Rock & Roll R.I.P?

[Kiki]

You could probably place almost any artist into any of the three groups (to varying degrees). Here is how I see it:

Group 1 = "I like this artist/band"

Group 2 = "I don't like this artist/band"

Group 3 = "I like this artist/band"

That's probably just me though

Personally, I would love to see a Group 1 band pretending to be a Group 2 band (rather than Group 2 bands pretending to be Group 1 bands)

[badfaith]

I think ther is also a case of "group shift", which has done nothing to help the situation.

Artists you used to respect and admire, who were in it for art's sake originally, but became entranced by the cash, and/ or bought into a conception of themselves that never was.. "Sting Syndrome", "Eltonitisis", "The Bono Complex". Whereby the original impulse to make good music becomes overmatched by dillusions of divinity, and confirmed in their minds by material success as affirmation of this... leading to the eventual belief that they don't have to try any more, and that people just want whatever THEY do, and not buy the work for it's own intrinsic and particular merits- and so quality inevitably drops, in direct correlation to the volume of such sub-standard work increasing (the Hunger:Comfort ratio) Like Elton John, who was at one stage releasing a hundred albums a month, none you'd wipe your backside with, or to the other extreme Sting, who didn't release anything for ages, but still managed to place himself in our minds as an over-exposed twat ( a remarkable feat it must be said), or yet Bono, the saddest case here it must be said, once a stalwart of music with great integrity, now a man who believes he is Jesus, and is entitled not only to lecture his customers on ethics, but that this entitlement should enable him to sit and discuss these matters with our own elected representatives and religious leaders, when we ourselves cannot.... all the while U2 continue to suck, and haven't made an album of startling originality since Achtung Baby- even this album, and earlier meritorious works now tainted in our minds by the fact that Bono's voice is on them. (He's even ruined The Joshuah Tree for me- BASTARD!)

But Group shift can also happen in the reverse direction- Pop idol types who exist for cash and self agrandisement, but realising the vacuuity of their proffession, desire to become "taken seriously" as "artists"... often leading to hillarious pretentious results.

[ffudnebbuh]

[telefunker]

i don't know enough about morrison or moon to comment, but with regard to dylan and lennon, i have a very hard time believing that their egos were not getting off BIG time on fame and fortune..

as for rock and roll, it's been dead for years and it's better off that way in my opinion.. 4 angry men with guitars singing 3-chord songs about 3-chord things? there's nothing 'rock n roll' about that anymore..
_________________
no fat chicks

[Kiki]

[telefunker]

i don't think there's anything inherenty wrong or shameful in pursuing commercial success.. after all, fame is widespread social acceptance and that appeals greatly to the human ego.. fortune brings material security which appeals greatly on a more fundamental level. of course, there's more to it than that, but that's the core mechanism of attraction, i believe.

on a musical level, i think if you derive satisfaction from playing music, composing music (something i've enjoyed since infancy), recording it or whatever, then that is of course reward in itself. but unless you're born into money, you need to make some kind of career choice at some point in your life and i guess if you have the chance to pay your way through life with music, then you're very fortunate.

if that entails compromising your musical 'values' to some degree then that might be the toughest decision you'll have to make career-wise, which again is probably fairly trivial compared to what some people have to go through.

i think as long as you end up doing things on your own terms, you can consider your integrity intact. i mean, cobain failed with raw punk rock, so he went pop, hit the jackpot and then reverted to raw punk. eminem started out trying to be copy nas' aesthetic, failed, then went nuts and succeeded.

most 'artists' seem to give up at some point in their twenties though, when they decide they're not making enough money.
_________________
no fat chicks

[Kiki]

Some very good points there, thank you for the quick reply

I think almost all artists (all of them at some point in their career's) get satisfaction from playing music and/or composing it.

I believe that you can achieve almost anything if you first believe you can and then put the effort to get it. Of course the effort to get somethings is going to be much greater than others. For example a band could outsell the Beatles if they really put their mind to it. It might seem like an impossible task at first but the only way your going to do something like that is if you intend to. It's going to be impossible to "accidentally" do that.

Again, hitting big is all about the effort you put and the devotion you have for the music you make. I think many artists are able to get big with their musical 'values' intact. Sometimes they may fall astray but they can easily pick themselves back up if that is what they want.

As for Rock and roll is dead, it's much better to have it back I would say. At the moment most of the new bands/artists seem to be so apathetic to stuff around them. I'm not saying all of them are and plenty are still making interesting music. It reminds me of this quote:

"Mute icons are the only kind of beauty we find acceptable today" - Mark Rothko

I would love a Gun N' Roses/ Sex Pistols/ Nirvana type band to come out of no where and shake the "indie" scene to it's core. It's like Nicky Wire said about the fire only being in the Manic Street Preachers and possibly the Gallows nowadays (That was in an interview with the NME April/May 2007)

Anyway, I find fun in playing guitar and all this writing has inspired me to practice some more today

[maxperenchio]

As long as there is some dude driving black out drunk down a sidestreet, playing air guitar to some riff on the radio, rock and roll is alive and well. People just need to lighten up. Rock and roll was always derivative, always kind of dumb, thats why it was awesome... it wasn't supposed to be metaphysical poetry after all. That's what is so funny about "rock criticism". While it essentially provided a buyer's guide, entertaining articles and commentary etc, it also academized something that i'm really not sure was meant to be scholarly in the first place.

If anything is killing rock and roll today its bands that actually care about what critics want, bands like Airborne Toxic Event who have the most predictable idea of what indie-realm likes, and tries to be an amalgamation of "good taste" but instead makes me embarrassed for the human race.

Rock and Roll needs great songs to survive. Both sides of current "rock" music (indie and mainstream) are fraught with different problems which prevent that. Mainstream rock is so obsessed with formulaic songs that middle America will temporarily love that it neglects artist development- it is a system that doesn't allow for artists to take any risks. Listen to classic rock radio hits- many of the greatest mainstream rock songs of all time took risks they simply wouldn't be allowed to take today. What if Queen was around today? Sorry Freddie, but "Bohemian Rhapsody" just doesn't have a chorus, we can't play it.

Underground or indie rock is, in my opinion, in a much more painfully stagnant area. While mainstream music is more or less unashamedly money-driven, indie rock clings to these pathetic, pathetic ideals that suck the very life force out of rock, while at the same time trying to make believe that its original, innovative, thoughtful music. I mean, by this point, there is a canonical pantheon of what is an acceptable indie-rock influence. You know what I mean, Sonic Youth, Joy Division, No Wave, Talking Heads, David Bowie, all those guys. Great great artists, but most of the bands they influence create niche-y little songs that lack anything remotely close to resonance.

Either way we just need some better bands that write better rock songs, not that there arent a few great ones right now. But that shit aint dead.

[badfaith]

The last two lines of the last two posts by Max and an_outlaw have made me smile, and feel a little more optimistic... I think that's what I was probably really looking for from this thread "say it aint so!" kind of thing.

Better bands making better rock songs just about says it perfectly, there is some good stuff around, but none of it surprising, stimulating, or striking out in new directions. I think of those legendary tracks of the past, and the real thing they have in common is that upon their arrival, they made you say to yourself- "wow, what the fuck is this all about?!!"
...remember the first time you heard I am the Walrus, Tomorrow Never knows, Firestarter, Bohemian Rhapsody, Paranoid android, or punk or even experimental electronic music? -stuff that grabbed you by the throat and slapped you around the face repeatedly, because it was like discovering a whole new world. Those songs are different for everyone I know, but people need variation to keep it fresh... new possibilities to hold your interest.

But the crux of this thread was that I'd got the feeling that where the lifestyle and 'attitude' of rock once drove, and inspired those inovations, or were tolerated because of the music it helped produce, we seem now intent on buying the packaging of rock only to discover there's no product inside anymore. The attitude has overwhelmed the aptitude.

But perhaps, as you say, reports of rock's demise have been greatly exagerated, and it only appears that way in this age of change, and my untutored eye.

[Kiki]

Badfaith, what would a band/new genre have to do to 100% change your opinion about "the lifestyle and 'attitude'" of Rock and roll and convince you that it is back or it was there all along?

I do think you may be right to a certain extent (most swear words don't pack a punch anymore, the middle finger is almost a symbol of conformity to the rock and roll streotype rather than a sign of rebellion)