@Sasho The Beatles was never a rock and roll band. They were a commercial pop group that turned into a psychedelic experimental band. Rock and roll is more than an overdrive guitar, banging drums and sloppy vocals, it’s a mentality and a message.
The “rock n roll” of today is not rock n roll at all. Calling it rock n roll is like pissing all over rock n roll. It’s even worse than referring to those angry screaming teens as “metal” or those old white guys in funny hats as “blues” or those ridiculous fags with cowoy hats as “country,” when all of this shit is really just commercial mass produced shitty replicas that are nothing like the real thing. It’s a fucking disgrace to real music.
And if anyone’s an idiot, it’s you. My post about rock and roll being dead was a joke, and that’s obvious. No music style is dead, there are always people who listen to it even if it’s completely forgotten by the mainstream. Yes, even ragtime still has fans.
What I do not quite understand is this debate regarding a label put on music? As a musician I abhor the idea of trying to label what we play and I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of musicians feel the same way.
Music is music. It should only be defined by how it makes you feel, think, do. Whether it inspires you, pumps you up, or makes you cry its all just music. To me, listening to Chuck Berry will never be as enjoyable, thought provoking, or inspirational as listening to Tool (I am sure my father would disagree with me) but in the end it’s all just music and completely up to personal tastes.
“Rock” or “Rock and Roll” does not matter as its all just awesome, cept when its shit of course.
Punk is anti-institution; as long as rock is an institution punk is against it
and rockstars might be inspired by punk, but as long as they cling to notions of fame, sexist ideals, chasing money, whatever, they aren’t really punks.
But who cares about labels.
@Bird A true rockstar doesn’t cling to any of those notions, he just wants to rock the fuck out. Look at a rockstar, do they care about being famous or rich? No, it just happened. Has it changed them? Nope. All they do is rock out, and everything else is just a byproduct. They just do their thing.
And what the hell do sexist ideals have to do with anything? This is about rock n roll, nothing else.
I don’t see why we cant’ put a label on music. Everything we talk about is a label of some fashion. Whether you say its good, bad, makes you cry, those are labels. The genre label is just a way for people to find similar sounds they enjoy.
Not all music is equal…at all. I don’t give a fuck if half the population loves media created music..it’s not music. It’s an abomination.
@Alex I think labelling music can be good, too… you just have to know why the stuff gets the labels it does.
If its because it has a certain bpm and comes from a specific influence, it makes total sense to use labels. if it has a certain label because people are trying to sell more music by glomming on to something popular, then that kind of labelling sucks.
Look at what dubstep has become, that’s a label that originally had meaning as far as bpm and actual content of song goes, now it just means “something with a bass drop that lots of people think is cool and underground” (the bro-step bastardization)
Hating on the labels is just an excuse for not organizing concepts, an excuse for being ignorant, and an excuse to mislabel things.
If I were to study toads and call it astronomy, I think you could all agree that I’m a flaming moron for doing so. Well, the same applies to mislabeling things like music.
If you use the term Rock to describe things that aren’t Rock, then you’ve ruined the meaning of the word, and the reason for it existing. If you use the word Rock for things that aren’t Rock, you’d be better off not using the damn word at all.
It’s still an expression, nothing else, and that’s what rock is all about. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the masculine libido is what invented rock. It makes a lot of sense.
Dubstep hasn’t become anything that it wasn’t. Dubstep is still dubstep, and all this shit that the kids call dubstep is something else. It’s edm with some influences from dubstep. It’s still just edm though. Just like beatles wasn’t a raga band just because they were influenced by Ravi Shankar and used a sitar.
I think it’s different with rock because it’s an ethos along with being a style of music. It’s almost a philosophy… it’s focusing on what makes you feel good, taking what’s yours (because you want it), partying hard, live fast, etc etc
I could argue that drugs created rock just as much as the male libido. Both were fuelling forces, but to be the sole progenitor? No way. Whoever invented flipping the bird invented rock.
@Bird “Whoever invented flipping the bird invented rock.”
Also, I’m not sure what’s “rock” and what’s “punk,” “metal,” or any other genre anymore, because there’s too many labels, genres, and subgenres for me to make sense of.
My rule is, if it makes me feel FUCKING ALIVE then I’m going to listen to it.
Everything else I don’t really worry about.
Well I guess when others said that “rock n roll” is dead, they probably mean that rock music (pure rock n roll) is not a mainstream in our current era.
There are still bands out there rockin’ but have few gigs and air time.
Here in our company, somebody sent an invitation for an audition (forming a band) and he said that you have to be familiar with the music style of the band called “Paramore” and the likes of that. I checked the bands music and was disappointed listing up.
Neo Punk Rock is not my thing. Chords all through out are for sissies (excuse me). I play notes and scales on my guitar. The only punk bands that caught my attention are The Sex Pistols, The Clash and The Cult. But that’s because they can make so much sense in just three chords. The new generation punk bands…. well… I’ll just say it’s very taxing listening to them.
There has been such a blending of genres and influences from all over the spectrum that tacking a label of “rock” or “punk” onto something is rarely accurate any more. The internet has opened the world of music up to everyone to the point where anyone can listen to anything and simply attaching a single label to a band is not giving them the credit they are due.
While I agree that labels can be useful because it would be very hard to communicate without them, labelling bands seems silly because that simple label does not convey what the band is all about and limits their exposure due to people who refuse to listen to certain genres.
Like Caitlin says, If it makes you feel FUCKING ALIVE, listen to it!
How exactly did punk kill something? I mean… Oasis for example fucking hated Green Day fans. Not Green Day… Green Day fans. :D But they also hated almost everything else. Bon Jovi, INXS and I don’t even know which band they didn’t hate. Damn the brothers even hate each other!
Punk is kinda fun, I like Offspring but I don’t like bands with sad songs with no positive message at all. If I want that I’ll just listen to blues, shit I’ll sing the fucking blues! A good rebel is a good rebel, not a sissy or an anarchist. Music as a whole should only have an uplifting message and Rock and Roll is very good at it for all ages.
Genres and styles were only invented to put shit in chronological and alphabetical order in stores.
i saw a program on the tele the other nite that took the whole history of 60s and 70s music. one style after the other and played a song from each style. it was interesting to see how one genre influenced the next. this can be studied and shown. it is the true for any history of art. rock and roll is not dead , it lives on for all who listen to it, as well as it gave birth to a variety of forms which followed it.