Why do people think rock is dead?

[glp2012]

Honestly, I believe it's the digit world we live in. Does anybody remember record stores? Or, the anticipation of the latest "album" by your favorite band? Or actually opening up an album to read the lyrics and liner notes? Or the posters inside? Do you remember holding the album in your hands while the record spun on the record player. Do you remember scratching your album and having to hear it skip? Or how about the dust that would settle into the groves and make that cracking and popping sound?

 

Kids don't have that anymore. They all buy digital music online. There is no community or camaraderie or anything to hold onto. Its all virtual and there is no ownership. To them, Rock & Roll is virtual, not physical. So, it really doesn't exist.

 

Really, its sad...

[Buxom]

For example, these days people call 100w Marshall stacks overkill. But back in the day, a 100w Marshall meant you had balls (assuming you knew how to use it).

 

Overkill is good (yes, the band too!), volume is good, in-your-face is good.

 

I must be great! I have a 120W stack and crank it when I jam with my drummer. people from the next neighborhood over tell me they can hear it.

[charlie brown]

Maybe, it's because the people that think Rock is dead, are dead themselves...at least in spirit!

 

CB

[zigzag]

I agree glp. In the infancy of rock, the radio played a major part in the way rock was delivered. Pop music was Percy Faith, Perry Como, and Pat Boone. When Rock'n'roll hit the scene in the '50s, it was delivered on AM radio. Teeny boppers couldn't wait to get their hands on the latest 45. TV delivered the new pop music in the form of American Bandstand, Ed Sullivan, and Hullaballoo. In the '60s came the LP (33 rpm), Rock went underground, and in the early '70s, radio went FM. Pop music was bad Rock. Progressive rock was less mainstream, but more sophisticated musically. Radio was still the medium. Record stores, record companies, and drug dealers thrived, and then the format changed to CDs. And now it is delivered for a price on the internet.

 

If Rock is dead, it's because of the way it is delivered. If you're lucky enough to have a college radio station that can generate the funds and still appeal to a more progressive crowd, you can still find newer music. Otherwise, you'd better have a means of finding out where the good stuff is. If Rock is dead and buried, you gotta know where to dig it up.

[charlie brown]

When the "show" (special effects, lighting, etc.) becomes more important

than the actual music, then it "dies," to me. But, that's just me.

 

CB

[zigzag]

It may also be necessary to distinguish between "rock" and "pop" music. Obviously, "pop" music is music that appeals to the masses. "Rock" has become so watered down and splintered that is hard to define. But, most contemporary "pop" music could be defined as some form of "Rock."

 

Flashy Rock is basically pop music. It seems to be that in most cases, the flashier the performance, the less sophisticated the music. There are notable exceptions, and it is also worth noting that Elvis, Little Richard, and Jerry Lee Lewis were considered flashy in their day, esp. when compared to Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby.

[milod]

First... hey, Elvis certainly captured "the masses," and so did a lotta Beatles stuff and Doowop.

 

Well... Sinatra was figured to be pretty hot in terms of show before WWII. Cab Calloway and many others ditto in the swing era.

 

When I say "show," I don't mean pyrotechnics and stuff, but I've seen too many bands that seemed to be practicing on stage in terms of audience eye contact and such that the audience didn't/couldn't get into their performance.

 

And also we're now hitting the language problems with "rock."

 

Frankly I think that an awful lot of Beatles stuff was patently "pop."

 

Some folks would say doowop is "pop," but that ignores the fact that a lot of it evolved from street gangs, much the same as rap.

 

I'd add that IMHO, rock up to the Beatles functionally was simply stuff played more on teen radio stations, but in most cases was musically pretty much the same as "pop."

 

I think one reason "rock" became so successful as a general proposition is that it included not only Chuck Berry and Link Wray, but also Alvin and the Chipmunks and novelty material like "Seven little girls sitting in the back seat kissin' and huggin' with Fred."

 

Too many of us as musicians, I think, tend to get too doggone serious about the music and forget we're entertaining folks.

 

m

[zigzag]

Well, now we could have a discussion on "pop" and "rock" music and the differences. And we could discuss appeal, "selling out," entertainment versus artistic integrity, and I think we could do it while still being on topic.

 

I won't disagree at all with you about the Beatles. In fact, this was an issue during their time. The serious jazzers knocked early RnR, Dylan knocked the Beatles, die-hard country music fans knocked Dylan when he went electric. Yeah, music is most definitely entertainment, but it is not strictly limited to being entertaining (or is it?).

[milod]

Even Joe Pass' solo gigs were entertaining with a bit of banter between songs.

 

Leo Kottke has the world's strangest, but very funny sense of humor as well as great guitar technique.

 

Doc Watson could tell some tales too.

 

I recall tales that Liszt had quite a show for his era.

 

The best folk, rock and country gigs I remember from 30-50 years ago were when there was crowd interaction. I think that identification did help the music connect.

 

I don't think it takes stage production, but it seems that the most overall successes among the pros of any style is when "fans" feel a connection to the musicians as well as the music. In a live show, that feeds energy back to the musicians as well.

 

That's not a sell-out, whether you're playing Chopin or Chopsticks, Johnny B Goode or Wreck of the Old 97 or whatever it is that you think is good and honestly your schtick.

 

For what it's worth, I admit not being terribly excited playing "happy birthday" in saloons, but I was happy for the person honored and never considered it a sellout.

 

m

[Lu Ruello]

Rock will never die. It comes in phases. I've seen it come and go. It'll be big again. I think the digital way of recording will fade too. People will want to record live again in time.

 

Sorry I can't see digital recording ever going away! In 2013, with 1 PC and ableton live and a guitar and mic, anyone can produce professionally produced recordings with NO NOISE! Back in the 90's,to achieve the same results would mean going to a pro studio and would cost you a fortune. No way I'd ever go back to tape.:)

[Lu Ruello]

Honestly, I believe it's the digit world we live in. Does anybody remember record stores? Or, the anticipation of the latest "album" by your favorite band? Or actually opening up an album to read the lyrics and liner notes? Or the posters inside? Do you remember holding the album in your hands while the record spun on the record player. Do you remember scratching your album and having to hear it skip? Or how about the dust that would settle into the groves and make that cracking and popping sound?

 

Kids don't have that anymore. They all buy digital music online. There is no community or camaraderie or anything to hold onto. Its all virtual and there is no ownership. To them, Rock & Roll is virtual, not physical. So, it really doesn't exist.

 

Really, its sad...

 

There is a price for our newly-gained freedom of expression through home recording being made available to the masses. Music is everywhere and people are willing to give it away to be heard. This does not make for a healthy music economy for the musicians but it's a treasure chest for listeners. Interesting to note the difference between 128kb/s MP3 recordings versus 320kb/s ones. I wonder why they bother to sell 128kb/s mp3's when you can get much better results from 320kb/s.

[milod]

I think you guys are missing that music is, except perhaps for us, "entertainment."

 

People may enjoy or not enjoy the music we play, but they "go out" to enjoy themselves, and our music "show" may or may not assist that goal.

 

I think some of "us" are our own worst enemies. We worry about how we think we're playing and how we think we sound - and ignore that it's for naught if it's not packaged for an audience.

 

m

[zigzag]

I'm not sure I understand what playing live to an audience has to do with the death of Rock.

[kaleb]

iTunes downloads are great for traveling with an iPod or iPhone, but if I'm gonna listen to music in my car, I'm gonna listen to CDs.

 

Screw Napster and all of the file-sharing sites. They helped **** up the record industry.

 

But thank God for Sirius XM!

[FirstMeasure]

It's not so much that Rock is dead, but Live Music is certainly struggling. The appreciation of the talent it takes to perform live and record actual performances are at an all time low.

[milod]

Firstm...

 

I think you're correct that appreciation of live music is at a serious low...

 

But also I've noted that the general economy plays a role too. For example, big banners on the two local saloons that have music - or karaoke - on a weekend is the only advertising.

 

Basically the feeling is that the economy is such that the "regulars" are gonna be there regardless, so why do anything special. The two saloons with more or less regular music continue, the others don't even think of adding something different.

 

m

[charlie brown]

It's not so much that Rock is dead, but Live Music is certainly struggling. The appreciation of the talent it takes to perform live and record actual performances are at an all time low.

 

Yeah, it's "interesting." Bands, nowadays...all too often, will (or, have to) play for free,

just to get to play "out!" And, even then, they're sets are often only 1/2 hour to 45 minutes,

at most, because there are 3-5 other bands performing, before or after them, in the same venue.

 

Out here, in "The Sticks," it's still pretty much one band a night, for the whole gig's time

allotment (3-4 hours). Though, even here, that's changing, a bit. So...?? Good PAYING gigs, seem harder

and harder to come by, due to the venues that used hire bands, no longer doing so, or...not as often.

I've actually heard venue owners say that: "Bands cost us money, Karaoke or DJ's MAKE us money!"

 

Seems "odd," to me, having grown up listening to, and much preferring "Live band" music. But, that's

what they say, as often as not, now.

 

CB

[ShredAstaire]

Ask RS1976, he seems to know it all. :)

[FirstMeasure]

Milo, that's what I run into more than anything. Venues that don't want to advertise because the cost do outweigh the benefits in the short term. They're unable or unwilling to wait for the advertising to sink in and create a scene. So many make the mistake of trying to create a scene overnight, or with the hiring of that one magic band that brings in as much business as a holiday weekend.

 

So they hire a DJ because the short term numbers add up pleasantly, even if the long term numbers are mediocre because they created a very familiar scene. Soon, everyplace will have recorded music and the demand for Live Music will naturally grow out of the doldrums. (I hope)

[stein]

I think in bigger cities, property values and leases have had a big impact. Venues therefore struggle and have less to pay bands. Many also sell or close.

 

Bands that used to make a meager living have less venues to play. They get day jobs and have less energy and interest.

 

Venues hire 'free' bans, guys that just play every now and again on weekends, that are much less practiced and experienced. The music sucks, therefore, live bands are less of a draw bwcuse expectations are low.

 

We are in a musical recession.

[Buxom]

Yeah, it's "interesting." Bands, nowadays...all too often, will (or, have to) play for free,

just to get to play "out!" And, even then, they're sets are often only 1/2 hour to 45 minutes,

at most, because there are 3-5 other bands performing, before or after them, in the same venue.

 

Out here, in "The Sticks," it's still pretty much one band a night, for the whole gig's time

allotment (3-4 hours). Though, even here, that's changing, a bit. So...?? Good PAYING gigs, seem harder

and harder to come by, due to the venues that used hire bands, no longer doing so, or...not as often.

I've actually heard venue owners say that: "Bands cost us money, Karaoke or DJ's MAKE us money!"

 

Seems "odd," to me, having grown up listening to, and much preferring "Live band" music. But, that's

what they say, as often as not, now.

 

CB

 

Most bands I see have 15-20 minute sets for local, 30-40 for local yet well known, and 1 hour plus for famous acts. it's tough, but i really want to get out there and try it.

[charlie brown]

Most bands I see have 15-20 minute sets for local, 30-40 for local yet well known, and 1 hour plus for famous acts. it's tough, but i really want to get out there and try it.

 

Well, I think you should! You never know...something might happen, and...maybe not?

But, as the saying goes: "Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained!" Go for it!!

 

CB

[milod]

Actually I think the economics hit both the big towns and the rural areas about the same - but just with a difference in scale. Drink prices and venues here are smaller, but that means margins are just as important.

 

I dunno... We have a lot of talented young musicians out there, but the economy is far different from "hard times" before.

 

The tax structure is one reason. Rising costs of everything is another. And that affects both the talented kids and the venues that once were hiring in far worse times that today.

 

I understand Buxom wanting to play "out." I'm easily old enough to be his grandpa, but...

 

So... First, I'd recommend a lotta practice in a lotta styles, including enough reading for jazz... then going to a small college where you have opportunity both for fun and for money. Of course, it's easy for me to say that since I was in a rock/jazz band in high school, went folkie my first cupla years of college (at the first college - I was stupid enough to play all the time instead of tending to classwork) and then rock and country at the third college and thereafter.

 

One reason I do maybe a half dozen benefits a year now 'stedda a real "playing out" is that I haven't the time with "the day job" to do setup and practice for a cupla styles of solo sets that would be professional by my own standards - nor to do a band the way any band should practice. Perhaps some day.

 

m

[crazytrain513]

Because today, most people would rather shake their a** than bang their head.

 

They'd rather rap than sing.

 

They'd rather look than listen.

 

Music has become a business instead of going through the trouble of finding great bands and signing them. Label companies now can take any pretty boy and strap a mute mic to the side of their head, throw them on stage, put on a million dollar light show and push play on a CD player that resonates throughout an entire stadium and BAM! That's a show.

 

No offense meant by this but honestly, has anyone ever been to a techno/house concert? It's literally a man standing on stage on his computer with headphones on and he's probably checking his email while his iTunes blares through the stadium.

 

There's just nothing natural about music anymore. A huge characteristic of rock was that it always sounded different because it was natural talent. Today, music is all rehearsed, edited, and perfected to the point where that raw energy just isn't there anymore.

 

Sure there's a lot of rock bands out there today, but for the majority of them, the same story applies. Lots of money and time, little talent or innovation. As far as I'm concerned, the guitar solo is pretty much nonexistent in today's day and age.

 

Mind you, I wasn't even around during the majority of rock's glory days but this is what even I believe.

[kaleb]

It's normal for big bands to play theaters and ballrooms now. Back in the day (late 70s thru mid-80s), playing a theater meant you were either working your way to the top or you stayed at a small level. Now, a 3,000-seat theater is the top, not the 12,000-seat hall. A good arena rock show (excluding the older bands that are still huge) doesn't exist anymore. 30 years ago, you could see Van Halen, Sabbath, Ozzy, newer acts, Judas Priest, Scorpions, KISS, all those great bands all the time at concert halls. It's not like that anymore, unless you want Nickelback. Plus, ticket prices for arena-size concerts are way too expensive.

 

The record companies are gone, and bands have to either join a small independent label, make their own independent label, or just sell/market their records themselves online. The industry is more image-focused than ever, and more corporate than ever. Radio is homogenized and boring.

 

The problem lies in the fact that rock/metal isn't shoved down peoples' throats like it used to be, which means you have to dig for good music, which means that those who don't will never be exposed to it like they would have 30 years ago.

 

I also blame the "Seattle scene" and the explosion of alternative rock. That stuff just isn't fun like Van Halen is. Teenage boys don't want political alt-rock stuff, they want fun heavy rock.