Re pop music, you hear a lot these days about Taylor Swift. As if she’s something authentically new in this realm.
Actually there’s no real new in rock, or at least viable “new.” Because rock already bit the dust a while ago. Sometimes I just think they forgot to bury it.
Rock was in its daring, innovative youth during the 1950s. It then became more multi-pronged (think soul, acid offerings and the like) during the ‘60s, and in middle-aged maturity, though that’s only an analogy. Actually it was still very much for the young.
It ramified itself in the ‘70s, becoming “soft rock” via practitioners like Carole King, James Taylor, and so forth. It featured fine groups like the Eagles and Bee Gees, and at a slightly lesser rung, Fleetwood Mac. Oh, and the disco of Donna Summer and the like, among other developments.
Then came ‘80s rock and I began to listen somewhat less. So don’t expect any deep expertise here on what transpired musically in that decade.
And then the ‘90s. How many big hits were there in that period? Not many at all. Maybe a dozen?
And then the 2000s. With many rocksters still looking angry, baleful and the rest, dressing down and remaining rebels … but against what? Why couldn’t rock have just decently moved into the sunset? We’re something like 34 trillion in debt. So go and revolt against the establishment? WHAT establishment?
More than that, rock just got tired, plain tired. Isn’t there some better and newer way to go in pop music? Even by melding with aspects of the classical or jazz genres?
People cling to names like Taylor S. as to a lifeline. Give me in their day Elvis and Chuck Berry, the Beatles and Beach Boys, the Supremes and Temptations, and so forth. Who of course remain listenable as we speak. For that reason the oldies stations don’t at all seem like they’re going out of business.
For people keep voting with their fingers at radio or internet devices. They keep voting mainly for older and better.
Poor Taylor Swift. She’s supposed to make a first down and pull the chains forward? Quite a weight, wouldn’t you say?
What “more extreme” promontory are you going to get to via such musical efforts? So I’d like to ask some younger group members. You think it’s Beatles or Stones time again? It can’t be, not the way we’re going.
Because again, rock’s basically run its course. It’s hit the wall, or so it feels. We retire broken-down racehorses or pitchers with bum arms, so why not rock n’ roll?
In the main it’s an epigone of better days and for the most part, déjâ vu. Which may be too gentle a way of putting it.
Not that we lack biopics and celebrations of many old groups and artists. But nostalgia’s itself gotten old, especially in this regard. It’s like we boomers keep shoving these old musical achievements into young faces. Actually, and no matter the generation, we’ve ALL heard the oldies a lot.
And that’s mainly because “newies” in rock are so wan and lacking in innovation. Especially in the romance department, which used to be a central ingredient in music. But now? Songs are mostly on why things CAN’T work, rather than why they can. Nothing’s that romantic any more, including most types you see attempting to purvey such sentiments to listeners.
Tryin’ to get the feelin’ again, to cite an old ditty? Can’t be done. Heraclitus declared long ago that you can’t go into the same river twice. What if a whole group of rocksters have been going into that same old river thousands of times, and without great effect?
And unable to reach multiple generations the way icons of yore could do. Which is why AM rock radio, aside from the oldies, is done, too. Not simply due to the talk revolution, which certainly filled a vacuum. But because new musical product that could thrill all ages isn’t around now.
And that’s again because some won’t acknowledge that rock has had its day. Till we do acknowledge this fact we won’t get significant musical innovations that can indeed, reach and give pleasure to many across the generational contingents (and divides).