I almost missed this the 1st time around. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Scott was talking about clone versions of them.
That change has a lot to do with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, among other things. That act made it easy for corporations to own lots of radio stations. In other words, the people making the decisions about what goes on the airwaves aren't people like you and me. All the things I have mentioned in my posts have come from my hearing them on independent radio stations. Not the stations to the right of 92 on the FM dial.
It's hard to pigeon-hole my local active rock station, their playlist seems to come from a combination of Billboard's mainstream and modern rock charts. They play commercial alternative rock going back to the 90s, but they also play a surprising amount of hair metal.
IMO that milepost is 1955, not 62. Which gives rock a sixty year history. Looking to the past for inspiration is a time-honored tradition.
I disagree. Rock is in his DNA, imagining the guy without rock and you're not talking about Pete anymore.
I would agree there will never be another Beatles, Stones or Who but I tend to think it's because that level of compositional talent and inspiration is an extreme rarity. By the same token I don't think there will be another Beethoven, Bach or Mozart.
My 1962 reference was about the commonly held view that 1962 was a low point in the 1955-Dec. 1963 timeframe. I was referring to an earlier post which said something along the lines of "everyone said it was bad in 1962, but then 1964 came" -- and another comment that said " we've been making the 1962 comment for the last 15 years". In other words, people were saying today is like 1962, which is why I referenced it when talking about current music. 1955 is the beginning point for me generally wrt rock music, but there are songs before that I like as well, going back into the '40s.
Scott bemoans the Death of Rock, Part 154. How many times have we had this discussion? As others have noted, after some sixty years, rock is no longer the dominant format. It's largely played out and young people, and the culture more broadly, are moving on. There are still good bands out there, but they're never going to take over the world like they did back in the 60s and 70s. Rock is pretty much where jazz was in the 80s. What that tells you is that there is a lot of demand, particularly among older fans with disposable income, to relive rock's glory days. That's not the same thing as craving new rock.
People like different things. I don't need everything to be like Schoenberg level different to enjoy it, but there's lots of music out there too that's so conspicuously retro and so immediately familiar that it leaves me quite cold.
IMO Radiohead is not the best example because they're so artsy. It's a more respectable no 28 on the UK's end of year. End of Year Album Chart Top 100 - 2016 | Official Charts Company »
"Disposable income"; I guess it would make it difficult to buy records or concert tickets if you don't have a job.
Many people have jobs who do not have a lot of extra disposable income to blow on an expensive show like Desert Trip.
I think this misses the point. More rock on the radio = more rock produced = more satisfied rock fans.
Thank you. A rising tide lifts all boats. A healthy mainstream will also contribute to a thriving underground.
