Is rock dead and/or dying?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Obviously I can't know them all, but I do know many, from many different styles of rock from many different areas. And once again I'll say that yes there are many good ones, but I have yet to see an example of true originality.
Do you understand what I mean by dying? It would seem not. You also make the assumption that I am not out checking out music scenes, which is also incorrect because I am. Furthermore, I will reiterate that I am not saying that there aren't good bands. You seem confident of your initial statement. Why is it that you haven't backed it up with evidence?

Don't even think about trying to explain Rock to me...I've been listening to it for almost ten years. As I said I don't care what some Internet 'busy-body' thinks. It's not dying, never has and probably never will so go back to trying to make yourself feel like a big man because take this argument to a Rock orientated forum and you'd be ripped a proverbial new one. In fact do it go onto Blabbermouth, Wacken or even Download Festival's forums and see what they make of your 'statements'.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
First of all, you're insulted. Whether or not I INTENDED to insult you is another matter, and I didn't. That said, don't try to play the tough guy. You're a 15/16 year old kid with a "hair metal" affinity and a self-proclaimed mullet. There's genuinely nothing more unthreatening than you.

Second, your suggestions and plans really lack any logic or sense. It's not an insult, it's just there from reading your posts. Deal with it.

What is your POINT? Your initial point was that music YOU LIKE, that you CANNOT AFFORD (As in, bands with albums), is not on the radio enough. You wanted it on the radio cos you could not afford it.

So, if you would JUST be satisfied with listening to similar music that YOU made yourself, WHY would it need to be on the radio for you to listen to it? If you wanted THEM to listen, fine, but to listen to your OWN material you do not need the radio. This is why your posts are void of any sense.

Your recorded stuff IS going to be on the radio, what's the difference whether YOU play it or the radio play it? You really don't have a clue what you're on about.

If it's YOUR music that YOU want to listen to, why do you need radio? Why can't you just record it and play it to yourself?

Now you're spiralling off into insane tedium.

-AC

Well, if it's worth anything, I DON'T have a mullet anymore (just got it cut today, now it's just short)

I WOULD be satisfied with listening to my own personal copy of prerecorded music WHEN I HAVE MY CD PLAYER (or CDs)... When I don't, (and when I'm not playing it myself) and I want to listen to it, I could listen to it on the radio... (It's not hard a concept to grasp)

And, tbh, it'd be kind of kool to turn on the radio and here something that the band I'm in made (especially hearing my vocals)... It'd be a sort of surreal moment for me...

Are you in a band Bat Dude?

Originally posted by Nellinator
A) Some have.
/fail

I said necessarily.

/Your pretentiousness.

Originally posted by Nellinator
B) You'd think that if someone was actually inventing and innovating, someone would be able to name at least one of those.

So you don't accept that you just might not know them, you actually believe nobody is?

Klaxons are, for one. Oh, but they're not "classic" rock, which is what you are after.

Originally posted by Nellinator
C) Originality and innovation can measured fairly objectively. Whether or not it is good is subjective.

Yeah, and innovation can be used in the sense of "ahead of the times", not just first to do something.

You realise that you've more or less narrowed it down to "Why is there no classic rock?". You've more or less said things coming off rock aren't rock, when they very well might be. Sigur Ros are an instrumental rock band, for example.

-AC

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I WOULD be satisfied with listening to my own personal copy of prerecorded music WHEN I HAVE MY CD PLAYER (or CDs)... When I don't, (and when I'm not playing it myself) and I want to listen to it, I could listen to it on the radio... (It's not hard a concept to grasp)

It's a stupid concept, is what it is, Bat Dude.

You want nationwide, town-wide or any kind of radio to play music you made JUST so you can hear it when, oops, you don't have your CD player? That's a dumb idea.

Radio play songs randomly, for one thing.

Second, it doesn't change the fact that the base of your claim is wanting to listen to more "hair metal" but not being able to afford to buy CDs. So making your own, free and cheap, would be easy.

And I don't buy that bs about "Oh, what about when I forget my CD player.".

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's a stupid concept, is what it is, Bat Dude.

You want nationwide, town-wide or any kind of radio to play music you made JUST so you can hear it when, oops, you don't have your CD player? That's a dumb idea.

Radio play songs randomly, for one thing.

Second, it doesn't change the fact that the base of your claim is wanting to listen to more "hair metal" but not being able to afford to buy CDs. So making your own, free and cheap, would be easy.

And I don't buy that bs about "Oh, what about when I forget my CD player.".

-AC

Then fine...

I'm tired of having to explain myself...

But, one more time, I'll do so...

You neglect the fact that I said it's not only for that reason...

The reason you refer to isn't even the top reason for me wanting to one day have my music on the radio... I'd say it's about at #5... I only said that one first because I had already made references to my inability to get CDs...

It goes in this order, actually...

1. Bring back interest in rock music as a whole [rock as I know it (hair metal, thrash metal, grunge, etc.) imo is dying, and I'd like for it to be something that isn't mocked by hip hop fans who hardly have any knowledge of rock music]

2. Have fun (hair metal is the musical definition of fun, isn't it?)

3. Wanting to hear something I made have at least ONE play on the radio (like I said, a kool experience, for me at least)

4. Wishing to be remembered for something (I'm a speck on the beach of life, so I kinda want to be remembered, at least locally, for doing something pretty kool)

5. Back up for when my CDs are unavailable to me (it may be a "stupid concept", but it'd be nice to have that option as well as my prerecorded stuff)

And to wicker_man, I'm in the process of recruiting members (drums, lead guitar, bass guitar, and rhythm guitar) If all goes well and I find people that are not only interested but good (cuz I at least want us to sound good), then we'll start practicing covers... If we get good enough at that, then we'll start writing our own stuff... (Note: I may not find anyone, and the dream could be crushed before it begins 🙁 )

Overall, if I find some good people, it should be a lot of fun... That is, IF I find some good people...

Ok, now I'm done...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
only said that one first because I had already made references to my inability to get CDs...

Yes, but your inability to get CDs of other bands would NOT APPLY to your own music, since you would already have it. So you wouldn't need to buy CDs, you'd already own it, so that defeats your point about needing YOUR OWN music on the radio cos you can't afford CDs.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
1. Bring back interest in rock music as a whole [rock as I know it (hair metal, thrash metal, grunge, etc.) imo is dying, and I'd like for it to be something that isn't mocked by hip hop fans who hardly have any knowledge of rock music]

It's not dying. You have absolutely no right to say that because you are a self-proclaimed radio listener. You NEED the radio.

You have a dedication to "hair metal", an archaic "genre", you don't go out and look for new music or buy CDs for WHATEVER reason. So you have actually no right to say it's "dying".

Originally posted by Bat Dude
2. Have fun (hair metal is the musical definition of fun, isn't it?)

Surely making the music would be why you'd be having fun, not getting it on the radio.

Definition of fun? Definition of shit, to me.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
3. Wanting to hear something I made have at least ONE play on the radio (like I said, a kool experience, for me at least)

Irrelevant to your initial claim.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
4. Wishing to be remembered for something (I'm a speck on the beach of life, so I kinda want to be remembered, at least locally, for doing something pretty kool)

Not everybody who has a song out gets remembered.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
5. Back up for when my CDs are unavailable to me (it may be a "stupid concept", but it'd be nice to have that option as well as my prerecorded stuff)

That makes no sense. What do you mean when your CDs aren't available? You want a song on the radio just in case you are out and don't have a CD player with you? Dude, no offense, but that's a really idiotic idea.

Even if it's on a radio playlist, it's no guarantee you'll hear it when you want to hear it, so it's not a sensible point.

-AC

Originally posted by wicker_man
Don't even think about trying to explain Rock to me...I've been listening to it for almost ten years. As I said I don't care what some Internet 'busy-body' thinks. It's not dying, never has and probably never will so go back to trying to make yourself feel like a big man because take this argument to a Rock orientated forum and you'd be ripped a proverbial new one. In fact do it go onto Blabbermouth, Wacken or even Download Festival's forums and see what they make of your 'statements'.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I said necessarily.

/Your pretentiousness.

So you don't accept that you just might not know them, you actually believe nobody is?

Klaxons are, for one. Oh, but they're not "classic" rock, which is what you are after.

Yeah, and innovation can be used in the sense of "ahead of the times", not just first to do something.

You realise that you've more or less narrowed it down to "Why is there no classic rock?". You've more or less said things coming off rock aren't rock, when they very well might be. Sigur Ros are an instrumental rock band, for example.

-AC

What? No it isn't. That's is in fact, the very opposite of what I've been saying. I'm saying that too many bands are simply repeating the past. Lots of hard rock, for example, is basically a throwback to psychedelic styled rock. I love bands like Spiritual Beggars and I like early QOTSA. But they aren't innovating or very fresh. The garage rock revival has lots of good bands that have improved styles, but they aren't fresh. I'm not going for classic rock. I'm going for something totally new and different. I hope old school styles of rock stick around forever, but I looking for new styles at the same time. Rock has been devoid of it for a while now. I'm actually confused as to where you got the idea that I'm looking for classic rock when I have explicitly said otherwise.

Now as for the Klaxons, they are original, though I'd attribute the sound more to Shitdisco and I'd call them punk, pop or electronic music before rock.

It depends on what "ahead of the times" is meaning though. Sure it can mean that the band is creating new inroads in previously explored territory, but many bands do that. I'm talking about innovation is terms of taking ideas and transforming them into something unique, like what I'd give Radiohead credit for doing with minimalism and other modern classical combined with electronic music into rock, or Deep Purple with neo-classical guitar.

I figured you'd bring up Sigur Ros, and what they are doing isn't really rock because musically it doesn't fit. However, I used 1995 going on the assumption that Mogwai was a 1994 band as they are generally seen as the pioneers of that style, but now I see that they were 1995... Then again, Slint were really the pioneers and go back to before 1995, so my point still stands.

bat dude, start writing your own stuff now. it'll be fun. remember its meant to be about the music

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm talking about rock. I see metal as a successor to rock and it's still alive and growing and innovating. You're overreaching yourself. I am a member at Blabbermouth and I've attended Wacken before and will hopefully again this year (Carcass [aprime example of a very original and groundbreaking band] and At the Gates reunited FTW). That's not what I'm talking about. I don't think you actually understand anything I'm saying. Also, your angst is laughable because I'm not even being aggressive or controversial. Once again, you are overextending my claims.

Firstly do not assume you know how I feel whilst writing my posts, I do not feel 'angst' writing anything on an Internet message board...so stop assuming. I understand perfectly the stance and well being of the Rock genre, and it's far from dying to say metal is it's successor is idiotic for both still live hand-in-hand.

Anyone who claims there are no decent rock bands around nowadays are either too ignorant or too lazy to bother looking.

Originally posted by wicker_man
Firstly do not assume you know how I feel whilst writing my posts, I do not feel 'angst' writing anything on an Internet message board...so stop assuming. I understand perfectly the stance and well being of the Rock genre, and it's far from dying to say metal is it's successor is idiotic for both still live hand-in-hand.

Anyone who claims there are no decent rock bands around nowadays are either too ignorant or too lazy to bother looking.

Did I say there are no good rock bands these days? *Looks* Nope, in fact I have stated multiple times that there are good bands still.

Originally posted by Nellinator
What? No it isn't. That's is in fact, the very opposite of what I've been saying. I'm saying that too many bands are simply repeating the past. Lots of hard rock, for example, is basically a throwback to psychedelic styled rock. I love bands like Spiritual Beggars and I like early QOTSA. But they aren't innovating or very fresh.

Name bands that sound like Queens of the Stone Age. Go.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The garage rock revival has lots of good bands that have improved styles, but they aren't fresh. I'm not going for classic rock. I'm going for something totally new and different. I hope old school styles of rock stick around forever, but I looking for new styles at the same time. Rock has been devoid of it for a while now. I'm actually confused as to where you got the idea that I'm looking for classic rock when I have explicitly said otherwise.

That's because if anything sounds remotely different to your idea of rock, it's not "rock" to you.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Now as for the Klaxons, they are original, though I'd attribute the sound more to Shitdisco and I'd call them punk, pop or electronic music before rock.

As stated above. They're many things, they have a lot of rock influence and sound, you don't consider them one thing cos there's many other things. That's silly to me.

Also, doesn't this:

Originally posted by Nellinator
Sure it can mean that the band is creating new inroads in previously explored territory, but many bands do that.

Mean this:

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm talking about innovation is terms of taking ideas and transforming them into something unique, like what I'd give Radiohead credit for doing with minimalism and other modern classical combined with electronic music into rock, or Deep Purple with neo-classical guitar.

Radiohead didn't invent electronica, Klaxons didn't invent "indie" rock or rave music.

-AC

ding ding

let round 5 commence

There is always some good fight in this thread

Nellinator and I disagree, it's not a "fight", I give him more credit than that.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nellinator and I disagree, it's not a "fight", I give him more credit than that.

-AC

Your a technical kind of person arent you AC?

You mean "You're".

I joke (Not about the grammar, just in general).

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Name bands that sound like Queens of the Stone Age. Go.

That's because if anything sounds remotely different to your idea of rock, it's not "rock" to you.

As stated above. They're many things, they have a lot of rock influence and sound, you don't consider them one thing cos there's many other things. That's silly to me.

Also, doesn't this:

Mean this:

Radiohead didn't invent electronica, Klaxons didn't invent "indie" rock or rave music.

-AC

That's not true at all. Rock is generally defined by it's traditional song structures and types of chord progressions. It's actually why I usually consider punk bands to be rock (although for the sake of this argument I am not). Bands like Sigur Ros are creative because they are going outside those boundaries. It's a different genre altogether imo. It's relatively new and really hasn't been given a good name to define it (the "post-rock" label is weak imo), but it isn't rock.

For the Klaxons, personally I'd call them electronic music influenced by rock and punk. That said I'm not trying to pigeonhole them. I think there next album will probably clarify their direction.

No, not really. I meant them to be different in terms of the degree of innovation. Inroads being much more minor than innovation. Many bands incorporate minor influences. However, those bands I was referring to aren't really innovating and pushing in that direction.

I never suggested that they did. They are combining them in new ways. Taking what they want and warping their influences to what they want. That's what I'm looking for in this thread. It hasn't been occurring much in rock and that is what I'm trying to get at.

Now I think I set the wrong tone for this thread from the get go. So let me rephrase it:

What bands in rock since 1995 do you feel are being truly original and/or innovative? If you think it has been at least slightly lacking, why do you think that is?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Kyuss, Monster Magnet are very similar imo. Spiritual Beggars have been doing the same sort of thing a little heavier for a while now too.

Laughable. Kyuss sound nothing like Queens of the Stone Age and the only reason I believe you are saying so is because Josh Homme was in both, and they are all labelled as "stoner rock". They sound entirely different to one another.

Originally posted by Nellinator
That's not true at all. Rock is generally defined by it's traditional song structures and types of chord progressions.

And then it changes, because that's what innovation is.

You don't seem to know what it is you're looking for, or what you're saying has been lost. First you're saying too much is being done the same as the old days, then when people make rock in a different way, technically, but rock nonetheless in sound, you wanna say "Nah, it's not like this.".

Originally posted by Nellinator
It's actually why I usually consider punk bands to be rock (although for the sake of this argument I am not). Bands like Sigur Ros are creative because they are going outside those boundaries. It's a different genre altogether imo. It's relatively new and really hasn't been given a good name to define it (the "post-rock" label is weak imo), but it isn't rock.

You are shackling yourself in one area and then trying to get away with another. As I said above, you can't have it both ways. You're saying no bands innovate the very basic style of rock, and that's simply because musicians get better and music gets more varied. If it carries a rock sound or a variation of, it doesn't matter if it's in 4/4 or not. It's rock music, usually.

Sigur Ros are instrumental rock if anything.

Originally posted by Nellinator
For the Klaxons, personally I'd call them electronic music influenced by rock and punk. That said I'm not trying to pigeonhole them. I think there next album will probably clarify their direction.

See, any outside influence and you rule them out, but then you wanna moan that things are too similar to the old days. It's just a silly point.

If your argument truly is based around typical and traditional rock song structures, time signatures and tempos etc, then you're missing the point of music.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, not really. I meant them to be different in terms of the degree of innovation. Inroads being much more minor than innovation. Many bands incorporate minor influences. However, those bands I was referring to aren't really innovating and pushing in that direction.

Tomahawk are a rock band. They're very experimental, but they're clearly a rock band, or is this another situation where they're too far away from 4/4 to be "rock" by your standards, despite clearly being a rock band?

Originally posted by Nellinator
I never suggested that they did. They are combining them in new ways. Taking what they want and warping their influences to what they want. That's what I'm looking for in this thread. It hasn't been occurring much in rock and that is what I'm trying to get at.

The problem, I think, is you being remarkably contradictory and murky on what's "rock" to you.

-AC

No, they sound very similar. Why? Same style, hence being labeled as stoner rock. The difference in sound isn't achieved by innovation.

It's not rock technically and it doesn't sound like rock either.

Since when does 4/4 define rock? That's the dumbest strawman argument I've ever seen. Sigur Ros is not rock for many reasons. I'm curious as to why you would actually consider them rock.

You are doing a strawman again. It's a logical fallacy. I've have actually said otherwise. "Taking what they want and warping their influences to what they want." If that isn't clear that outside influence is valid then I would call into question your reading comprehension skills. I am not arguing against outside influence. I am arguing that the extent of outside influence is a defining factor.

That's a weak and baseless argument.

Tomahawk is rock. Their first two albums aren't experimental at all. Their last one was an attempt, but really it didn't break any ground because pretty much everything Native American music has to offer has been done and simultaneously developed in Western music and other culture's music, like polyrhythms and pentatonic scales.

No, I don't think you actually understand what rock is, especially, if you consider your strawman arguments to have any validity.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, they sound very similar. Why? Same style, hence being labeled as stoner rock. The difference in sound isn't achieved by innovation.

They're nothing alike in my opinion.

Originally posted by Nellinator
It's not rock technically and it doesn't sound like rock either.

What does "rock" sound like to you? It doesn't matter if it's rock "technically". Those are just techniques frequently used, like in pop also.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Since when does 4/4 define rock? That's the dumbest strawman argument I've ever seen. Sigur Ros is not rock for many reasons. I'm curious as to why you would actually consider them rock.

Because despite being a reaction to "traditional" rock music, thus different, they still maintain a lot of the sensibilities. Just because there aren't solos and hi-tempo songs, doesn't mean it's not rock. They use rock instrumentation for purposes, and with additional techniques, that aren't necessarily rock as a whole. So technically, it is still rock. Like Mogwai.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You are doing a strawman again. It's a logical fallacy. I've have actually said otherwise. "Taking what they want and warping their influences to what they want." If that isn't clear that outside influence is valid then I would call into question your reading comprehension skills. I am not arguing against outside influence. I am arguing that the extent of outside influence is a defining factor.

Well that has been proven to depend entirely on your subjective opinion of rock's sound, because you seem to be wanting two things to coincide, whilst denying when they do, in your opinion.

You have this idea of what rock sounds like, what constitutes rock technically (Which is objective of course), and then how outside influence is used.

You have your own personal boundaries as to how much outside influence is too much or not enough, so you consider the bands mentioned to not be rock.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Tomahawk is rock. Their first two albums aren't experimental at all. Their last one was an attempt, but really it didn't break any ground because pretty much everything Native American music has to offer has been done and simultaneously developed in Western music and other culture's music, like polyrhythms and pentatonic scales.

The whole point of that album was exactly that. They weren't trying to do something ultra different and as a fail, it came out like every other Native American piece. The whole point was to take Native American arrangements and put them to modern use.

To suggest everything heard on Anonymous has been "done before", is a bit ridiculous.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, I don't think you actually understand what rock is, especially, if you consider your strawman arguments to have any validity.

It doesn't matter to me what you think of me or my knowledge, because I don't really think you have a grasp on anything you're saying. I think you've thought it all up, probably sensibly, in your head, and it's just not coming out right.

-AC