Can Mainstream Rock Music Survive
- Thread starter EmoBorg
- Start date
Well, clearly we'll just have to agree to disagree here, but my point stands. Rock music isn't doing any worse than it was 10 years ago, it's just that your subjective opinion valued music then better than the music now.
For my money, the early 2000s was a time of stagnation led by NuMetal bands like Korn and Limp Bizkit (yes, those two bands deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence). Really, the end of the decade was a breath of fresh air and musical revival that swept away the stagnation that was before it. The middle of the decade was an odd situation where the best bands were old bands with a comeback (e.g., Green Day) or pieces of old bands joined into supergroups (Velvet Revolver and Audioslave). Only by the end of the decade can you point to legitimately new good bands (or good bands that flew under the radar in the middle part of the decade finally shining through).
"Mainstream rock" sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Isn't music that appeals to the masses pop, by definition?
Isn't music that appeals to the masses pop, by definition?
Metal is big here in Europe indeed. 
I like Rammstein quite a lot and lately I've been looking into Lacuna Coil
This one rocks! (ha! punny..)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTT6picaCoQ
Korpiklaani is fun, and there's even a metal acapella band which is damn good, only a drummer, the rest, including guitar work is done with voices.
Van Canto -Rebellion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPUNdwRhuMA&feature=youtu.be
Also there's Arjen Lucassen's Ayreon if you want some prog rock.
And of course if all else fails, there's still AC/DC
Rock and metal plenty around but nowadays radio stations rather play music made by people with 40 songwriters and enough computer power to shame the NSA only to cover up that they have no talent and can't sing...
I like Rammstein quite a lot and lately I've been looking into Lacuna CoilThis one rocks! (ha! punny..)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTT6picaCoQ
Korpiklaani is fun, and there's even a metal acapella band which is damn good, only a drummer, the rest, including guitar work is done with voices.
Van Canto -Rebellion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPUNdwRhuMA&feature=youtu.be
Also there's Arjen Lucassen's Ayreon if you want some prog rock.
And of course if all else fails, there's still AC/DC
Rock and metal plenty around but nowadays radio stations rather play music made by people with 40 songwriters and enough computer power to shame the NSA only to cover up that they have no talent and can't sing...
Into the Electric Castle is such a fucking classic album. The Human Equation is awesome too.
Yeah people that like Silvia or Puddle of Mudd but make fun of Nickelback and Creed confuse me...
Rock & Roll will never dominate the culture again, unless it has a revolutionary overhaul. Rock is revolution. Without it, Rock is dead as a cultural movement, just like Miles Davis said about Jazz in '75. The last Rock cultural revolution was Grunge, like 20 years ago. I've seen nothing come remotely close to that since. It will join the background noise with everything else which came before it, whether its players are quality artists who maintain an audience of some kind or not, unless something truly miraculous happens. History, however, trends otherwise
I only ponder what will come when rap/hip hop has run its course, & frankly it already has, artistically. Nothing culturally groundbreaking happening their either, just the same pablum in a different face
What can you expect really
I only ponder what will come when rap/hip hop has run its course, & frankly it already has, artistically. Nothing culturally groundbreaking happening their either, just the same pablum in a different face
What can you expect really
Into the Electric Castle is such a fucking classic album. The Human Equation is awesome too.
I love the two Universal Migrator albums a lot, especially The Dream Sequencer.
Btw, Cristina Scabbia (Lacuna Coil) mentioned somewhere that she was in The Netherlands recording stuff, it wouldn't suprise me if she's on the new Ayreon album..
Mainstream rock has been generally terrible since the late 80s. In the 70s, genuine artists like Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull and Peter Gabriel era Genesis would shift loads of records.
Shit like Nickelback, The Foo Fighters and Puddle of Mudd doesn't compare, and isn't worth being nostalgic about.
Shit like Nickelback, The Foo Fighters and Puddle of Mudd doesn't compare, and isn't worth being nostalgic about.
Don't put Foo Fighters in the same sentence as the other two. That's not fair.
I didn't even like those bands in the 70s.
Nickelback, The Foo Fighters and Puddle of Mudd aren't really producing the same type of music that the 70s prog bands did, so I'm not sure it's an apt comparison. (Nickelback does suck, though). Might as well compare them to Chuck Berry and Little Richard.
I would beg to differ. I think the early 2000s was a good attempt to reach the glory days of 90s Grunge, by mixing rock with rap.
Bands like Fuel, Creed, Nickleback, 3 Doors Down and Audioslave also kept the flag of Rock waving on the charts even though some rock fans may not have liked some of the bands.
Last edited:
And a lot of fans might say that caring about chart positions is the exact opposite of what rock is.
This was one of the best touring bands of the 80s, and charted more hits than most bands before or since. Great performance, great songwriting.
http://youtu.be/5ezoFMr55-Y
http://youtu.be/5ezoFMr55-Y
Rockers don't care about the charts? That's a new one. I know there is a certain ethos in the punk and alt that is anti-"success", but its hardly indicative rock in general.
Eh, Rock from the beginning was about taking music that many did not listen to and making it marketable to everyone. As much as there is criticism about selling out, rock wouldn't exist without "selling out."
It was a corporate attempt to take the elements of two popular genres and mix them into a garbled mess. Nickelback and 3 Doors Down are perfect examples because they actually had some very early songs with a bit of an edge to them, but they quickly blunted that edge into Someday, How You Remind Me, Here Without You, When I'm Gone (you can throw Staind on that pile too).
I'm not sure how that's different from now, though. Some ok bands did ok on the charts, so that meant the flag of rock was waving while some other bands today do the same thing and it's entirely different? Just using the Billboard Top 100: "I Will Wait" by Mumford and Sons reached 12 and "The Cave" was 27. Kings of Leon had "Use Somebody" read 4 on the charts. I'll concede that Gotye's genre is a bit ambiguous, but that was Number One on the Billboard Top 100 (as well as top of Rock and Alternative charts).
Let me put it in another way, Rock Music is good enough to be on the mainstream charts. Rock Music is as good as Hip Hop, RnB and Pop music that dominates the mainstream music charts now days.
Rock music is good enough not to be on the mainstream charts. 
There was great rock music that was also popular in the 60s and 70s, but it was not popular because it was great. The Beatles wrote some great songs, and they were popular because they were given cute personalities and ran from one limo to the next. Elvis Presley wrote some great songs, and he was popular because he shook his ass around. There are a lot of great popular bands in pop history but the fact that they were great and the fact that they were popular have nothing to do with each other.
Climbing the pop charts means that a lot of 14 year olds think liking a band will make them fit in that they all asked their parents for the money to buy their music. The people who spend the most money on music care far more how the lead singer is dressed than what the music sounds like.
There was great rock music that was also popular in the 60s and 70s, but it was not popular because it was great. The Beatles wrote some great songs, and they were popular because they were given cute personalities and ran from one limo to the next. Elvis Presley wrote some great songs, and he was popular because he shook his ass around. There are a lot of great popular bands in pop history but the fact that they were great and the fact that they were popular have nothing to do with each other.
Climbing the pop charts means that a lot of 14 year olds think liking a band will make them fit in that they all asked their parents for the money to buy their music. The people who spend the most money on music care far more how the lead singer is dressed than what the music sounds like.
Rock music is good enough not to be on the mainstream charts.
There was great rock music that was also popular in the 60s and 70s, but it was not popular because it was great. The Beatles wrote some great songs, and they were popular because they were given cute personalities and ran from one limo to the next. Elvis Presley wrote some great songs, and he was popular because he shook his ass around. There are a lot of great popular bands in pop history but the fact that they were great and the fact that they were popular have nothing to do with each other.
Climbing the pop charts means that a lot of 14 year olds think liking a band will make them fit in that they all asked their parents for the money to buy their music. The people who spend the most money on music care far more how the lead singer is dressed than what the music sounds like.
That is a cynical way of looking at things.
Don't you think that music publishing companies like EMI, Universal, Sony music and Warner music that pay radio stations to play their music is also a factor in influencing people's taste. If these 4 major companies decide to promote Rock music more heavily, Rock music would be more mainstream.
Last edited: