The Decline and Fall of Rock & Roll, part I

This forum is for the general discussion of Music.

The Decline and Fall of Rock & Roll, part I

Postby Unpronounceable_Symbol » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:02 pm

(As seen in the Darkness thread)

It has been a long time since an exciting and original rock and roll album has come out. How long, however, has been the subject of debate. In the opinion, when did the decline of rock begin, and how was it heralded?

For example:
Did Kurt Cobain take rock with him when he died, or was Cobain just a pale imitation of the Sex Pistols? Did punk ruin rock, and was Journey the last great rock band? Are they awful, and rock hasn't been the same since Brian Wilson took to his bed for a decade? Are the Beach Boys overrated, and did rock die along with Buddy Holly? Or did white America make rock to "safe," and was Bo Diddley the last relevant rocker? Or is rock still alive and well, just hiding in near-empty smoke-filled bars and suffering under hip-hop's iron fisted rule over commercial music?

Obviously if you just say "rock died in March 1997" that won't help the discussion much, so please give us an event or album release that might support your argument.
User avatar
Unpronounceable_Symbol
 
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Location: Yes please

Postby Otohiko » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:10 pm

I think this discussion should start with what we define as rock and the primary ideals behind it.

Personally, I don't think I have a good conception of 'rock' per se, myself - despite having listened to music that could be defined as 'rock' for all my life. I think getting to the bottom of 'what defines rock' is not something that can be done too easily and unambiguously just through speculation.

Personally, I'm with Fripp's definition of rock - that it's just a convinient label to stick on music that would otherwise be much more difficult to define. I'm rather more comfortable with it than, say, making a big deal of 'rock is dead'. :roll:
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Postby Fulorian » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:32 pm

Rock n' Roll died with Woodstock.
Fulorian
 
Joined: 29 Jan 2004

Postby Otohiko » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:36 pm

Alright, alright, again - let's backtrack?

If rock died with x, what made x rock? Where do we draw the line?

That's what I'm curious about.
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Postby DeinReich » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:38 pm

This is an argument that no one is going to win. Some people think that rock died with Nirvana, others some other time, others still say it's not dead (like me). It is a stupid argument. Something is only dead when it's forgotten IMO.
Image
User avatar
DeinReich
 
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Location: College

Postby downwithpants » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:49 pm

do you mean when did the popularity of rock die or when did the musical/cultural form of rock die?
maskandlayer()|My Guide to WMM 2.x
a-m-v.org Last.fm|<a href="http://www.frappr.com/animemusicvideosdotorg">Animemusicvideos.org Frappr</a>|<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2lryta"> Editors and fans against the misattribution of AMVs</a>
User avatar
downwithpants
BIG PICTURE person
 
Joined: 03 Dec 2002
Location: storrs, ct
Status: out of service

Postby Unpronounceable_Symbol » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:52 pm

Not that a full definition of rock is possible, but let's give it a shot:

Rock came from blues in the late '40s and early '50s. It is generally based on a backbeat and a melody. It uses a similar structure to jazz, that is a verse/chorus/verse style; unlike jazz, the verse is never implied, and in fact is usually repeated (with different lyrics) almost as frequently as the chorus. The emphasis on improvisational soloing is less common than in jazz.

From this we can ascertain:
1) any music made prior to 1950 can safely be considered "not rock."
2) orchestral, symphonic, choral, and other "classical" music styles do not use backbeats, and therefore can safely be considered "not rock."
3) hip-hop, based on rhythm (vocal) and beat (bass and drums), can safely be considered "not rock."
4) jazz, which usually forgoes use of the verse in favor of repetition of the chorus with instrumental improvisation, can safely be considered "not rock."

Please note there are exceptions to every rule, often plentiful exceptions at that.

Fulorian: Woodstock "died" because it was only a three-day festival. If you mean it died when the hippies gave up on their ideals, then it was killed more or less by the Vietnam conflict, with which I would disagree: much of rock is based on angst and despair.

SOAD2k8: Arguments that people can win are boring. I'd just be interested to see what people consider to be major, defining moments in rock, in this case the low points. I personally agree that it's not dead at the moment, but it has certainly seen some dark times.
User avatar
Unpronounceable_Symbol
 
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Location: Yes please

Postby RamonesFan2020204 » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:05 pm

Grunge killed rock in 1991, and thankfully The Darkness and Jet brought it back to life in 2004.
Image
Now available in MP4 format for the iPod Video.
User avatar
RamonesFan2020204
 
Joined: 30 May 2001

Postby Otohiko » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:10 pm

Hmm, interesting.

So I guess we're then talking in terms of musical structure - though, as with Woodstock, noone can deny that there's not a rock culture.

Still, I suppose everything depends on how closely you identify rock with either the culture or the musical form, and which aspects of it you emphasize.

Prog rock might not be rock at all. It certainly wasn't, if you ask the punks. Jazz-rock would be an oxymoron. Rap-rock? Other hybrids?

My own sense of 'rock' has always been a bit more slanted to some of the cultural ideas related to it, which allows it to cover a broader spectrum of music.

Going back to my beloved Fripp ( :roll: ), he spoke very vividly of a huge change in rock culture which took place somewhere around 1971, and certainly by 1974. He attributed it both to the development of new massively-popular rock bands and 'greatest hits' of the post-Beatles era, which undercut the creative spirits quite a bit; and, curiously, the change from marijuana and extasy to heroin and crack. The audiences were suddenly very different, and the music they wanted was very different.

Otherwise, rock in other countries could be interesting to look at. I would argue that, for instance, the guy in my avatar - Yuri Shevchuk, of DDT - makes rock music that is relevant in a sense that no American band's music is anymore, because the social and political context they're in is very different.
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Postby Unpronounceable_Symbol » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Permission to Land and Get Born both came out in 2003, did it take a full year for the resurrection process?
Also, Jet is one of the most derivative bands I've ever heard. It's hard to deny that "Are You Gonna Be My Girl" sounds almost exactly like "Lust For Life," and "Look What You've Done" sounds exactly like "Sonnet." At least Nirvana only cribbed a style, and not individual songs at a time.

downwithpants: I meant more the musical form than the popularity, popular taste is much more fickle and fluctuating than an actual style of music.
User avatar
Unpronounceable_Symbol
 
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Location: Yes please

Postby downwithpants » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:24 pm

taking rock in the broadest sense, the musical/cultural form of rock is not dead. currently, the most popular forms it's taken are pop, pop-punk, and adult alternative (at least in the US).

taking rock as the form it originated in, it died well before i was born. i'd guess that the growth of electronic feedback and distortion killed it.
maskandlayer()|My Guide to WMM 2.x
a-m-v.org Last.fm|<a href="http://www.frappr.com/animemusicvideosdotorg">Animemusicvideos.org Frappr</a>|<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2lryta"> Editors and fans against the misattribution of AMVs</a>
User avatar
downwithpants
BIG PICTURE person
 
Joined: 03 Dec 2002
Location: storrs, ct
Status: out of service

Postby Unpronounceable_Symbol » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:28 pm

The hated double-post, but Otohiko brings up good points.

Prog-rock is technically rock, although I'm not sure I would count it as such just because it pushed so far from "traditional" rock so fast that it in many cases is closer to the compositional intricacy of classical music or the improvisational structures of jazz. And jazz-rock I always find closer to jazz than rock, like jazz with rock instruments and rock dynamics.

For the record, I don't even see all indie rock as rock by my own given definition. Slint, for example, is mostly non-melodic and not always based on backbeats. Might be best to work on a case-by-case basis, and we can argue whether particular bands fall under 'rock' or not if and when these bands are brought up.
User avatar
Unpronounceable_Symbol
 
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Location: Yes please

Postby Fulorian » Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:34 pm

What I was trying to imply was that Rock n Roll died in 1969, and all that followed was not Rock n Roll, but instead merely Rock. Woodstock was the catalyst, I didn't mean that Rock simply evaporated over the course of those three days. That event simply triggered a musical revolution which utterly destroyed the feel-good teeny-bop genre of Rock n Roll of the 50s and 60s.
Fulorian
 
Joined: 29 Jan 2004

Postby TaranT » Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:39 am

Otohiko wrote:... Jazz-rock would be an oxymoron....

Call it "jazz fusion" and you'll have a lot to talk about - Miles Davis, Chick Corea, Stanley Clarke, Al di Meola, Weather Report....it's a long list.
TaranT
 
Joined: 16 May 2001

Postby madmallard » Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:39 am

yes, we must differentiate between rock and roll, and just rock.
A/V Operations Director for Kawaii-kon, Izumicon, Mizucon, Anime Crossroads
Asst. Dir. for Anime Weekend Atlanta
User avatar
madmallard
 
Joined: 04 Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Cracked up quacker, quacked up cracker

Next

Return to Music Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest