surfndestroy wrote:When I say rock it's an umbrella term for a wide range of music. The uniting factor being the attitude it was made with. It's what allows a diverse range of music from the Beatles, to the Stones, to Led Zeppelin, to Genesis be rock but Neil Diamond not. Sex and drugs and rock n roll. I think to a large extent that bands like Pearl Jam, Black Keys are just corporations that play rock music. The essence is long gone.
I think Sticky Fingers is an example of a current band that has embraced all the attitude and is compelling for it. The attitude is essential as it leads to lack of compromise on the music. Wanting to be popular but not caring if you please people. That seems lost now. It seems to be all about pleasing people rather than staying true to yourself as an artist.
I think so many bands are just lost now, they have no idea who they are. Our Lady Peace is a prime example. Pearl Jam and U2 fall under this to a lessor extent.
Give me raw passion and attitude. Be a rock star even if your playing to ten people. Because you feel a rock star is what you are and people just haven't caught on yet. I don't want respectable roll models/hypocrites. I want excess and the music comes from that attitude, at least until addictions kick in.
I don't agree with any of this.
Rock star posturing is not needed. I can cite numerous people in music who I love who haven't felt a need for this shit.
Rock is such a vague term I don't think you can say its out of style. If it's just electric guitars then ok, maybe, but I don't think that's what rock is.
Leatherhead wrote:I don't think having "big names" is a requirement for the rock genre to still be alive. I'd say it's alive and kicking, just a little harder to find.
Totally agree. However, my early and teenage years were the early/mid 90s and so some of the best music were the biggest names around. I think that was also the case with other decades. That said, I am just curious if there are really big names out there, who are also crushing it with really great and influential music.
That said, to me rock is basically when a handful of people pick up some combination of guitar, bass, drums, keys, and a microphone.
Thom Yorke is writing original music for a show at The Roundabout Theatre Company this fall. If that doesn't signal the beginning of the end, I don't know what does.
Leatherhead wrote:I don't think having "big names" is a requirement for the rock genre to still be alive. I'd say it's alive and kicking, just a little harder to find.
Totally agree. However, my early and teenage years were the early/mid 90s and so some of the best music were the biggest names around. I think that was also the case with other decades. That said, I am just curious if there are really big names out there, who are also crushing it with really great and influential music.
RM, please show this gentleman one of our many fine Kanye West threads.
I dunno, art in general is so dispersed and segmented now, I don't really see anything as huge anymore. Its all niche. I think oldtimers just compare it to when there were giant acts and nobodies and think its over. This is just how art is consumed now. More choices for consumers, less huge success.
The age thing is weird too. On the one hand, the average 20 year old doesn't know what a Pearl Jam is, but the average 30something probably couldn't name a popular youth act either. who cares?
Leatherhead wrote:I don't think having "big names" is a requirement for the rock genre to still be alive. I'd say it's alive and kicking, just a little harder to find.
Totally agree. However, my early and teenage years were the early/mid 90s and so some of the best music were the biggest names around. I think that was also the case with other decades. That said, I am just curious if there are really big names out there, who are also crushing it with really great and influential music.
RM, please show this gentleman one of our many fine Kanye West threads.
ugh, I don't care if that dude can turn water to wine. I can't listen to music made by that big of a shit head.
