Is hard rock music completely dead in our day and age?

[Typh0n]

Pretty much. I see hard rock as being raw, unsophisticated, and rough around the edges -- all qualities that I see as being MUCH more appealing to Americans (esp. rural white Americans) than to Belgians.

Intersting, I've never looked at it that way. Theres also the fact that Belgium has two main languages: Dutch and French. The Dutch have little in the way of musical literature from what I know; and French rock has a very limited tradition behind it. The French language(which is the main language here is Brussels) has only two signifact rock bands that come mind; Indochine, and Noir Desir(and these bands are known only in the French speaking world). End of story. Rap and Chanson Francaise(French song) have an intersting history, rock in the French speaking world does not. In the Dutch speaking world, theyre much more open to English and when I traveled to Flanders, I saw a tons of goth and alternative types there on the street, so maybe its not all of Belgium, but just Brussels.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Pretty much. I see hard rock as being raw, unsophisticated, and rough around the edges -- all qualities that I see as being MUCH more appealing to Americans (esp. rural white Americans) than to Belgians.

The worst of hard rock is all of those things in a bad way, and the best of it incorporates some or all of those qualities in a good way. Like anything else, if there is quality to a work, then the more you look the more you see. To someone giving it a cursory glance, Jackson Pollock's work looks raw, unsophisticated, and rough around the edges.

I love hard rock, and I'm a northeastern city kid with black nerd glasses. I think it's important not to conflate an artist's music with the stereotypes of its audience. For instance, I really like Ryan Adams and Rilo Kiley, but I would nevereverevernever want to be identified as a twee hipster, the predominant stereotype of their fan bases.

 

[chickpea]

it's not dead but it's definitely dying and a lot of people who used to listen to only rock music are abandoning it for other genres. i just think it's kinda played out, pretty much everything original has already been done and the shock value aspect of it is gone too.

 

[Pseudo]

The worst of hard rock is all of those things in a bad way, and the best of it incorporates some or all of those qualities in a good way. Like anything else, if there is quality to a work, then the more you look the more you see. To someone giving it a cursory glance, Jackson Pollock's work looks raw, unsophisticated, and rough around the edges.

I love hard rock, and I'm a northeastern city kid with black nerd glasses. I think it's important not to conflate an artist's music with the stereotypes of its audience. For instance, I really like Ryan Adams and Rilo Kiley, but I would nevereverevernever want to be identified as a twee hipster, the predominant stereotype of their fan bases.

[MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]



just to touch on this topic I always see a difference between Rock and Roll and RAWK!

Rock and Roll it a beautiful american sound that incorporates the blues with folk and some gospel, country and maybe a little jazz. Very sort of raw, earthy and "free" in a way that is very american.

RAWK on the other hand is sort of like all the aggression and crudeness of Rockn' roll with none of the innovative, poetic, soulful parts.

It's like really fancy cheese versus string cheese. Like thanksgiving versus a microwave turkey meal.

CHUCK BERRY VERSUS BUCKCHERRY.

 

[EJCC]

^ [MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION], what you're talking about isn't a genre distinction, as far as I can tell; you're just talking about crappy rock vs. good rock? Because not all hard rock is crappy.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

^ [MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION], what you're talking about isn't a genre distinction, as far as I can tell; you're just talking about crappy rock vs. good rock? Because not all hard rock is crappy.

I think [MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION] is making a genre distinction, and dismissing an entire genre. It's fine if that sort of thing is not to one's taste, but to dismiss it out of hand is presumptive. I don't like some kinds of music, but that doesn't mean they're inherently inferior. When I don't like a genre (say, EDM), what that says to me is that I want something different out of music than someone who enjoys EDM wants out of music. If I don't like salty snacks, I won't like potato chips, but that doesn't mean potato chips are terrible.

 

[Pseudo]

^ [MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION], what you're talking about isn't a genre distinction, as far as I can tell; you're just talking about crappy rock vs. good rock? Because not all hard rock is crappy.

I like hard rock, specifically hardcore. I think there are pockets of really terrible hard rock and that's what's mostly on playing on the radio right now.


I guess what i was trying to was

1.) I don't see how rednecks=rock

2.) Even though rock music is more raw I think it has it's own type of sophistication, which is a result of combined american traditions.


Maybe this all has to do with a difference in how we use the term redneck? Where I'm from there is are people who are "country" and people whoa are "rednecks". People who are ruuulllll country are just rural people who are really into rural stuff. Rednecks are more like the rural equivalent of ghetto. Generally, really aggressive, macho, sexist, bigoted ect. And that exit other places too, I don't think there is a name for them but generally their radio stations are all male DJs with women moaning the song titles, they have a lot of hooters promotion and everything revolves around being bad ass.


I guess it depend what music we're talking about.

Bad brains, Minor threat, black flag

Nirvana, Hole, Mudhoney

Pantera, Slayer, Iron maiden

Korn, slipknot, marylin manson.



It's a perspective thing I think. I think Iggy Pop is a lock more Rock and Roll than Korn, but I think he'd be a lot less accepted by what I think of as Rednecks.


i think I'm expressing myself really badly.

 

[Pseudo]

I think [MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION] is making a genre distinction, and dismissing an entire genre. It's fine if that sort of thing is not to one's taste, but to dismiss it out of hand is presumptive. I don't like some kinds of music, but that doesn't mean they're inherently inferior. When I don't like a genre (say, EDM), what that says to me is that I want something different out of music than someone who enjoys EDM wants out of music. If I don't like salty snacks, I won't like potato chips, but that doesn't mean potato chips are terrible.

I'm not trying to dismiss whole genres. I just think that not everything out there is worthwhile and some of it really exploits a few basic things. And generally that's sex appeal and power. I'm not saying it's not enjoyable, I'm saying that the song "Crazy Bitch" might not have as much nuance and sophistication as say David Bowie's "Starman". But I'm totally open to argument.


Tap out by birdamn vs Brooklyn Zoo by ODB. I think you could make a clear case that ODB is doing more in terms of creatively manipulating lyrics and the way he delivers them, And I think that make his music richer and therefore better.



I'm open to different music but I don't think that means all music is "good".

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I'm not trying to dismiss whole genres. I just think that not everything out there is worthwhile and some of it really exploits a few basic things. And generally that's sex appeal and power. I'm not saying it's not enjoyable, I'm saying that the song "Crazy Bitch" might not have as much nuance and sophistication as say David Bowie's "Starman". But I'm totally open to argument.


Tap out by birdamn vs Brooklyn Zoo by ODB. I think you could make a clear case that ODB is doing more in terms of creatively manipulating lyrics and the way he delivers them, And I think that make his music richer and therefore better.



I'm open to different music but I don't think that means all music is "good".

I wouldn't argue that all music is good...there's lots of crappy music, and lots of crappy hard rock music. I'm just saying that something can be good while still not being to an individual's taste. I can't stand Radiohead, but I wouldn't try to argue that they suck. I think what I take issue with is your assertion that nuance and sophistication (when compared to broadness) are themselves indicators of quality.

I'm a big David Bowie fan, but I don't particularly like "Starman", and I love "Crazy Bitch" (even if I have to pretend the lyrics don't exist). I wouldn't argue that "Crazy Bitch" is as thoughtful or nuanced, but it's not trying to be. You can make a vivid painting with a broad brush that's just as impactful and enjoyable as a painting that's more painstakingly detailed. They're different animals.

 

[Pseudo]

I wouldn't argue that all music is good...there's lots of crappy music, and lots of crappy hard rock music. I'm just saying that something can be good while still not being to an individual's taste. I can't stand Radiohead, but I wouldn't try to argue that they suck. I think what I take issue with is your assertion that nuance and sophistication (when compared to broadness) are themselves indicators of quality.

I'm a big David Bowie fan, but I don't particularly like "Starman", and I love "Crazy Bitch" (even if I have to pretend the lyrics don't exist). I wouldn't argue that "Crazy Bitch" is as thoughtful or nuanced, but it's not trying to be. You can make a vivid painting with a broad brush that's just as impactful and enjoyable as a painting that's more painstakingly detailed. They're different animals.

I understand your point. The stooges and a syphony orchestra aren't tryin to do the same thing. However in my opinion, just like art, there's a difference between intentionally making something simple and just poorly making something.

Jut musing I think great music is probably some combination of technical skill, emotional communication and innovation creativity. And an lack of one of those could be made up by an over abundance of one of the others. But if you have something that isn't technically great, is a rehash of something else and stay on a very shallow level emotionally,.... It just seems kind of cheap (bad) to me. And thr kind o music is really easy to make.

I guess I don't know why we're arguing because I never singled out a certain genre as wholly bad.

 

[EJCC]

I like hard rock, specifically hardcore. I think there are pockets of really terrible hard rock and that's what's mostly on playing on the radio right now.

Ah -- so [MENTION=325]EffEmDoubleyou[/MENTION] was right.

I don't know why you keep throwing out so many subgenres that aren't hard rock and comparing them to bad hard rock. David Bowie is not hard rock, Chuck Berry is not hard rock. This thread is about hard rock, not "rock and roll" as a whole.

And I'll agree that a lot of crappy hard rock is popular nowadays. Obviously Buckcherry and Nickelback have some pretty shitty songs. But no matter what genre you're talking about, there's always going to be crappy popular music. We idolize certain genres, certain eras, but we forget that there was a lot of crap on the radio then, too.

We idolize pop from the 1960's. But have you ever heard "Macarthur Park"? That song is a piece of shit, but it made it to the top of the charts.

1.) I don't see how rednecks=rock

Maybe this all has to do with a difference in how we use the term redneck? Where I'm from there is are people who are "country" and people whoa are "rednecks". People who are ruuulllll country are just rural people who are really into rural stuff. Rednecks are more like the rural equivalent of ghetto. Generally, really aggressive, macho, sexist, bigoted ect. And that exit other places too, I don't think there is a name for them but generally their radio stations are all male DJs with women moaning the song titles, they have a lot of hooters promotion and everything revolves around being bad ass.

May depend on what part of the country you're in, then. Because that has not been my experience. (Except the bolded, which, in my incredibly white town, has some truth to it. The rest, not at all.)

[MENTION=6466]Stanton Moore[/MENTION] grew up in the same part of the country that I did, and he can attest to this.

I guess it depend what music we're talking about.

Bad brains, Minor threat, black flag

I'd call that punk rock.

Nirvana, Hole, Mudhoney

Pantera, Slayer, Iron maiden

Korn, slipknot, marylin manson.

That all plays on hard rock radio, so that's what I'm talking about.

It's a perspective thing I think. I think Iggy Pop is a lock more Rock and Roll than Korn, but I think he'd be a lot less accepted by what I think of as Rednecks.

Again, we're not talking about "rock and roll" in its entirety. I'm not sure where you got that idea. :/

i think I'm expressing myself really badly.

I think our misunderstanding has less to do with your expression and more to do with our respective points, in and of themselves.

I guess I don't know why we're arguing because I never singled out a certain genre as wholly bad.

All your examples suggested that you were talking about hard rock/alt metal/the sort of stuff that plays on hard rock radio. (I lump it together because it has the same group of fans.) Also your adjectives and calling it "rawk" wouldn't have made much sense with any other genre.

 

[sorenx7]

Depends on the region. IME, where you have rednecks, you have hard rock. This includes the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain West.

I'm from the latter of those three, and most people there either listen to hard rock radio*, Top 40, or country. No rap and nothing in Spanish (because of how white my freaking state is), and there wasn't much indie rock until the indie station showed up in 2005 or so. I always listened to hard rock and indie rock, and was disillusioned by the others.

[MENTION=17729]Typh0n[/MENTION], where are you from?

*Loosely defined. They played anything from Nirvana (grunge) to Nickelback (post-grunge) to Metallica (old-school metal) to Tool (new-school metal) to Black Stone Cherry (southern rock).

I've been around a lot of rednecks in my life. I don't think it's accurate to say that where there are rednecks there is hard rock. Maybe older rednecks may listen to some hard rock, but I'd say most rednecks (as in Deep South rednecks) mostly listen to country. For the record, I love hard rock and have been a musician for quite some time. Most people south of Nashville where I'm from primarily listen to country, rap, and pop--unfortunately, not hard rock very much. Hard rock has its loyalists, but they're definitely in the minority now. Many people now seem to barely even know what hard rock is anymore.

 

[sorenx7]

it's not dead but it's definitely dying and a lot of people who used to listen to only rock music are abandoning it for other genres. i just think it's kinda played out, pretty much everything original has already been done and the shock value aspect of it is gone too.

A very accurate analysis, IMO.

 

[EJCC]

I've been around a lot of rednecks in my life. I don't think it's accurate to say that where there are rednecks there is hard rock. Maybe older rednecks may listen to some hard rock, but I'd say most rednecks (as in Deep South rednecks) mostly listen to country. For the record, I love hard rock and have been a musician for quite some time. Most people south of Nashville where I'm from primarily listen to country, rap, and pop--unfortunately, not hard rock very much. Hard rock has its loyalists, but they're definitely in the minority now. Many people now seem to barely even know what hard rock is anymore.

Well, I guess the moral of this story is: Things Are Different In The Rockies.

Ah well!

 

[Scheherezade]

Europe still listens to hard rock even though a bit less now than in the last years, Rock Am Ring and all major rock festivals are always gathering an enormous crowd.

 

[Pseudo]

Ah -- so [MENTION=325]EffEmDoubleyou[/MENTION] was right.

I don't know why you keep throwing out so many subgenres that aren't hard rock and comparing them to bad hard rock. David Bowie is not hard rock, Chuck Berry is not hard rock. This thread is about hard rock, not "rock and roll" as a whole.

And I'll agree that a lot of crappy hard rock is popular nowadays. Obviously Buckcherry and Nickelback have some pretty shitty songs. But no matter what genre you're talking about, there's always going to be crappy popular music. We idolize certain genres, certain eras, but we forget that there was a lot of crap on the radio then, too.

We idolize pop from the 1960's. But have you ever heard "Macarthur Park"? That song is a piece of shit, but it made it to the top of the charts.

May depend on what part of the country you're in, then. Because that has not been my experience. (Except the bolded, which, in my incredibly white town, has some truth to it. The rest, not at all.)

[MENTION=6466]Stanton Moore[/MENTION] grew up in the same part of the country that I did, and he can attest to this.


I'd call that punk rock.

That all plays on hard rock radio, so that's what I'm talking about.

Again, we're not talking about "rock and roll" in its entirety. I'm not sure where you got that idea. :/

I think our misunderstanding has less to do with your expression and more to do with our respective points, in and of themselves.

All your examples suggested that you were talking about hard rock/alt metal/the sort of stuff that plays on hard rock radio. (I lump it together because it has the same group of fans.) Also your adjectives and calling it "rawk" wouldn't have made much sense with any other genre.

I'm throwing out a lot of stuff because "hard rock" is being used really vaugely. Black Flag, Minor threat, and Black flag usually are called "Hardcore". Of course they are an offshoot of punk but they don't really belong with bands like the clash, ramones, dead boys. I think that they are "harder" than a band like Nirvana. I'm mean if were trying to decide if "hard rock" is dead and nirvana counts as hard rock then I think it's a definite no.

Again I'm not suggesting any genre is better or flawless, I merely said that there is crappy versions of rock that exist that sometimes seem to bogart the name "hard rock" while other genres which might be harder (fast, louder,rawer) or more in line with traditional rock and roll get labeled "alternative".

I brought up Iggy pop because that's what I think of as hard rock. I think he rocks a lot harder than Korn (who aren't bad, just a bit...polished... for my taste). So I guess this just goes back to the point that "Hard rock" is apparently referring to some collection of bands that aren't necessarily that hard but just play together of the radio? basically hard rock = pop/radio rock? Cause that stuff isn't really even heavy metal.


Again I don't think "rawk" is everything with in this "hard rock" genre (which they way your describing it isn't really a genre but a collection of different things things whose popularity overlaps on a certain demographic). For example I like stuff from system of a down, Rammstien, Rob zombie...which I think falls into "hard rock" your describing.


But anyways I still don't see how not liking bad music equates to hating entire genres. I would hold buckcherry up as on outstanding example of anything in particular except bad rock music. Rawk could fall into a bunch of different genres. The examples I used were just stuff from the radio that I could think of.

 

[sorenx7]

Well, I guess the moral of this story is: Things Are Different In The Rockies.

Ah well!

I'm much less familiar with the Rockies. I do feel, however, that I have a pretty good idea of what is going on in the Deep South. To my dismay, I must say that hard rock just is not that prevalent anymore. The South, of course, is a diverse region. Making generalizations about it can be problematic. This was a mistake that W.J. Cash made in his book "The Mind of the South." He didn't treat the South as a whole. Instead, he focused on what he wanted to focus on. The result was a book which might have been heralded as a success by some, but which I consider a piece of crap. I do know the South well, but only the part of the South I'm familiar with. So, whatever I say that may be accurate here might not be accurate when applied to another part of the South, needless to say.