Tweet
I grew up in the 60s. I'll tell you exactly why Rock cannot make a proper comeback. Culture. Numbers. Simple Statistics. When I was a kid, many neighborhoods had their own garage band. It doesn't matter if they were necessarily good or not because If the culture embraces thousands of neighborhood garage bands across the nation, think of the vast talent pool for the cream to inevitably rise to the top. Rock stars were the childhood heroes of the era. They have since been replaced by NFL players.
Culture produces great talent at whatever endeavors that a given culture embraces at the time. When culture embraces hot rods and rock n roll, the school parking lot will be full of uniquely modified cars blaring rock music and that is what the "cool kids" of surburbia did. The resultant commercial reaction will be muscle cars rolling out of Detroit and thousands of professional rock bands searching for unique, stand apart sounds. Rock then reactively subdivides and diversifies into varying styles such as alternative, heavy metal, grunge, or punk.
Rock bands cannot thrive today only because the business model does not have the cultural backing to make rock bands profitable. I believe this is cyclic. I believe that new genres of music periodically sweep the land and the associated culture produces great talent at creating the associated new sound. Perhaps rock will influence it. Perhaps not.
When I was a teen, social interaction wasn't tapping on a phone. It was visiting your best friend, thumbing through his/her multiple stacks of record albums, setting aside two or three for request, lighting up a joint, and appreciating the sound. That was the suburban teen social interaction of the time. Appreciating music to the exclusion of interruption as rock was not primarily used as simple background aesthetics to enhance a "vibe". Rock, by its loud, intrusive nature was designed to capture and hold your attention. It isn't uncommon for tunes of that era to contain the lyric phrase "Turn it up". In other words, your full attention is required.
Nope. Rock wasn't primarily used as a mood enhancer as that was the purpose of POP music. Rock music, in of itself, was a primary focus. A science to be studied, dissected, and discussed. Many people from that culture commonly regard "Sargent Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" by "The Beatles" as the greatest rock album of the time because no other album was dissected, studied, or analyzed more up to that point. The influence (of studying rock as an art form to be listened to, not just danced to) from that band was heavy. Why else do you think that the era produced so many songs with multiple transitions or (songs within a song), many of which lasted much longer than the radio stations could endure? That is why many rock bands played two styles. A commercial (Pop) style of shortened songs intended as mood enhancers and tailored for radio acceptance as well as another style that could consist of single 20+ minute songs that encompassed the entire side of an album (these were the tunes intended for dissection and study). Then there were the blends that were the compromise of both styles (for example, the bands "Boston" or "Steely Dan" or specific albums such as "Abbey Road" by the original "Beatles") Sure there are people doing that with music today, but not nearly at the same cultural magnitude. I also believe that rock cannot make a proper comeback until modern bands can create those 20 minute songs with multiple transitions that can be similarly dissected and studied. Modern Rock bands are doing plenty with the Bon Jovi or Def Leopard influence but hardly anything with the Rush or Pink Floyd influence. Both styles are needed for rock to properly thrive.
Rock didn't die. It was mostly gobbled up by Country. Country music was vastly different when I was a kid. When I listen to modern country, all I hear is rock n roll with a twangy Southern drawl. It is the unique country music vocals that separate modern country from old time rock n roll. That vocal style make it almost unlistenable for me but I do love the reminiscent rock feel of the guitar work. To me, some country music is barely salvageable only because of that guitar work.
This is why that era of talent cannot be duplicated. Culture. Numbers. Simple statistics.
Culture produces great talent at whatever endeavors that a given culture embraces at the time. When culture embraces hot rods and rock n roll, the school parking lot will be full of uniquely modified cars blaring rock music and that is what the "cool kids" of surburbia did. The resultant commercial reaction will be muscle cars rolling out of Detroit and thousands of professional rock bands searching for unique, stand apart sounds. Rock then reactively subdivides and diversifies into varying styles such as alternative, heavy metal, grunge, or punk.
Rock bands cannot thrive today only because the business model does not have the cultural backing to make rock bands profitable. I believe this is cyclic. I believe that new genres of music periodically sweep the land and the associated culture produces great talent at creating the associated new sound. Perhaps rock will influence it. Perhaps not.
When I was a teen, social interaction wasn't tapping on a phone. It was visiting your best friend, thumbing through his/her multiple stacks of record albums, setting aside two or three for request, lighting up a joint, and appreciating the sound. That was the suburban teen social interaction of the time. Appreciating music to the exclusion of interruption as rock was not primarily used as simple background aesthetics to enhance a "vibe". Rock, by its loud, intrusive nature was designed to capture and hold your attention. It isn't uncommon for tunes of that era to contain the lyric phrase "Turn it up". In other words, your full attention is required.
Nope. Rock wasn't primarily used as a mood enhancer as that was the purpose of POP music. Rock music, in of itself, was a primary focus. A science to be studied, dissected, and discussed. Many people from that culture commonly regard "Sargent Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" by "The Beatles" as the greatest rock album of the time because no other album was dissected, studied, or analyzed more up to that point. The influence (of studying rock as an art form to be listened to, not just danced to) from that band was heavy. Why else do you think that the era produced so many songs with multiple transitions or (songs within a song), many of which lasted much longer than the radio stations could endure? That is why many rock bands played two styles. A commercial (Pop) style of shortened songs intended as mood enhancers and tailored for radio acceptance as well as another style that could consist of single 20+ minute songs that encompassed the entire side of an album (these were the tunes intended for dissection and study). Then there were the blends that were the compromise of both styles (for example, the bands "Boston" or "Steely Dan" or specific albums such as "Abbey Road" by the original "Beatles") Sure there are people doing that with music today, but not nearly at the same cultural magnitude. I also believe that rock cannot make a proper comeback until modern bands can create those 20 minute songs with multiple transitions that can be similarly dissected and studied. Modern Rock bands are doing plenty with the Bon Jovi or Def Leopard influence but hardly anything with the Rush or Pink Floyd influence. Both styles are needed for rock to properly thrive.
Rock didn't die. It was mostly gobbled up by Country. Country music was vastly different when I was a kid. When I listen to modern country, all I hear is rock n roll with a twangy Southern drawl. It is the unique country music vocals that separate modern country from old time rock n roll. That vocal style make it almost unlistenable for me but I do love the reminiscent rock feel of the guitar work. To me, some country music is barely salvageable only because of that guitar work.
This is why that era of talent cannot be duplicated. Culture. Numbers. Simple statistics.
Comment