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

If mine was someone else's list, I'd be tempted to call it cliched. Almost every one of them is from the glorious late 60s/early 70s (man!). But I really do love that music.

As I touched on earlier, my more modern faves are reflected in my ten favorite female-driven acts.

Aretha Franklin
Joni Mitchell
Laura Nyro
Madonna
Mary J Blige
Patti Smith
PJ Harvey
Sade
Sleater-Kinney
St. Vincent

 

Even the superstars have been reduced to a handful of signature songs. There are zillions of lost gems just waiting to be rediscovered.

 

Good question, I don't really know. "Modern" to some posters might be everything post 1979. I don't have a strict cutoff, I tend to think of modern as being less than 10 years old.

I actually wanted to quote that post earlier. I think it's a ridiculous statement, even if a lot of rap currently has boring trap production.

Here are some examples of black music from the last few years that I think are great


N.E.R.D & Rihanna - Lemon (Official Music Video)
Ella Mai - Boo'd Up
Khalid - Talk (Official Video)

 

Yes, actually. Outgrew that stuff years ago. I was a huge hair metal fan in high school when that stuff was contemporary... Name a band to come off the Sunset Strip or a band that sounded like it did and I probably owned at least one of their albums.

Outgrew all of it in college. Still have About at the Devil and Appetite for Destruction, but haven't missed the rest of it at all.

 

If they're playing traditional roots rock, are they modern or are they just new?

 

The person that I was responding to has not. I just thought it was rather rich to be getting a lecture on misogyny from a KISS fan.

 

One of my threads, a few years back, was The State of Black Music During the 80's. Very interesting discussion! So, it certainly had evolved, but there's been great music made since.

 

Was wondering when someone would mention Against Me!

 

Fair enough.

 

I must ask OP...by your own classification, modern "rock" as being made in the last 10 years - You've found nothing to your liking? Nothing in US or U.K.? Perhaps, you actually don't care for rock, after all. There's plenty. Not posting it to be argumentative, but asking out of curiosity.
i.e.: Catfish & The Bottlemen, The Struts, Albert Hammond, Jr. (solo career of one of The Strokes' guitarits & sometimes songwriter), The Shelters, *Nothing But Thieves, *Royal Blood, *The Union, Airborne (Australia), Ex-Hex, *Band Of Skulls..it goes on. What are you using as means of listening to music that you don't seem familiar w/any actual rock musicians 2010 onwards. For brand new, there's *Pretty Vicious. Hope that helps ya & others' interested in new) for a start. Or, can you give examples of any from 2010 on which you do like? If you don't like any of them, reevaluate...could very possibly be rock's just not your thing.
*U.K.

The Union - Obsession

 

It's the Hoffman Forums. Nothing gets people riled up like challenging the idea that there's been music worth a damn since 1985 or by anyone who didn't first record before then.

 

No offense, but I think that is absolutely wretched.

 

I love this, and I would also add that getting into zero-sum arguments about "the GOAT" may make some sense in a sports context, but not in an arts context. Why should a new band have to dethrone Zeppelin? Why is it about competition and "winning"? Why can't the listener enjoy both of them and be the one who "wins"?

 

Occam's Razor at work -- money (demographic) dictates the direction.

 

lol true. I guess its a guarantee to get some clicks..... I wonder if the people who say they hate new music even click on the yt clips people post? probably not.....or how long do they listen...5 seconds? I remember another thread asking percentage of people who click on those links and most dont….but it can be an interesting journey. sometimes genres will open up, or artists who slipped thru the cracks. I kind of don't get the anger in these threads....my uncle threw an ashtray at me cause I said i liked glen campbell (too modern lol)

 

Maybe among older generations and in the mainstream, but I know plenty of 20/30-somethings who are into the variety of prog-pop bands up north- Field Music, Dutch Uncles and the like. Of pre-2000s bands the cliche of bands resting on their laurels as they get older rings true, but Ride and Suede have proven it doesn't have to be that way.

 

I don't even think it's that. I'm guessing that there's a sound signature for 60's / 70's rock that is what they want to hear and when it's not that then they simply don't like it.

Which is fair enough. But then when it's something "retro-70's" then the artist is too derivative for them. Becomes a Catch-22 situation that they simply can't climb out of.

 

I really hope you guys aren't lumping me in with the boomers who think everything besides classic rock is terrible.

I listen to plenty of new pop, rap Afrobeats, reggaeton, etc. I make threads about these, and they rarely make it past the first page.

 

I often agree with you, but I don't agree with this . . . because for me, it's solely about the music. For it to be revolutionary, the music has to be revolutionary. In a rock context, it's kind of difficult to be revolutionary at this point because so much has been explored. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but I'm not sure what a rock artist could do that would be musically revolutionary without it really being rock any longer . . . which kind of happened already with a lot of prog (well, or at least avant prog).

At that, I don't at all have a requirement for something to be revolutionary to like it.

 

So even though I listen to tons of rock made from its inception to about 2006, I'm a fake rock fan because I haven't found much new stuff that I like?

Perhaps it's not a coincidence that rock has been delining in popularity since the mid 2000s.

(I will listen to that song later when I get the chance)

 

If it's declining, maybe part of the reason is too many so-called rock fans are stuck in the past like you.

"Kwit living in the passed" said the guy with the Beatles avatar.

 

However this conversation winds up, I think most of us can agree that, when it comes to rock, Hendrix, Zep, and The Who were (are?) pretty tough acts to follow.

 

It's all part of the sea change going on in the world. I was just appreciating that at long last women, LGBTQ and gender non binary people are making rock (or rock adjacent) music that is real and relevant to who they (and others) are, what their experiences are. I definitely see it as revolutionary insofar as it's forcing a change in what is and isn't allowable/acceptable as far as lyrical approach, physical presentation goes. That said, the music itself need not be revolutionary for me to like it or get something out of it.
I think a band like Black Midi is capable of pushing past a lot of musical boundaries if their first album is any indication.

 

Only if we want them to be tough acts to follow. I have no problem putting them below other Rock acts.

 

How am I living in the past if I embrace trends in other genres? That's what I think a lot of new rock lacks, "forward"