- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Did rock skewing too much to the “hard” side kill its mainstream appeal?
Posted on 7/31/21 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 7/31/21 at 1:45 pm
I’m a young dude so I don’t pretend to know why tastes really changed but I feel like grunge and the inability for rock to return to “good time” music may be the reason it fell out of mainstream. Seems like it just kept getting darker with a few bright spots. I hate how people say “listen to the new stuff it’s still alive as ever” and then play some Avenged Sevenfold. Back in the day rock was all about having fun and cutting loose, it’s like somehow that job was just handed to country and rap when there was still space for Rock and Roll. People still love to listen to the classics if any band would realize they don’t just have to make baby-making music for methheads.
ETA: Seems like a lot of rock bands these days are just easy listening Metal acts.
2nd ETA: And I’m not considering pop Hot Topic acts to be rock, it’s a weird balance with people associating certain bands with Rock.
ETA: Seems like a lot of rock bands these days are just easy listening Metal acts.
2nd ETA: And I’m not considering pop Hot Topic acts to be rock, it’s a weird balance with people associating certain bands with Rock.
This post was edited on 7/31/21 at 1:55 pm
18
Posted on 7/31/21 at 1:51 pm to _Hurricane_
Rock & Roll will never come back like it once was…. The last 25 years of it is basically trash. IMO.
Posted on 7/31/21 at 2:14 pm to _Hurricane_
It's hard to pinpoint what killed it. Around the same time that Napster came along and took away a lot of financial incentive, you also had a lot of crappy music/bands forming (mid to late 90s).
The bands from Seattle in the early 90s seem like the last group of musicians that had anything to bring to the table, as far as new scenes/sounds go.. Nu Metal was also new but it sucked and did more harm to rock music than good.
The bands from Seattle in the early 90s seem like the last group of musicians that had anything to bring to the table, as far as new scenes/sounds go.. Nu Metal was also new but it sucked and did more harm to rock music than good.
Posted on 7/31/21 at 2:33 pm to _Hurricane_
Nah, people changed. Much softer, much less rebellious than they used to be.
Posted on 7/31/21 at 2:39 pm to _Hurricane_
For me, a lot of what has killed modern hard music is the technology used. It seems there is now a recipe on how to produce this kind of music (and really, most modern popular music). The recipes have made a lot of it interchangeable for me. The sound of the production has become almost homogeneous. Much of the Top40 has always had an homogeneous sound, and that has spread to a lot of the "rock" acts. That, and it seems no one in the last 20 years or so knows how to mix vocals.
Posted on 7/31/21 at 3:16 pm to johnqpublic
This is very true...especially when it comes to rock, country, pop, and rap. Which is pretty much every relevant genre these days.
Posted on 7/31/21 at 3:30 pm to _Hurricane_
Rock went very socially political in a whiny, bratty way. The top acts going out of their way to spit on the mainstream and suck up the money at the same time made most rockers 90s on look foolish. Plus the cheap rinse-repeat of rap and dance pop became much more attractive to the money than genuinely talented acts who could generate enough fame to dictate terms.
Then the new generations had their balls snipped. The end.
Then the new generations had their balls snipped. The end.
Posted on 7/31/21 at 6:46 pm to _Hurricane_
Punk and Disco killed it.
Posted on 7/31/21 at 7:19 pm to _Hurricane_
Rock’s mainstream appeal has only been killed in the US, but rock kicks arse in other parts of the world.
This is not politically correct, but what I’ve noticed in America is that rock purposely has been ignored by the mainstream media for the 10 -15 years or so. In the meantime, rap has been pushed hard. I don’t even listen to rap or R&B, but I know who some of the artists just from seeing them in the media. You will then see the venues where they play their concerts, and it’s the same venues the newer rock acts play, who aren’t household names.
A big factor that killed that killed rock’s mainstream appeal in America is the factoring of streaming in the Billboard Hot 100 Singles. A lot of pop/rap fans are kids that just sit and home and play those YouTube videos over and over again. That’s why you might see an artist like Taylor Swift with 5 songs in the Hot 100 Singles, which was unheard of until a few years ago. When it strictly sales and airplay, rock was represented.
This is not politically correct, but what I’ve noticed in America is that rock purposely has been ignored by the mainstream media for the 10 -15 years or so. In the meantime, rap has been pushed hard. I don’t even listen to rap or R&B, but I know who some of the artists just from seeing them in the media. You will then see the venues where they play their concerts, and it’s the same venues the newer rock acts play, who aren’t household names.
A big factor that killed that killed rock’s mainstream appeal in America is the factoring of streaming in the Billboard Hot 100 Singles. A lot of pop/rap fans are kids that just sit and home and play those YouTube videos over and over again. That’s why you might see an artist like Taylor Swift with 5 songs in the Hot 100 Singles, which was unheard of until a few years ago. When it strictly sales and airplay, rock was represented.
This post was edited on 7/31/21 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 7/31/21 at 7:30 pm to _Hurricane_
Seems like rap is more appealing to many slices of people (certainly not all).
Foo Fighters! Hanging in there and one of best concerts I’ve been to (recently, and I’ve been to fair share over my lifetime). GvF I thought had lift until their new album.
Rap’s speaking to many more.
Foo Fighters! Hanging in there and one of best concerts I’ve been to (recently, and I’ve been to fair share over my lifetime). GvF I thought had lift until their new album.
Rap’s speaking to many more.
Posted on 7/31/21 at 7:41 pm to Turf Taint
quote:
Rap’s speaking to many more.
It's the soundtrack for Idiocracy.
Posted on 7/31/21 at 11:43 pm to _Hurricane_
Rock music was never at any point the most popular music. Pop is always tops. As has been mentioned the popularity of Disco, Punk, and I would add Hip-Hop and the continued branching of rock into various niches like metal, death metal, speed metal, grunge, nu metal, prog rock, etc. all spread rock music very thin and also gave young people new outlets to express themselves. The classic rock era had faded, but it lives on in a much larger tree having branched out.
Posted on 7/31/21 at 11:47 pm to _Hurricane_
I’m pretty bent on wine at the moment, but this subject is dear to my heart to let me take a run at answering the OP can maybe come back tomorrow with some better thoughts.
To answer the thread title: Did rock skewing too much to the “hard” side kill its mainstream appeal?
The answer is No. A few things killed mainstream rock: First, commercialization. The music companies made vast wealth on early rock bands and then went formulaic for $$$. So there were lots of great rock bands whose music you’ll never hear because the industry, not the artist, became in charge of what was cool. This is why “boy bands” were/are a thing. Nobody asked for boy bands but the music companies knew that young women would max credit cards for tickets, tee shirts, and CDs.
Second, what happened musically between say, Hendrix in the ‘60s, and maybe Mr. Big in the early ‘90s was an organic golden era in the development of rock music. Arena rock was born. Beatles, Stones, Aerosmith, Zep, KISS, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, etc. Mainstream rock got huge and the best part is that the gals loved it as much as the guys.
Sure there was stuff that was too hard for the some gals in ‘80s (Dokken, Dio, Warrant, Metallica, etc.) but rock music also encapsulated the B-52s, Cindy Lauper, and The Bangles. Sure, I only willingly listened to any of these bands if I was trying to get into a girl’s pants, but those low order rock bands do deserve credit for putting out unique music.
When grunge dropped in the late ‘80s, early ‘90s rock did bifurcate, and not in a good way. The thumb sucking emo grunge crowd decided they couldn’t compete with the musicianship of the ‘80s and went back to garage rock. At the same time what used to be arena rock enjoyed by both young men and women went towards shock rock and gave us garbage like Marilyn Manson and GWAR.
Lost in the last couple of decades+ of commercialized rock crap is the notion that creating good, accessible rock music is really not that difficult musically. What we have lost, though, is ability of young bands to embrace interesting vocal harmonies (e.g. Beatles, Eagles), the essential rawness what makes rock, rock music, and something resembling at least a passable guitar solo (e.g., Loverboy, Bryan Adams).
I stole this album from my Sister when we were in High School because I liked the music:
Lonely Is The Night
Another example: Your Love
Kids Wanna Rock
Ps. Dictated not read.
To answer the thread title: Did rock skewing too much to the “hard” side kill its mainstream appeal?
The answer is No. A few things killed mainstream rock: First, commercialization. The music companies made vast wealth on early rock bands and then went formulaic for $$$. So there were lots of great rock bands whose music you’ll never hear because the industry, not the artist, became in charge of what was cool. This is why “boy bands” were/are a thing. Nobody asked for boy bands but the music companies knew that young women would max credit cards for tickets, tee shirts, and CDs.
Second, what happened musically between say, Hendrix in the ‘60s, and maybe Mr. Big in the early ‘90s was an organic golden era in the development of rock music. Arena rock was born. Beatles, Stones, Aerosmith, Zep, KISS, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, etc. Mainstream rock got huge and the best part is that the gals loved it as much as the guys.
Sure there was stuff that was too hard for the some gals in ‘80s (Dokken, Dio, Warrant, Metallica, etc.) but rock music also encapsulated the B-52s, Cindy Lauper, and The Bangles. Sure, I only willingly listened to any of these bands if I was trying to get into a girl’s pants, but those low order rock bands do deserve credit for putting out unique music.
When grunge dropped in the late ‘80s, early ‘90s rock did bifurcate, and not in a good way. The thumb sucking emo grunge crowd decided they couldn’t compete with the musicianship of the ‘80s and went back to garage rock. At the same time what used to be arena rock enjoyed by both young men and women went towards shock rock and gave us garbage like Marilyn Manson and GWAR.
Lost in the last couple of decades+ of commercialized rock crap is the notion that creating good, accessible rock music is really not that difficult musically. What we have lost, though, is ability of young bands to embrace interesting vocal harmonies (e.g. Beatles, Eagles), the essential rawness what makes rock, rock music, and something resembling at least a passable guitar solo (e.g., Loverboy, Bryan Adams).
I stole this album from my Sister when we were in High School because I liked the music:
Lonely Is The Night
Another example: Your Love
Kids Wanna Rock
Ps. Dictated not read.
Posted on 8/1/21 at 8:04 pm to _Hurricane_
What’s wrong with avenged sevenfold?
Posted on 8/1/21 at 8:11 pm to Tigerhalen
Rock attracted a lot of blue collar rebellious types. Those people are into rap and bro country today. The middle class is less blue collar today.
Posted on 8/3/21 at 6:29 pm to Turf Taint
GvF went and took themselves too seriously. But they do make some good music. Also like Dirty Honey and Whisky Myers among others.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 7:22 am to _Hurricane_
80s hair/glam metal walked the line. The image was fun, but the music was relatively hard-edged. GNR was sort of the transition band between that scene and grunge. And "grunge" isn't really a thing - just a label the record companies slapped on a particular scene in order to sell it.
Alice in Chains (initially) was a traditional heavy metal outfit with a darker tone. Soundgarden mixed elements of psychedelia and traditional hard rock/metal. Nirvana and Pearl Jam were relatively unique to that Seattle scene, but that was also the same time of the rise of the RHCP, Tool, Rage, etc.
And there were lighter tone rock acts throughout the 90s as well.
Rock is "dead" now because musical creativity ceased with the rise of ProTools. Now it is all soulless, poorly done, mix and match, cut and paste crap.
Alice in Chains (initially) was a traditional heavy metal outfit with a darker tone. Soundgarden mixed elements of psychedelia and traditional hard rock/metal. Nirvana and Pearl Jam were relatively unique to that Seattle scene, but that was also the same time of the rise of the RHCP, Tool, Rage, etc.
And there were lighter tone rock acts throughout the 90s as well.
Rock is "dead" now because musical creativity ceased with the rise of ProTools. Now it is all soulless, poorly done, mix and match, cut and paste crap.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 7:48 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Rock is "dead" now because musical creativity ceased with the rise of ProTools.
likely true
it’s a lot easier & cheaper to boot up the laptop than it is to gather a drum set, bass and guitar along with guys who can actually play
it’s pretty sad that the touring arena rock scene is all legacy acts. When those are gone rock and roll “might” be ready for a renaissance but it doesn’t seem likely
Posted on 8/4/21 at 8:06 am to cgrand
quote:is what killed rock and roll
legacy acts.
Kids drove it before that. . . and 50-60-70 year old men the byproduct.
The product didn't cost 250 dollars a ticket, it was all across town for everyone too see, and what was being said was driven by direct feedback from people showing up or not. And lastly it was some freshly turned millionaire who wanted his third and not the television industry looking for another product to bolster their billion dollar needs.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 10:02 am to awestruck
I would say the artists largely reflect their audience. I play a lot of 70’s classic rock-style music. It’s pretty rare to see more than a handful of folks under 40 attending one of our shows, and we don’t charge $250 for a ticket. Every once in a blue moon, a small group of 20 somethings will show up and have fun, but it’s rare. All of us in the band are around 30 years old, and we’re typically the youngest people there. Our fans are primarily in their 50’s and 60’s.
The bottom line is rock music, or at least what most of this board thinks of when it comes to rock music (most of y’all are over 50), just isn’t very interesting to most people under 30. They’re not nostalgic about it, it wasn’t rebellious, it didn’t make their parents mad to losten to, it wasn’t cool, it wasn’t played at parties, etc. That’s why it’s called “dad rock”. I’m sure when y’all were growing up there was a lot of music you wrote off as “paw paw music”.
As far as the argument that legacy acts are the problem, I disagree. I think they’re a symptom of the problem. Rock music simply no longer has the pipeline to mainstream pop culture success that it had from the 60’s-late 90’s. There’s only so “big” a band can get without terrestrial radio, movie/tv, and conventional media support. Our current model for music distribution is so strangely consolidated yet fragmented, that getting fans across a wide spectrum of cliques is extremely difficult. The media-made boxes which they sort people into rarely share music or even physically interact with one-another, so crossover hits are more difficult. Essentially, the legacy acts exist because they were fortunate to have gotten big prior to the current paradigm of the music industry where that kind of cultural penetration simply is not something available to new rock n roll musicians.
The bottom line is rock music, or at least what most of this board thinks of when it comes to rock music (most of y’all are over 50), just isn’t very interesting to most people under 30. They’re not nostalgic about it, it wasn’t rebellious, it didn’t make their parents mad to losten to, it wasn’t cool, it wasn’t played at parties, etc. That’s why it’s called “dad rock”. I’m sure when y’all were growing up there was a lot of music you wrote off as “paw paw music”.
As far as the argument that legacy acts are the problem, I disagree. I think they’re a symptom of the problem. Rock music simply no longer has the pipeline to mainstream pop culture success that it had from the 60’s-late 90’s. There’s only so “big” a band can get without terrestrial radio, movie/tv, and conventional media support. Our current model for music distribution is so strangely consolidated yet fragmented, that getting fans across a wide spectrum of cliques is extremely difficult. The media-made boxes which they sort people into rarely share music or even physically interact with one-another, so crossover hits are more difficult. Essentially, the legacy acts exist because they were fortunate to have gotten big prior to the current paradigm of the music industry where that kind of cultural penetration simply is not something available to new rock n roll musicians.
This post was edited on 8/4/21 at 10:09 am
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News