Is rock out of the conversation?

Except that I didn't say all. I said that if it doesn't have guitar, there's a better than average chance that it's not rock.

 

That's right you did, I'm just noting fairly big exceptions that's all. It's easier to designate an instrument as definitive in Rock & funk, than something like Jazz. Maybe it's cause in Jazz the soloing was more democratic idk. The Who were kind of that way

 

Forgotten except as oldies staples. GOTG kinda made those mix-tape songs kewl for a new generation of music lovers, many of whom probably wouldn't be caught dead tuning into an oldies hits or classic rock station. My 2c.


Cat

 

The lead guitar is not the defining element of music for me, but I was privately chatting with a forum member about a song he wrote, and how he added a guitar solo near the end like they did in the 70s. We both agreed on the inspiration for the solo, and liked it very much.

Again, while the lead guitar is not the defining element of music for me, I do miss guitar solos.

 

Bit of cheat here
The cat in Royal Blood plays bass like a psychedelic heavy rock lead guitar

 

For me, it's more about how the music plays all together. The chemistry going on between everyone, rather than one lead instrument, unless it's doing a solo, in which case that particular instrument obviously becomes center of attention. I've never been big on them, but a nice, tastefully done solo can be such a thrilling experience no matter how many times you hear it, weather it's drum, bass, guitar, or especially the sax if its coming from someone like Coltrane.

 

Lol yeah I know. Jack White sort of did the same thing on Seven Nation Army making his guitar sound as much like a bass as he could

 

I just read the comment that you quoted and had the same thought about JW and 'Seven Nation Army' before scrolling down to your post. I still do not know how he made a Bass Sound in that song with his Guitar.

I am not even the biggest JW Fan, but loved that White Stripes Album, 'Elephant'(and 'White Blood Cells). I heard JW play a few acoustic songs the other week on Jools Holland and that type of his music does not interest me at all. I did like the song, 'Steady as She Goes' that he did with one of the other groups he put out a few albums with in recent years. I guess some of his Solo Music is too 'Country' or 'Blue Grass'? for my personal taste in music.

 

Yeah I thought it was a bass for a long time before I got into that band. Outside of the White Stripes & songs here and there I'm not a huge fan. I respect the hell out of him though, great songwriter, we could use more of those in Rock today.

 

That would be the Raconteurs. His other side-project is the Dead Weather.

 

Rock has changed all the time, and its very long run into relevance has probably been helped by this constant hybridization.
My actual premise was that rock nowadays is not culturally relevant as it used to be as long as some years ago, and I'm talking about new acts' popularity, not even their quality.

I suppose this is not a new complaint, Jagger in the 70s used to say that rock was dead, new acts in the 80s used to say that rock was dead, after grunge many people used to say that rock was really sealed up in his coffin, etc. etc. etc.

But, having been a teenager at the beginning of the 90s, I can properly assess that kids of my age used to listen to rock music, and lots of. Nirvana, Metallica, RHCP, Pearl Jam, The Smiths, U2...you can go on. That music was contemporary and relevant at the time.

Kids of this decade are more interested in Rihanna or Drake than any rock act, and this isn't meant as a critique as just a consideration. The kids will be always alright in my book.

Just to be clear that i'm no "old man who yells at clouds" (I'm not even 40), I still listen to a lot of contemporary music which could be labeled as "rock" and I'm currently enjoying the new Ty Segall and Julie Byrne albums. But I would be hardly into this if I were 15.

 

Plenty going on with Blackberry Smoke:

 

I don't feel rock has changed for a long time. Everything I hear today can be traced back to folk-rock, new wave, minimalism, math-rock, prog., krautrock etc.. Rock is like Jazz – endless tweaks of the same formulas. It feels like the last big innovative breaks for Rock were the 90s. Why is it not culturally relevant? Because it spends its whole time aping the past instead of re-inventing the future.

 

To be fair to rock, it's quite hard to reinvent something that hasn't been invented yet.

 

Glad you spotted the poetic license in my statement. I always like demanding the impossible. That way you sometimes get more than you hoped for. Aside from that, the problem demands that we go beyond logic and reason. Rock demands it, music demands it.

 

And that is the core of my original question. Why is rock aping the past right now? My point being, no musical genre actually "dies". I know people who write original gregorian chants so go figure. Jazz has long being considered "dead" but a lot of albums come out and right now the whole scene feels more vibrant.

(Streaming the new Dirty Projectors right now. Can it even be called "rock" at this point?)

 

Nobody works in a vacuum. Everyone's influenced by what came before. Between punk and metal, most of rock's traditional roots dynamics from blues, country, folk, and gospel have been stripped away. IMO rock isn't aping the past enough.

 

Random thoughts:

Dirty Projectors are pop. Did someone say they were rock?

I'd be interested in the point of writing new gregorian chants. Does this mean the genre is alive and relevant today?

Sometimes death is a living death. After all there are still people who play rockabilly and British R&B-based rock.

The last jazz 4 piece band I happened on a couple of years back (two double basses, sax drummer) were really doing hard core bebop, still the same music in essence and not really an advance on John Zorn take on Ornette Coleman.

You say jazz has a vibrant scene but what does that mean? Is it a scene frequented by the younger audience you spoke about? And even if so is that a measure that it is any more vibrant than rock. How do you measure vibrancy? I presume many people in London still attend rock gigs and play rock, for example.

I know one 'jazz' band who are a bending the rules of jazz - not so new any more, but popular. The Necks. But are they a band that a young audience follow? I kind of thought the opposite when I went to see them.

I always complain about lack of innovation but I'm not sure whether that sense I feel has any effect on the success a genre, per se.

All genres move towards a moribund state eventually.

I guess I'm not sure why you are picking out rock as being 'irrelevant'.

 

It's free to re-investigate those roots. Or find new influences and ideas for investigation. Those areas of folk, country, blues and gospel are surely a part of the recent 'Americana' movement already. Today it just seems trendy for new rock music to do Krautrock or maybe mix in some African rhythms. Add some Joy Division, too. It feels like everyone want to be 'cool', no one wants to be uncool, or even the slightest bit annoying.

 

Americana is country music for people that don't want to be associated with country music fans.

 

Ha ha. I suspect americana is music that looks towards American culture for its subject and inspiration. I dont think it's always folk, though, as in recent years Pere Ubu's rock based music also has been described as americana.

So, what's rock for people who don't want to be associated with rock fans?

 

I find it strange that not more young artists make angry rock with socially aware lyrics. The punk era seem kinda innocent compared to now.

 

Too well off? Too satisfied with life? Too happy to watch adverts, buy consumer goods and ape commerce? Nothing to say?

Or maybe rock is too commercial, too conservative at heart, to be the right kind of music for the people you are thinking of? And look at all those old punks, they turned out to be conservatives, too.

 

With The White Stripes done, and The Strokes and Queens of the Stone Age out of their prime, Car Seat Headrest seems to be one of the few quality guitar rock "bands" out today. Too much rock today is feel-good pop-oriented garbage. There's some derivative 60s garage rock throwback bands, but not a whole lot of original guitar rock out there. Car Seat Headrest, however, fits the bill for me.

Edit: This is all in respect to mainstream music.