Is the surviving interest in rock music largely dependent on its glory days?

It seems like the surviving interest for rock music in the US (and likely Europe and Latin America) is largely because of the glory days of rock music, which I would consider to roughly be the mid 60s to mid 90s.

There's a bar I go to most weekends that mostly only plays rock music, almost all of the songs are at least 24 years old. It's not like the crowd is old, it's mostly people between my age and mid 30s.

The most streamed rock songs I have to imagine are Queen songs from the 70s, and no recent artists.

I do feel that if all rock from before 2007 was eliminated off streaming services/youtube, it would essentially be a dead genre.

The only thing close to rock that makes it to the top 40 is stuff like Panic at the Disco, whose sound in 2019 I would barely classify as rock.

 

Y u no like the rock?

 

I like rock a lot...which is why I'm concerned that the current interest in it is too nostalgia dependent.

 

I would reluctantly agree with the question as stated in the heading.

 

I think it's more likely due to the teens approximately the same age as the teens who made rock big, discovering it all over again. Whether it's The Doors, The Stones, The Who or even Ed Sheeran ( ), it has more to do with that magical balance of elevated hormones, discovering one's freedoms outside of parental control, and naiively believing in your indestructible, fate-appointed mandate to save the world from your elders.

Plus cars, babes and beer, of course.

 

I don't even think it's a revival (save for Queen), it's more like an existing but gradually waning interest in rock among young people.

 

Are there any young rock bands who rival the popularity of Nirvana, Green Day, Smashing Pumpkins, the Cranberries, etc. In the 90s?

 

For some people, sure. But not fer me.

 

At least to some extent, I have to agree with the OP.

 

Yes, and the big bands aren't coming back either!

 

Theres gotta be something/someone out there that's gona bring it back. But in a big way, with guitars? I dont know man...

 

Gradually waning interest in finding answers in 50-year-old music? Perish the thought! Now, in the '90s when young people were wearing rawk star t-shirts, remember...that would have only been 30-year-old bands...but, 50?

People just need to get over the notion that the same combination of social upheavals that led to such a resonating with their youth, is going to do the same to their own grandkids. You may have to even stop crowing about the idea that aggressive, beat-driven, guitar-based teen angst you embraced is a naturally-occurring, mandatory event, and start relating to them in context of how they see the world, and how they feel about it.

Maybe then you can encourage them to get off your lawn.

 

Of course it is.

 

Just my opinion, but rock really had nowhere to go after AC/DC. They gave it a proper sendoff, and what happened after that seems anticlimactic.

 

I think it's more likely a case that "rock", as we'd define it, isn't too relevant these days. Back in the day we had like, 6 genres. Today there are 100's, if not 1000's.

 

No... it's no longer in the main stream, but who cares... there's still some great music being made. Despite what old heads will tell you.

 

In what way?

My youngest son can't even relate to a band like Led Zeppelin. All the music he listens to is dance pop of the shake your tail variety. Makes me nauseous.

 

My husband made an interesting observation, albeit one a little political (his views may be a little controversial for a gay man), saying that rock is suffering because of a demasculinization in recent years where being masculine is "toxic" and "bad", and rock music and harder edged hip hop are the first things to go. Because in a sense teenage boys listening to something like Drake or Post Malone would've been like boys in my teen years listening to the Backstreet Boys or NSync or Ricky Martin or something.

Plus, the media has helped kill rock music because most rock artists need time to nurture and find their audience, while we're in an instant gratification culture that you're dropped if your first album didn't explode... which means the days of seeing U2 or REM or Metallica or Soundgarden slowly build with each successive album until stardom hits with a few albums already under their belt is unthinkable today

 

I'm basing my assumption on pure anecdotal evidence. I mean look at what music magazines are displayed on the newstands at Barnes & Noble or any other decent book store or music store--special "Collector's Editions" of Mojo, Uncut, Rolling Stone, Classic Rock and other titles covering most of the biggest and most storied artists--Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Hendrix, Neil Young, Bowie and Springsteen. Also '80's and '90's bands and genre overview issues devoted to Psych, Prog, Metal, Folk, Blues. Grunge and others. Even LIFE magazine occasionally gets into the act with it's "supermarket check-out" specials.

I'm not saying rock is dead or that there isn't a rabid and dedicated fan base devoted to specific current bands--Tool and Opeth fans are stoked for the upcoming albums--but I have to say that the primary focus is on the past. Look at the enthusiastic response to huge box sets by The Beatles and Dylan or the interest in Quentin Tarrantino and his carefully curated soundtracks to his own films.
Also a casual glance at these threads reveals an interest on the part of many to see storied artists such as CSNY, Led Zeppelin or the remnants of bands as varied as The Monkees and Pink Floyd to reform or put out new music.

Who knows what a few years down the line will bring, but as of now , rock's past is it's future.

 

there's no question that rock music is in terminal decline among young people, even people in general.

the biggest thing that has changed is that youth are far more influenced by black music now (in the form of hip hop and its derivatives) than rock fans from the 60s to 90s. this is a massive difference--as rock was very much music for white youth, and only a few black artists had any real mainstream appeal with that audience--Sly Stone, Hendrix, and later Michael Jackson and Prince.

(this separation between rock music and black music was why there was such a big debate around whether or not Thriller should be played on MTV back in 83.)

and because white youth have been consuming massive amounts of hip hop since the 90s, their taste has been defined far more by that than white rock music. i just think rock music probably sounds dated and square to a lot of them.

 

"Where we're going....we dont need rock!"

The future baby!! 2015. Marty mcfly style

 

Rock may not be mainstream but the last time i saw the Country Music Awards a lot of the new country bands featured in the awards show played music very similar to the old rock and hard rock genres from the 70's and 80's and stage show.

i wasn't a fan of this new country music but it was very blatant rip-off.

i'd prefer to hear classic rock and hard rock music than this stuff.

 

What you say also describes other examples of pop culture such as stand up comedy. There was a time when the motto was "anything goes" and "everything and everyone is fair game." That is just not the case today. There are some things and some people that Saturday Night Live (for example) just won't touch. The "comedy" is all one sided, and seems designed to confirm the political bias of it's targeted demographic.
I blame social media--mostly.

 

Yes, I would have to reluctantly agree, too. Most of what I buy is from 1965 to 1995 with very few exceptions. Even classic bands that are still active, I gravitate towards the earlier releases.