The age old question, isn't it?
It is pertinent however at this stage of the evolution of rock music to ask this, more than at any other, because while the whispers were faint earlier now they have gained in strength.
The logical way to proceed is to understand what characterizes rock music that has "life"; the following is an incomplete list of what I feel these characteristics are:
(1) Existence of musicians doing things with guitar/drum/bass that was not done before.
(2) Existence of multiple bands doing different but not too different, somewhat original, music together in a live environment.
(3) Existence of an adequate audience, to afford big concerts, because music is (traditionally anyway) to be enjoyed within a live community setting.
By all these counts, modern rock fails.
(1) There hasn't been a single new guitar/drum/bass player that has generated excitement in the last 15 years. Radiohead may be a decent band, but they certainly don't have great musicians.
Why is this important? After all, the Beatles weren't great musicians either. It is important in the sense that guitar/drum/bass heroes provide inspiration to young people to learn an instrument.
There's no incentive now to really learn the guitar for instance; you can learn 5 chords and strum them vaguely and you have Beck. Learning an instrument teaches you how to play those 5 chords. The issue is not the number of chords or the skill, but the emotion you get out of the instrument. Surely it is a silly argument to say you can get emotion without being skilled. So, the end result --> fewer people understanding their instruments.
If every band was like the Beatles, rock music would not have progressed beyond Chuck Berry (maybe it still hasn't). The Beatles were a great band, but while they wrote excellent songs together, as musicians I haven't come across a single person who claims to have been inspired by them.
(2) The incentive to perform live is slowly disappearing; with the record companies firing bands after 2 albums, the bands are not able to really learn how to play live together. And live music is really the test of a band. Studio production can cover up a lot, playing live exposes the band and all it's faults. IF they can still rock out, that's great!
However, if record companies lose out due to technology, we still have to worry about point number 3.
(3) Audiences are going to dwindle, and this is more related to technology, as we stream more music off the internet. The money now lies in spreading your song over the internet, not in producing albums. So big concept albums, or even albums that were bound together by a cohesive feeling are finished for good. The focus shifts toward individual songs, and this has never worked well for the success of any band.
A second fall-out of the internet, is that bands can increasingly produce their own music, with the studio going digital. This means they concentrate on being good in the studio, not playing live. Whatever this is, this isn't rock and roll.
The lack of an audience means bands cannot afford large tours on their own; they have to team up together to sell out concerts.
This is also a reason why old groups are getting younger audiences, there are simply no younger bands good enough to play live anymore! Any reading of interviews of older bands will show this trend coming out - from AC/DC to Iron Maiden to Motorhead to The Who - all claim their audiences are getting younger. This is a terrible thing, once these bands are gone - and there's not much left in most of them - what concerts will be there to go to?
SO, rock music is in a crisis, and if there are fewer bands playing live music together, rock (as we know it) is pretty much finished. Even if it adapts to the new way of doing things, it will have to give up the live aspect of playing, and that really isn't rock and roll. And this is sad, because the excitement of seeing a good band play live is irreplacable.
7 comments:
Its an important question. But the answers are not as simplistic as you make them out to be.
'There hasn't been a single new guitar/drum/bass player that has generated excitement in the last 15years'
- ie. Post-1994. So we will rule out the grunge bands, even though some did excellent work after that.
- Bass and drums i would probably agree. But on guitars, Jack White, John Frusciante and Tom Morello at the very least would be on the shortlist of inspirational guitarists.
'you can learn 5 chords and strum them vaguely and you have Beck'
- ever heard of punk rock? it took only 3 chords to launch a revolution, and none of them knew a damn thing about playing to start with. emotion has nothing to do with being skilled. that is the very essence of rock music.
'If every band was like the Beatles, rock music would not have progressed beyond Chuck Berry (maybe it still hasn't)'
- wow. you've just dissed chuck berry and the beatles in one sentence. how brave of you. how anti-establishment.
'The Beatles were a great band, but while they wrote excellent songs together, as musicians I haven't come across a single person who claims to have been inspired by them'
- by musicians i'm guessing you mean players of their instruments. paul mccartney was one of rock's greatest bassists, credited by scores of musicians after him for having opened up the melodic potential of the instrument in popular music. ringo and george are steady, often inspired players, definitely not run of the mill, and there are ample examples of musicians regarding them as idols.
'The money now lies in spreading your song over the internet, not in producing albums. So big concept albums, or even albums that were bound together by a cohesive feeling are finished for good'
- a very easy point to make. very difficult to substantiate. extremely cohesive albums, and even concept albums (as if that's the holy grail of rock)have been made in recent years, both by big popular bands like green day and REM, and newer players like vampire weekend and fleet foxes.
maybe you should have titled it 'Is live rock music dead?' even then, my answer would have been no. to everything else also, no. yes to debate though, in case you're keen.
Jack White? really?
Tom Morello is okay-ish, but if people want him as inspiration, well fine...
I never said anything was wrong in just playing a few chords. Rock music has to be always been somewhat simplistic. What I was saying was this - that to play 3 chords together properly you need to understand the instrument.
I like some punk rock! The Ramones were a great band because they knew which chords to play. The point is without a guitar virtuoso to inspire, fewer people will want to learn their instrument.
And no, I was not dissing either the Beatles or Chuck Berry. You've misunderstood me, please re-read whatever I'd written.
I'd take your point on the Beatles though. I always did feel Ringo Starr is severely under-rated.
Umm...Green Day/REM which albums? I don't see how you can argue that albums as such are less important these days. If 20 years ago you had to buy a full album to get one song, now you don't have to do it. How will this not hurt albums?
I'd like debate, but you just said no to the question posed. So, if you think the question is answered, it isn't interesting anymore, what's the point of debate?
I haven't heard one decent band in the mainstream in the last two decades, and all I'm looking to do is understand why.
And it is a fact that newer bands are kept on labels for shorter amounts of time than in the past; this obviously implies lesser time to play, lesser time to explore chemistry together, etc. All this means music quality deteriorates,no?
i over-estimated my own keenness for debate.
will just answer one of your questions. the green day album i was referring to was american idiot, designed a a rock opera, and probably the best indictment of the Bush years. REM has come out at least 3 brilliant, cohesive albums, which I wont bother starting to name.
btw, 20 years ago was 1989, and there was a crisis in the music industy because everyone was making mixtapes. people thought the industry was doomed. But it survived.
Thats all from me.
well, thank you for your comments. I don't usually get too many.
About tape-trading: it isn't comparable really to streaming off the internet. It did signify some amount of investment as opposed to mp3s, and cassettes did need to have at least a couple of songs on them.
thank you once again. Maybe I'm being simplistic, but that is how you understand something right? Strip it down to figure it out and then build?
the only thing I don't understand is why people have to be rude to get their point across, i mean, relax!
I've done this sort of thing in the past and I'm not proud of it either..
and to be honest, after reviewing your first comment, I mean, you're taking a lot of stuff out of context. Which means either (a) you did not read the whole thing fully; or (b) you did, but chose to ignore it.
Post a Comment