Forum

Rock Is Dying
 
Forum index / Life in general Post reply | Create new thread
Author
Posted on 2006-09-29 19:07:41
avahogree
1945-52: Pre-Rock Era

1953-63: Embryonic Rock (Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash)

1964-75: Classical Period (The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Who)

1976-1982: Post-Classical Period (Queen, Foreigner, Def Leppard, Kiss, The Clash, The Sex Pistols)

1983-91: Period of Anthemics (U2, Motley Crue, Guns N Roses)

1992-2000: Neo-Classical Period (Nirvana, Pearl Jam, The Smashing Pumpkins)

2001-Present: Fragmentation and Decline (The White Stripes, The Strokes, The Killers, Dashboard Confessional, Hot Hot Heat)
Author
Posted on 2006-09-29 20:14:10
Valeria13
Valeria Korneeva
NO, no, no! Rock is alive!!!!!!!!!
Author
Posted on 2006-09-29 20:15:05
Realphilip747
Cardigans, Kent and The Ark just to name a few
Author
Posted on 2006-09-29 20:44:11
avahogree
Realphilip747 wrote:
Cardigans, Kent and The Ark just to name a few


The point was to name the staples of rock. There were countless other rock groups around at these times, but those I've listed above were undoubtedly the few that influenced how rock was to sound during those respective years. Others that come to mind are Black Sabbath and The Ramones but those were one-offs. The groups you've menetioned, while good, have been pushed underground and have very little influence. Another point was to illistrate the pure crapiness of the groups listed from 2000-present compared to other groups over any other 6-8 year period. Plus, over half of your list would belong in the Neo-Classical Period because that was when they were formed (and peaked). The simple truth is that you cannot compare any of the groups listed from 1953-2000 with anyone who started after 2000.

It looks like rock is in peril. The concept of art has taken over the concept of substance and in the absense of art there is instead poor musicianship and even poorer live performances. I am not a rap fan, but it looks like rap is the new rock. The genre is still growing and developing on a yearly basis, while crap is taking over rock.
Author
Posted on 2006-09-29 20:49:14
avahogree
Please let us not mistake 'good' for 'influential' people! I'm new here so don't know you. You don't want me to think you're all stupid, do you? You know yourselves that all mainstream rock today is total crap and if you don't then I hope you enjoy vomiting blood all over yourselves because that's what you must be doing every day. Because you're sick little puppies!!
Author
Posted on 2006-09-29 21:00:19
Realphilip747
well I might agree that there are no new rock bands these days that are good
the reasons those bands u mentioned in 1953-2000 which is almost entire era of rock have tim eon their side.

Ys from 200 and on most bands are from the cookie cutter MTV mode, such as blink 182, lit, filter, green day

Though one might argue green day has transcended their feeble start, even if their politics stink and they are the true American Idiots! :)

Let's not leave out Rush, Yes, Emerson Lake and Palmer or Van Halen or (Early) Aerosmith

and while I may enjoy Def Leppard, I wouldnt call them influential or great.
Author
Posted on 2006-09-29 21:17:01
avahogree
Realphilip747 wrote:
well I might agree that there are no new rock bands these days that are good
the reasons those bands u mentioned in 1953-2000 which is almost entire era of rock have tim eon their side.

Ys from 200 and on most bands are from the cookie cutter MTV mode, such as blink 182, lit, filter, green day

Though one might argue green day has transcended their feeble start, even if their politics stink and they are the true American Idiots! :)

Let's not leave out Rush, Yes, Emerson Lake and Palmer or Van Halen or (Early) Aerosmith

and while I may enjoy Def Leppard, I wouldnt call them influential or great.


You get the point though? These were the people who were big at that time and who summed up what that era was about. It's not just because they were big. They encompassed all of what was going on. I doubt people will look at any of the artists from 2000+ in 10 years time with effection. And oh yeah! Rush stunk. Yes were bleh. Why didn't you just mention Heart and Starship? And a big NOPE to Van Halen! I hate that stupid Scisser Hands Man with the pink hair. He looked like Edward Scissor Hands, didn't he? Ahh HA HA HAH! AHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! WHAAAAAAHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHH
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA! What am I laughing about? Oh yeah! AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh wait. It's not that funny.

And oh yeah! My brother just bought a porno called Philip Goes to Hollywood. It's about a guy who goes to Hollywood and has sex with a ton of hot blondes with big titties. One of the better pornos he's got. Coincidence?!
Author
Posted on 2006-09-29 21:30:07
Realphilip747
unfortunately i am not the philip in the title of that video.

Scissor hands with pink hair in van halen, im not sure whom you are talking about. But Van Halen rules.

I think Heart is a good band, but not influential they got hype because it was 2 pretty sistes who were good singers and musicians.

Startship? Yipes they had a few poppy numbers but you would have to go back to their ancestors, Jefferson Airplane.

We did leave out Jimmi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Cream, Beatles, Eagles
Author
Posted on 2006-09-29 21:34:41
avahogree
Realphilip747 wrote:
We did leave out Jimmi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Cream, Beatles, Eagles


The Beatles are up there. Eagles and Cream were hardly influential ROCK. Eric Chapton is more singer-songwriter. Jimmy Handrix was like Sabbath and Ramones in the way that he was a one-off.
Author
Posted on 2006-09-29 21:37:50
Realphilip747
Clapton was in Cream, Derek and the Dominoes, Blind Faith, Yardbirds, and Clapton is revered as Guitar God by most rock musicians, if that isnt influential Im not sure what is :)
Author
Posted on 2006-09-30 05:15:02
Kv2.0
There is good rock to be found if you look.
Thing is : there are so many catergories and sub-categatories now.
The labels always push whatever is hot and sells, for better or worse and imitators pop-up to cash in. Example : Creed>Nickleback>Theory of a Deadman>Hinder. Hinder? This band has a huge hit on all the radio stations and it's nothing new. Warrant could've done that 15 yrs. ago. There's a new generation of listeners. Music's supposed to shift every five years or so--like the Metal years, the Grunge period, ...
I just wish they'd hurry up and declare Emo done. God, I can't stand those whiny rich SoCal wanna-be punks!
As for musicianship well Rush and VanHalen even Yes are fabulous musicians maybe too good for rock, even? I don't know what Mr. Hogree means. I've seen Yngwie Malmsteen but after about three songs all that wanking becomes tiresome. I've seen Dream Theater, awesome musicians but again it's almost too much and I wished the singer would stop yelping in that high voice....
Um???
As for vomiting blood, that reminds me of the time I got slayed by Oderous Urungeuos onstage at a Gwar show back in..??? 1990???
You would've loved them, Mr. Hogree !
Author
Posted on 2006-09-30 05:58:48
avahogree
Gwar? They're the people who won that Euro something Song something, right?

You know when people like talk to you but they don't look at you and they say things directed to you but at another person beside you, right? Imagine that's what I'm doing now cos I'm not talking to that other guy because he's wasting my time. You can talk and talk and talk with the porn star but he never gets what you're talking about and instead just keeps saying the same thing. That's the way a parrot acts. Parrots are fun for a while but they get tiresome. I have not liked parrots since I was younger. Too much convertsation with blood vomiting parrots will give me nightmares.
Author
Posted on 2006-09-30 11:37:30
pavlon
In my country Rock will never die!!
Author
Posted on 2006-09-30 12:33:55
Emilianino
Maybe let's just say that the inspiration which makes people singing-composing-playing a rock song is dying.

I feel the love told by recent "rock" band isn't inspired. Or not as much as the "old rock"...

Nowadays the world is so scary, or, unfortunately, the human kind is so scary-scared. Love is slowly becoming a problem, or something young people are told to be interested to, but from terrible surreal escapes (in the greedy world) like tv, newspapers and... crappy bands.

The typical song's myth about going out and seducing a girl-boy is arrived at a dead end point today, cause, please, there must be somebody else like me who feels there's something bigger that keeps our breath tied. And without something truly good... where can we go? Who can we love? Therefore what good ROCK song can we play?

And because rock=love (at least in my opinion, and it could be the love between two people (usually) or love for an idea etc etc) and love is day by day dying... Rock is dying too.

In all this Queens Of The Stone Age represent so well my feelings... Their songs are love songs, but you feel there's something very dark behind... Like there's no escape.

I hate the human kind. I hate myself!!!
Author
Posted on 2006-09-30 12:57:39
Posthuman
Emilianino wrote:
And because rock=love (at least in my opinion, and it could be the love between two people (usually) or love for an idea etc etc) and love is day by day dying... Rock is dying too.


Yes,as usually,I'll say something off topic (sorry people),just this..what you said.. I can't agree,sorry.
Love is not dying.Maybe nowdays some are blind to see it/recignize it/feel it,or feel more confident if they replace it with other things..that's called running away.Or denial.
But the love itself is existing still,and ever will..
Open up yourself,be ready to accept it.Believe in it.Otherwise,you wouldn't even recognize it infront of your nose.
And you wouldn't like that to happen,right?
Author
Posted on 2006-10-01 08:47:59
Kv2.0
I'm not sure there's many good rock songs about love.
Rock = Love ? Rock is rebellion, wanton sex, mayhem, chaos and echoes of all that.
When you introduce love into Rock it usually becomes pretty lame doesn't it? ( You can however love rock music;) )
Author
Posted on 2006-10-01 22:43:48
Quetzal
hm, true rock is an old father now, his provocations are dead, trying more and more to deepest in the loud or the bass sound, or into an hyppothethic christian hell..

rock is dead, may be, it's a classic style now, nothing rellay knew will happened to these blues child..

but the thing you forget is that there no progress in art, just in technics and sounds.

it can perfectly happened that a great musician can do something really great with some old technics and sounds..

style are just a shell for great artist, you can reconize them that where ever they go, and whatever they do, you'll be charmed and inpress par their capacities to do something with the material they've chosen.

many people do not the difference, and think that style are everythings, no and no, the artist behind the style is more than important, listen to classicle music and you'll know it, this the same music played for many cycles, but the difference in the interpretation can be enormous..

remember that the style is what were to go on stage to express something, and closes are just wind, if your soul is beautifull, and you feel right with, music or close will ever be beautifull..

rock is dead, may be for you, surely for me, but is there just only a Rock, or an attitude beside the music??

ask you first this question and you'll see the the good answer is, until there will be young people and crazy parents.. life will be in many ways rock'n'roll in the teenage.. and after too, if you care to not enjail you into a bottle of plastic..
Author
Posted on 2006-10-02 13:55:43
bassman
Rock music will never die. There is always a young boy, or girl, who pick up a guitar and want to play like Hendrix or whoever. For that reason, rock will never die.

In fact you could change the Cardies lyric:

"You should know, that rock will never die" LOL
 
Moderators: Antoine, Assaf, Oleg, daniel_o
 
 
Betatest: Forum search engine
 
Forum jump