Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Come on, man. I'm 31. When I said my youth, I was referring to my teens. I'm more like a Gen Y or whatever. Musicians are not great these days. They seem to be making more and more stuff for radio and MTV and not vice versa.
Bands like Pink Floyd were averse to endorsements and media exposure. Most musicians in that golden age were recluses.
First issue is you're looking to MTV for new/good music.
Sometimes genres just get tapped out. Rock music is 65 years old at least; arguably a bit more. That's a lengthy run in terms of the timelines of pop culture.
.
No, it isn't. There is no musicological connection between Fifties Rock and any music that is being performed and produced today in a genre called Rock. The only link is the continuum of the demographic that serves as the market for the music, and that is the same continuum that flowed from Benny Goodman to Bill Haley. A "genre" doesn't get tapped out, it makes a sudden shift, and evolves seamlessly into a new genre, and that has happened several times to what we, throughout, continued to call Rock.
Sometimes genres just get tapped out. Rock music is 65 years old at least; arguably a bit more. That's a lengthy run in terms of the timelines of pop culture.
In the past, musical genres have often gone out of favor or mass appeal. Operas used to be tremendously popular. Now they are more of a niche interest, and not that many composers are still writing new operatic compositions in the old style.
This, to me, is the main reason why rock music isn't what it used to be, at least in terms of mass popularity. Classical music, which was a major part of Western culture, was relevant in the mainstream consciousness until the early 20th century. Today, classical music is still producing new, interesting works, but the music is more of a niche genre that appeals to a smaller audience than it once did. The same holds through for jazz, which lost its mainstream popularity around the 50's with the decline of big bands and rise of bebop.
Rock music had a good 50-year run but is becoming increasingly irrelevant as a mainstream cultural movement. The days of critical acceptance and major commercial success being one in the same are more or less over, so consumers are going to have to learn to become their own experts in music. The good news is that musically, now is one of the best times in history to be a fan of rock music. There are so many innovative bands producing excellent music, but they aren't selling millions of records like The Beatles or The Who did.
It's all about connections, who is related to who, who has sex appeal, etc.
Would LMFAO be popular if they weren't related to Berry Gordy? Probably not. Would Justin Bieber be popular if it wasn't for teenage girls and Usher "taking him under his wing"? Definitely a no. Would Nicki Minaj be popular if she didn't have a large behind? Maybe, but probably not.
There is no musicological connection between Fifties Rock and any music that is being performed and produced today in a genre called Rock.
I'm not sure how you're defining "muisicological" in the context of that quote, but there are obvious connections between rock music then and now.
The foundation of the vast majority of rock music is still the 4/4 backbeat, and most rock music still relies on the same small handful of scales and chord progressions as it did in the '50s. Also, the main focal points of rock music are the lead singer and an instrumental soloist (usually piano or guitar), just as it was in the '50s.
It might sound different, but there are lots of connections.
I think late-40's through early 60's rock music is certainly different from what came later, but it still feels like part of the same "family" of sounds.
As a genre of music ages, it becomes increasingly difficult to produce anything within the genre that sounds "new" in any real sense. So, at best, new music ends up sounding like a refinement of work that has been done previously. It does not sound "revolutionary" or "original," and even if the work is quite good, it gives a sense of retreading familiar ground.
There were significant changes in the sonic texture of rock songs up until the middle 1990's, but after that, it's tough to identify any new developments within the rock genre that have produced a body of songs that sound radically different from those that already existed by 1997 or so.
While it may be possible to write new rock songs that are quite good, it may not really be possible to write rock songs that are actually "new." We may have reached that point with the rock genre.
I think late-40's through early 60's rock music is certainly different from what came later, but it still feels like part of the same "family" of sounds.
As a genre of music ages, it becomes increasingly difficult to produce anything within the genre that sounds "new" in any real sense. So, at best, new music ends up sounding like a refinement of work that has been done previously. It does not sound "revolutionary" or "original," and even if the work is quite good, it gives a sense of retreading familiar ground.
There were significant changes in the sonic texture of rock songs up until the middle 1990's, but after that, it's tough to identify any new developments within the rock genre that have produced a body of songs that sound radically different from those that already existed by 1997 or so.
While it may be possible to write new rock songs that are quite good, it may not really be possible to write rock songs that are actually "new." We may have reached that point with the rock genre.
That's precisely what happened with classical music. By the mid-20th century, composers had pushed classical music boundaries as far as they could really go. I listen to a fair amount of newer classical music, and most of it is a retread of older ideas. Nothing wrong with that, but it means that there really is very little revolutionary music coming out in the Western classical tradition.
I agree with you that rock music has more or less reached the same point of exhaustion as classical music has reached. What makes it harder for the public to stomach might be the fact that rock music went through its evolution in 50 years, which is a much faster rate than classical music (which took about 1,000 years) and jazz music (which took about 100 years). So, people who were alive when rock music was young (in the 1950's - 1970's) are likely to be sad/appalled to see how rock music has more or less lost its cultural relevance and has essentially become a niche genre.
Hip hop is still evolving since it's a younger genre than rock music (hip hop is only about 30 - 35 years old), but it too may reach a point where it reaches exhaustion.
Rihanna and Foster The People are the epitome of what's wrong with chart music.
To put it bluntly, it's a bunch of soulless crap aimed at pleasing the sheep who can't be bothered to listen to real music.
For the record i am a huge fan of Foster The People. Great retro New Wave sound with clever lyrics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
