PLZ bear with lack of a more coherent structure and reference examples>no time this week
The return of the Rock-is-dead meme. Popular ever since the height of Disco and the mass ignoring of first wave Punk. But with a new twist: social engineering and culture-shaming.
I notice the Rock-is-dead meme has become attractive to people who have other imperatives aside from just enjoying or reviewing music. Specifically when sourced from the the millenial bandwagon social engineer. Often all it takes is a new descriptor and, neologism in hand, suddenly it's a thing that must be indexed, applied judgmentally, shame-inducingly. Is a band covering Chuck Berry? Then the first thing you must do is check if there is anybody white in the band and then shame them for cultural appropriation! Hopefully we'll have a specific term soon for those Berryists! Forget judging the music - that's not the value here, nor is there time. Second, check to make sure each member of the band isn't a body-shamer [or mansplainers, white-privileged, non-gender-neutral, microagressors, rape culturalists, wealth-advantaged, clothing appropriator, bro-toxic, hater hater]. Chuck Berry? I don't know who he was but they are SO not woke!
Every person is a hater in the eyes of somebody out there wielding a buzzword. And a portion of the Rock-is-dead meme comes from this group.
Basing listening allowances on race is not only dangerous, it helps nobody of any ethnic makeup. It's a serious mistake that millenials just haven't learned yet. Since youth culture still drives the zeitgeist, we have to live their learning curve. Imagine going through it in the '60s. "You're not allowed to like the White Album because Miles just released Nefertiti!" We've seen hideous racial hatred surge in the last two years in the USA
due to 35. Is shaming white artists for playing Rock somehow supposed to negate this?
_____________________________________________
Charts & data
Sure, some things are just part of society moving forward. Others are sideways steps, existing for millenial self-congratulatory opportunities. A generation of smug and sanctimony. Should you believe them?
Rock is thin on the USA charts - but the charts have lost all relevance today. If you read industry journals, you'll note that paid streaming accounts for 65% of music sales, and non-sale-generating sources (peer-to-peer downloads, youtube, etc.) account for over 75% of listening (meaning an entire generation does not have a listening pattern of buying a CD and playing it on a home stereo. My local WalMart had stopped carrying blank CDs!). CD sales are tiny now, but the market that remains is dominated by Country and Rap sales (in Rock, vinyl is expected to surpass CDs this year). Charts like Billboard have failed to find a formula that accurately reflects, well, anything. That said, charts were wildly inaccurate 50 years ago, too; and you can look at the chart almost any time in the last three decades and proclaim Rock death. Kanye doesn't top charts because he's a genius, he just has enough fans that still buy CDs.
In the UK things have shaken out much differently. CD sales are still competitive against streaming (I've read several opinions as to why but there is no universal agreement). Those sales also still drive the UK charts - which are still loaded with Rock and Rock-based pop. Canada is having a guitar-Rock peak.
I forgot to note who made the comment here:
"The only one of the year's top 10 albums remotely rock is Sheeran".
Yes, but that's just CD sales (and depending on source, maybe Apple streams). Billboard is only
just this year incorporating streams into their charts in a dilapidated attempt to refine their rickety consumption methodology. Though entertaining as a music nerd, charts remain a metric of no value when it comes to genre popularity. You can have a chart hit now with about 10% of the sales it took in the '90s, even with population growth (see below). It takes about 4000 today. In 1996, Matchbox 20's awesome
Yourself needed 380,000 and sold 15 million. An album can ride the top of the charts today and not go gold. Foo Fighters had the number one album in the UK last year and sold only 61,000 downloads/CDs. And some albums today aren't even registered for old-school chart eligibilty. Vinyl sales are still trackable and the top artist this year was:
The Beatles.
Cool vinyl aside
Rather than compare Beyonce to Coldplay, I find it much easier/healthier to just say there's always a Beyonce on the charts. And likewise, Rock has always been cyclical. Though the market has become extremely segmented and even regional (I live in a Rock market), my guess is that there will be further cycles of mainstream awareness. Not that a Trouserian cares.
______________________________
Geometric impact
In the US, in sheer numbers, more people listen to Rock than ever. That's just population growth. In 1975 there were 216 million people in the US. Now there are 350 million and we are on the verge of geometric population growth. Some estimates say we will be double that 1975 number by 2030 and then double again in half that time (2055). That's not accounting for the fact that many health scientists believe we are on the verge of a sudden lifespan bump - by a couple decades (stem cell and nano technologies).
We know the various effects the internet has had on music, but I would argue that this is an oft-overlooked factor with equivalent effect, quantitatively. There were just a lot fewer musicians a few decades back and many barriers to getting heard. Just like there are now dozens of movies released every week, you can sample bands in a specific genre 24/7 and never catch up. Radiohead would likely be obscure were they new today.
The time scale also means many millenials are fine with catching up on the past, to the detriment of new artists, of which there will be so many more in a decade. (Conversely, this week I was talking to a guy about early 2000s bands a few days ago and he said he didn't listen to "really old stuff, like 60s or 90s". I said "even Nirvana?". "No, that was way before I was born, but I like Foo Fighters".) But holy shite look at the back catalog a 16 yr old has today. So overwhelming. Shouldn't they spend listening time discovering The Clash at the expense of Japandroids?
___________________________
Measurement
There's no verifiable system for tracking all streams/downloads (especially if you take steps to block the NSA and have never signed the Facebook keystroking & browser tracking agreement!). But you
can look at concert sales.
This is where people part with their cash and make a thoughtful decision in the marketplace.
You wouldn't know that by looking at most of the big festivals (not that the bands are ticket-buyer-selected). All festivals follow an arc from curation to cash cow, else they fail (or behemoth themselves, like SxSW). For every Coachella there's an upcoming festival, many of which are Rock. However, the pernicious new element is the organizers' fear of being shamed for perceived slights. Are average ticket buyers really happier if you make half the musicians female, even if it means, say, adding bands of small interest/talent and ditching a Foo Fighters or even a Courtney Barnett? Aside from that band, does this help women in general or solve wage disparity, etc.?
While Rap is mostly horrible live, Rock (including twang-Rock) lends itself to even large performance spaces. Ticket sales show Rock reigns supreme. Particularly in the age group that has outgrown making the scene (or buying a ticket for a festival to hear one hit song by one band and then complaining when it doesn't sound like the studio version; or just wanting to stand in the presence of Beyonce).
The 2017 top bands in sales volume (and not by gross profit):
U2
GnR
Coldplay
Bruno Mars
Metallica
Depeche Mode
Sir Paul
Sheeran
Stones
Garth
_______________________________________
Anecdotal data & the guitar
I am around college-age kids and make an effort to interact. Music is a common subject and Rock is about equal with Rap. At the skatepark I have noted the Rock preference. I stopped a high school senior in another place recently to ask why he was listening to '60s Stones (he had "guessed that it was probably '60s or '80s or something" but hadn't checked). In the past year this was previewed by convos with his age peers on the subjects of Nirvana (still big), Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and more surprisingly, Iggy Pop. In my nephew's dorm Rock blares as often as Rap when I walk through, and for the same reason as half a century ago. Though it seems weird as fuck, hating your parents music is unheard of as a prereq. Lost generational paradigm.
An extremely influential factor: the guitar. Guitar is one of the most difficult instruments with which to reach even a basic level of expression. It takes years to get anywhere. I saw this play itself out with three of my (many) nephews. I was the obligate guitar instructor as they each were gifted electrics, years apart. Each millenials (perhaps save borderline eldest), each serious video gamers, the lack of instant gratification caused serious disinterest
chiefly because they can download an app, click some buttons, put together a rhythm track and rap. It's up on YouTube in an hour, gets feedback and hits AND is IMO as good as most professionally reviewed Rap (from one of them anyway). Et voila, they are musicians. And they learned no names of notes, no arrangements, no theory, no scales, no notation, no instruments (their melodies exactly as hummable as the best Rap). Pop is inherently disposable but Rap has blown that boundary like a balloon. (Of course, for me it's disposable pre-heard if it has the deal-breaker red flags: guns, dollar signs, jewelry, promoting the n-word, blatant misogyny).
Why the fuck spend years learning to push beyond three power chords? There is no longer a distinct
reward structure for mastering an instrument (or writing music melody period). But that doesn't mean millenials do not appreciate the talent. The ones I interact with are quite discerning. I'm impressed by the skatepark kids' wide era scans and interests. They are doing great. But, as always, only a small percentage are true investigators and music nerds.
It's okay. We have NEVER needed lots of kids to learn guitar. Only the few that are talented. Nothin' wrong with synthetic sounds (albeit forced anti-guitar rock has rarely risen out of mediocrity). Actual musicians are to be revered and supported. They are our roman aqueducts.
___________________________________
tl;dr>
Conclusions? Erm...keep listening to rock? But feel ashamed, you rockist!
The mainstream still sucks. Hence TP
Ignore self-appointed millenial tastemakers who aren't music nerds
GOML!
Rock is a dominant choice sales-wise
Is it beneficial to TPers if rock becomes LESS mainstream?
edit:: spelling, bad auto-correct
Post Edited (05-18-18 03:18)
