The Decline and Fall of Rock & Roll, part I

downwithpants · Post by **downwithpants** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:24 pm

taking rock in the broadest sense, the musical/cultural form of rock is not dead. currently, the most popular forms it's taken are pop, pop-punk, and adult alternative (at least in the US).

taking rock as the form it originated in, it died well before i was born. i'd guess that the growth of electronic feedback and distortion killed it.

Unpronounceable_Symbol · Post by **Unpronounceable_Symbol** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:28 pm

The hated double-post, but Otohiko brings up good points.

Prog-rock is technically rock, although I'm not sure I would count it as such just because it pushed so far from "traditional" rock so fast that it in many cases is closer to the compositional intricacy of classical music or the improvisational structures of jazz. And jazz-rock I always find closer to jazz than rock, like jazz with rock instruments and rock dynamics.

For the record, I don't even see all indie rock as rock by my own given definition. Slint, for example, is mostly non-melodic and not always based on backbeats. Might be best to work on a case-by-case basis, and we can argue whether particular bands fall under 'rock' or not if and when these bands are brought up.

Fulorian · Post by **Fulorian** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:34 pm

What I was trying to imply was that Rock n Roll died in 1969, and all that followed was not Rock n Roll, but instead merely Rock. Woodstock was the catalyst, I didn't mean that Rock simply evaporated over the course of those three days. That event simply triggered a musical revolution which utterly destroyed the feel-good teeny-bop genre of Rock n Roll of the 50s and 60s.

TaranT · Post by **TaranT** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:39 am

Otohiko wrote:... Jazz-rock would be an oxymoron....

Call it "jazz fusion" and you'll have a lot to talk about - Miles Davis, Chick Corea, Stanley Clarke, Al di Meola, Weather Report....it's a long list.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:39 am

yes, we must differentiate between rock and roll, and just rock.

NicholasDWolfwood · Post by **NicholasDWolfwood** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:42 pm

Rock died when crap rap started hitting the mainstream, then that garbage pop-punk or whatever it's called (Simple Plan, My Chemical Romance, Green Day, etc) took rock's place.

Unpronounceable_Symbol · Post by **Unpronounceable_Symbol** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:47 pm

Yeah. I was thinking of the Rock 'n' Roll genre as melding entirely into the Rock genre, kind of forgetting the palpable differences between the two. I meant the discussion to lean more towards Rock than 'n' Roll, since 'n' Roll hasn't done anything since the 60s.

Sorry 'bout that.

Also I'm not sure Woodstock triggered a musical revolution, but it indicated that such a revolution had certainly occurred. As usual, I blame the Beatles- they were among the first to start writing their own songs, and once that became the standard, the teen-pop Rock 'n' Roll style that relied on outside professional songwriting fell by the wayside. Additionally, the Beatles went on to influence the Byrds heavily, even before Sgt. Pepper, which came out two years before Woodstock.

)v(ajin Koji · Post by **)v(ajin Koji** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:31 pm

Unpronounceable_Symbol wrote:Additionally, the Beatles went on to influence the Byrds heavily, even before Sgt. Pepper, which came out two years before Woodstock.

And, on a slight tangent, went on to have a hit with a cover of Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tamborine (sp) Man".

Anyway,Over here in the U.K. we have a slight different look at rock. We have Pop-Punk like you guys do (The My Chemical Romance stuff), post-punk which as I understand it is Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Chiefs et al and that's it really. Personally I feel as if the whole scene here is waiting for something massive to explode once again. I wouldn't consider any of those bands rock, the pop-punkers I think are closer to metal (in the amount of distortion and playing styles they use) and the post-punkers are too close to pop to be considered true rock.

I think that rock never dies, it just goes to sleep it off for a while. It did so when electronic music was all the rage and has done (pretty much) sincethe early 2000's.

As far as rock coming back, I don't know. I think the Mars Volta could/should bring back some kind of prog-rock but I'm sure that the Prog-Rock Purists wouldn't agree (have mercy Oto! I'm a King Crimson fan too! :¬ P). Anyway, the 70's was when rock was true rock(whatever that was) and that's where it'll probably stay.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:29 pm

)v(ajin Koji wrote:Mars Volta could/should bring back some kind of prog-rock but I'm sure that the Prog-Rock Purists wouldn't agree.

As an ironic aside - Mars Volta is actually far more in line with what's been traditionally considered prog rock (as far as style goes) than KC. It's a common misconception that Crimson is "prog rock", which it hasn't been for at least 30-odd years now.

I don't think it's fair to consider TMV as anything but prog rock. Cause they are.

'prog rock' vs 'rock that is progressive' is just like 'rock and roll' vs 'rock'

pinsher6 · Post by **pinsher6** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:37 am

SOAD2k8 wrote:This is an argument that no one is going to win. Some people think that rock died with Nirvana, others some other time, others still say it's not dead (like me). It is a stupid argument. Something is only dead when it's forgotten IMO.

agree,but meanwhile i also hope some new wonderful artist to be on the stage and lead a new resplendence