positiveaob

The term "Rock" is such a nebulous thing. It's tough to really call it dead or dying when you dont really have a good definition for what it is. I think in a lot of ways it just sort of morphed into the music we have today, which to me isn't bad at all. Rock and roll of the late sixties was a completely different beast than that of the fifties, and seventies was different than that of the sixties, and so on. Remember, probably the biggest selling group of the seventies was Abba. Not exactly hard-core rock and roll.

And keep in mind, whenever you look at music from a past era you're just thinking of the songs/groups that stood the test of time. There was plenty of junk back then also. It's the same way with literature. You can look at the classic novels from a period of time and think we've regressed since then but the reality is there was plenty of crap back then too. You just dont remember it or hear about it because it sucked and got forgotten about.

Exactly.

KMS

Some of the nu-metal bands had a real quality about them. I know it isn't popular, but Deftones and Korn are excellent bands with an amazing intensity to some of their stuff.

Most of the post-grunge(save for a few acts)is really lifeless. Shinedown's debut album was pretty decent, a few others... Bush's Sixteen Stone... most of it's very watered down and lifeless.

The stuff now like BVB's is far worse than either. Totally lifeless and fake.

Necromancer

Why is the term Rock a nebulous thing? Rock derived from music during the 40s and 50s rock & roll basically. Electric blues, jazz, folk, country, blues, rhythm and blues, soul, and so on. Of course Rock has influenced modern music of the day, and so has countless other genres and sub-genres as well. Abba was a pop group during the 70s, not a Rock band, and quite the opposite and far from being a hard-core rock and roll band, as you suggested in the above.

You stated " whenever you look at music from a past era you're just thinking of the songs/groups that stood the test of time". I can understand that being the case for your average listener. But even so, there are plenty of underground bands from any era that have actual good music, but its up to the individual to search and find them. Its not all based on just the popular bands/artist with high ratings. The fact being... it IS what it IS.
You have to look at certain eras and genres by putting yourself in that particular time and decade to better understand the music from a more coherent standpoint. You cant take a particular band or artist, say from the 70s for example, and compare them with bands or artist of the current day. It just doesn't work like that.
Its all based mainly on common sense, and I understand that it might be hard for someone to explain themselves if they didn't live the experience of whatever particular era is being discussed. But it is there for all to see, explore, and understand ... its called the genealogy of musical genres, which is for the more die-hard music enthusiast.

positiveaob

It's nebulous in the respect that, like any music or any art in general, it's not strictly defined. All categories of music are that way. You sort of broadly classify music into certain genres but the reality is that for any type of music, such as rock and roll, you can't really point to a set of features and diagnostic criteria and say "THAT's what makes it rock and roll". My point was that I don't agree that anything came along and hurt or killed rock and roll, it's just evolved and will continue to evolve. I dont think it has replaced by something else, it's just what it has become.

I think you may have entirely missed my point. The point was made by another poster that rock dominated the charts for that period in the seventies and I was pointing out that likely the biggest band of the era was not at all rock and roll, it was a disco-ish glam-pop band (who I happened to like). I believe I said pretty directly that Abba was NOT hard-core rock and roll.

Again, I think you may have entirely misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that there's always a tendency to look at music (or anything in general for that matter) from the present as representing some sort of decay/decline from the past golden ages. The reality is that when you do so it is because you are only focusing on the best stuff from those periods of the past. You look at a period spanning ten or twenty years in the distant past and point to all the legends and classics that came from that period and compare that with right now, and think that nowadays is crappy in comparison because there's so much junk being put out now. Again, in reality, there was just as much crap then too. But since you never hear the crap from that era anymore and are just focusing on the best of the best, the tendency is to look back on that particular era as some sort of golden age.

Rock and roll isn't dead, it's just evolving like any music does. And just as much talent is around now as it has always been. Someday they will look back on the 2010's and saying "Boy, those were the days. There was no junk on the radio back then". And the reply will be "what the hell does 'radio' mean?".

Necromancer

Rock, Alternative Rock, Progressive Metal, whatever you want to call it, is nowhere as popular today as it was back in the 70s for example. And with the internet today, there is twice the amount of bad music, bands, and artist today as there were 10 or 20 years ago.

The 90s Grunge Scene was the last big Rock orientated era.

Urban Hat€monger ?

I'd say it was the whole garage rock thing in 2000/2001.

And rock music killed rock music by being bland & behind the times.

__________________

Gavin B.

Originally Posted by Gavin B.
You're right. It's probably the best thing that ever happened to rock music. It frees the musician from being a slave to the record labels who do nothing but skim all of their royalty payments to purchase cocaine.

__________________
There are two types of music: the first type is the blues and the second type is all the other stuff.
Townes Van Zandt

KMS

^ Lol, no matter what you've heard, rock acts made way more of a living on large labels than being low to mid independent acts. Royalty payments aside.... just having a huge name/single/record out and you have crazy amounts of licensing opportunities and a large income from touring and merchandise sales.

Jokesters like Asking Alexandria today even have rather high incomes and they're nowhere near as big as the 'big' rock acts from the past on major's.

Ninetales

Not what I meant. Just because rock isn't as popular in the commercial sense as it used to be, doesnt mean its inherently dead. I suppose it depends on ones individual definition but there are many successful "rock bands" today still. It isnt dead just because they arent on the billboard top 20. Much of what's on there isnt what's conceived as the great music thats being made now anyways. Naturally music is always evolving, so obviously rock wont always be the most popular genre. Now theres a lot more competition and im glad. Why would anyone want 60 years of led zeppelin look-alikes dominating music?

I guess what hurt rock the most is the evolution of music. And "hurt" isnt even the right term. Music is just different from the 60s; not worse.

#000000

No genre has "killed" rock, in my opinion. I say "killed" because it doesn't seem particularly dead to me either.

Most people I know these days (myself included) like rock but like other genres too. Music genres are incresingly less of an exclusive thing so when it comes to your average music buyer, rock has to compete with other genres. When most mainstream rock musicians are no longer grabbing as much attention, who do you think will sell records?

Musically speaking, most rock bands that get any attention from the public are sticking too much to old formulas. Marketing-wise, hip-hop and pop musicians get more publicity and airplay because they're catering to an audience that wants to listen to new things and look at new imagery. If rock is going to die anytime soon it's more because of its inability to adjust to a new market that has different audiences and demographics and different methods.

That alone doesn't mean rock will die. Maybe some truly innovative bands will start getting more attention from labels and subsequently from the general public. Maybe we'll stop measuring a genre's success by its commercial success in charts. I still buy rock music but when it comes to current artists, most of them are smaller bands that frankly don't get the attention they deserve.