Rock and Roll is Dead
Today, in an interview, Sting, age 55, said that there were no interesting developments in Rock music within the last 20 years. He claimed it is a bore, it is not moving forward, and he prefers the songs of an English lutenist.
I will go ahead and dissect this.
First, Rock and Roll is dead. It has been since Kurt Cobain died. At least, in terms of the dominant music force in western societies. When the White Stripes get serious airtime, that finally indicates that the final nail is in the coffin.
That is, if you only look at the charts, and ignore the two most important offshoots rock produced. Yes, both rap and metal are thriving, and developing.
Everyone knows that chart success of rap, hip-hop, or whatever you call it. I don't like it, but I am not so conceited to claim it is "not music." It's just not my taste. But rap started as an offshoot of Rock. Actually, it started as an offshoot of Jamacian music, which is rock based. In any case, it started as a rock genre (actually, if you trace it's roots, it's great grandfather is country music, but that is another story for another time). So while it has moved beyond rock, it is, essentially, a form of rock - which evolved away from it (like rock evolved from blues). I believe that the next great pop music form will come out of the hip hop community. It will not come from Europe, as cultural elites hope for, because Europe is such a stinking, dying, civilization, it is unable to even protect their culture being inundated from Islamocists.
On the opposite extreme, metal is developing it's own path, too. Go onto Wikipedia, and you will find many, many varieties of metal. And it is very, very different than the "heavy metal" of 30 years ago. In fact, I think it would now be appropriate to label 1970's "heavy metal" as "proto-metal" (with the exceptions of maybe Alice Cooper and Black Sabbath, and a few other groups). In fact, you could credibly claim that Aerosmith's "Walk this way" is closer to Elvis's "Jailhouse Rock" than to In Flames' "Take this Life". And not only in time, but in style as well. Yet Aerosmith was once referred to as "Heavy Metal," but you would have to have a good sense of humor to call it that these days.
Indeed, even the "metal" sound changed within bands. This can be evidenced by the cover of the song "Diamonds and Rust" by Judas Priest. The 1977 version sounded like rock, and had what appears to be obscure chords. At that time, Priest was a relatively obscure "Heavy Metal" band. When they did the song in concert 11 years later, it was a much different song - it sounded more in line with Priests' power guitar sound (and in my opinion, much better than the 1977 version). Even Maiden changed their sound between 1979 - when they opened for KISS - and 1983 - when "Number of the Beast" came out. Of course, for anyone who knows anything about metal - and I mean anything - putting Maiden together with KISS appears to make much sense as when Hendrix opened for the Monkees in 1977. Yet, we must make sense of things as how people at the time saw things. In 1979, heavy metal had not developed very much, and such a tour did make aesthic sense.
Yet, music critics have constantly denounced metal, even the proto-metal that was produced when I was born. That is because Heavy Metal has always been the genre of lower middle class white people. And music critics never come out of the lower middle class. Actually, they might, but if they do, they go to college, listen to college music, and develop "refinement." They also often take art appreciation courses and think that the disturbing crap produced in the 20th century is actually worth looking at. In otherwords, they undergo aesthetic brainwashing. So they are too "refined" to associate with "them", or their subculture, so anything associated with their upbringing is considered "vulgar," and not only does this include metal, but anything coming from Nashville. Actually, all those who become critics engage in such group think. Thus, a competent, though unimaginative, musical group, like REM, is taken to be on par with Mozart, in their mind. Yes, the Ramones were rated as high as Beethoven by a high school music teacher, but that was in the movie "Rock and Roll High School", a very funny film (I recommend it), and this comment was supposed to be a joke (even by the Ramones themselves).
Of course, that is now someone rendered obsolete with the invention of blogs. Today, one only need a library card to access a computer, and they can set up a blog to evaluate whatever new song is presented within their genre. This is one reason why the elite hates the internet - they no longer have the monopoly to force their propaganda down everyone elses throat.
Now, never mind the fact that some of this Metal is quite complicated to reproduce. Some berate it as "noise", but actually, there is a melodiac componnent to it, thus making it music. It follows the rules of musical theory, so it's music. Yes, you really can't dance to it, but neither can you dance to several other forms of music. Unlike what passes for "art", one can recognize it as "music." Those who denounce it as not being "music" are often obsessive-compulsive narcissists so tied up in their own music that they cannot open their minds to other musical forms (like my socialist, maternal grandmother was when comparing Swing Jazz to any Rock music). Normally, it is not such a big deal, but since religious belief largely disappated in the 20th century occident, something needed to take it's place, and it was the priests who could produce the most identifiable, most portable product - musicians making their product within their genres. WHich is why many a highly trained musician, or musical critic, was unable to rate Metal as anything other than "noise." Or, bad.
Now, musical critics might "appreciate" hip hop. But I question their sincerity. I think they are trying to identify with the oppressed victims in da hood. Whereas da gangsta is only interested in banging the music critic's ho. Or, if the music critic is female, they would probably want to bang that ho herself. Of course, they are too naive to see this, but bohemians have often been the most naive. However, for the most part, the consensus among many in the rock establishment it that rap isn't music.
Especially, for a guy like Sting.
Now, I noted his age at the beginning of this piece. That is important. Musicians often denounce newer forms of music as they themselves get older. That is because they become obsolete. This also explains why musicians hate capitalism - tastes drive what is successful in capitalism, and the history of pop music indicates that musical tastes undergo radical changes about once a decade. Only a few groups (who compete in the pop arena, not your more specialized artists) get to keep reaping huge financial rewards throughout their lifetimes. But that is because the are essentially doing nostalgia tours - middle age adults are not interested in the new stuff. And, they have to reach the pinnacle of the musical hierarchy to do this. That is because they have to develop a brand name that maintains attention in an adult's cluttered life when that adult reaches 40. Thus, only groups like the Beach Boys, the Stones, The Why, The Dead, Kiss, Madonna, Bon Jovi, and Pearl Jam keep packing arenas, while groups like Country Joe, Roxy Music, Cindy Lauper, Warrant, Great White, and some of those forgetable Grunge artists, are now playing bars again. And Sting, too.
Sting, who started with "the Police", (which is an appropriate name for the group, given that that's who should have come into the club where they were playing, bashed their nightsticks against their heads, and hauled them away for 30-40 years - but such concepts like human rights prohibit such wonderful actions from being taken) never reached the pinnacle of punk success. Actually, such a term is contradictory, but he was a highly trained musician who compromised his abilities to get an audience. Which clearly indicates he was never a punk. And it explains his bitterness - as he cannot get any big audiences anymore, why groupies are not banging his door down anymore, and why he cannot sell many records any more. In fact, he is probably secretly bitter that there is not a lot of "sharing" of his material going on, either!
This bitterness thus leads him to denounce contemporary music. Because it is not going his way. Even though he gets on board several environmental causes to get kids to buy his records, this doesn't get them interested. Because - surprise - kids are not interested in the environment anymore, but instead interested in engaging in various immoral acts with the opposite (or the same) sex, or posting whatever on MySpace, or playing with their x-boxes, or whatever newfangled gaming device is out there. So he listens to another dead musical genre - one going back 500 years.
Which is not surprising, given he was classically trained as a musician. So while 500 year old music is something not a lot of people listen to, it is competent music that you would only develop an interest in if you were a classically trained musician. Or if you are some snob who takes up this obscure genre to indicate you are "cultured" when what you are really trying to do is hiding the fact that you have no character, no personality, and no natural ability to discern aesthic qualities. After all, a lute is nothing more than a primitive guitar.
So, due to the fact that he already has tunnel vision when it comes to evaluating contemporary musical trends, it is not surprising for him to claim that music has not moved forward in the last 20 years. Even though someone performs music, that does not give a person competency to evaluate contemporary music. Remember, Tony Bennett still thinks Rock and Roll isn't music - he recently denounced it all (yet again). But then again, he sucks, and still can't get over the fact that Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Gene Vincent, Buddy Holly, and company, basically swept away his chance at success over 1/2 century ago.
Yes, Rock is dead. That is obvious. However, we should not rely on the judgements of some aging, irrelevant celebrity when he says it is a bore. Instead, we should rely on the opinions of someone who has an open mind, and actually has the ability to evaluate the qualities of each band within each genre to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
I will go ahead and dissect this.
First, Rock and Roll is dead. It has been since Kurt Cobain died. At least, in terms of the dominant music force in western societies. When the White Stripes get serious airtime, that finally indicates that the final nail is in the coffin.
That is, if you only look at the charts, and ignore the two most important offshoots rock produced. Yes, both rap and metal are thriving, and developing.
Everyone knows that chart success of rap, hip-hop, or whatever you call it. I don't like it, but I am not so conceited to claim it is "not music." It's just not my taste. But rap started as an offshoot of Rock. Actually, it started as an offshoot of Jamacian music, which is rock based. In any case, it started as a rock genre (actually, if you trace it's roots, it's great grandfather is country music, but that is another story for another time). So while it has moved beyond rock, it is, essentially, a form of rock - which evolved away from it (like rock evolved from blues). I believe that the next great pop music form will come out of the hip hop community. It will not come from Europe, as cultural elites hope for, because Europe is such a stinking, dying, civilization, it is unable to even protect their culture being inundated from Islamocists.
On the opposite extreme, metal is developing it's own path, too. Go onto Wikipedia, and you will find many, many varieties of metal. And it is very, very different than the "heavy metal" of 30 years ago. In fact, I think it would now be appropriate to label 1970's "heavy metal" as "proto-metal" (with the exceptions of maybe Alice Cooper and Black Sabbath, and a few other groups). In fact, you could credibly claim that Aerosmith's "Walk this way" is closer to Elvis's "Jailhouse Rock" than to In Flames' "Take this Life". And not only in time, but in style as well. Yet Aerosmith was once referred to as "Heavy Metal," but you would have to have a good sense of humor to call it that these days.
Indeed, even the "metal" sound changed within bands. This can be evidenced by the cover of the song "Diamonds and Rust" by Judas Priest. The 1977 version sounded like rock, and had what appears to be obscure chords. At that time, Priest was a relatively obscure "Heavy Metal" band. When they did the song in concert 11 years later, it was a much different song - it sounded more in line with Priests' power guitar sound (and in my opinion, much better than the 1977 version). Even Maiden changed their sound between 1979 - when they opened for KISS - and 1983 - when "Number of the Beast" came out. Of course, for anyone who knows anything about metal - and I mean anything - putting Maiden together with KISS appears to make much sense as when Hendrix opened for the Monkees in 1977. Yet, we must make sense of things as how people at the time saw things. In 1979, heavy metal had not developed very much, and such a tour did make aesthic sense.
Yet, music critics have constantly denounced metal, even the proto-metal that was produced when I was born. That is because Heavy Metal has always been the genre of lower middle class white people. And music critics never come out of the lower middle class. Actually, they might, but if they do, they go to college, listen to college music, and develop "refinement." They also often take art appreciation courses and think that the disturbing crap produced in the 20th century is actually worth looking at. In otherwords, they undergo aesthetic brainwashing. So they are too "refined" to associate with "them", or their subculture, so anything associated with their upbringing is considered "vulgar," and not only does this include metal, but anything coming from Nashville. Actually, all those who become critics engage in such group think. Thus, a competent, though unimaginative, musical group, like REM, is taken to be on par with Mozart, in their mind. Yes, the Ramones were rated as high as Beethoven by a high school music teacher, but that was in the movie "Rock and Roll High School", a very funny film (I recommend it), and this comment was supposed to be a joke (even by the Ramones themselves).
Of course, that is now someone rendered obsolete with the invention of blogs. Today, one only need a library card to access a computer, and they can set up a blog to evaluate whatever new song is presented within their genre. This is one reason why the elite hates the internet - they no longer have the monopoly to force their propaganda down everyone elses throat.
Now, never mind the fact that some of this Metal is quite complicated to reproduce. Some berate it as "noise", but actually, there is a melodiac componnent to it, thus making it music. It follows the rules of musical theory, so it's music. Yes, you really can't dance to it, but neither can you dance to several other forms of music. Unlike what passes for "art", one can recognize it as "music." Those who denounce it as not being "music" are often obsessive-compulsive narcissists so tied up in their own music that they cannot open their minds to other musical forms (like my socialist, maternal grandmother was when comparing Swing Jazz to any Rock music). Normally, it is not such a big deal, but since religious belief largely disappated in the 20th century occident, something needed to take it's place, and it was the priests who could produce the most identifiable, most portable product - musicians making their product within their genres. WHich is why many a highly trained musician, or musical critic, was unable to rate Metal as anything other than "noise." Or, bad.
Now, musical critics might "appreciate" hip hop. But I question their sincerity. I think they are trying to identify with the oppressed victims in da hood. Whereas da gangsta is only interested in banging the music critic's ho. Or, if the music critic is female, they would probably want to bang that ho herself. Of course, they are too naive to see this, but bohemians have often been the most naive. However, for the most part, the consensus among many in the rock establishment it that rap isn't music.
Especially, for a guy like Sting.
Now, I noted his age at the beginning of this piece. That is important. Musicians often denounce newer forms of music as they themselves get older. That is because they become obsolete. This also explains why musicians hate capitalism - tastes drive what is successful in capitalism, and the history of pop music indicates that musical tastes undergo radical changes about once a decade. Only a few groups (who compete in the pop arena, not your more specialized artists) get to keep reaping huge financial rewards throughout their lifetimes. But that is because the are essentially doing nostalgia tours - middle age adults are not interested in the new stuff. And, they have to reach the pinnacle of the musical hierarchy to do this. That is because they have to develop a brand name that maintains attention in an adult's cluttered life when that adult reaches 40. Thus, only groups like the Beach Boys, the Stones, The Why, The Dead, Kiss, Madonna, Bon Jovi, and Pearl Jam keep packing arenas, while groups like Country Joe, Roxy Music, Cindy Lauper, Warrant, Great White, and some of those forgetable Grunge artists, are now playing bars again. And Sting, too.
Sting, who started with "the Police", (which is an appropriate name for the group, given that that's who should have come into the club where they were playing, bashed their nightsticks against their heads, and hauled them away for 30-40 years - but such concepts like human rights prohibit such wonderful actions from being taken) never reached the pinnacle of punk success. Actually, such a term is contradictory, but he was a highly trained musician who compromised his abilities to get an audience. Which clearly indicates he was never a punk. And it explains his bitterness - as he cannot get any big audiences anymore, why groupies are not banging his door down anymore, and why he cannot sell many records any more. In fact, he is probably secretly bitter that there is not a lot of "sharing" of his material going on, either!
This bitterness thus leads him to denounce contemporary music. Because it is not going his way. Even though he gets on board several environmental causes to get kids to buy his records, this doesn't get them interested. Because - surprise - kids are not interested in the environment anymore, but instead interested in engaging in various immoral acts with the opposite (or the same) sex, or posting whatever on MySpace, or playing with their x-boxes, or whatever newfangled gaming device is out there. So he listens to another dead musical genre - one going back 500 years.
Which is not surprising, given he was classically trained as a musician. So while 500 year old music is something not a lot of people listen to, it is competent music that you would only develop an interest in if you were a classically trained musician. Or if you are some snob who takes up this obscure genre to indicate you are "cultured" when what you are really trying to do is hiding the fact that you have no character, no personality, and no natural ability to discern aesthic qualities. After all, a lute is nothing more than a primitive guitar.
So, due to the fact that he already has tunnel vision when it comes to evaluating contemporary musical trends, it is not surprising for him to claim that music has not moved forward in the last 20 years. Even though someone performs music, that does not give a person competency to evaluate contemporary music. Remember, Tony Bennett still thinks Rock and Roll isn't music - he recently denounced it all (yet again). But then again, he sucks, and still can't get over the fact that Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Gene Vincent, Buddy Holly, and company, basically swept away his chance at success over 1/2 century ago.
Yes, Rock is dead. That is obvious. However, we should not rely on the judgements of some aging, irrelevant celebrity when he says it is a bore. Instead, we should rely on the opinions of someone who has an open mind, and actually has the ability to evaluate the qualities of each band within each genre to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
posted by EricMatthew at 10:43 PM
<< Home