|
Post by kds on Jan 10, 2020 14:37:16 GMT
Yeah, it is a chicken-egg thing.
One thing I always wonder is, if the industry pushed rock again, what would happen? I actually believe to some extent that people are sheep. Not entirely, and there are definitely instances of sufficient popular push-back (e.g., "New Coke" in the early/mid 80s). But often, people accept what is marketed and advertised.
In this case, it has been long enough since rock was popular that it might have a legitimate chance. It is no longer that older brother's or even parent's thing that you (as a teenager) are actively trying to break free from; it might seem like some cool, dusty relic that you "discovered" and made cool again, as has happened a billion times with various subgenres, like when every few years people "rediscover" rockabilly, psychedelia, etc. Except in this case it wouldn't be a subgenre, but the bigger genre of rock itself.
Without an enormous budget and industry backing, there is no way to know. But I really wonder. Frankly these days, you could do it cheaper than ever before with the right influencers. It would only take a few brave, popular souls.
I do agree that, for the most part, people can be a little sheepish, and the decline of rock is partly because MTV and Top 40 stopped really pushing it 20 years ago. I remember a band called Paramore had a big hit five or so years ago. Not what you'd call a heavy group, but their hit single "Ain't It Fun" was heavily remixed for radio, making the guitar in the song inaudible. But even in these lean times, there have been several rock bands that have achieved mainstream success. So, anything is possible. I mean, freaking swing music came back at one time.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 10, 2020 14:57:02 GMT
One other thought on That Metal Show, and I agree with both of your comments...
I really thought there was a good choice the show would be picked up. Yes, I guess Classic Rock or Hard Rock or Metal aren't the most popular genre these days (though it might surprise SOME how big the audiences are), but I have to think the budget for That Metal Show was pretty skimpy. The three hosts were obviously passionate about the music and probably would work for peanuts - even the sometimes egotistical Trunk. They hired some attractive young lady who served as eye candy; was she trying to further her career, too, maybe as a model or something? And the prizes they gave away for their "contests" were rather paltry.
That leaves the guests, most who were long past their glory days and were probably flattered just to be invited on a syndicated TV show and given a chance to talk about their careers - and any current releases! Yes, there were exceptions, but I don't think those all-timers were too demanding, compensation-wise. So, if any TV outlet was considering picking up That Metal Show, I don't think the budget was a factor. It was probably the ratings or a numbers game.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 10, 2020 15:14:19 GMT
One other thought on That Metal Show, and I agree with both of your comments...
I really thought there was a good choice the show would be picked up. Yes, I guess Classic Rock or Hard Rock or Metal aren't the most popular genre these days (though it might surprise SOME how big the audiences are), but I have to think the budget for That Metal Show was pretty skimpy. The three hosts were obviously passionate about the music and probably would work for peanuts - even the sometimes egotistical Trunk. They hired some attractive young lady who served as eye candy; was she trying to further her career, too, maybe as a model or something? And the prizes they gave away for their "contests" were rather paltry.
That leaves the guests, most who were long past their glory days and were probably flattered just to be invited on a syndicated TV show and given a chance to talk about their careers - and any current releases! Yes, there were exceptions, but I don't think those all-timers were too demanding, compensation-wise. So, if any TV outlet was considering picking up That Metal Show, I don't think the budget was a factor. It was probably the ratings or a numbers game.
Yeah, the budget was so tight that, after the second or third season, they stopped using licensed music when the guest artist would come out. I think the best chance for a TMS revival is if Eddie, Don, and Jim do a show on YouTube, maybe in a studio as opposed to a stage set up.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 10, 2020 15:14:50 GMT
I actually also think there is an under-served audience for rock. I am going to make a pair of political/cultural analogies, but THIS IS NOT MEANT POLITICALLY. So no arguments required on that one!
Think of how mainstream media covers the non-coastal regions of the country, and think of how the entertainment industry serves cultural conservatives (which overlaps with the aforementioned non-coastal regions of the country in part). In both examples, the industry has done its calculus, run its numbers, and decided whom to serve or promote. They are probably financially correct in their decisions: more people are in those coastal markets, and so they're chasing those specific dollars.
But ... majority isn't the same as unanimity. I think there is a huge market for rock and metal, even if it is not the cool market, the growing market, or the biggest market. Huge and biggest are two different things. So regarding the analogies, we just saw a president elected by speaking to that disaffected, ignored group of people. (Again, I am not talking about the reality of the messaging or anything. Just that that's what he did, whom he spoke to.) And on the latter analogy, there is a HUGE if mostly unrecognized market of Christian or other conservative media, almost totally unknown to the people who aren't a part of it.
Because there is room for all of it, especially in a modern world with lower costs for (in the musical realm) recording and production. That's why I say even while I talk about industry backing, realistically you could see the genre rebound with influencer backing even outside of the major industry itself. (The industry would hop on board if and when it worked.) You can't tell me there aren't large numbers of people in Cleveland, Des Moines, Topeka, Omaha, etc., who still love rock music.
Probably a best case scenario could be something like a rock equivalent to the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. What I mean is, standup comic, MMA commentator, and former occasional actor Joe Rogan has done a podcast for years now ... without corporate backing. It has broken every rule in the industry by regularly going 2-3 hours long, talking about off-limits topics or having off-limits guests, and Rogan just basically not giving a fuck. The result has been that his show is regularly the top ranked podcast on Earth--still without corporate control (and all sponsors just being chosen by him, without input on the show)--and draws far, far, far more listeners and viewers than ANY major news network or show. Its level of success is absurd, and it's all outside of the industry's norms, even though it might not seem that way to a casual podcast listener.
Rock could benefit from someone or something like that. Someone speaking directly to people, growing and nourishing that audience, with an eff-the-industry mentality. The industry would chase its success, and ideally its success would also inspire younger musicians and listeners.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 10, 2020 15:20:46 GMT
When I see the crowds that Iron Maiden continue to pack in, 40 years into their career, and never really having had backing from radio or MTV, it does give me a little hope.
I also think that the other issue is the quality of new rock music. It's just not very good overall.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 10, 2020 15:27:11 GMT
I also think that the other issue is the quality of new rock music. It's just not very good overall. That's where I hope and think a cultural change would impact the art. If talented people are doing other things (because there doesn't seem to be a market for them in rock), it would be possible to redirect them. So many bands change styles over the years, it is obvious that many musicians can find satisfaction in different veins. (I don't just mean major bands "selling out," but smaller acts just changing apparently for the hell of it.) If the thing to do is play rock, presumably more 14-year-olds listen to rock and more 20-year-olds make it. That's where inertia might help out with new music.
(But it's where there is, as you said before, a chicken-and-egg situation. Somebody has to make it happen for it to happen.)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 10, 2020 15:29:23 GMT
One other thing: there is also the question of what new rock would actually be or sound like. Music has never stayed stagnant over time, and rock has existed and changed for over half a century. What would a new, vibrant rock music even be? It doesn't make realistic sense for us to imagine a new Elvis, a new Beatles, a new Zeppelin, a new Sabbath, a new GnR, because those are all old. It's obvious that young artists and listeners might have phases involving those kinds of acts, but that the new version has to be, well, new.
That's a big question for me. Just like jazz still exists, but is for practical purposes dead (as a commercial and vibrant, popular art form), it's possible that at some point people feel like rock has run its course.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 10, 2020 15:50:38 GMT
One other thing: there is also the question of what new rock would actually be or sound like. Music has never stayed stagnant over time, and rock has existed and changed for over half a century. What would a new, vibrant rock music even be? It doesn't make realistic sense for us to imagine a new Elvis, a new Beatles, a new Zeppelin, a new Sabbath, a new GnR, because those are all old. It's obvious that young artists and listeners might have phases involving those kinds of acts, but that the new version has to be, well, new.
That's a big question for me. Just like jazz still exists, but is for practical purposes dead (as a commercial and vibrant, popular art form), it's possible that at some point people feel like rock has run its course.
I'm more of the mind that rock is on a similar path as jazz.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 10, 2020 15:53:50 GMT
If that's true, then we're more or less done here, unfortunately. That would be basically the status quo, as legacy acts keep going until they drop; as reissues become more and more "deluxe"; and as the best new music is closer to pastiche than innovation.
You're probably right, of course. After all, rock was mined for 50+ years. Its corners have been explored into areas so diverse from one another that it's amazing they're all considered the same basic genre (Elvis Presley and Megadeth!). Most genres don't last anywhere near that long or become nearly that popular. So maybe we just need to celebrate that it had a good run.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 10, 2020 17:27:02 GMT
If that's true, then we're more or less done here, unfortunately. That would be basically the status quo, as legacy acts keep going until they drop; as reissues become more and more "deluxe"; and as the best new music is closer to pastiche than innovation.
You're probably right, of course. After all, rock was mined for 50+ years. Its corners have been explored into areas so diverse from one another that it's amazing they're all considered the same basic genre (Elvis Presley and Megadeth!). Most genres don't last anywhere near that long or become nearly that popular. So maybe we just need to celebrate that it had a good run.
Unless there's a significant shift, or some new innovation comes around, I think this is where we are. And, grunge was probably the last real innovation, so its been over a quarter century. And even bands I've liked that have come out in that time - The Darkness, Avenged Sevenfold, Ghost, Purson, etc - aren't really treading any new ground.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 10, 2020 18:24:10 GMT
I think you could call nu-metal / rap-metal an innovation that came after grunge. But those are probably the only significant stylistic changes.
Where there continue to be innovations (or changes) are in the other conditions, such as technology and industry. And I think that has an effect on music, too. Just like the ability to record on a 4-track instead of a 2-track changed music, and then 8-, 16-, 24-, etc., the ability to record unlimited tracks on a laptop at home rather than paying princely sums in professional studios changed music.
In the case of rock and metal, somewhat ironically, it probably did more harm than good. As extravagant as the music became eventually, those genres were built on collaboration of four guys in a room (more or less). But the home recording phenomenon really made it simpler for people to do projects on their own; and other cultural phenomena seem to have encouraged that. So if a guy is at home alone with a laptop, he could learn to drum, play bass, play guitars, play keyboards, and sing; or he could program most of those things--and other unnatural sounds besides--and never bother with the core of what we all know and love as rock.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 10, 2020 18:40:06 GMT
Ugh, nu metal. Thanks for the reminder. But, even that moment started over 20 years ago.
I think there will always be a demand for great rock music. I mean, people go to hear symphonies play centuries old compositions. I just think the golden age is over. I guess I should be thankful that I got to experience the tail end of it in real time, and got to see some true legends in concert, even if the majority of the time, they were past their primes.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 10, 2020 18:50:11 GMT
I agree that the demand for the already-existing great stuff isn't going anywhere in the foreseeable future, exactly in the way that you mentioned. Like 200-year-old symphonies or 75-year-old jazz classics, 30-year-old rock classics are going to take time to fade out of the public consciousness.
We're definitely on the same page there: we're talking about the advancement, the ongoing development and popularity of the form as a living form that is at (serious) risk.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 10, 2020 18:56:32 GMT
And I've said before that I really think music experience music differently now. In the past, you played records, cassettes, or CDs on a stereo and sat and listened to the music. Now, so much music is digital, people have it in their ears when they're out shopping. I could be way off here, but I feel that losing the experience of holding the music in your hand, looking at the album art, reading the lyrics, and being in a listening area leads to people not getting as attached to what they're hearing. Maybe I'm reaching, I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 10, 2020 19:15:13 GMT
No, I totally agree with you. I think that, like my comment earlier about how music is made, how music is experienced changes what the music ends up being: who makes it, for whom, how, etc.
Very similarly, total availability at all times literally cheapens the music. Diamonds are valued and valuable because they aren't everywhere, all the time, to be taken on a whim. It's hard to expect people to value music when they can have whatever of it they want, anytime, anywhere. (That doesn't speak exclusively to rock, but just popular music generally.)
|
|