if you think significant numbers of people listen to music radio, then we live in two different caves. What is this "our site" is this whole thread spam for another site?
Well, according to one survey last year by Edison Research of 8,500 Americans ages 13 and up, "44 percent of listening time was via AM/FM radio, by far the largest share." Purchased music was #2 at 18 percent; streaming was #3 at 18 percent, though that streaming figure didn't include YouTube, which I suspect is really the biggest individual streaming platform and which alone accounted for 10 percent of listening time. Also, according to Nielsen's 2016 year-end report, "AM/FM radio is the most popular discovery source at 44%. Online audio or video sites ranked fourth with 22%." That report didn't look at radio as a share of listening time, but that radio remains the biggest way people discover new music tells quite a story. Believe it or not, yes, terrestrial radio is still a huge part and probably the leading part of how people get music and the leading platform for how people are exposed to new music. Each of the top AC and pop stations in major metro markets have millions of listeners a week, way more people than buy almost any album in a given year, and across all formats in those markets, it's a total of many more millions all in. Top 10 music radio stations in NY, the top AC station averaging 5 million listeners, top CHR station 4.4 million, etc, that's like in any given week 10X more for each of those stations in a single market than the total number of people across the whole of the U.S. who bought or equivalent-streamed Blackstar in a year.
We're three months in and we haven't had a single rock album hit number one in the US yet this year...
This is actually a fascinating topic, really interesting thread with some very good observations. Few things jumped out at me: Music in general is more fragmented than it's ever been before. This fragmentation is making a lot of genres blur together. There is still a lot of elements of 'rock' in new bands, but they just might not be "pure" rock like an Aerosmith or Zeppelin. I'd say Pretty Lights is a good example of an electronic act incorporating elements of rock and creating a very cool sound doing it. Social media may actually be replacing a lot of "music listening" time. I hadn't considered this before, but it makes sense. Thanks to the poster who pointed this out. When we have so many things demanding our attention, especially considering that smartphones are like crack cocaine to our brains, simply listening to music might be taking a back seat in young people's lives. Combined with the paradox of choice that we have at the moment, it's making the new rock bands harder to even be heard in the first place. Our attention is being torn in too many directions. Since there isn't any money to be made through album sales anymore unless you're Adele, there is less incentive for bands in general. They may just give up after a tour or even one album in order to pay their rent and get health insurance. In the past, the dream of making millions and doing lines of cocaine off of strippers would've been enough to keep struggling bands going. Now, that dream is basically gone. The money simply isn't there anymore on the back end. Many tours even lose money, how can bands count on it as a reliable revenue stream? Might as well start a business doing something else or get a job. There actually is an audience for rock music, but whether that demand is filled or not is the question. Millenials are super open-minded and are nowhere near as narrow minded as previous generations and the genre's they "only" listened to. Awesome. Really good stuff in this thread. I have been thinking about this very question for a long time. I grew up in the 90's when there was an embarrassment of riches for rock music. It was everywhere. I don't necessarily want to hear that same sound, but what I do miss is the energy of rock music. The spirit of rock is what made it so great. It appears that many underground bands are keeping it alive. Sounds like London has a thriving rock scene, that's really good to hear.
This web site has become like crack cocaine to our brains also, as seems like a lot of people/members are not only on here every day, but also posting every day. Myself included(at least for browsing every day, although not posting).
Have a look at how many are online here at any given time. Its by far the most active forum I have ever seen. Most times I get on, anywhere from 1000-1500 members floating around.
This post about the 'Energy' & 'Spirit' of Rock Music made me think of 'The Holy Bible'(1994) by the Manic Street Preachers that was a Rock Masterpiece-IMHO. Although so much great Rock Music in the '90s by Radiohead, Afghan Whigs, Smashing Pumpkins, BLUR, Suede, Spiritualized, TOOL, NIN, Supergrass, The Verve, Stereophonics, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Green Day, and I got into David Bowie with 'Black Tie/White Noise' and his 2 CD 'Singles' then bought all of his older albums(Except the 2 Tin Machine albums, so guess that is one hole in my Bowie Catalog) and every other release(including all collections like the one with 'Saints' in the title) from the 1990s-2016.
Rock is not dead. There's still a pluse but it is in a coma. I believe it will come back and be like Rock N Roll on Steroids when it does.
While I accept your point, I feel I need to go through and point some things out here: David Bowie, The Rolling Stones and Paul Simon debuted in the 1960s; Metallica and Bon Jovi debuted in the 1980s; PJ Harvey, blink-182, Coldplay, Biffy Clyro, Kings Of Leon, Green Day and Radiohead debuted in the 1990s; The 1975, Blossoms and Bastille are pop groups with a slight indie tinge at best, especially Bastille; Viola Beach was something of a quirk because the band were virtual unknowns and died in a car crash, and if they hadn't their album wouldn't have made the top 75; Of the artists on your list, only Catfish and the Bottlemen could be considered a rock band and debuted in the 2010s. Rock music isn't dead, and of course there's a massive audience. But what is true is that new, modern rock bands are not making it huge in the way that they once did. I explained some theories on this on another thread, the main one being that it's hard to pierce pop culture nowadays because there's so much choice for the younger generation, and they're not so exposed to the very limited music coverage on the television that there still is. Print music magazine circulation is down, too, as Spotify and blogs take over a little bit for music fans. Likewise, radio airplay isn't what it was, and rock doesn't get anywhere near as much of it. There's some very promising rock bands about that, in other decades, would have been massive: Royal Blood, who have just released their second album and will be playing their first UK arena tour this year; Foals, who have moved from hipster indie pop to rock music, and played arenas and headlined a big UK festival in 2016; Catfish and the Bottlemen, potentially this generation's biggest indie rock artist, are taking off in the US and are already big in the UK; The Amazons, a rock band with a successful UK debut album recently, ready-made for bigger stages; The Struts, a modern day glam rock type band from the UK that seem far more popular in the US; Wolf Alice, whose second album is due in September and could propel them to bigger stages; PVRIS, a popular American alternative rock band with a new album on the way; INHEAVEN, a British indie band whose music is becoming increasingly popular rock and may have a future at a big level; Sundara Karma, who've played quite a lot of US shows, and have developed a strong following in the UK; The Pale White, a relatively new rock band from the UK that have all of the elements to their sound to hit it big; IDLES, who are opening for The Maccabees on their farewell dates and always have especially popular live shows; The Blinders, a Manchester rock band with punk elements and politically-charged music with the right backers to hit success; Slaves, who are punk (or nu-punk) rather than rock, and are seemingly at every UK live music event right now; Black Honey, a female-fronted rock band from the UK with a cult following, one to break through in a big way for sure. Obviously that's quite a UK-centric list, but it proves that the names are there. But whether these bands can become huge, and part of pop culture, is another matter, and I'd argue that they perhaps won't until the millennial generation is calling the nostalgic shots. That doesn't mean that rock doesn't have an audience - and I've not properly touched upon alternative rock or post-hardcore, which you're more likely to see at events like Download Festival - it just means that it's not competing for column space with pop music in the way it did in the past.
Oh, well that settles it then. If you've read the "exact opposite" in every single thread you read here, then it must be true!
To refer to the 1975, Blossoms, and Bastille as pop groups is beyond disingenuous. It's like you're putting them on the same level as Take That and One Direction. Help me out here; who's the drummer for One Direction? The 1975, Blossoms, and Bastille are bands. They're commercial and they're popular, but saying that's not quite the same as saying that they're pop. I don't know how rock radio works over there, but I have 4 rock stations in my area. Two are classic rock format (which I rarely listen to anymore). The other two are active rock stations and their playlists seems to be a mix of Billboard's mainstream and alternative rock charts. Most of the bands in your list couldn't get arrested in the US. Royal Blood has had two UK number one albums, but they haven't yet broken to gold sales here. I automatically buy any rock album that goes number one in the US and the UK. In reference to my earlier post, we are now six months into 2017 and there still hasn't been one rock album top the Billboard 200. Between the crappy economy and all the "free" downloads, hitting number one doesn't mean what it used to. But it's better than the alternative. Anything that doesn't hit number one is now viewed as a disappointment within the industry.
Those three bands have a lot more in common with pop than they do with rock music. I don't think having a drummer means an artist isn't a pop band; The Vamps, very much a British pop group, have a drummer. And it's very hard to argue this song isn't pop: The phrase that you can probably best use to describe all of their music is alternative pop, but they're not rock bands, nowhere near to it really. The musical style, the aesthetic, the pop style promotion, all of it lends itself to being If you want to classify them as that, though, that's your prerogative. I certainly wasn't suggesting that the bands I listed were famous in the US, I'm just pointing out that rock is alive and well. In fact, your reply sort of proves my point that the music is still wholly popular with younger fans of the genre, but it doesn't translate into pop culture success. To pick one band off that list, someone like Oscar Pollock (vocalist with Sundara Karma) would be quite famous if his band were around in the 1980s.
That sounds like 80s new wave to me. I use a big tent definition of rock. Your definition is probably more narrow. Kind of like your mind.
I'm subscribed to several channels on YouTube and there's a plethora of new rock releases covering just about any sub genre you care to mention.
You mean the ones written primarily by Boomers and GenXers? That's like my parents being the spokesperson for my generation, I'm sure what they would have said would have been completely true.
heh, if you dont think that there are just as many musically close-minded younger generationals here as older generationals.... lemme take a peek thru those rose colored glasses you're wearing, thats some powerful stuff.
Rock's traditional roots dynamics (blues, country, folk, gospel) have been slowly stripped away by punk, by metal, and by corporate/arena rock. Most of what we'd used to think of as roots rock had been incorporated into Americana.
This article on Blue Oyster Cult kinda deals with this - it's just not worth their time and money to stay "relevant" and create new music, so they're kinda forced into regurgitating old hits. They're obviously not picking up new fans, and old fans don't want to hear new material, so they stagnate. Blue Oyster Cult’s Eric Bloom is a Road Warrior But Says Albums Don’t Pay
