Is rock out of the conversation?

Rock is not important. It's electronic music and irrelevant pop. Music is becoming poorer and less original. Today's music prefers simple chords and volumen.Transitions between note groups have been reduced. Songs are becoming less diverse in timbres. In the 1970s the groups experienced much more than they did today. No one can imagine today that a millionaire sales group will be born to do something similar to what Pink Floyd did, for example. Jazz has died as mass music. Now it's the rock that's going to die. RIP.

 

Why do the folks on this thread keep putting the word rock in quotes? Is it supposed to be an expression of irony?

 

Have you read it? Pathos wrote the OP. Do you even bother to look at who you're replying to?

 

Quotations marks often accompany expressions that may vary from a word's standard usage. I used it because it seemed sensible to do so, given the context of the comment in which I used the word.

 

Catchy, but not rock... Just more disposable pop. Not the most up to date example, but you know what I mean.

And this junk was considered for the grammy for best rock album: Death of a Bachelor - Wikipedia

 

Seems to me that you're applying an artistic standard rather than a musical standard.

And I don't watch videos. They just commercials for the song.

 

I guess it's just frustrating. I'm not particularly good at finding new music. I have my favorite bands/artists of this millennium which I consider outstanding: Tame Impala, The White Stripes, Mac Demarco, The Strokes, Queens of the Stone Age, etc. But eventually I get sick of both listening to the same modern bands and classic bands. Most mainstream rock I hear seems to verge into disposable pop like I mentioned. I am optimistic about Car Seat Headrest, however.

 

On Queens of the Stone Age, do you get the feeling that the band is just petering out? Ironically I thought Homme was going strong until his effort with Them Crooked Vultures, which I was all for at the time. But since, even the Iggy project, he's been arguably kind of poorly focused doing all sorts of things other than Queens. Is it fair to say that? Being a bit of a dilettante? To be perfectly clear I did not like Like Clockwork, which in any event is now nearly four years ago. Nothing new on the horizon either. Maybe I should give Clockwork another chance.

Ftr Queens of the Stone Age was and I guess remains my favorite band of the new century, so it's disappointing they seem to have run out of gas. Maybe a Josh and Nick reunion is needed.

 

Who knows, they went six years between albums last time. I've heard that they're working on a new album, but I would not expect it to live up to their previous work. The world today seems so different from ten years ago that it is essential some new excellent bands pop up and fill the void, but I'm not seeing it yet. We're entering a new era with rapidly advancing technology, political divisions, etc., and I would not like to see rock relegated as a niche interest in the upcoming years.

 

Interesting question. Last evening while my wife and I were making dinner, we talked at length about all kinds of things. Rock never came up once.
The day before; however, was a different story.

So, there ya go.

 

I don't understand this. Most of the mainstream rock you hear is borderline disposable pop? But Tame Impala, the White Stripes, QotSA, and the Strokes are outstanding? I hate to break it to you but those bands are mainstream rock.

 

Well, yes, but they're not disposable pop. That was my whole point. They are quality bands that will be listened to for a long time. I wasn't saying that they aren't mainstream, because they certainly are, I meant that there aren't as many quality mainstream rock bands as even ten years ago.

 

I disagree with that. There are just as many quality mainstream rock bands as there ever was.

 

Paper and scissors are still in the conversation. Rock broke when it hit the ground.

 

Can you write down a list?

 

Not sure about relevance, but after 39 pages, it certainly seems to be part of a conversation...

 

Is there even an audience for new rock anymore?

 

Most of the acts noted there are older, well established artists that put out a new release after years of inactivity. Such albums may sell well enough initially to break into the top ten for a week or two, but that's not the same kind of dominance that we saw in the past. Where are the hot new rock breakthrough artists who are scoring major hits?

 

bing.com
google.com
yahoo.com

 

Seems like nobody wants to read a post as it's written anymore. My point was that there is quality mainstream rock out there. You don't have to look any further than the top of the US and/or the UK album charts to find it. I would have thought that was obvious and wouldn't need to be explained.

We've talked about this across several threads. The US and the UK singles charts are a wasteland for rock & roll. IF you're looking for hit singles, they're relegated to the Billboard mainstream and alternative rock charts.

Alternative Songs: Top Alternative Songs Chart
Rock Music: Top Mainstream Rock Songs Chart

 

You just keep parroting the "just look at the charts" line. Your own list consisted almost entirely of well established legacy acts, ones that earned a following many years ago who will still buy their new albums loyally. Show me some major new rock bands that have emerged in the last ten years that are regularly scoring significant hits. If they are as plentiful as you make it sound, it should be easy.

 

If people would listen the first time, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

The Billboard 200 is not my list. The Official Albums Chart Top 100 is not my list. It almost sound like you're saying that those albums are not quality mainstream rock. Am I reading you correctly?

Since the US and the UK singles charts are a wasteland, you're going to have to help me out here. What constitutes a significant rock hit in the 10s?

 

No, I am saying that those are well established acts with a pre-existing fanbase who still buy their new albums. That doesn't speak to the ongoing vitality of rock in the mainstream, just the continued affection for old favorites.

If rock is so vital, why can't they score single hits anymore? Leaving that aside, show me a list of gold records from rock bands that emerged in the last ten years.

 

You can't or won't give me a straight answer? I never used the word vital in this thread. And I can name one band right off the top of my head without even looking up the info.

Halestorm has two gold albums and a gold single. Their debut was released in 09.

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=halestorm

 

Catfish & the Bottlemen are a new band. So are the Lumineers, Blossoms, Bastille. Viola Beach (RIP) was a new band. Five new bands that hit number one last year.