>it's another hrrfph rock is dead thread
Understand that when people say this, what they really mean is "Why is buttrock dead?"
Ask yourself. Do we really _need_ another KISS, AC/DC, or GNR? The answer is no.
So there's still great rock out there, but that kind of redneck garbage is dead and rightly so.
Other urls found in this thread:
forums.stevehoffman.tv
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
buttrock is better than fagrock
>read it in Sandy's voice
Strong tactic OP. I wholehgeartedly agree with ssome mmiibor additives. I think most anons on here aare referring to the boom in mainstream alt-rock in the 90s and 2000s, the commmodifying, and decline in quality, and subsequent eclipse in the mainstream by various forms of hip hop and pop. The people in question measure whether or not a genre is dead only by it's mainstream success, therefore their opinions are pretty irrelevant when referring to anything other than music as a product for mass consumption. These are the same people who think punk hasn't been around since the 80s, and think I'm referring to shit like Rancid or Leftover Crack when I bring up contemporary punk. Need I say more?
>mfw It's the perfect time for Industrial Rock to come back but nobody's doing it
>These are the same people who think punk hasn't been around since the 80s
It hasn't.
>that one idiot who associates all 70's rock with rednecks
Your kind is nothing but retarded soibois who still think emo is relevant and are mad your bands from the 00s never made it to arena rock status outside of fucking Green Day, and nobody likes you
The genre is dead because almost nobody in the mainstream makes good rock music, it's all white people r&b or softrock bullshit
we don't need another indie band with a paucity of ideas like the last 100,000 ones since 2001 either
Yuropoors ruined rock music
It is kind of dead in the mainstream, though. At least good rock is. Even though there were shitty buttrock bands like ACDC, there were also some mainstream bands that were pretty good. Now, there are no good mainstream rock bands, and hardly and mainstream rock bands at all.
Look, I love rock, but name one GOOD and popular rock band that's come out in the last 10 years. I'd nominate Ghost as being probably the only one, but everyone here likes to shit on them because HURRRR DURRRRR MASKS HURRRR DURRR ANYTHING COOL AND THEATRICAL IS JUST A GIMMICK BECAUSE IM A COCKSUCKING FAG
Same people who would have shit on KISS back in the day.
It's just North America for some reason, Europe, Latin America, and Japan still have strong, active rock scenes.
Not at all. There was some great rock in the 70s, but it sure wasn't KISS or Ted Nugent or whatever boomers with MAGA hats and F150s think constitutes "real music".
The thing is, even if you listen to 80s indie/college rock, they still often managed to be heavy. The recent (last 15 or so years) stuff is weak and wimpy as fuck.
>and popular
I don't really understand why this matters so much
At least those groups sing about stuff that actually matters instead of some faggot with a giant wig singing about strippers.
i guess it depends on your definition of dead then. to say a genre is dead, does that mean no bands are playing that kind of music and it simply doesn't really exist anymore, like disco? or when you say something is dead, does that mean it has disappeared from the mainstream entirely, like rock? i tend to think of the latter, as im sure there is some underground disco band around here somewhere trying to keep it alive.
For the last time, nobody cares about some bearded hipster with an acoustic guitar bawling that his girlfriend left him.
I figure as long as someone plays it and listens to it, it's still alive. Besides, the notion of mainstream has really changed, what's with how fast trends die off these days.
>Buttrock
>KISS, AC/DC, or GNR
I don't want more fucking revival rock.
Like hip hop, we need new shit.
The fact that indie is increasingly underground now makes that more likely now. Some are hanging around with metal cliques in my city, and hip hop cliques.
These cliques don't really distinguish themselves now.
lmao
European black metal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything rock related released in the last 20 years in america
The problem with revival rock is that it goes for the "near-perfect copy" approach. This is why so many people don't like Greta Van Fleet. Compare a band like Blind Melon, who also drew inspiration from Led Zeppelin. The difference is they also drew from other sources, and the result was a mix of different styles. Most revivals are just too self-indulgent.
>The problem with revival rock is that it goes for the "near-perfect copy" approach. This is why so many people don't like Greta Van Fleet.
Or Samantha Fish.
>Compare a band like Blind Melon, who also drew inspiration from Led Zeppelin. The difference is they also drew from other sources, and the result was a mix of different styles.
Yeah, they were influenced by 60s-70s rock but they still put a uniquely 90s spin on it.
non-mainstream rock is dead due to revival shit too
>Compare a band like Blind Melon
Not a good comparison, they really were cheap revivalists.
A better example would be Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, even Korn.
All had something like Black Sabbath but mixed shoe gaze, punk, rap and many other sounds.
>hrrfph rock
whats hrrfph rock?
Bullshit. There's amazing shit, you just have to find it.
They get drowned out by the internet though, so unfortunately we're back to "word of mouth" like the 80's.
But look at King Gizzard, which started like that.
AC/DC has dozens of good songs... WTF is the point of this post?
wrong, they have one good song they re-recorded hundreds of times
No one cares about your glory days anymore Varg
Lenny Kravitz was another cheap revivalist.
Nirvana and Alice in Chains didn't do that
>he forgets that they used to be Alice'n'Chainz and just bandwagoned grunge when they realized that the LA cockrock sound was over
Samantha Fish is great, nothing wrong with her music.
Go to bed, boomer.
Rock gets less popular each year. There's still good rock but its a niche genre now. When people say it's dead they mean its not popular anymore which is 100% correct.
King Gizzard are the definition of revival rock lol
Popular music always responds to economic pressure. For example big bands didn't really die from a lack of popularity - they died because they were too expensive to maintain when a smaller group of musicians could be amplified to produce just as big a sound. So new popular sounds featuring smaller combos became the norm. One of those sounds evolved into the classic rock that is the topic of this thread. But classic rock was dependent on a very specific economic model. Record companies advanced groups money to make albums, shipped those albums to record stores, counted on FM radio airplay to sell them and recouped their investment plus profit if the record sold well. It was a different world from today. FM radio was where you heard music and the stuff you liked you shelled out your money for at a record store. And they were expensive. Depending on the band's popularity a rock record cost more or less $10 in 1980 -= that $30 in today's dollars. In the early 2000's this whole system fell apart because fans were unwilling to pay the equivalent of $30 for an album when there were other alternatives. So the big money fell out of rock. Which meant it no longer attracted the most talented, ambitious musicians. The best and brightest moved on to other things new technology enabled. That doesn't mean there isn't great rock out there. It's just now an issue of needing a lot of luck to find it, since the machine that curated it, recorded it, exposed you to it and delivered it to you (for a high price) is gone. Everyone, fans and artists are on their own.
Wake up, stoner zoomer.
rock musicians who actually earned big bucks were never "talented" or "ambitious"
>kiddiewinkies knowing what decent music is
Enjoy your trap rap and 'edm'.
Nice fantasy, but completely untrue. Those who weren't the greatest musicians knew how to write good songs and/or arrange them in a brilliant way. They might not have been the SMARTEST guys, but they were all talented and ambitious.
>Depending on the band's popularity a rock record cost more or less $10 in 1980 -= that $30 in today's dollars
forums.stevehoffman.tv
I don't think it was usually that high.
It was much easier for more experimental rock artists to sustain themselves back then though. It was pretty easy to break even on a tour whereas these days its becoming harder and harder to even find venues that will host rock bands
Most of the desirable records cost just under $10 new in 1980 by the time you added tax to them. Older stock, reissues or records from less popular artists were often priced lower (sometimes a lot lower) to move them. But a new record from a top rock artist was close to $30 in today's dollars.
I mean, you're going to say Led Zeppelin weren't some amazing musicians?
>Yea Forums is full of insecure retards who can't enjoy music unless it has huge guitar riffs in it
ITT: Retards don't realize that chart hits have always been crap
Here, 1991. An absolutely amazing period for rock with masterpieces everywhere and this was what was on the radio.
Kingdom Come is another good example. They had a bluesy Zep-like style but mixed it with late 80s hard rock/hair metal.
You can be popular without charting you retard.
You're showing your soi, kid. What you consider "rock" doesn't rock in the first place, stick to "alternative" and "indie"
Oh no. Don't you try and use this fallacy. The early 90s was back when you had huge rock festivals and the big groups were playing arenas. Radio play didn't matter. You think that's still happening now?
Nah, the 70s punk stuff (what I assume he's talking about) still rocked more than any faux-indie soi band to have come along since about 2005.
Probably not punk. OP gives me more of a 15 year old prog dork vibe.
>King Gizzard
>Highly Suspect
>Jack White
Jack White has been making music since the late 90s you mong
It's not always this bad, but the chart hits in 91 were absolute nightmare fuel.
en.wikipedia.org
yea no shit. Im talking about his solo act
>These are the same people who think punk hasn't been around since the 80s
punk died in 1979, deal with it.
That doesn't count as a new artist. Not to mention he released his solo debut nearly a decade ago. Are you 14?
>nearly a decade ago
>last ten years
bruh what
Woah dude... thats deep. You sound so punk.
Rock has been dead for longer than it was ever alive.
1982
Of course they were. My point is you didn't need to be a Jimmy Page or a John Bonham to be a popular rock musician. You could be a Malcolm Young or a Phil Rudd and do just fine.
That's a singles chart. Classic rock was very much an album oriented genre. MTV changed that. A hit single could move a lot of units for you if they put your video into heavy rotation - the country learned about Seattle grunge on the strength of Smells Like Teen Spirit alone. That's why rock albums overall started getting weaker as MTV became as if not more dominant as FM radio - the attention was being put into the single, the video and the follow up single and video. Two hit singles could move a record that was mostly filler. This was bad for rock, in my opinion, which worked best as an album oriented genre.
If you like 70's punk for the most part, you may as well like everything he's bitching about too.
Is probably more on the money, OP seems like a soiboi who's offended by the fact that rock guys used to get laid and didn't put on a certain post Nirvana persona of being "enlightened sensitive fellows who stand up for gay rights", because yeah, that's really the spirit of rock music....and even still, at least Nirvana arguably hard a fairly hard edged sound at times, hence why the same demographic OP is bitching about like them much to Kirk's dismay in the 90's.
GHOST is a weird band dude, people dislike them for a few different reasons. Some are like you said and hate anything gimmicky or theatrical, some are put off by the really poppy soft rock sound they often have, more often than not though it seems to be a case comparable to A7X hate where people just mostly seem to find the fanbase to be annoying. For me personally, I just consider them okay, nothing they do offends me nor does it move or intrigue me really, I've heard some songs I kinda like but I haven't really heard much that made me go crazy about them.
>OP seems like a soiboi who's offended by the fact that rock guys used to get laid and didn't put on a certain post Nirvana persona of being "enlightened sensitive fellows who stand up for gay rights"
Or you had RHCP who got laid and pretended to be enlightened liberals who endorse gay rights and feminism.
Even a band as soi as Pearl Jam still knew how to actually rock unlike anything since 2005.
listen to 3teeth bro
I think because they have too many waifub8 dreampop bands with female singers and women can't project their voices over hard rock that well.
>anything since 2005.
By then the majors had given up on signing and promoting new rock acts. Rock wasn't making the kind of money it used to because internet. They focused on pop and R&B because teen girls and black people hadn't yet figured out how to internet en masse yet. Younger rock fans had and weren't going to pay for music they could get for free.
>Rock wasn't making the kind of money it used to because internet
Actually it was more because the bands coming along sucked and nobody wanted to listen to them. Blaming it on the Internet is boomer/Gene Simmons-tier.
>Blaming it on the Internet is boomer/Gene Simmons-tier.
I'm not blaming it on the industry at all. I'm saying it was a choice the actively made. Take RCA for example. In 2002 Clive Davis became the president and CEO of RCA Records. This was a guy with a long history of signing artists who went on to be superstars, including Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, the Grateful Dead, Springsteen and many others. His sensibilities had always been in line with the times, and he saw little future in Rock. He let rock acts languish (even the Strokes, who were on fire at the moment) and put his focus squarely on pop, fucking producing records for Kelly Clarkson and Jennifer Hudson personally before going back to Sony. This guy had been a tastemaker for decades, and he decided to stop betting on rock. He wasn't the only one at the time..
Yeah...he didn't see a future in rock because the bands sucked.
Not quite. He'd been excellent at predicting the future since the Monterrey Pop Festival. He saw what was coming. So did a lot of others in the industry. Rock fans weren't buying CDs like they used to. Pop and R&B fans still were. With the industry under threat from downloading (legal and otherwise) you consolidate the money behind the money makers. Hopefully that buys you a few more years to figure out the new paradigm emerging. That's why there weren't any big major label rock acts signed after 2003. It's not that they weren't out there. It's that their earning potential was limited compared to other kinds of music.
>ssome mmiibor
user did you have a minor seizure?
good post
rednecks > city dwellers
That what every rural person has to believe. How else can you continue eating at Denny's and shopping at Walmart without killing yourself?
I mean, the opioids can only take so much of the pain away...
As opposed to, what? Tripping over homeless people in Portland and the fetid smell of pot smoke everywhere?
That logic doesn't work though because guitar bands have still appeared since the mid-2000s, but they're nothing but soi/dreampop groups with no edge or testosterone.
>Spongebob meme picture...
Without rednecks there wouldn't be any rock
The industry stopped betting on rock, not guitar bands altogether. I think it would be fair to say Kings of Leon were one of the last recognizable rock bands to be a big deal on a major label.
King Gizzard blow.
The issue was supposedly that guitar groups weren't economical because downloading or whatever, yet they still get signed.
This is true. City kids were flipping their shit over doo wop at the time. But by the time classic rock became a thing it was the suburban kids who were the rock fans.
The issue isn't economics, it's political. Hard rock is traditionally associated with white male masculinity and that's considered verboten in the entertainment industry today.
The issue was that the industry was under threat so they placed their bets on whet they KNEW would sell. Rock bands didn't really make the cut.
Politics is economics. Either something sells or it doesn't. Doesn't matter what the agenda is.
>Politics is economics. Either something sells or it doesn't. Doesn't matter what the agenda is.
^This. Even indie rock used to be harder.
Doesn't matter one bit. Generally what the public wants reflects the economics of their situation a year or two ago. Ideals are just the branding.
You might argue you don't have huge rock festivals anymore and bands playing stadiums, but then again most of the really big pop excesses have also died down. As late as the 2000s, you still had huge, overwrought pop stars like Katy Perry, but they're all gone now.
That's because by then the money fell out of the entire industry, not just rock. 99 cent downloads or spotify streams are not going to pay for major extravaganzas. Best hope for an artist these days is to own the publishing of a song that gets used in film, TV or a commercial. That's where the money is if you don't feel like constantly touring small venues playing to your youtube following and scraping by.
My take is more that the bands you had in the 2000s were trash like Nickelback and friends. I'd think there was no future in rock either if we had that kind of shit.
So-called indie rock was co-opted by the same industry by the mid 90's. It was called the triple A format.
Nickleback was no worse than Grand Funk Railroad. There are always bands the get very popular for a minute and when you look back at them you wonder what the fuck people were thinking. And in the early 2000's you had the White Stripes, the Strokes, the Killers, the Hives, the Vines... Maybe none of them were groundbreaking, but all stuff that sounded legitimately like rock, even a bit of a rebellion against corporate rock which they seemed to sense was about to turn its back on them. So they had to get their licks in while they could.
Face it guys...Gay is IN!
>Nickleback was no worse than Grand Funk Railroad
Think how unimaginably shitty that early 00s rock was and you will have your answer.
>City kids were flipping their shit over doo wop at the time
Jazz
Real Estate
That also. See, I'm not buying the argument that some shit like Alvvays could be economical and make money while a GNR kind of band could not. They're both a couple of people with guitars, are they not?
One promotes toxic masculinity, the other doesn't.
what is ACDC
true facts
I mean, fuck. Rock originated in the South and Midwest.
Oh, come on. MTV made gay in back in the 80's. This is nothing new. What really killed rock was Metallica's trying to press charges against kids who downloaded music via napster and limewire. It seemed like the big guy picking on the little guy, and the record companies already feeling the threat from this but unable to do anything about it decided to distance themselves from it by stepping away from rock in general. The kids coming up in the early 2000's suddenly expected rock and pron - things previous generations had paid premiums for - to be free. The industries couldn't respond fast enough.
Downloading killed nothing. It was bands like Nickelback and Staind that killed mainstream rock.
> What really killed rock was Metallica's trying to press charges against kids who downloaded music via napster and limewire.
No it didn't, considering there were new rock bands becoming millionaires at the time. Rock, and "hard" rock music was big in some form or another until the 2010s, when it just vanished from the visible spectrum of the mainstream and all got pushed off to the side in it's own little world
>It was bands like Nickelback and Staind that killed mainstream rock.
Because record companies gave up on real rock but were still willing to back pop that sorta sounded like rock. And enough people went along with that shit.
>Because record companies gave up on real rock but were still willing to back pop that sorta sounded like rock
What exactly constitutes "real" rock to you? If it happens to be some album with a potato for a face on the cover, then we're done and this discussion is over.
>Rock, and "hard" rock music was big in some form or another until the 2010s
What, like Linkin Park?
Sure. Linkin Park, Korn, Slipknot, The White Stripes, The Strokes, Buckcherry, Avenged Sevenfold, Papa Roach, Lamb Of God, Dragonforce, Trivium, Mudvayne, System Of A Down, Bullet For My Valentine, My Chemical Romance, Godsmack, etc etc take your pick
Mainstream rock didn't disappear until Obama became president. Whether there's any significance to this I'll let you decide.
Those bands are rock alright. Not very good rock, but rock nonetheless.
Weren't they signed before 2003? Just sayin'.
>KING WEED AND THE DUDE WEED LMAOS
10/10 opinion
Nonsense. You're trying to graft a narrative onto what happened years after the fact. When Obama got elected Kelly Clarkson was the biggest popstar in the US.
I mean, even Paramore were rock on the early albums until becoming dreampop in '10 onward.
When grunge was a thing, Mariah Carey was the biggest pop star in the US. Your point?
Hard rock has never been a great way to get rich. All the classic rock bands that made a lot of money and played stadiums had one or more radio hits. Not many bands remained as uncorrupted as Black Sabbath who had an accidental hit with Paranoid and then resolved to make sure it didn't happen again.
When grunge was a thing rock fans still bought expensive CDs. They stopped doing that around 2002-3 so record companies stopped giving a shit about them. Simple as that.
This post is not logical.
Already dealt with in
Any classic rock band you can think of (Stones, Zeppelin, Aerosmith, KISS, AC/DC, Metallica, RHCP. etc) at some point had an ubiquitous hit single. There were many alternative/underground bands who never had hit singles and those guys didn't make that much money or play big venues.
Dealt with by the fact majors stopped signing new rock acts in a big way in 2002-3. So of course the steam ran out of those bands by then.
If the argument he was saying was true, then other genres like pop should have also been killed off by downloading, yet they weren't.
what are you on?
Weren't Paramore signed in 05?
Zeppelin's most requested song on FM radio was Stairway. It was never released as a single. Back in the day you had to have the record or have made a tape copy to play it on the air. Different world. It could never have charted as a single because it was never released as a single.
I'd like to compare the size of Bono's bank account before and after The Joshua Tree.
Well, if you're underground, you're not going to be an arena act because being underground means nobody knows who you are....Metallica would have been underground, if they didn't get big, I still don't get your logic.
>Metallica would have been underground, if they didn't get big
Was it not TBA that blasted them to rock superstar status?
>everyone sleeping on the best rock and roll band since The Rolling Stones
Punkshit is the main reason why rock is dead
They were, but I can guarantee they've made most of their money since dropping the pop punk sound on the early albums for a more commercial one.
One guy says $8.95. Of course you have to factor in how much of that the band actually got once the label and everyone else took their cut. Maybe in practice the band would get $2 out of that $8.95.
Ehhh....you could say so, but it wouldn't be really true. They became the biggest ever with the black album, but they were already on a monster climb up before that. MoP was a big album for them, and Justice had their first hit music video, and had big tour complete with an elaborate stage set.
youtube.com
Does this look like an underground concert to you? They were far from it by then, they were underground during the Kill Em All days, but they rose to prominence pretty quickly, TBA put them over the top sure, but it's not like they went from being nobodies to being famous, it was a steady climb up
I could argue it's why bands forgot how to play solos and you ended up with stuff as bland as Nickelback with just shitty chords and the simplest possible arrangements.
Sell a million records and that means the average band made $2m for a year or two's worth of work. That would be nearly $6m in today's dollars - for a platinum record - half that if you just went gold. And of course the money was divided between the points and the publishing. Still if a record company decided you were worth a golden ticket (instead of being signed to be shelved and out of the way of their golden ticket holders) it was a good deal for a while there.
Punk was just a return to form once rock stopped being rebellious with shit like the Eagles and Wings at the top of the charts. The Velvet Underground and the Dolls were bound to be relevant in retrospect because Head East and Kansas weren't going to be.
Physical music sales are coming back anyway from vinyl autists.
Go to bed Christgau.
>In late 2013, Spotify disclosed an average per-stream payout to rights holders of “between $0.006 and $0.0084,” or less than a penny per play. Spotify has called per-stream averages a “highly flawed” way of looking at its value, saying that as more and more people subscribe to the service, everyone will benefit. And to be sure, artists have always received, at best, only a fraction of revenues from their records. In 1983, about 8% of the price of an $8.98 vinyl album went to artists, according to Steve Knopper’s book Appetite for Self-Destruction. When the CD arrived that same year, artists got less than 5% of the $16.95 price. By 2002, when CD prices hit $18.99, 10% went to artists, according to Greg Kot’s Ripped. Download sales cut out the cost of packaging, but artists got only a slightly bigger share of revenues: just 14% of the $9.99 iTunes album download price, according to a David Byrne essay in 2007, or 17% for an artist on one indie label cited by Kot.
I always took it that concert tickets are the real moneymaker.
I don't think Kanye is exactly a poor man and he's always been an album, not a singles artist.
The bands who bitched over Napster were dadrockers who'd already made all their money. I don't recall any young guys doing it.
And that's why all the faggots who wanted to be rockstars when they were 12 are now trying to make shitty soundcloud rap and abandoned their actual dreams
You're not gonna make any more money with that than you would with rock.
>implications that they would ever play XXXtentication over the supermarket sound system
It doesn't matter anyway because hip-hop is an urban genre and hard rock/metal is suburban/rural. They don't really have much crossover in fanbase or demographics.
Only people who think Metallica weren't right about Napster were/are Jewish people.
I stole music all the time, I shouldn't have been allowed to.
en.wikipedia.org
Check the figures. They had three platinum albums all well after Napster was a thing.