Marmalade was just giving an example, I got that. He did make it clear that he liked 80s/90s music (which was new at the time) even though he had been more of a classic rock prior to that. I understand Blue Oyster Cult's position. I have thought for decades that all these bands are just going through a career. What choice did they have? They found success when they were young, then at around 30 years of age they were hardly going to start a new career in something else. No, they had to maintain their real estate investments, support their families, maintain their lifestyle, even though they are done creatively. This applies to the majority of acts from the 70s/80s/90s. They all have a hot period of 5 years or less when they are really on top of their game. After that it's just a job, a career. We can't expect them all to keep on delivering great albums. I couldn't give a damn if they all simply packed it in tomorrow.
The problem is with the emphasis on albums. The focus now is on the individual song. I don't see any reason that they can't continue delivering great songs. Instead of a full album, they could put out a single or an EP.
I don't think that any of them are capable. It's been done to death. For example, I love Neil Young but I don't really need anything more from him. Same goes for The Stones, Aerosmith, Robert Plant, U2, The Cure, Pixies,... However, I'm sure that there is an audience for new rock artists of say the last 5 years or tomorrow, to come up with something that will have quite a wide appeal.
The idea that BOC is going to start scoring big radio hits at this stage of their career is absurd. They rarely had hit singles at the peak of their popularity. There's little point in them trying to become something they're not now.
Too bad your're not a fan of the current Deep Purple, Purple Jim. Their recent albums are considered great. They still sound like a band with something to prove. They have made new (21st century) rock that's actually worthy of a catalog that stretches back, 50 years! However, I agree with some of the names you've put forth (ie. Stones, U2, Aerosmith).
I think that they're good songwriters. I don't think that they'll ever top the Hot 100. But they're no reason to think that they couldn't top Billboard's mainstream rock chart.
I like BOC just fine, but they were always more of an album rock band and I don't see an act like this thriving in a marketplace where old school rock is no longer the thing. A leopard can't change its spots after forty years. How often do we see artists--oh sorry, I know that you hate that word, entertainers in their 60s and 70s scoring hit singles? The single market is driven by and for the young and the evidence seems to suggest that young people are no longer listening to rock in large numbers.
I'm a fan of Neil Young. I do want to hear what he's putting out next (even though I think his newest single is lame).
So they're going to go through all the hoop-de-doo of writing and recording so they can top Billboards mainstream rock chart? Twenty people will hear the track and they'll still be playing clubs.
I posted this comment already before in another similar thread, but I think it makes sense copy/pasting it here: "I think it's important defining rock music. Are we discussing 'rawk' in the vein of The Rowlin' Stones and The Who? Or is rock an expansive umbrella genre, with many many subgenres, including Metal, Alt./Indie, Prog, Psych, Singer/songwriter, Punk, etc. I'm fully aware rock is not the force anymore it was in the 60s and early 70s, but let's face it, at least where I grew up (the netherlands), rock has been knocked off the top spot as 'the people's music' already in the late 70s by disco. But that doesn't mean there haven't been tons and tons of great rock-oriented music made since then. Not necessarily mainstream, things were happening more on underground level, but does that really make a difference? So many wonderful bands who sold next to nothing back in the day are now considered utterly influential (Velvet Underground, Stooges, Can, to name a few). There are few genres which are as broad and inclusive as rock, it has always absorbed other styles, in the 60s and 70s it was influenced by blues and jazz, and today's rock scene is not any different. Today's rock community is incorporating electronica, world music, hiphop beats, it's taking cues from older styles like postpunk, folk, synthpop, experimental stuff, etc. Some currently relevant artists: (limiting myself to the 2010s): Tame Impala, Clarence Clarity, Everything Everything, Miraculous Mule, King Gizzard, Stara Rzeka, Yeasayer, Three Trapped Tigers, Algiers, Deerhunter, EMA, Atlas Sound, Rose Windows, Beyond Creation, Bon Iver, Suuns, Caribou, Tu Fawning, Wand, Sharon Van Etten, Strand Of Oaks, St. Vincent, Wu Lyf, Ariel Pink, GOAT, The Black Keys, Los Campesinos, The War On Drugs, The Body, Ty Segall, Forest Swords, School Of Seven Bells, Pepe Deluxe, Gang Gang Dance, Ufomammut, Warpaint, Planningtorock, Laura Marling, Jacco Gardner, Fleet Foxes, tUnE-yArDs, Vektor, Chelsea Wolfe, Solstáfir, Lykke Li, Gallops, Viet Cong, BABYMETAL, Django Django, Josefin Öhrn + The Liberation, The Men, Alt-J, Foxygen, Melt Yourself Down, Dirty Projectors, The Soft Moon, Dean Blunt, F*** Buttons, Majical Cloudz, Jenny Hval, Thee Oh Sees, Föllakzoid, F***ed Up, These New Puritans, Wardruna, Kurt Vile, Oranssi Pazuzu, Sleaford Mods, Fat White Family, Villagers, Tricot, Future Of The Left, Deafheaven, Kairon; Irse, Sun Moon Kill, Temples, Giant Claw, The XX, Damaged Bug, Alabama Shakes, Jam City, Alcest, Uncle Acid & The Deadbeats, Morgan Delt, Car Seat Headrest, Horse Lords, The Tallest Man On Earth, Ghost. And before people start complaining these are all 'obscure names', believe me, anybody who has kept his finger on the pulse the last few years concerning new music knows at least half of this list. And then I haven't even mentioned real big hitters like Radiohead, The National, Arcade Fire or Vampire Weekend, who in commercial terms actually are outselling their counterparts from, say, the 1980s, like The Smiths, The Cure, Talking Heads or Stone Roses.
Not true. Most of us "old" fans are DYING to hear them record more albums - us hardcore fans anyway, the ones with every album, the ones that still go to see them live, the ones that collect the odd live recording, the ones that comment on BÖC forums. Their last two albums were both great btw (especially Heaven Forbid, which is actually my favorite BÖC album - and prior to that my favorite was the FIRST one!). The band do realize that we want new music though (thankfully). Unfortunately there are not enough of us around to make it financially that worthwhile an effort though. The general public could care less, and the casual fans just want the greatest hits (and probably haven't bought a Cult album since 1981). They can make a living touring though, being a heritage act, so that is what they do. Can't blame them but I find it disappointing. I'm encouraged by some comments in that article though, apparently they are working on some new songs and may release another album...hope we all live long enough to see it though....
I know rock is alive and well, its just not found so much in the main stream anymore, you have to search for it, but its there, and some great stuff is happening. Hippo Campus, Wolf Alice are just a few examples.
Who's to say they aren't still writing or making their own bedroom recordings? They don't need to release commercial product in order to have a creative outlet. Seems like going into the studio to make a new record for a largely indifferent audience would be incredibly disheartening for a band. My guess is that they probably don't have much to offer from a creative standpoint. Pop musicians that churn out interesting music in the latter half of their lives are few and far between.
According to the information I could find (without paying); WKQZ, the local active rock station, is number two in this market. And WILZ, the local classic rock station, is number 4. Someone's listening to it. RADIO ONLINE ®
To speak for myself, yes I am an audience for new rock. However, finding something I really like has become harder and harder. For me personally, that has been the case since about 1983. But I do keep finding things I like, every single year. It's just a lot harder to find now, and (for me) not played on commercial radio, but on listener-supported stations.
Yes there is. It can't be marketed the way hip-hop or pop can though so you don't see it in the media like you once did. There is an audience for new rock and I'm one of the. I listen to Futurebirds, Beach Slang, Steve Gunn, Ryan Adams, Kurt Vile, David Ramirez, Jason Isbell, Restorations, Noah Gundersen etc more than "classic" artists these days.
Yeah, but how many listeners are there? I could list the Top Five taxi companies in my city. Doesn't mean they aren't being buried.
I'm guessing that you couldn't be bothered to click on the link. It's not my list. It's the Nielsen/Arbitron list.
I did. If I'm reading it correctly, and maybe I'm not, 3% of the population is listening to the highest rated station.
Programmers killed Rock w/ a capital R with endless streams/playlists of regurgitated 'Classic Rock', feeding the Boomer demographic, endlessly flogging a dying horse. It wasn't allowed to ever go away. And although Metallica's black album, Appetite For Destruction and Ac/Dc's black album still in the Billboard Top 200 for over 5 years since their reentries, they never seem to fully disappear either. Hard to figure that it's a dead genre, just a ubiquitous one.
