Is the Guitar Dead/Dying?

lucifer_sam · 03-25-2010, 09:59 AM

I might be in the minority here, but I don't think so whatsoever.

As a vehicle for songwriting, the guitar has probably seen better days, but the absence of guitar-oriented rock isn't necessarily an indication of the guitar's demise. Genres change shape and effect different tonal demands from the guitar, but it's been centric to the classic interpretation of a "band" since the late 1950s, and I don't think it's stopping any time soon.

By my estimation there's at least 50 million people in America that play or own a guitar, most under the age of 55 or so (basically encompassing baby boomers onwards). The guitar manufacturing industry itself is enormous and shows no signs of slowing any time soon.

If anything I'd say the guitar is too dominant, too omnipresent. When's the last time you saw someone playing a saxophone or trumpet on a balcony at sunset? It appears to me that there's just too many people that choose the guitar over other antiquated (or even tech-heavy) instruments.

I don't think computer-generated music is a fad or that the guitar will always be around (God knows the mellotron didn't last

). But suggesting that it's dying sounds absurd to me. The guitar is far too endearing, far too symbolic an instrument for it to simply vanish off the face of modern music.

**Janszoon** · 03-25-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

If anything I'd say the guitar is too dominant, too omnipresent. When's the last time you saw someone playing a saxophone or trumpet on a balcony at sunset?

I have to confess I don't have a whole lot of experience with people playing any instrument on a balcony at sunset.

lucifer_sam · 03-25-2010, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I have to confess I don't have a whole lot of experience with people playing any instrument on a balcony at sunset.

It's like a fucking mole hill around my apartment complex, the idiots only come out when the cliche is appropriate.

**Janszoon** · 03-25-2010, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

It's like a fucking mole hill around my apartment complex, the idiots only come out when the cliche is appropriate.

If only you had a giant whack-a-mole mallet thingy.

boo boo · 03-25-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

I might be in the minority here, but I don't think so whatsoever.

As a vehicle for songwriting, the guitar has probably seen better days, but the absence of guitar-oriented rock isn't necessarily an indication of the guitar's demise. Genres change shape and effect different tonal demands from the guitar, but it's been centric to the classic interpretation of a "band" since the late 1950s, and I don't think it's stopping any time soon.

Personally the meaning of a "band" itself has been bastardized. I'm unappologetically biased towards older rock music in this regard, when rock bands where each member shined equally were much more embraced.

But since punk rock and bands like AC/DC and Aerosmith people now tend to favor rock bands where it's really all about the singer and guitarist, and the bassist and drummer are forced to wear collars that send a painful electronic jolt to their spinal columns if they so much as think about doing something unexpected or adventurous, for the sake of not appearing to be "wankers".

It really makes me mad that most people think of rock bands this way, not as a way for each musician to express themselves in their own way, but a state of dictatorship where the members who play the "unimportant" instruments are expected to keep in line so as not to clash with the leader of the group. I won't deny that I like several bands who fall into this category though. But I don't think it's the only legitimate way to run a rock band.

Quote:

By my estimation there's at least 50 million people in America that play or own a guitar, most under the age of 55 or so (basically encompassing baby boomers onwards). The guitar manufacturing industry itself is enormous and shows no signs of slowing any time soon.

If anything I'd say the guitar is too dominant, too omnipresent. When's the last time you saw someone playing a saxophone or trumpet on a balcony at sunset? It appears to me that there's just too many people that choose the guitar over other antiquated (or even tech-heavy) instruments.

Actually I won't argue with this. I love the guitar, but there's not as many bold innovators with the instrument like there was in the 60s and 70s, that's not nostalgia bias it's just a fact.

Indeed, there's a lot of idiots who shun the use of other instruments because "IT'S NOT ROCK N ROLL". For god's sake not ALL music should be rock n roll. And it's f*cking bullsh*t that a genre that was all about breaking convention has now become this huge industry with all kinds of ridiculous "rules" being shoved down our throats nonstop by hack writers for magazines like Spin, Blender and Rolling Stone who love to shun things for not being "rock n roll". This magazines always contradict themselves though, don't hate on prog bands use lines like "where's the guitar" and then go on about how f*cking great Radiohead is. A band most music magazines would probably trash nonstop if they didn't have the kind of following they have, lol, after that's exactly what they did at first.

Also I f*cking hate that goddamn Bob Seger song, the one where he pretty much writes off every other genre of music in existance and boasts about how Old Time Rock N Roll is the only music that matters.

Sometimes, Rock N Roll needs to go f*ck itself.

Quote:

I don't think computer-generated music is a fad or that the guitar will always be around (God knows the mellotron didn't last

). But suggesting that it's dying sounds absurd to me. The guitar is far too endearing, far too symbolic an instrument for it to simply vanish off the face of modern music.

Man, if given the opportunity I would totally trade my guitar for a mellotron.

**Janszoon** · 03-25-2010, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

Personally the meaning of a "band" itself has been bastardized. I'm unappologetically biased towards older rock music in this regard, when rock bands where each member shined equally were much more embraced.

But since punk rock and bands like AC/DC and Aerosmith people now tend to favor rock bands where it's really all about the singer and guitarist, and the bassist and drummer are forced to wear collars that send a painful electronic jolt to their spinal columns if they so much as think about doing something unexpected or adventurous, for the sake of not appearing to be "wankers".

It really makes me mad that most people think of rock bands this way, not as a way for each musician to express themselves in their own way, but a state of dictatorship where the members who play the "unimportant" instruments are expected to keep in line so as not to clash with the leader of the group. I won't deny that I like several bands who fall into this category though. But I don't think it's the only legitimate way to run a rock band.

I agree with your overarching point here but I disagree that it's a development that happened in the 70s. I think it's been that way throughout rock history. Look at the Rolling Stones or the Who for example. Or, hell, just look at the names of groups like Buddy Holly & the Crickets or Bill Haley & His Comets. Truth be told, I'd say this is really something that extends far beyond just rock music.

boo boo · 03-25-2010, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I agree with your overarching point here but I disagree that it's a development that happened in the 70s. I think it's been that way throughout rock history. Look at the Rolling Stones or the Who for example. Or, hell, just look at the names of groups like Buddy Holly & the Crickets or Bill Haley & His Comets. Truth be told, I'd say this is really something that extends far beyond just rock music.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

What development are you talking about? The development of bands with ensembles of equally expressive musicians? I never said it was developed in the 60s and 70s, I'm just saying that's when such bands were most prominent.

If you're talking about the opposite, then are you saying The Who didn't have a very expressive rhythm section? Because they most certainly did, even in their earlier days. The Who were definitely an "ensemble" band. Either way I'm not saying punk or AC/DC introduced the idea, but it's in the late 70s when there started to be a real backlash against ensemble bands and people started coming up with all these ridiculously strict rules.

How guitarists should never do this, drummers should never do that, bassists should never be audible, stupid bullsh*t like that.

**Janszoon** · 03-25-2010, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

What development are you talking about? The development of bands with ensembles of equally expressive musicians? I never said it was developed in the 60s and 70s, I'm just saying that's when such bands were most prominent.

If you're talking about the opposite, then are you saying The Who didn't have a very expressive rhythm section? Because they most certainly did, even in their earlier days. The Who were definitely an "ensemble" band. Either way I'm not saying punk or AC/DC introduced the idea, but it's in the late 70s when idiots first starting shunning the idea of ensemble bands.

You said "since punk rock and bands like AC/DC and Aerosmith people now tend to favor rock bands where it's really all about the singer and guitarist". I was pointing out that it was like that before "punk rock and bands like AC/DC and Aerosmith" as well.

boo boo · 03-25-2010, 11:50 AM

I never said such music never existed before punk, you should know full well that I of all people am not gonna give punk credit it doesn't deserve, since a lot punk bands (including The Sex Pistols) mostly just ripped off groups like New York Dolls, The Mc5 and The Stooges.

What I'm saying is that thanks in some part to punk rock and other rock bands of the time like KISS, AC/DC and Aerosmith the media started promoting certain ideals of what a rock n roll band "should" be. I hold no grudges against any of these bands in particular and everyone knows I'm a huge AC/DC fan.

I just think it's a very closed minded point of view, there is no "should" in rock n roll, there are no f*cking rules. One thing I detest is people who say rock n roll needs saving, it doesn't f*cking need saving, it needs to f*cking evolve. And music publications send a mixed message when the bands they say are "saving" rock n roll, namely all these garage rock revival bands and groups like The Libertines, are just bands who are making the same generic "Rock N Roll" that was being made over 40 f*cking years ago, ironically that's even more generic and unoriginal than the corporate radio rock that rock n roll aparrently needs saving from.

Prog rock tried to evolve the genre, but all these idiots got scared, said they don't like change and cried about how rock n roll needs to be saved, that it must never f*cking evolve, and that it needs to regress into a primitive state. It's the equilvalent of someone saying cinema is dead because it's no longer in black and white. Besides, even punk evolved and lead to post punk, which isn't any less pretentious than prog ever was.

The very idea of "killing" or "saving" genres is absurd, punk neither saved rock n roll or killed prog, because rock n roll never needed saving and genres don't die just because they fall out of favor with the mainstream. So what if your favorite genre dies out in popularity? That music still exists, it's still in your record collection, enjoy it. You don't have to make a f*cking war out of it.

**Janszoon** · 03-25-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I just think it's a very closed minded point of view, there is no "should" in rock n roll, there are no f*cking rules.

Yes, boo boo, in my original post I was saying I agree with you on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

What I'm saying is that thanks in some part to punk rock and other rock bands of the time like KISS, AC/DC and Aerosmith the media started promoting certain ideals of what a rock n roll band "should" be.

I understand. What I'm saying is those ideals existed long before those bands.

03-25-2010, 09:59 AM	#21 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	I might be in the minority here, but I don't think so whatsoever. As a vehicle for songwriting, the guitar has probably seen better days, but the absence of guitar-oriented rock isn't necessarily an indication of the guitar's demise. Genres change shape and effect different tonal demands from the guitar, but it's been centric to the classic interpretation of a "band" since the late 1950s, and I don't think it's stopping any time soon. By my estimation there's at least 50 million people in America that play or own a guitar, most under the age of 55 or so (basically encompassing baby boomers onwards). The guitar manufacturing industry itself is enormous and shows no signs of slowing any time soon. If anything I'd say the guitar is too dominant, too omnipresent. When's the last time you saw someone playing a saxophone or trumpet on a balcony at sunset? It appears to me that there's just too many people that choose the guitar over other antiquated (or even tech-heavy) instruments. I don't think computer-generated music is a fad or that the guitar will always be around (God knows the mellotron didn't last ). But suggesting that it's dying sounds absurd to me. The guitar is far too endearing, far too symbolic an instrument for it to simply vanish off the face of modern music. __________________ first.am