There will never be another Beatles, Stones or Who because of the many different alternative styles of music now. This is what is different between 1962 and now. And to a lesser extent but still quite noticeable, between the "classic rock years" and now. Also not to be overlooked is that those older bands didn't have 50 years of music history to look back on -- it's a hell of a lot easier to be first --- note how nowadays you're much more likely to be sued now for riff infringement. And the fact that because of demographics, the youth culture peaked in the '60s and '70s. That being said, Parquet Courts is probably my favorite band of this decade, so IMO rock isn't dead.
Thankfully, because that would be kind of pathetic. There's not much demand or appeal for bands that sound 50 years behind their time, kind of the same way it was back then.
To paraphrase Frank Zappa: Rock isn't dead, it just smells funny. Parquet Courts are great. So are Thee Oh Sees. Doesn't change the fact that "Rock" - at least as the OP is framing this topic - is no longer a dominating genre in mainstream culture. It's a musical form that was popularized way back in the old days. It's instantly identifiable to today's youth as old fashioned. And it all sounds the same to most of them.
I think there are plenty of bands that perform rock music (or at least something that falls under the rock umbrella) that I'm still crazy excited to see and hear. I don't care if the masses appreciate it. Having just seen Derek Trucks play again, he lights up a room with his play like no other I've seen since SRV. It is actually to my benefit that few are interested in him. Smaller, more intimate shows. I used to want others to enjoy the same music as me. It was sort of a justification of my musical tastes. But I've since realized that was just silly. Because I have a personal relationship with my music. And when I'm listening, the only thing that matters is what I'm feeling as I digest the music. A larger audience is not required for my enjoyment.
To be honest, I don't really care all that much, there are still a lot of artists making music that I love, whether in rock, or in the seemingly hundreds of other modern branch genres. So much so that I can't even begin to keep up, and hear new ones all the time (see signature). That said, it would be much better for us all if rock and roll was in a healthier state, it is sad seeing how hard it is for bands to make a living these days, almost unheard now for a band to be dedicated to music without day jobs to support themselves. There's a pretty good article in Consequence of Sound today about this very subject, talking with popular rock band Japandroids about the rock landscape, especially in light of the very bleak year of 2016... Losing My Religion: The Demise of Rock and Roll » 2016 was, as others have noted, an especially bad year for rock ‘n’ roll. But it wasn’t just because the genre lost some of its longtime titans in David Bowie, Prince, George Martin, and Glenn Frey; it was also because a remarkably small number of bands were prepared to fill the void left by their passing. Even the few “traditional” rock bands that released rock records in 2016 failed to summon up the same level of excitement as in years past. “I think you could argue that 2016 might be the first year where a band like Radiohead could release a great album and not move the needle,” King says when I bring up the elephant in the room. He has a point: A Moon Shaped Pool finished the year at No. 73 on the Billboard 200 despite being a hugely anticipated release from one of the world’s biggest rock bands.
Rock always survives I couldn't give a fat rats clacker if it impacts on the charts or not.. there are good rock bands all over the world
Agree with you. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it'll be interesting to see how my son's musical tastes develop (he's just turning 9, so that is still mostly in the future).
Rock era had a good 50 year run, or so but now, just like the big band era, we are pretty much viewing it in the rear view mirror.
Too many other things out there (smart phones, games, apps, etc.) to keep kids busy these days so music becomes less important.
This is true. No rock band since Nirvana has reached the rarefied level of being iconic. Of course this is a completely different question from whether good new rock is being produced.
I used to care about the OP's question more than I do now, and in fact increasingly less so. The issue is not only what other genres are "doing better". There's a more general issue going on as someone referred to above being Overchoice. But Overchoice I think is not limited to access to a big variety of music (including music from "the past"). It is also that there are many more ways to spend one's time than sitting down and listening to music, which in fact seems to fit poorly as a lifestyle choice for today's ADD challenged younger people. No offense. Not sure what comes first the chicken or the egg but along with that I wonder if there's any kind of art/cultural dynamic on the scene today that has the ability to dominate mass culture. Mass culture itself is fragmented. When The Beatles first came to the US, it was at a critical time in culture. Most people had TV's in their homes, but there were still only 3 or so channels. That kind of audience/culture dynamic is not at all what we have today. It's more diffuse, random, decentralized. Yeah there are music acts now that are big, but more so in relative terms. Imo none have the overall cultural impact that say the Stones had, or for that matter Frank Sinatra or Benny Goodman had. The cultural dynamics are too different.
The funny thing is if Pete Townshend was a musician in his early 20s today, he'd almost certainly not be making rock music. He'd be looking to the future, rather than trying to mine a genre that's been thoroughly explored.
Nine rock albums hit number one in the US last year. Six of those nine also topped the UK chart. Somebody must be listening.
At the same time, there are people under 20 today who've listened to more artists in more genres than someone born in 1955 heard in the first 45 years of their life. That kind of diversity wasn't even possible before Napster. There are plenty of teens today that have absolutely no use for Top 40 radio because they have Spotify and YouTube.
Sort of plays into my thinking behind the earlier comment that it was much easier to be a musician in the early years than it is now. I can see that this comment is close to the place that my earlier comment came from.
AMERICA'S MUSIC CHARTS -- 0 1 . 2 4 . 1 7 -- powered by MEDIABASE » is the Active Rock radio chart. Volbeat, Red Sun Rising, Ghost, the Pretty Reckless, Pop Evil, Stone Sour, Halestorm, etc. frequently appear on this chart.
In terms of the ease of being a musician (read: composer), I think it's clear that a lot of the low-hanging fruit has been picked and a ton of melodies have been used. The amount of stuff that's off the table is staggering.
Me, but maybe I'm not in my right mind. Folks on forums like this one are constantly using the word artist. I say you wanna be an artist? Become a rock star first. The grand artistic statement comes after the multi-platinum sales, not before. IMO if they don't wanna be bigger than Presley, they're in the wrong line of work.
Not everyone can be a trailblazer and not everyone needs to be. Good music is good music. If Leon Bridges can make it feel like 1966 in my mind, he must be doing something right.
I don't have a weird fascination about it and frankly couldn't care less, but I'll posit an answer to your question - because in its day rock music did populate the airwaves and it was charting. Most of this forum (myself included) grew up during a time where rock music dominated the airwaves and sold a ton of records - it was omnipresent - and going from that to basically having to scour the internet to find any sign that it even exists anymore is a pretty dramatic change, even though it has taken place over 15-20 years. Or something like that.
