Is rock music moving on without us?

[westen44]

http://teamrock.com/feature/2018-03-05/the-imagine-dragons-phenomenon-is-rock-music-moving-on-without-us

[Dave W]

If you want to define the Imagine Dragons as rock music by putting them in the same charts as older bands we consider as rock bands, then it's a fair assessment. But IMHO it's a misclassification to call them a rock band. It's pop music, NTTAWWT.

Similar situation with putting douchebag wannabe frat boy party rock on the country stations and charts and calling it country.

[westen44]

Totally agree.  I actually listened to a few of their songs, too.  It is simply not rock music, period. 

[Basvarken]

Never heard of them. And I think I couldn't care less 

[doombass]

Who said that Spotify's choice of categorisation is the law? It's not going to be better than the person or algorithm behind it. To me it looks like that's the only instigator of that article. Just a storm in a glass of water just like most media headlines today.

[4stringer77]

There will always be cheesy pop but I don't think it will replace rock completely. Guitars are still a big thing and the younger generation is pretty savvy with them. Things like 8 string guitars and technical math rock are more relevant developments in rock's evolution. It could be due to increasing levels of autism but at least the kids still like to crank it up.

[Granny Gremlin]

I love articles written by people with no knowledge of music history.  This is the same argument from 1985 re: what we locally called New Wave , but was really post punk/synth pop; is it even rock.  And that wasn't even the first time. Now I have no issue with genre bending or fusion, and that is the way things are going but, sure, they (Imagine Dragons) are not quite rock (and I don't think they're trying to be or their fans consider them to be) though it is possible to incorporate some elements of modern dance pop (for example) without ceasing to be rock, there is a threshold at which you actually cross over.  Actual (purist) rock is continuing on, though I have to say, half the time it is kinda me'h and cliche, but not all the time. I do have a bit of a issue with the homogenization of music that seems to be what the mainstream industry does to it  - the process takes new genres, at first marginalizes them, and then as critical mass of fandom approaches, suddenly reverses course and absorbs it as fast as possible; one huge bite in attempt to swallow it whole, but inevitably a piece of it is crunched off and left behind like the tail of a cocktail shrimp.  The effect is that the forms of the new genre are applied to the same banal pop pap as before, usually without (all of) the substance.  You have people who listen to pop tarts and boy bands walking around in pre-ripped jeans and docs and studs in everything; makes no sense. I mean they're free to be into whatever they like, and stuff, but like, that was my jam (though I distress my own jeans the hard way thank you, and frankly some more reserved, tasteful inclusion of studding is what I would recommend) and now you've watered it down and made it just another cookie cutter style option; a cliche. I can buy sweatshop-made black 8 hole Docs at any Softmoc but not even the old stores I used to have to go to carry the well-made 10-14 hole oxblood combat boots (of whatever brand) that I prefer anymore. 

These attitudes and trends have even crept in to the independent (you can't even use the word indie anymore, because Indie bands aren't actually independent) scene(s). 

There will always be room for whatever genre you care to discuss, be it rock or otherwise.  Just the nature of that scene will cease to be quite as mainstream as before.  The good news is that the echo boomers (who are driving all the marketing right now; still some heavy action for their aging parents, but with that group's attrition losses....) for the most part respect and acknowledge what came before (vs complete rejection of their parent's music as in former generations), there will be another rock revival. Probably as the demographic's median age reaches 30-35 or so.

[Chris P.]

They are all over the radio, daily. The two songs I hate every day are the two ID songs. And they sound the same.

[uwe]

What is pop, what is rock? I don't think there is a viable differentiation unless you pick out extremes. And even then ...The Osmonds never rocked, right?



I spent much of the 70ies arguing that Sweet were a proper rock band, nobody believed me at school.



Were Queen a rock band, sometimes no ...



... sometimes yes ...



My own definition of "real" rock music is that it needs to be riff based:







Of course that renders U2 - a band unable to write a good riff if it hit them square between the eyes - non-rock, millions of U2sters all over the world would no doubt disagree, they are happy with U2 strumming chords and arpeggios with lots of delay.

Yet even my definition isn't fool-proof, this here is riffy as hell, but is it not (at least also) pop?



Now Imagine Dragons (a band I have never heard of until this thread) seems to me a band of young men playing electric and electronic instruments plus some acoustic percussion which kinda ticks the rock band box. Their music seems to be a mix of Kings of Leon, Linkin Park, Muse and perhaps a bit Coldplay (all of them bands with a sizeable share of female fans). They are not great on riffs from what little I heard, but neither are a lot of other people that are unflinchingly qualified as rock.

And whether you look good and appeal to girls, can't be a serious discerning feature for the (wholly unnecessary and scientifically unproven) rock/pop schism. To me these guys for instance are both: rock and pop.



I buy their albums faithfully, yet still enjoy Budgie's Whiskey River (see vid above), so it seems to me I'm moving along with rock music alright. And in comparison to Black Veil Brides, Ghost to me are undoubtedly more pop, yet still rock enough for me.



All that said, what's wrong with pop anyhow? I love it!

[westen44]

I think there is a difference between pop and what has been referred to already on this thread as "cheesy pop."  As for how that would be defined, it's similar to the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity in 1964:  you know it when you see it.  In the case of cheesy pop, you know it when you hear it and it's pretty easy to detect.  Coldplay is cheesy pop, but after listening to ID, I'd say they make Coldplay sound way better now. 

[Granny Gremlin]

If you hate ID, check out Ubiquitous Synergy Seeker; I mean the name alone.

[westen44]

If you hate ID, check out Ubiquitous Synergy Seeker; I mean the name alone.

I like the name Ubiquitous Synergy Seeker better than Imagine Dragons.  I had heard about ID for years, but never bothered listening to them because I dislike that name so much.  This is probably something irrational on my part.  I can't ever remembering doing that before.  But I don't even know what the hell that is supposed to mean:  imagine dragons.  It sounds pretentious and pointless to me.  Nevertheless, I can't say I hate their music.  I'm just not interested in it enough to listen to it. 

[Granny Gremlin]

Well I'm opposite on that.  When I first heard the ID name I thought they were a doom/noise band or something.  Boy was I ever wrong.

[westen44]

Quite frankly, I'm probably wrong for not listening to a band just because I don't like the name.  Fortunately, I'm almost never that arbitrary about stuff. 

[Highlander]

Boy oh boy... I'm so far out of the loop... this was pop to me as a teen...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFAd-zpqWiU