'n' roses -> marilyn manson, marilyn manson -> korn, korn -> limp bizkit, limp bizkit -> slipknot, slipknot -> mudvayne, etc. blah blah blah. i'm not saying any of these bands were a progression on each other genre wise, but the music just kept getting heavier, and more extreme, in some cases obscene, in others - serene. sorry, just needed something that rhymed. anyway, the natural conclusion to this scenario being, that a new take on music, a new way to express emotion, a new honesty, a new awareness about the musical environment, is required to revive what is essentially - normal people's music. alternative is the REAL pop - it is the music for people that feel; the music for people who are compassionate and who empathise, for people that understand the world they live in and accept that it may not be right (the greatest crime of all?). real music is not divided by genres, but by relating and understanding. there is nothing to "get" about the top 40. the thunderstorm is over by the way.

anyway, none of this was personally directed at you philip.

motherfucker, it's started again. i'm just going to post before i lose it all.

[psydoll]

Basically threads like this are redundant in general as no type of music will ever 'die out'.

Admit it!

[Dave]

Rock won't "die out", but the cultural significance it once had has been greatly diminished . People will still make rock music in the same way others are creating classical, folk, blues and other such musical forms. The significance of the new music within the genre is only apparent to those who keep an interest in the subject.

There is more music being produced and released for public consumption now than at any time in the history of recording. As such, the consumer has an almost limitless choice of material to indulge themselves in. Rock music, in its primal form, was a catalyst for social change, regardless of whether that was the intention of the artists involved or not. Today, it's just another form of harmless entertainment.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by spellchecker

the second scenario of course being, rock really is dead. a certain part of me thinks that from around 1990 to 2005 rock music took an escalating form of extremism, whereby each new record had to in some way better, or beefierise (v. : to make more beefy), the last one. pixies -> nirvana, nirvana -> alice in chains, alice in chains -> guns 'n' roses, guns 'n' roses -> marilyn manson, marilyn manson -> korn, korn -> limp bizkit, limp bizkit -> slipknot, slipknot -> mudvayne, etc. blah blah blah.

You're a bit out of sync, there. It should read Guns n' Roses+Pixies=Nirvana. Insert NIN where GnR were, and you're fine.

Sorry, nitpicking again...

Originally Posted by Louis Louie

Rock won't "die out", but the cultural significance it once had has been greatly diminished . People will still make rock music in the same way others are creating classical, folk, blues and other such musical forms. The significance of the new music within the genre is only apparent to those who keep an interest in the subject.

There is more music being produced and released for public consumption now than at any time in the history of recording. As such, the consumer has an almost limitless choice of material to indulge themselves in. Rock music, in its primal form, was a catalyst for social change, regardless of whether that was the intention of the artists involved or not. Today, it's just another form of harmless entertainment.

Very well put.

[psydoll]

Originally Posted by Louis Louie

Rock won't "die out", but the cultural significance it once had has been greatly diminished . People will still make rock music in the same way others are creating classical, folk, blues and other such musical forms. The significance of the new music within the genre is only apparent to those who keep an interest in the subject.

There is more music being produced and released for public consumption now than at any time in the history of recording. As such, the consumer has an almost limitless choice of material to indulge themselves in. Rock music, in its primal form, was a catalyst for social change, regardless of whether that was the intention of the artists involved or not. Today, it's just another form of harmless entertainment.

Is it just me that thinks that an age barrier is evident here?

Who cares how much music is being produced, is catalysing a change or is being released these days? I know it does affect the more music-geeking public (myself included) but if I were 10 *doodnudundundndundundundun*

Think of only getting into rock now through say Good Charlotte. You look at the Leeds lineup and see The Bronx and The Icarus Line. You watch MTV2 and see no end of pleasing bands. I digress as Partridge distracts me but you know what I mean. There are gems in each genre.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by psydoll

Is it just me that thinks that an age barrier is evident here?

There's only five years between us, man. Don't make me feel older than I already do!

Originally Posted by Louis Louie

Rock won't "die out", but the cultural significance it once had has been greatly diminished.

Rock music lost it's ability to affect change a long time ago, it's just another product now, just a form of entertainment!

I look forward to the day when the current ways of doing things, ie: 'the two year treadmill' of (record an album, market & promote on MTV etc, tour, then go away in preperation for the next round) is at an end!

RE: Hendrix etc.

The Jimi Hendrix Experience is what got me in to listening, playing and making music in a serious way.. I think the reason they are still popular is because they were 'that' good! To my ears nothing that is on the go these days comes anywhere near the creative, inspirational music that is held within those JHE albums. I could say this of so many albums from 'the golden' period.

I really hope that people dont listen to music because it's 'cool' if this is so, then I will feel sad and even more out of touch with the world.

The people who do this should be forced to drink a gallon of milk within 50 minutes!

Aaaaach, be gone!

[Frosty Jack]

Originally Posted by spellchecker

yep, bingo bango. i think saying the term rock music is misleading however. i was just trying to think of a term meaning all encompassing un-pop and off-playlist music, which i might have suggested was rock music, but perhaps not anymore.

however, at the time, i was very, very drunk.

in a small way, i was thinking about this very thread in my head whilst in bed instead of watching father ted, today. i thought that if you found yourself running out of music, then your musical spectrum is too narrow. don't get me wrong, i still run out of music and find myself playing old classics for medium-scale self-entertainment, however the thought crossed my mind that if you enjoyed enough variation of music, you would like so many bands, that at least one of them would be putting out a new record every couple of months or so, hence, you should never run out of music. i've actually done alright this year, and that new björk album is going to help.

coming back to the question however, to say that rock music is becoming or already is impotent, raises two questions. or two scenarios.

i can't believe the powercut didn't make my computer reset there. i heard the modem click, so i know it died. the computer has already reset twice, and it's got to be said, i'd be pretty fucked off it reset now after typing all this bullshit.

anyway, the scenarios. fuck, there it goes again. yes the scenarios. You either don't have enough variation in your musical spectrum; you need to broaden your musical horizons; you need to actively search for something that touches you in a different way. if you find rock music impotent, then why the fuck are you still pondering about that bored and tired genre. maybe the real question is, "why the fuck is good music not falling into my lap anymore?". now there's a deep question. your friends are boring? you are stuck in your ways and blinkered when it comes to other types of music? Music did used to fall into my lap, recommendations were easy and choices were good, but now I find that i have to live with my ears open and pay attention to what's going on around me; not necessarily musically, but quite possibly personably.

the second scenario of course being, rock really is dead. a certain part of me thinks that from around 1990 to 2005 rock music took an escalating form of extremism, whereby each new record had to in some way better, or beefierise (v. : to make more beefy), the last one. pixies -> nirvana, nirvana -> alice in chains, alice in chains -> guns 'n' roses, guns 'n' roses -> marilyn manson, marilyn manson -> korn, korn -> limp bizkit, limp bizkit -> slipknot, slipknot -> mudvayne, etc. blah blah blah. i'm not saying any of these bands were a progression on each other genre wise, but the music just kept getting heavier, and more extreme, in some cases obscene, in others - serene. sorry, just needed something that rhymed. anyway, the natural conclusion to this scenario being, that a new take on music, a new way to express emotion, a new honesty, a new awareness about the musical environment, is required to revive what is essentially - normal people's music. alternative is the REAL pop - it is the music for people that feel; the music for people who are compassionate and who empathise, for people that understand the world they live in and accept that it may not be right (the greatest crime of all?). real music is not divided by genres, but by relating and understanding. there is nothing to "get" about the top 40. the thunderstorm is over by the way.

anyway, none of this was personally directed at you philip.

motherfucker, it's started again. i'm just going to post before i lose it all.

As I read that, I couldn't help but do it in the voice of -


Did you fail the interview too?