The Decline and Fall of Rock & Roll, part I

[Unpronounceable_Symbol]

(As seen in the Darkness thread)

It has been a long time since an exciting and original rock and roll album has come out. How long, however, has been the subject of debate. In the opinion, when did the decline of rock begin, and how was it heralded?

For example:
Did Kurt Cobain take rock with him when he died, or was Cobain just a pale imitation of the Sex Pistols? Did punk ruin rock, and was Journey the last great rock band? Are they awful, and rock hasn't been the same since Brian Wilson took to his bed for a decade? Are the Beach Boys overrated, and did rock die along with Buddy Holly? Or did white America make rock to "safe," and was Bo Diddley the last relevant rocker? Or is rock still alive and well, just hiding in near-empty smoke-filled bars and suffering under hip-hop's iron fisted rule over commercial music?

Obviously if you just say "rock died in March 1997" that won't help the discussion much, so please give us an event or album release that might support your argument.

[Otohiko]

I think this discussion should start with what we define as rock and the primary ideals behind it.

Personally, I don't think I have a good conception of 'rock' per se, myself - despite having listened to music that could be defined as 'rock' for all my life. I think getting to the bottom of 'what defines rock' is not something that can be done too easily and unambiguously just through speculation.

Personally, I'm with Fripp's definition of rock - that it's just a convinient label to stick on music that would otherwise be much more difficult to define. I'm rather more comfortable with it than, say, making a big deal of 'rock is dead'.

[Fulorian]

Rock n' Roll died with Woodstock.

[Otohiko]

Alright, alright, again - let's backtrack?

If rock died with x, what made x rock? Where do we draw the line?

That's what I'm curious about.

[DeinReich]

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.

[downwithpants]

do you mean when did the popularity of rock die or when did the musical/cultural form of rock die?

[Unpronounceable_Symbol]

Not that a full definition of rock is possible, but let's give it a shot:

Rock came from blues in the late '40s and early '50s. It is generally based on a backbeat and a melody. It uses a similar structure to jazz, that is a verse/chorus/verse style; unlike jazz, the verse is never implied, and in fact is usually repeated (with different lyrics) almost as frequently as the chorus. The emphasis on improvisational soloing is less common than in jazz.

From this we can ascertain:
1) any music made prior to 1950 can safely be considered "not rock."
2) orchestral, symphonic, choral, and other "classical" music styles do not use backbeats, and therefore can safely be considered "not rock."
3) hip-hop, based on rhythm (vocal) and beat (bass and drums), can safely be considered "not rock."
4) jazz, which usually forgoes use of the verse in favor of repetition of the chorus with instrumental improvisation, can safely be considered "not rock."

Please note there are exceptions to every rule, often plentiful exceptions at that.

Fulorian: Woodstock "died" because it was only a three-day festival. If you mean it died when the hippies gave up on their ideals, then it was killed more or less by the Vietnam conflict, with which I would disagree: much of rock is based on angst and despair.

SOAD2k8: Arguments that people can win are boring. I'd just be interested to see what people consider to be major, defining moments in rock, in this case the low points. I personally agree that it's not dead at the moment, but it has certainly seen some dark times.

[RamonesFan2020204]

Grunge killed rock in 1991, and thankfully The Darkness and Jet brought it back to life in 2004.

[Otohiko]

Hmm, interesting.

So I guess we're then talking in terms of musical structure - though, as with Woodstock, noone can deny that there's not a rock culture.

Still, I suppose everything depends on how closely you identify rock with either the culture or the musical form, and which aspects of it you emphasize.

Prog rock might not be rock at all. It certainly wasn't, if you ask the punks. Jazz-rock would be an oxymoron. Rap-rock? Other hybrids?

My own sense of 'rock' has always been a bit more slanted to some of the cultural ideas related to it, which allows it to cover a broader spectrum of music.

Going back to my beloved Fripp ( ), he spoke very vividly of a huge change in rock culture which took place somewhere around 1971, and certainly by 1974. He attributed it both to the development of new massively-popular rock bands and 'greatest hits' of the post-Beatles era, which undercut the creative spirits quite a bit; and, curiously, the change from marijuana and extasy to heroin and crack. The audiences were suddenly very different, and the music they wanted was very different.

Otherwise, rock in other countries could be interesting to look at. I would argue that, for instance, the guy in my avatar - Yuri Shevchuk, of DDT - makes rock music that is relevant in a sense that no American band's music is anymore, because the social and political context they're in is very different.

[Unpronounceable_Symbol]

Permission to Land and Get Born both came out in 2003, did it take a full year for the resurrection process?
Also, Jet is one of the most derivative bands I've ever heard. It's hard to deny that "Are You Gonna Be My Girl" sounds almost exactly like "Lust For Life," and "Look What You've Done" sounds exactly like "Sonnet." At least Nirvana only cribbed a style, and not individual songs at a time.

downwithpants: I meant more the musical form than the popularity, popular taste is much more fickle and fluctuating than an actual style of music.