Is rock ‘n’ roll dead? The data suggests it might be

[Alidar Jarok]

Radio stations never took the time to investigate and play unknown acts. They generally just played whoever paid the biggest bribe. The only time where radio did anything innovative was when FM played whole records. But I don't think they're allowed to do that anymore.

ETA: I haven't heard The National on the radio, but I hear Arcade Fire quite often.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The Rolling Stones write their own music and play their own instruments. They worked their way up from tiny clubs to achieve mainstream success. Justin Bieber without hair and abs wouldn't have an audience. When he no longer has said physical attributes, they will replace him with somebody else who does.

Since the 1980s it's much harder for bands to get national recognition without having lead members who are sexually appealing. In the 80s it was MTV, now it's Youtube. Success stories are pre-selected now, they choose the performer and figure out the music later. Bands that struggle their way up from small clubs have a much harder time getting past indie-level of success to mainstream success.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Since the 1980s it's much harder for bands to get national recognition without having lead members who are sexually appealing.

Because there was nothing sexually appealing about John or Paul, Mick or Keith? Elvis?

Rock and Roll has ALWAYS appealed to sexual appetites of their audience. To say it's new, even since the 1980s, is naive.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Yeah, bands were definitely marketed for sex appeal back then but sex appeal wasn't the litmus test. Was Mick considered a sex symbol before he started dancing around suggestively on stage? Would you consider Robert Plant or Eric Clapton to be sex symbols? Lou Reed? Miles Davis?

Would you consider Mick Jagger and Keith Richards to be sex symbols at age 70, when they're still playing at stadiums?

In the 1960s you needed a really good demo, and if you had sex appeal that was a big plus that made you easier to market. Now you're selected for sex appeal, and then they just give you songs written by Berklee School of Music grads, and it doesn't matter how awful you sound because the computers can smooth it over.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Yeah, bands were definitely marketed for sex appeal back then but sex appeal wasn't the litmus test. Was Mick considered a sex symbol before he started dancing around suggestively on stage? Would you consider Robert Plant or Eric Clapton to be sex symbols? Lou Reed? Miles Davis?

Would you consider Mick Jagger and Keith Richards to be sex symbols at age 70, when they're still playing at stadiums?

In the 1960s you needed a really good demo, and if you had sex appeal that was a big plus that made you easier to market. Now you're selected for sex appeal, and then they just give you songs written by Berklee School of Music grads, and it doesn't matter how awful you sound because the computers can smooth it over.

Wait. Wut? Jagger and Plant didn't have sex appeal? And Lou Reed had Nico.

Also, the Stones, Beatles, and Zeppelin all became successful off music written by other people.

You also seem to be completely ignoring the Phil Spector/Carole King part of the 60s.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Would you consider Robert Plant or Eric Clapton to be sex symbols?

Wait. Did you seriously question whether or not Robert PLANT was a sex symbol? Seriously?

Lou Reed?

As much as I adore Lou Reed, I wouldn't call him a raging mainstream success.

But, to some, sure, sexy. During his rock and roll animal phase.

Miles Davis?

I thought we were talking about Rock?

Would you consider Mick Jagger and Keith Richards to be sex symbols at age 70, when they're still playing at stadiums?

In the 1960s you needed a really good demo, and if you had sex appeal that was a big plus that made you easier to market. Now you're selected for sex appeal, and then they just give you songs written by Berklee School of Music grads, and it doesn't matter how awful you sound because the computers can smooth it over.

The rest I'm not going to address, other than to say: we like to look at the past with nostalgia and say it was better. When in fact, it was pretty much the same.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Radio stations never took the time to investigate and play unknown acts. They generally just played whoever paid the biggest bribe. The only time where radio did anything innovative was when FM played whole records. But I don't think they're allowed to do that anymore.

Try college radio--one or two can generally be found on the bottom of the FM dial in most cities (although many are also streaming online). Record labels (both big and small) can send them over a dozen albums and singles each week from brand-new acts from all over the musical landscape. The hardest problem sometimes for college radio stations is choosing which new ones to play.

 

[Davros]

These guys convince me it still lives
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkOC_h3ty8g[/yt]