Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

the next evolution of rock.

Xenocide GeekXenocide Geek Registered User regular
edited April 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
so, what do you guys think is going to be the next evolution in the progression of rock? are we going to stay on the same path we're on now, or is the slow progression into some of the "harder" rock referred to as metal, heavy rock, heavy metal, etc.

in ten years, is "rock" going to be considered the heaviest of the heavy metal stuff? are we looking at rock becoming something maybe "softer", or perhaps something with an electronic/rock fusion...

i'm really interested in hearing what other people think. i've often thought about what the progression of rock would look like - i think that it has a chance to go both ways. heavier and heavier music is being played and just being referred to as rock. i don't think this is a particularly bad way to go, but i think it's more likely that we'll start hearing electronic/technoISH sounding/rock groups making their way into the spotlight.

so: the evolution of rock - soft, hard, non-existent? what?

we've gone from the good old days of classic rock/blues, into glam rock, and many other evolutions... what's next?

edit: i should make it clear i'm not really meaning to re-define the word rock, as much as i'm asking what the next dominant type of rock is going to be coming up.

i wanted love, i needed love
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
Xenocide Geek on
«134

Posts

  • yakulyakul Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    There is so much stuff out there right now besides the mainstream which is made possible because of internet file sharing that there may not be a main trend like grunge or hair metal.

    Although I would like to see electronic mixed with rock successfully.

    yakul on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Rock, as a genre, hasn't existed for years. Well, except maybe for Zombie INXS.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Mr BubblesMr Bubbles David Koresh Superstar Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Give me electronic rock and wash away emo, please

    Mr Bubbles on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I honestly have no idea what people refer to when they say "rock" these days. The definition has become so general that it's useless.

    japan on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    That's it exactly. I mean, far as I'm concerned the definition should have stuck at 'blend of black working songs and country', but it basically metastasized to 'anything with a beat and no synth', and now even that doesn't hold. Its almost as bad as calling 'alternative' a genre.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • HiredGunHiredGun Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Radiohead has already taken 'rock' (to the extent that there is such a thing) to a darker, electronic-influenced sort of place. Sigur Ros has gone the opposite route, toward soaring, orchestral stuff.

    Both of those are relatively high-production styles, but there's also been a huge boom in lo-fi, independent-ish work.

    A huge problem in trying to define 'the next trend' in some sort of unidirectional evolution is that as of right now, there is no popular mainstream. Radio is largely a dying beast as far as fresh new music goes. Musical tastes have diverged enormously due to the ability to fileshare and to populate small, geographically dispersed niches in the music scene.

    HiredGun on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    I predict the music of Wyld Stallions will align the spheres and bring peace to the world.

    Shinto on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    HiredGun wrote: »
    Radiohead has already taken 'rock' (to the extent that there is such a thing) to a darker, electronic-influenced sort of place. Sigur Ros has gone the opposite route, toward soaring, orchestral stuff.

    Both of those are relatively high-production styles, but there's also been a huge boom in lo-fi, independent-ish work.

    A huge problem in trying to define 'the next trend' in some sort of unidirectional evolution is that as of right now, there is no popular mainstream. Radio is largely a dying beast as far as fresh new music goes. Musical tastes have diverged enormously due to the ability to fileshare and to populate small, geographically dispersed niches in the music scene.

    I wouldn't call either of those bands rock, though. Except maybe for 'creep', which Thom Yorke hates. Rock as a style is pretty set in my mind, so bands like Led Zeppelin Mk II-sorry-Wolfmother and Jet qualify, and maybe Powderfinger, but not those guys. Its a specific sound, but fuck if it isn't difficult to quantify now that I think about it.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I usually interpret it as "anything with guitars in it that isn't country."

    japan on
  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Where is "rock" going, as a genre? Look at where it was a few generations ago, and compare that to now.

    James on
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Jameserson wrote: »
    Where is "rock" going, as a genre? Look at where it was a few generations ago, and compare that to now.

    you mean down the toliet?

    i consider "rock" to be blues-influenced and guitar-heavy. i think rock needs to return to its' roots and stop with all of this other bullshit. when fucking GREEN DAY is considered to be a rock band, something is terribly terribly wrong here.

    wolfmother, despite being a led zep tribute band, is probably the closest mainstream thing we've got to "real" rock nowdays.

    jet is pop rock, sorry. also they're annoying as shit.

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Jameserson wrote: »
    Where is "rock" going, as a genre? Look at where it was a few generations ago, and compare that to now.

    you mean down the toliet?

    i consider "rock" to be blues-influenced and guitar-heavy. i think rock needs to return to its' roots and stop with all of this other bullshit. when fucking GREEN DAY is considered to be a rock band, something is terribly terribly wrong here.

    wolfmother, despite being a led zep tribute band, is probably the closest mainstream thing we've got to "real" rock nowdays.

    jet is pop rock, sorry. also they're annoying as shit.

    Greenday is considered to be punk. While the genre did come from rock, it's not quite the same. And I don't think we're listening to the same Jet.

    I think it's possible that rock is phasing out and being replaced by pop-punk and emo from one side, and R&B from the other. It's like Spice Girls Mk II, and you'll have to wait a decade before someone new does something revolutionary and brings attention back to the genre.

    James on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Most people, nowadays, associate the word "rock" with anything with distortion, power chords, and a driving beat. It doesn't have to be limited to that kind of stuff, but it often is.

    Course, you could also have rock with individually picked fast riffs a la Metallica...

    The way I see it, the record companies have absorbed rock into their giant, pulsating forms, and in the process have ripped away the creativity from popular rock. Of course, there are still countless bands out there that do their own thing, are incredible, and no one knows about them. But the fifty bajillion teens who listen to Z100 know "rock" as Breaking Benjamin and Nickelback. Those types of bands wander into a studio, get a big-wig music producer who looks at demographic charts with his dick out, and have their songs written for them in a carefully calculated, devoid-of-any-soul standard rock format. When session guitarists aren't hired to play the solo, they still throw a "solo" in the song, which more often than not consists of the melody line repeated ad-nauseum with a couple of bends thrown in on the guitar.

    It's a process designed to make money that is in no way different from the team of music scientists who pore over every new Xtina song to make sure it's catchy. The only difference is that people mistake this pop-rock for rebellion.

    It's sad, but that's what eventually happens to every music genre, given enough popularity.

    Luckily, there are thousands of great bands out there. You just have to know where to look.

    MikeMan on
    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Jameserson wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Jameserson wrote: »
    Where is "rock" going, as a genre? Look at where it was a few generations ago, and compare that to now.

    you mean down the toliet?

    i consider "rock" to be blues-influenced and guitar-heavy. i think rock needs to return to its' roots and stop with all of this other bullshit. when fucking GREEN DAY is considered to be a rock band, something is terribly terribly wrong here.

    wolfmother, despite being a led zep tribute band, is probably the closest mainstream thing we've got to "real" rock nowdays.

    jet is pop rock, sorry. also they're annoying as shit.

    Greenday is considered to be punk. While the genre did come from rock, it's not quite the same. And I don't think we're listening to the same Jet.

    d8_1.JPG

    yes, it's just EW, but tell me, which grammy did they get for "american idiot"?

    and i'm positive we're listening to the same jet. listen beyond the screeching and the ocassional guitar riff; it's like listening to van morrison. bleah.

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    I predict the music of Wyld Stallions will align the spheres and bring peace to the world.
    Bill: Ted, while I agree that, in time, our band will be most triumphant. The truth is, Wyld Stallyns will never be a super band until we have Eddie Van Halen on guitar.
    Ted: Yes, Bill. But, I do not believe we will get Eddie Van Halen until we have a triumphant video.
    Bill: Ted, it's pointless to have a triumphant video before we even have decent instruments.
    Ted: Well, how can we have decent instruments when we don't really even know how to play?
    Bill: That is why we NEED Eddie Van Halen!
    Ted: And THAT is why we need a triumphant video.
    Bill, Ted: EXCELLENT!

    Gooey on
    919UOwT.png
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Gooey wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    I predict the music of Wyld Stallions will align the spheres and bring peace to the world.
    Bill: Ted, while I agree that, in time, our band will be most triumphant. The truth is, Wyld Stallyns will never be a super band until we have Eddie Van Halen on guitar.
    Ted: Yes, Bill. But, I do not believe we will get Eddie Van Halen until we have a triumphant video.
    Bill: Ted, it's pointless to have a triumphant video before we even have decent instruments.
    Ted: Well, how can we have decent instruments when we don't really even know how to play?
    Bill: That is why we NEED Eddie Van Halen!
    Ted: And THAT is why we need a triumphant video.
    Bill, Ted: EXCELLENT!

    *air guitar*

    Shinto on
  • RichardTauberRichardTauber Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Rock is dead. All hail Bill and Ted. (and Guitar Wolf)

    RichardTauber on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I don't think we'll know the next evolution of rock until months after it became popular and spawned its own backlash. Such is the nature of these things.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • muninnmuninn Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Tennacious D still keep rock alive!

    muninn on
  • 3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    This thread title made me think of the wrestler. :(

    3lwap0 on
    I think Pringles original intention was to make tennis balls... but on the day the rubber was supposed to show up a truckload of potatoes came. Pringles is a laid-back company, so they just said, "Fuck it, cut em up!".
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    HiredGun wrote: »
    Radiohead has already taken 'rock' (to the extent that there is such a thing) to a darker, electronic-influenced sort of place. Sigur Ros has gone the opposite route, toward soaring, orchestral stuff.
    And Explosions in the Sky has taken it to heaven.

    SithDrummer on
    It's an easy game to hate
  • GregerGreger Registered User
    edited April 2007
    so, what do you guys think is going to be the next evolution in the progression of rock? are we going to stay on the same path we're on now, or is the slow progression into some of the "harder" rock referred to as metal, heavy rock, heavy metal, etc.

    in ten years, is "rock" going to be considered the heaviest of the heavy metal stuff? are we looking at rock becoming something maybe "softer", or perhaps something with an electronic/rock fusion...

    i'm really interested in hearing what other people think. i've often thought about what the progression of rock would look like - i think that it has a chance to go both ways. heavier and heavier music is being played and just being referred to as rock. i don't think this is a particularly bad way to go, but i think it's more likely that we'll start hearing electronic/technoISH sounding/rock groups making their way into the spotlight.

    so: the evolution of rock - soft, hard, non-existent? what?

    we've gone from the good old days of classic rock/blues, into glam rock, and many other evolutions... what's next?

    edit: i should make it clear i'm not really meaning to re-define the word rock, as much as i'm asking what the next dominant type of rock is going to be coming up.

    Coheed and cambria is the evolution for me. I think electronic additions as well as experimentation and softer tunes will be in. Weve already had the heavy stuff.

    Greger on
  • DoronronDoronron Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    I predict the music of Wyld Stallions will align the spheres and bring peace to the world.

    Station. Party on, Dude.

    Doronron on
  • BolthornBolthorn Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I think we're going to see more experimentation and branching out until songs reach that average time of 6-8 minutes again with long solos, odd arrangements, keyboard solos, weird things going on, and a higher degree of wankery. Then, we'll get plain ole' rock again with a guitar, bass, drums, vocals ala The Ramones/Nirvana. It's a cycle that we've seen before.
    A friend of mine once said "Everything has already been written, it's all in how you arrange it." I think he's right. At this point, can there really be a chord progression that hasn't been done somewhere by someone?
    Just enjoy what you like and go with it. Analyzing everything sucks out the joy of it.

    Bolthorn on
    bolthorn_zps8e770883.png
    SteamID : http://steamcommunity.com/id/Bolthorn/
    PSN : Bolthorn
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Wyld Stallions rule!

    Drez on
  • YosemiteSamYosemiteSam Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yeah what do you mean when you say "rock?" Where is rock now? You have to specify what kind of rock you're talking about.
    yakul wrote:
    Although I would like to see electronic mixed with rock successfully.
    Radiohead? Of Montreal? A lot of other people who mix electronica with rock?
    The Cat wrote: »
    That's it exactly. I mean, far as I'm concerned the definition should have stuck at 'blend of black working songs and country'
    That's pretty vague too. That definition would also include almost all jazz.

    YosemiteSam on
    We are all very lucky to live in a world where there is this much music.
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Rock is anything with a guitar written in minor pentatonic or mixolydian.

    Cue muso revolt and discussion of modal scales.

    Gorak on
  • YosemiteSamYosemiteSam Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Rock is anything with a guitar written in minor pentatonic or mixolydian.

    Cue muso revolt and discussion of modal scales.
    Do you just want a cookie for knowing music theory, or what? Because you obviously know enough theory to know that that's not true.

    YosemiteSam on
    We are all very lucky to live in a world where there is this much music.
  • JimothyJimothy Not in front of the fox he's with the owlRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    All we are is dust in the wind, dude.

    Dust.

    Wind.

    Dude.

    Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives.

    Jimothy on
    Owlsig.jpg
  • RichardTauberRichardTauber Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Rock is anything with a guitar written in minor pentatonic or mixolydian.

    Cue muso revolt and discussion of modal scales.
    Do you just want a cookie for knowing music theory, or what? Because you obviously know enough theory to know that that's not true.

    This is school.
    of ROCK!!!!!!!

    RichardTauber on
  • LiveWireLiveWire Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Trying to define the parameters of rock is more difficult than trying to define the parameters of post-postmodernism.

    LiveWire on
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Rock is anything with a guitar written in minor pentatonic or mixolydian.

    Cue muso revolt and discussion of modal scales.
    Do you just want a cookie for knowing music theory, or what? Because you obviously know enough theory to know that that's not true.

    I want a cookie because cookies are cookies.

    Gorak on
  • Ant000Ant000 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I think it would be nice if there was a resurgence of the art of guitar solos (!!!) and generally more of a focus on musicianship once again in rock. In my lifetime rock went from the awesome excess of the 80's which eventually became ridiculous, to the bare-bones rock your cock off 90's Seattle sound. After that though mainstream rock seems to have been slowly molded into the likes of Nickleback and other creatively deficient, low risk, highly marketable poppy garbage.

    We need a couple guitar gods and some frontmen with killer pipes to come and kick the life back into rock, man!

    Ant000 on
  • YosemiteSamYosemiteSam Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Ant000 wrote: »
    After that though mainstream rock seems to have been slowly molded into the likes of Nickleback and other creatively deficient, low risk, highly marketable poppy garbage.
    You're talking about pop rock. Which is cool, but there's a lot of other stuff out there.

    YosemiteSam on
    We are all very lucky to live in a world where there is this much music.
  • TreelootTreeloot Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    japan wrote: »
    I honestly have no idea what people refer to when they say "rock" these days. The definition has become so general that it's useless.

    Even the Rock and Roll hall of fame doesn't seem to know what rock is. They've inducted people like Miles Davis and Grandmaster Flash, choices which don't make any sense to me. While both of those guys were innovative, creative, and talented musicians, they aren't what most people would consider Rock and Roll.

    Treeloot on
  • Ant000Ant000 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Well my point is, if you think about rock radio stations that fifteen years ago were playing new singles by Alice In Chains, Nirvana, Guns N' Roses, Jane's Addiction, Metallica...these stations now play bands like Nickleback, Disturbed, Seether, Hinder...all those sort of bands to round out their playlists with new "rock" music. So whether you classify them as rock or not, they seem to be filling in the spot in mainstream music that much more credible and true rock bands of yesteryear were once filling. All I'm saying is it would be great if a new movement came along, pushed that crap to the backburner and treaded new ground and actually made rock a musical force once again in the mainstream. I'm not really as concerned about the genre and sub-genre details.

    Ant000 on
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Treeloot wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    I honestly have no idea what people refer to when they say "rock" these days. The definition has become so general that it's useless.

    Even the Rock and Roll hall of fame doesn't seem to know what rock is. They've inducted people like Miles Davis and Grandmaster Flash, choices which don't make any sense to me. While both of those guys were innovative, creative, and talented musicians, they aren't what most people would consider Rock and Roll.

    But they both 'Rocked!'.

    Gorak on
  • YosemiteSamYosemiteSam Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Treeloot wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    I honestly have no idea what people refer to when they say "rock" these days. The definition has become so general that it's useless.

    Even the Rock and Roll hall of fame doesn't seem to know what rock is. They've inducted people like Miles Davis and Grandmaster Flash, choices which don't make any sense to me. While both of those guys were innovative, creative, and talented musicians, they aren't what most people would consider Rock and Roll.

    But they both 'Rocked!'.
    Miles Davis's fusion was pretty much far-out rock music, although it was obviously based first and foremost in jazz. Grandmaster Flash is a different story, but dude deserves some recognition, even though it doesn't make sense that it's from the rock and roll hall of fame.

    YosemiteSam on
    We are all very lucky to live in a world where there is this much music.
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Treeloot wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    I honestly have no idea what people refer to when they say "rock" these days. The definition has become so general that it's useless.

    Even the Rock and Roll hall of fame doesn't seem to know what rock is. They've inducted people like Miles Davis and Grandmaster Flash, choices which don't make any sense to me. While both of those guys were innovative, creative, and talented musicians, they aren't what most people would consider Rock and Roll.

    But they both 'Rocked!'.
    Miles Davis's fusion was pretty much far-out rock music, although it was obviously based first and foremost in jazz. Grandmaster Flash is a different story, but dude deserves some recognition, even though it doesn't make sense that it's from the rock and roll hall of fame.

    That's confusing 'Rock and Roll' with 'Rocking'. Many none rock (music) things rock.

    Gorak on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Rock evolves!

    Becomes Rockchu!

    ...

    Okay, I'm leaving now.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.