not sure i get the Radiohead thing they’re talking about - it was EVERYWHERE and every little social media move they made before it came out was trending with hysteria - is it just the overall sales they’re talking about?
“2012, the year in which Celebration Rock was released, was much kinder to rock music. Earnest, back-to-basics albums by Mumford & Sons and The Black Keys both cracked the year-end Top 10”
fuck off m8
imagine unironically having a Mumford and Sons album release as one of your yearly highlights.
I’ve no idea what they’re talking about. They’ve asked a few bands for their opinions on the matter. These opinions are inconclusive, and yet they’re being used as proof that an entire genre of music is dying.
“…a genre’s never-ending death” - it makes no sense!
it’s a decent rebuttal, though the “Rock is Dead” vs the “Rock’s not Dead” crowds seem to be speaking past each other, especially the latter.
That was a good read, thanks for sharing.
I’ve always wondered what people mean by “rockist”, so it was interesting to finally find the source of the term. I’ve always found it to be quite a flawed idea, the sort of buzzword that’s used to shut down debate when one simply cannot be bothered to articulate quite why they’ve got a problem with something, so it’s refreshing to see the term being treated with a bit of critical distance.
“an electro-punk band from England that nobody remembers called The Prodigy”
is that line a joke or are they really unknown in the US?
they were popular in the US on Fat of the Land. Not sure about “nobody remembering”, but they haven’t left a lasting legacy otherwise. Probably doesn’t help that by the time they made it here, they fucked off for nearly a decade.
The Black Keys are the worst band ever
Pretty anemic live, but their early albums still sound good.
You beg the question: what is “mainstream” if not what’s “dominating the charts”? Sounds to me like you’ve just said that relevance is the mainstream influencing the mainstream.
I think what I was trying to say is relevance is based on how much it influences the mainstream. Yes, that is charts, singles and albums, because generally musicians do want to be successful.
But what’s “success”? I think most musicians who play music that might be classed as “rock” these days are happy if they’re able to simply make a living playing music. You don’t have to sell-out arenas, dominate airwaves, and line your walls with platinum records to be considered “successful”, and to equate ubiquity with relevance is a terrible idea.
This is what I meant above by “it’s like punk never happened”. Yep, I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but since when has rock music been about mainstream success?
I find it funny that Dave Longstreth has said this after releasing some of the most boring DP tunes in ages.
the most frustrating thing about all this is that after all the whining and thinkpieces, the next Savior of Rock is probably going to be some basic-ass garage rock band and all the previous thinkpiercers are going to pretend like the artist is somehow better than other bands they passed on.
This should settle it once and for all, thanks.
I’ve been listening to music for basically 25 years now and every single one of those years I’ve been hearing “rock is dead” nonsense. It’s always said by one of the following groups:
- people who haven’t listened to a single new album since their childhood, and use the twisted logic that the fact they haven’t heard new music as proof that there isn’t new music worth hearing
- baby boomers preaching about when they were kids
- insufferable 20 somethings who base their identities on how much they can sound like a baby boomer
It’s very much alive