The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Why Do People Hate Rock Music? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 12th March 2014
  #61
Lives for gear
 
C//AZM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
But the "criteria" you speak of, is not a firm universal set of rules and systematic requirements all must adhere to. This is art we are speaking of, not construction site inspection/regulation. Even from style to style, we are allowed to set the bar wherever we want, stylistically relevant, and personally relative.
sigh I never said there was "a firm universal set of rules and systematic requirements all must adhere to" I was making an attempt to communicate with you. I even gave examples of how there is NOT one rule to guide you. In the above, you're basically rewording what I was saying to you.
For example...

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
When I listen to nuevo-flamenco music, I don't judge it according to my standards for Romantic era orchestral music. And when I listen to Katy Perry's "Roar", I don't judge it according to my standards for ambient electronic music.
Which seems to be the opposite of what I was originally responding to.
This...
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post

......If I can't enjoy the new forms of rock, it's my own fault because I have chosen to highly value songs which have a magically dynamic transitional surprise factor around every corner as compositional prerequisites for enjoyment.
...Where you seemed to be placing definite and specific "compositional prerequisites" It SEEMED to mean that you wouldn't be able to enjoy, say a Tuvan Monk throat chant or a dance trance song because there aren't "transitional surprise factors around every corner" so I responded thinking" man, there's a whole lot of cool **** out there without that there transitional surprise factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post

Fans of Tchaikovsky often harshly criticized Brahms because he didn't fulfill their personal requirements/expectations for composition of melodic fantasy. They often heard him as "composing without ideas", and from their unique point of view, they were right.
Yes and it is my opinion that they were WRONG in doing so. They were looking for one thing while missing another thus limiting themselves. IMHO.
That was the same problem with Schumann, his wife Clara and the "Davidsbundlers" "Band of David".


It's really ok that we disagree. But I was interested in this conversation because I wanted to understand what you were standing. So I continued in order to flesh out a couple of misunderstandings I felt you had based on what I said. And now I had the chance to re-state rephrase and reiterate. And now it appears that you weren't as limiting and boxing yourself as I originally thought based on your first statement I quoted.

So, like, cool.
Old 12th March 2014
  #62
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by C//AZM View Post
It's really ok that we disagree.
But since we are peacefully agreeing to disagree, we are in a way, harmoniously in peaceful agreement and coexistence !

I find that the more space (sanctity) you give someone else in their opinions on art, the more space they give you (generally, for the most part, at least).

Here's an example. I Personally find Neil Finn to be an awesomely great pop music songwriter, but in no way do I expect or demand the same view from others. What I value in his freedom of expression and exploration, others might find pretentious or maybe even embarrassing. They might want less esoteric idiosyncrasies and less vociferous artistry, and they might even find him to be way too caught up in himself. I'm totally cool with that (but I will cry tears of dejection on my own time heh). I get my (freely chosen, individually-based) needed fix of dynamically transitional surprise factors from him.

Another example. The other thread on the latest winner in a songwriting competition has rather good compartmentalization of opinions throughout, with those with negative views and those with positive views having their own "rights" to the absence of any attempted intervention.

EDIT : C//AZM, just so you can rest easy, when I listen to an East Indian Raga, I in no way demand Thelonius Monk style chord changes. And I also think you should re-think the Russian perspective on Brahms. To quote Tchaikovsky, "For the Russian heart, there is something dry, cold, nebulous and repelling about the music of this German master. For us Russians, Brahms lacks every sense of melodic fantasy. The musical thought in Brahms is never completely pronounced. Barely has a melodic phrase been as much as hinted at, it is so overgrown with all kinds of harmonic modulations as if the composer had set himself the task of being incomprehensible and deep whatever the cost. His style is always so lofty."

As a Brahms fan, I fully empathize, understand and accept his unique perspective, even though I do not share it (because my view, based on my preexisting frame of reference and judgmental standards are so different than his).
Old 12th March 2014
  #63
Gear Head
 
HSA7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
I Personally find Neil Finn to be an awesomely great pop music songwriter, but in no way do I expect or demand the same view from others.
From a professional songwriter's perspective shouldn't we expect most professional pop songwriters to find that Neil is a great pop songwriter? Same with Brian Wilson, Beatles, etc. Meaning, a professional pop songwriter should be able to separate their feelings as a listener from the discipline or craft of pop songwriting. I believe that professional pop songwriters should be held to a higher standard than the emotionally driven listening public.

Some people actually don't "like" the Beatles, which is fine. Can you imagine a professional pop songwriter in a room full of professional pop songwriters (similar to this forum) discussing the craft of pop songwriting and arguing that the Beatles were not good pop songwriters?
Old 12th March 2014
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Carnalia Barcus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HSA7 View Post
Meaning, a professional pop songwriter should be able to separate their feelings as a listener from the discipline or craft of pop songwriting.
I don't really believe that's possible though, not if one is making any sort of assessment, and what counts as a "higher standard" is subjective.
Quote:
Some people actually don't "like" the Beatles, which is fine. Can you imagine a professional pop songwriter in a room full of professional pop songwriters (similar to this forum) discussing the craft of pop songwriting and arguing that the Beatles were not good pop songwriters?
In my view it's incoherent to say that you feel that something is good but you don't like it.

However, I would find it perplexing if a songwriter were writing more or less in the vein of Neil Finn or Lennon/McCartney, where they thought that their own work was artistically worthwhile, but where they didn't at all care for Finn or Lennon/McCartney. I'd be curious to learn how that works for them, to learn just what was making the difference for them that I'm not seeing.
Old 12th March 2014
  #65
Gear Maniac
 

I think it's possible that rock comes off as irrelevant because pop is just an evolution of rock so in some respect they could be considered the same genre, but rock as the old version of it.
Just a theory?
Old 12th March 2014
  #66
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukeforester1 View Post
I think it's possible that rock comes off as irrelevant because pop is just an evolution of rock so in some respect they could be considered the same genre, but rock as the old version of it.
Just a theory?
i don't think so. i think pop and rock are independent yet intersecting musical standards. i also think rock evolved as a reaction to pop at 1st, and quickly found itself as it's own genre.

sometimes rock becomes pop, because the public is in that rock mood for that year, decade etc. this happened with grunge. the public thought that drug and angst style was pretty cool.

sometimes pop sounds like rock, because the producer chose that flavor for that song, album etc. usually this is more of a superficial use of rock sounds.
Old 12th March 2014
  #67
Lives for gear
 
C//AZM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukeforester1 View Post
I think it's possible that rock comes off as irrelevant because pop is just an evolution of rock so in some respect they could be considered the same genre, but rock as the old version of it.
Just a theory?
But only rock based pop is an evelution of rock. Remember pop outdates rock by several decades. Before rock based pop there was jazz based pop, tinpan alley and show tunes and before that there was Vaudville based pop, minstrel songs.... Excuse me if I'm a bit sketchy on the lineage & timeline.

To your point though, could it be that the biggest ambasadors of "Rock" are older guys and the popier rock people are all younger "cuter" people.
Old 12th March 2014
  #68
Gear Maniac
 

I find alot of the time when people express a genre they hate, they use terrible references. This is because its generally found on the radio so this is their only experience with it. I hated rap music when I was younger, I thought it was just talentless garbage. Now that I have looked deeper into it over the past 8 10 years, I have found it to be one of the arcane arts in its own right. I came from a history of listening to alot of death metal and elitist black metal when I was younger, now I play rock music in a jam space and sometimes I am driven mad by the noise in the adjacent spaces because somebody is trying to use double kicks to massage a rabid elephant, at least thats what I think is going on in there...
I make electronic music too and spend just as much time doing that as I do with my band. There is good music and bad music, and there are people who know that and people who are musically conservative.

And if you cant relate to the music, then you cant relate. I can't relate to country music.. I live in a city, make electronic music, and get payed to make digital art. I dont own a car because I wouldnt have a place to park it and I have never been in contact with an animal larger than a small mule. By a country singers standards I would be a complete hipster and so I could assume the feeling would be mutual in regards to music preference. But its not hate.
Old 12th March 2014
  #69
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HSA7 View Post
From a professional songwriter's perspective shouldn't we expect most professional pop songwriters to find that Neil is a great pop songwriter?
Most would, but not all. I really don't expect a unanimous consensus when it comes to reacting to art. There might be more unanimous consensus regarding his previous level of success though. But "great" usually implies more of a qualitative statement, and often a nod of approval to the writer's personal style & aesthetic.
Old 12th March 2014
  #70
Lives for gear
 

And C//AZM ? The thing which sorta set me off on a tangent (aka modulation) was your choice to say, "the criteria", rather than saying "a criteria", or "one's criteria".

Water kettle's off the stove now. heh
Old 13th March 2014
  #71
People do not hate rock. Not the stuff on the radio, not the classic stuff either. Everything has its audience. There are TONS of people that like the post grunge nickelback stuff, and there are TONS of people that prefer the classic rock stuff. People in bands that are serious about music as a career have to keep in mind that the music they make has to sell for them to be able to live off of it. With that said if you look at the billboard Mainstream Rock Charts, you will see what is selling these days. Hence why people are still making the post grunge/Hard Rock stuff. I see Music much like medicine. Not everyone is going to need the same medicine for their sickness. As long as it makes you feel good, its doing its job.
Old 13th March 2014
  #72
Here for the gear
 

I don't I like it.
Old 13th March 2014
  #73
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

For those who don't like rock music, they are planning a ONE WAY mission to Mars (I'm serious...it's ONE WAY).

Just a thought

Old 13th March 2014
  #74
Gear Addict
 
themixtape's Avatar
some good newer rock bands:

Black Keys
Rival Sons
Kings of Leon (new album is super good)
The Dead Weather
The Strokes (still great)
Foo Fighters (can't say I hate them... though overplayed, they're still one of the best rock bands of today)

bad stuff:
Nickelback
Creed
Three Doors Down
Hinder
Daughtry
etc.
Old 13th March 2014
  #75
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DICEbog View Post
People do not hate rock. Not the stuff on the radio, not the classic stuff either.
I think there are plenty who rebelled against rock dominance, and pursued their own paths (often in Classical/Orchestral, Electronic, Rap, Hip-Hop, Synth-Pop, New Wave). Possibly, the relentless bravado of wild guitars and screaming vocals really rubbed them the wrong way sonically for some reason. The blues based chord patterns might not have endeared them to it either. I respect their dissenting paths. It leads to artistic diversity.

But for other folks, there is nothing greater than hi-energy rock with a heavy duty melodic focus. Check it out !


Doucette - Mama Let Him Play - YouTube
Old 13th March 2014
  #76
Quote:
Originally Posted by HSA7 View Post
Not a response to Fraternalhouse's thread, but I realized after reading many threads here and elsewhere, that rap may actually be more popular than rock. I like rap, but also rock in all its forms and pop, country, jazz, classical, everything in doses.

So, why, in our current culture do I feel a little odd saying "I like rock." I sense that if you like rock today (or play it), you're quickly labeled irrelevant or worse dismissed by the current culture as cliche. Do you feel it is simply a tired old genre reserved for cover bands, mid western beer drinkers, boomers, old hippies and punks? Do you hate rock? Do you love rock? Do you tolerate rock? Do wish it would just die already?
I grew up on rock and roll and then rock. (I actually sat out a few of my teen years because I refused to have anything to do with my age peers... after a while I realized this stance was going to put obstacles between me and... uh... romance.)

And, by then, rock had taken what to me was an interesting, psychedelic turn in the late 60s, so I had a good time and actually went back and caught the good stuff while not having to endure the rest, so my time spent elsewhere (symphonic, bossa, jazz, folk, blues) ended up pretty OK, all in all.

I started getting really bored by mainstream rock in the 70s. I found solace in the outsider prog bands. I didn't have any use at all for stuff like Emerson, Lake, and Palmer after a while, but I really liked some of the lesser known outfits like Family, Can, Faust, Magma, and so on. I also was intrigued by the back-to-honest-rock of pub-rock and proto-punk. But when I first heard Patti Smith in '75, I knew the musically exciting time I'd been waiting for through the first half of the 70s was finally coming to pass. I was highly engaged with the punk/DIY/new music movement, even into the 80s.

But, you know, the labels finally figured out how to make a buck off punk and before the decade was out there would be chain stores selling off-the-rack 'punk outfits' (just add glory spikes).

The record biz has a way of destroying all that's fresh and interesting and rewarding those that aren't. Happens every time. The cool stuff is filtered out leaving plastic, manufactured crap like the Cars and the Police.

I thought maybe I could get back into rock in the 90s... for a few moments it was promising... I was still listening to a lot of Sonic Youth -- really not much else you'd call rock by then. A lot of post-punk roots stuff, too, but it tended more to the folk/country side of things.

And I found as soon as the cliche power chords and such came out, my interest was out the window. I found myself repeating: 50 years of rock is enough already.


PS... definitely not on the same page as the modern rock band list above -- I agree on the second list. I just think the stuff I'm familiar with on the first list belongs right along with the stuff on the second list. I particularly find the crit-fave clumsy 'guitar god' stuff from one of those outfits to be particularly laughable. Nothing worse in rock than a pathetic guitar god. But then, we've had to suffer with aging white guys who thought Clapton* was the nazz for decades.

*I'm an aging white guy, I can say that. And, for sure, EC had his moments in the 60s. He wasn't a great guitar player but he had a lot of energy back then. You can really hear him playing well over his head in Cream... it kind of works but it also exposed the limitations that hadn't really showed in the far more conventional Blues Breakers. Sadly, by the mid-70s when I finally saw him (I really shoulda dragged my ass to Cream) he was barely playing any guitar, handing off solos to his 'second' guitarist, George Terry.
Old 13th March 2014
  #77
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
The cool stuff is filtered out leaving plastic, manufactured crap like the Cars and the Police.

AAAAAaaaaargh ! Oh no you didn't !

At least, please tell me you thought their very early releases / debut albums weren't plastic, manufactured crap.
Old 13th March 2014
  #78
Here for the gear
 

Good songwriting is good songwriting. I think that will always find a way into people's hearts. Rock is not dead nor hated, it's just not as mainstream as it used to be, and lacking pop appeal in terms of material. In the music scene around LA there are plenty of rock shows with plenty of audience members. My goal is to make people move. I really hope rock isn't dead, because if it is... I'll try my hardest to resurrect it.
Old 13th March 2014
  #79
Sorry, eldon, my brother, but my dagger cuts both directions, cutting a broad swath through both present and past, I'm afraid. heh

But, like I so often find myself having to say: There's no such thing as bad music! If you enjoy it, that makes it good music and don't let anyone con you into not enjoying something you actually like.

It is, after all, all subjective.

PS... you would be SHOCKED how many burly, knuckle-crushing latter day punkers liked the Police. I've always found it bizarre, but I guess it was their sensitive sides coming out. Or something. FWIW, I always thought "Don't Stand So Close to Me" was the best pop-rock song about being a high school teacher I'd heard. But then, I think "hot for teacher" was the only other, even vaguely related one I can think of.


FWIW, I think rock has joined country, rock & roll, R&B, blues, swing, reggae, disco, rap, etc, as an established 'classic' pop form. And that means, essentially, mostly ossification and 'classicism' -- but nothing rules out a resurgence of rock -- just as we've had other forms and styles cycle through. There can only be a first time once, but it doesn't mean adventurous people can't have some real, progressive fun. Us old-timers might want to look at what Dan Hicks did with his Hot Licks -- they were, for a time, considered one of the hippest tickets around, with their hippie stance combined with old time vocal swing. Everything old is new again. Just maybe not quite as new as the first time.

Or, as I also often say: hemlines go up, hemlines go down.
Old 13th March 2014
  #80
Lives for gear
 

Van Halen - Hot for Teacher (Vinyl) - YouTube


Oh, the unmitigated vitality of it. The POWAH !
Old 13th March 2014
  #81
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
Van Halen - Hot for Teacher (Vinyl) - YouTube


Oh, the unmitigated vitality of it. Ka-POW !
I saw VH a year or year and a half before their first album came out. (Opening for Nils Lofgren, of all things!) This was 1977. They had a certain industry buzz for their 'street cred.' I was, as noted, pretty involved with the LA punk scene in those early days.

I'm expecting your basic 1977 LA punks, torn jeans, s***** died hair, trashed biker jackets... and out prance these creatures in sprayed-on, candy-striped spandex body suits and bouffant hair that would have made the courtesans in Louis XIV's court jealous... I was miles beyond aghast. I was truly horrified. What has rock come to when THIS abomination would take a stage in front of me?!?

And EVH's playing -- which I'd also heard about -- struck me as pathetically long on tweedle and low on everything else.

All of which seemed even more surprising in retrospect when I actually liked a few things on their first LP and actually liked some aspects of EVH's playing. (Mostly just his trem bar work. I liked the broad fauvist strokes of his signature dive bombs. Sure, they got old... but for a moment, there was a little vitality in hard rock again.)
Old 13th March 2014
  #82
Deleted User
Guest
The more I read this thread the more I realize that what people define as good rock music is a matter of taste and life experience, especially the experience of one's youth. An objective definition of what constitutes good rock may always have some flaws.
Old 13th March 2014
  #83
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Case View Post
The more I read this thread the more I realize that what people define as good rock music is a matter of taste and life experience, especially the experience of one's youth. An objective definition of what constitutes good rock may will always have some flaws.
+1.

That's why I'm keeping tempered relativism as my current mode of operation in regards to musical opinions. Each individual has a very unique frame of reference (based on all the music they've ever heard) and subsequently, a very unique set of judgmental standards they choose to employ and apply when interpreting/evaluating musical art.

I just hope theblue1 and creegstor keep posting because they make me look soooooooooooooo tolerant and lenient ! heh
Old 13th March 2014
  #84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Case View Post
The more I read this thread the more I realize that what people define as good rock music is a matter of taste and life experience, especially the experience of one's youth. An objective definition of what constitutes good rock may always have some flaws.
Possibly because the appreciation of all art is, of necessity, subjective?

Just a thought. heh
Old 13th March 2014
  #85
Lives for gear
 

Yes, there is a subjective perceptive angle, but there is also a much more objective perspective when it comes to describing the intricate, verifiable content (for example, harmonic analysis).

The 2 intertwine.

Calling the drums in the "Hot For Teacher" intro "Heavy" seems relatively reasonable to me, probably leading to a general consensus.
Old 13th March 2014
  #86
Gear Head
 
HSA7's Avatar
 

Why does our current culture find it necessary to hate rock in order to promote the current dominant genres. That was never necessary until recently. It is patent. I love Bruno so I must hate Nirvana. No musical basis for this. It's malicious, punitive.
Old 13th March 2014
  #87
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by HSA7 View Post
Why does our current culture find it necessary to hate rock in order to promote the current dominant genres.
In my metro area there are two modern rock stations, two classic rock stations, and two pop stations, among many others including adult contemporary, oldies pop, and two college indie stations. That hardly qualifies as hate for rock. They pretty much have an equal allocation. To put it in perspective, we have TWO stations playing modern rock garbage all day long. Someone has to be listening to them. Probably the crowd with tats and nose rings as far as I can figure out.
Old 13th March 2014
  #88
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
Yes, there is a subjective perceptive angle, but there is also a much more objective perspective when it comes to describing the intricate, verifiable content (for example, harmonic analysis).

The 2 intertwine.

Calling the drums in the "Hot For Teacher" intro "Heavy" seems relatively reasonable to me, probably leading to a general consensus.
Oh, we can erect all sorts of criteria, of course -- that can be a bottomless endeavor.

And we can attempt to find ways of correlating those criteria with relative appreciation among different cohorts -- but ultimately, our criteria tend to be somewhat arbitrary because of wide variations in subjective appreciation.

For instance: one would-be critic loves mechanistic precision, another fluid rubato... which is 'right'?
Old 13th March 2014
  #89
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
[...]

I just hope theblue1 and creegstor keep posting because they make me look soooooooooooooo tolerant and lenient ! heh
I think I mentioned in earlier threads that it's my position that while there is certainly no shortage of what strikes me as dumb music at the top of the charts today, it's been my longtime observation that, while the percentage varies, there's never really been what I'd consider a serious shortage, ever.


Mind you, I like some dumb music myself, without a doubt.

Now that auto-tune is finally receding from the pop shores, I plan on doing some serious catching up.
Old 13th March 2014
  #90
Gear Head
 
HSA7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Case View Post
In my metro area there are two modern rock stations, two classic rock stations, and two pop stations, among many others including adult contemporary, oldies pop, and two college indie stations.
But, lines have been drawn. Even within the rock genre, modern rockers denounce classic rock as old and tired. I don't recall needing to find Nirvana or Led Zep old, tired and irrelevant in order to love Linkin Park then Muse and now Imagine Dragons.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump