The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Forced to pick a date Rock music died, it’s gotta be 4/5/94 Cobain
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:24 PM Author: 718-662-5970 Facts in evidence: it’s dead now, it wasn’t dead in March 1994
You could argue nu-metal or rap-metal, or whatever you call Korn and Limp Bizkit was some kind of alive rock music in the late 90s, but no.
You could argue that indie, curated hipster music like The Strokes shows rock alive in 2001. I don’t think so
And yes Coldplay and Imagine Dragons or whatever have rocky songs that sold quadruple platinum in the tens and teens, but nope.
Fact of the matter is, best historical date is still Cobain, love him or hate him. There isn’t a better date to pin the death of Rock
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:24 PM Author: Ass Sunstein (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726592) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:26 PM Author: it's a shame about ray it didn't end so abruptly, but kind of petered out.
in all honesty, a lot of that 2000s era indie rock was still decent. Interpol, etc. but that was kind if the last gasp.
rock seems really to have ceased to exist in the last 15 years. i don't think the Zoomers really even 'get' rock music. |
 |
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:28 PM Author: Restless Penis Syndrome I think Nirvana pretty much shot their wad with the Unplugged performance and would have petered out shortly after. Not certain Cobain could have even gotten his shit together enough for another album and he was going in a different direction from Grohl at the end. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726603) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:37 PM Author: it's a shame about ray Kurt Cobain was like 1 of 3 people in the post-Boomer era of rock music who could consistently write actual strong melodies. it's a lost art. he had a bona fide genius for it. he was someone who was addicted to writing melodic music and was even writing and recording right up to the end of his life. it's possible he would eventually have done something more, but not certain. but his talent was categorically different from that of other artists of the era. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726619) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:44 PM Author: Restless Penis Syndrome Who were the other two? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726633) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:57 PM Author: https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK Robert Pollard was a better songwriter then and now. Uncle Tupelo wrote better songs than Nirvana and barely put out any filler. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726662) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:59 PM Author: it's a shame about ray (literally Uncle Tupelo) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726664) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:07 PM Author: https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK Cobain if his balls had descended:
https://youtu.be/m5jsrhUQz4o?si=M5kF_5ITyexGZZno |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:09 PM Author: backroom poasting couch If anyone has been guided by voices it's yo dumb ass. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726688) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:12 PM Author: https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK enjoy Aerosmith's Greatest Hits (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726694) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:14 PM Author: backroom poasting couch Kurt Cobain also liked Aerosmith (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726700) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:28 PM Author: https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK It figures (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726729) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:52 PM Author: backroom poasting couch More than that though. He was a cultural tour de force.
You could argue that Billy Corgan in the 80s and 90s was just as hooked on writing melodic hooks in the studio as Kurt was. The Chili Peppers have massive hooks as well well. Even a band like Green Day has a massive number of catchy songs. Same with Weezer.
What made Kurt different was his attitude. It wasn't just the hooks and talent. It was Kurt himself. It was his unbridled rage. It was his good looks. It was his hoarse voice and wearing a wedding dress. It was his brilliant lyrics. It was all the other stuff, the attitude. He wasn't the only guy who wrote catchy rock songs but he was the only guy who did it while watching the world burn. Yes, he was a songwriting junky but he was also Kurt Cobain: Anti-Hero™. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 4:55 PM Author: barnabyjones oh stop it. he died at his peak. the band would have flamed out like all other "greatest bands ever". see jimi hendrix, joplin, or James Dean for film example, etc... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48728454) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:29 PM Author: 718-662-5970 Firstly I’m not sating the post rock stuff isn’t good. I love the strokes. But it’s like jazz being made now, a kind of historical study.
And yeah few things really end in a 24 hour period. But history uses dates |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:32 PM Author: ....,.,.,.,.,...,;,.,.,;,.,;,;,.,. i think when everyone started hating on Nickelback, around 1998? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726607) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:33 PM Author: https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK No idea what "rock" is but Motorhead peaked in the late 90s and released their anthem in 1999.
https://youtu.be/rrtYh-E7B-E?si=g_t6hFU1-Q6bZ0s9
They pushed in everyone's shit for at least 8 years after Cobain. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:39 PM Author: disaster capitalist if rock was "born" with 1955's 'Bo Diddley', that means it only lived to be 39. by far the worst musical genre, just unlistenable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726622) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:47 PM Author: https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK Bo Diddley could swing. If Led Zeppelin tried to cover him they'd sound like they had dildos up their asses (they did). Metallica ljl. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726640) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:04 PM Author: 718-662-5970 it had a beautiful moment, but in the larger scheme, it can and will only be understood in the context of the negrolatry that took over the USA after 1960 or so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726679) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:13 PM Author: backroom poasting couch Unlike mumble rap and techno which are timeless... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726697) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 2:30 PM Author: Kenneth Play what're the best musical genres? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48728086) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 9:35 PM Author: disaster capitalist post rock cold wave idm dub jazz boom bap |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:43 PM Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. there was still good stuff after that like white stripes and bands like Red Hot Chili Peppers and Metallica and tool continuing to put out great albums (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726629) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:44 PM Author: Voodoo Child It was showing signs of strain as of the late 90s but held on at least through that decade. E.g., Metallica produced high-quality music through the end of the '90s.
There were some notable last-gasp bands in the 2000s, like the Killers, Linkin Park (if you consider them rock), Arcade Fire, Evanescence, My Chemical Romance, Panic at the Disco, and the White Stripes. None of them would be considered actual rock bands by the standard that existed before the 2000s, but they were better than the absolute dogshit out there today.
Something definitely changed culturally in the mid-late '90s that had a dramatic impact on music. Not sure if it was Cobain's death or not, but certainly the timing lines up. For fuck's sake, grunge albums were topping the charts in the mid-90s, which is incomprehensible today. Since then, it's been nothing but rap and pop, recycled over and over. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:53 PM Author: https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK Rock and roll was all about the beat until the late 60s. By the 90s only a few bands had tight rhythm sections and the rest sounded GnR or worse. Everyone was white too, there were zero blacks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726654) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:56 PM Author: hank_scorpio they forgot to make it dance (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726660) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:15 PM Author: backroom poasting couch (The Big Bopper) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726703) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:00 PM Author: Oh, You Travel? ( ) Metallica sucked in the 90s lol. Black album was ‘91. Nothing after. And metal or metal-adjacent isn’t really what people mean when they talk about “rock” in threads like this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726666) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:34 PM Author: Voodoo Child Please, tell me what “people” mean when they talk about rock “in threads like this.” I’m all ears. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726740) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:51 PM Author: hank_scorpio no, a full decade after that, for the rest of the 90's lots of interesting although not as big things happened, but by the early to mid 00's rock had coalesced into this dreadful wall of sound guitar thing that was always just one chord maxed out behind everything all the time then another and it ruined everything (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726643) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:52 PM Author: Ass Sunstein I think we can all agree that there were some good, decent bands up through the early 00s, but rock was dead as a cultural force after Cobain. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726649) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 9:52 PM Author: hank_scorpio I don't think you can deny that radiohead was still making rock for a while after that mattered (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726652) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:00 PM Author: 718-662-5970 To clarify my point, I do not mean to say there was not music in the rock style that was not "good" made past 1994. Or that there could not be some genius work of rock and roll released next year.
But there is a categorical shift between an art form that is alive and one that is not.
Someone could write a beautiful opera today, or make a wonderful oil painting. But those genres are dead.
There are a million causes of death for rock, Im sure. But obv a big one was the emergence of rap. There were varied responses, from Korn et al trying to incorporate rap, to indie kids in the 00s exaggerating their whiteness by aping 70s and 80s punk and new wave, like sticking their heads in a bucket swearing "rap doesnt exist". But by that point it was all studied and detached and more museum or classroom in nature. The White Stripes were not playing a living genre, and they knew it.
Rock did fucking die. Its impossible to name a date or event. But if FORCED to, its Cobain death. That's the single best candidate for the history books. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:17 PM Author: https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK The music was associated with a hedonistic lifestyle that no white person wanted to live after a certain point. The Ramones toured constantly and lived out of an econoline van because they came from an earlier era. Dudes in the 80s thought nothing of drinking themselves to death. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726706) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:32 PM Author: Oh, You Travel? ( ) Why was that? Why were the 80s Scummier? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726737) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:30 PM Author: backroom poasting couch A really big problem that all famous musicians have is once you become successful it's hard to keep pushing yourself really hard.
Eddie Van Halen's best songs he ever wrote were on his first record. OK, he had some other big hits in the 80s but he eventually ran out of songwriting gas.
Billy Corgan's talents peaked with his third record, Mellon Collie, and his fourth record was not as good then he was cashed.
You actually can't keep being good forever. Beatles had 10 years and they were done. So you have this tiny window.
Now think of how much has to come into place perfectly to even have a chance at hitting that window. It's very low. I would say the larger problem with rock is just how much effort has to go into building the skill. Tom Morello talks about practicing for 20,000 hours. Then he had to find 3 other guys who are just as good. There aren't any drummers, bassists, and vocalists who are that good anymore. You're never gonna find the complete band.
I don't think you're asking the right question. It's not is rock dead, it's why aren't there any new rock bands. If you look at it rock is the biggest genre in Canada, Australia, and the UK. It's still broadly beloved by white people everywhere. Even if it is overtaken by reggaeton in the US, white people worldwide still listen to rock over anything else. I don't think rock is dead in the same way as jazz or art deco. It's in period where no one is making new rock at a high level. But guitar sales have never been higher. People are plucking guitars every day en masse, more than at any point in human history, and white people broadly listen to classic rock every day regardless of what the charts say. Classic rock songs are appreciating in investment value so it's worth something to someone.
But yes, new rock is not getting made. But it lives on. It lives on in alt country and other subgenres. I don't think there's any reason it couldn't make a comeback and the appetite is definitely still there. Lots of young people go to hardcore shows and stuff and I recently saw a local band that sounded exactly like Tame Impala. It's definitely out there but it would take a confluence of unusual and unforeseen factors to culminate in one act like a Greta Van Fleet to come along but actually be the balls at songwriting. Most songwriters with talent make techno and pop because they can get famous so quickly with much less effort and that is causing brain drain.
But don't give up hope some individual might just surprise you and do the impossibile and bring it back. Oasis just signed a tour for 50 million quid. Dead genres don't have that kind of cash behind it. There's a real public love of rock. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 7:24 AM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) the fact that throwbacks like oasis at selling out stadiums, and no modern bands, proves his point. there isn't much appetite for new rock. there will be an appetite for old rock so long as people that grew up listening to it are alive. but as a style it's dead rn. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48727224) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 10:18 AM Author: backroom poasting couch False. There's a massive appetite for new rock. People simply are not producing it. If The Strokes came out today they'd be a huge deal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48727472) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 10:32 AM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) they are producing it, it's just not popular. there are thousands of bandcamps with people who sound like the strokes and oasis. hell, oasis and tons of rock bands continue to churn out new music. but the appetite for it isn't the same as it was at it's apex.
what's popular has always changed. the nature of popularity is that people are searching for something new, not the continued refinement and production of things that already exist. there is some market for that, just like how new jazz and classical will have clique of enthusiasts, but it has nothing to do with the *quality* changing. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 10:39 AM Author: backroom poasting couch No way dude. None of it is that good. I don't believe tastes have changed at all. No one on bandcamp or SoundCloud has made anything close to as good as Oasis and if they did I think it would be pretty popular. It's not 'just as good' but tastes have changed. People still definitely make pop rock songs but none of them that I've heard were any good. I think if it were amazing it would get famous fast.
Paul McCartney has released over 30 solo records since The Beatles broke up and most of it is unlistenable trash. You wouldn't compare something he did in 1985 with Yesterday. You can put any of his solo songs post Wings on and the song itself is ass by comparison to anything he made circa 1967. The point is it's really hard to make great art in any genre but no one has come close to creating something quality at the peak of the art form, else it would be really popular. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 10:54 AM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) we've gone around about this before. the core of the disagreement, i think, is that i believe it's undeniably true that quality and success can be uncorrelated, and you believe that the lack of success is evidence that quality doesn't exist. i think that that's naive. the truth is that popularity of an artform ebbs and flows and nailing down "quality" is impossible in the first place because it's subjective.
it's not that there are no more andy warhols, it's that pop art isn't popular. but people will still go see warhol stuff. it's not that there are no more oasis's, it's that britpop isn't popular. but people will still go see oasis. it's not that there are no more pixies, it's that grunge isn't popular, but people will still go see pixies.
this same will happen with modern music. people said gangsta rap was trash, but those artists can still fill stadiums. the same will happen with kendrick, drake, and dababy if they still tour in 20 years. in 2045 kendrick shows will be filed with middle aged people who grew up loving him, just like oasis will fill stadiums this summer with 30-40 somethings that grew up with oasis. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 11:29 AM Author: backroom poasting couch Counterpoint when Limp Bizkit played I think it was Lollapalooza in 2021, Fred mentions to a sea of zoomers that their parents all rocked out to his shit in the 90s. It was evident most of them hadn't listened to rock music before. But the crowd really lost their minds. I think there is a freshness to great music that never gets old. You're 20 years old and you've never heard Break Stuff before.
Young people still listen to lots of Tame Impala and King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard. People like Billy Strings. That one guy with the Rich Men North of Richmond blew up. I'm 100% certain that the appetite is still there.
A line from Brand New's 2017 record on how he was planning on exiting the business: "My shins burn for the replica youth/I hope that we can eject soon." I think it's evident that new generations of young people wanted to listen to more screamo. Not some nostalgic Millennial band but that the music was fresh for new generations. Young people heard it and really got into it. It wasn't all olds. Similarly I have met college kids who start listening to Pink Floyd and it becomes their whole personality and they get obsessed with seeing the band tour. You really think David and Roger are only playing to boomers? No there have to be some younger people who weren't around in 1972 or whenever Floyd reached their peak.
At the same time I could send you dozens and dozens of local indie bands and friends of mine who have tried really hard to write rock songs and none of them are good. They are all fundamentally flawed. People with 10 plays on their SoundCloud. It's bad for a reason. Some music is just bad. There has to be some criteria for admitting that bad music sucks and doesn't stand a chance at popularity. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 11:47 AM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) that's not a counterpoint, it's completely in line with me saying that once-popular music has enduring popularity. the primary audience will always be people that grew up with it, but it will still attract some new fans. but Significant Other albums didn't top the charts in 2021 nor did limp bizkit release a breakout album rehashing their old sound.
and yes, new rock will still sell. just like new jazz and new classical and new big band. but unless there's some revival, which can happen, it's not a dominant artform. and that has nothing to do with billy strings being "worse" than rick skaggs. maybe he's better. but he's making music that once was popular, but is no longer.
if billy strings is on equal footing with bluegrass legends in quality, why is he not more popular than musicians you think are "bad" today? if quality is inexorably linked to success, then how is popular music now "bad"?
this happens every single generation. there are always a handful of aging people who talk about how new music is "bad" and the music *they* grew up with is objectively better. did you happen to grow up listening to oasis and smashing pumpkins? why do you think that sound that you grew up with is objectively "best" and that new versions of it are fated for acclaim? don't you think it's a bit convenient that only the era of music that you grew up listening to has a unique hallmark of quality, but not jazz, big bands, gangsta rap, crooners, elvis, etc etc etc? why is only that sound something people are wanting more of but for completely unexplained and mysterious reasons no one "good" is making it? |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 12:00 PM Author: backroom poasting couch I've listened to every conceivable genre of 20th century music which is when the majority of famous and enduringly popular music was made as well as nearly every famous classical music record ever made (the worst music ever? Probably anything Russian). I listened to an absurd amount of classical and jazz. I've listened to early and gangster rap. I've also listened to countless overseas records, nearly everything from Korea, Japan to Brazil. Old Irish music. Bossa nova, City Pop, ranchero and classical Mexican music. Modern Mexican music. Ragtime, big band, swing. Pretty much every rock record that ever came out of Latin America. I could do a multi hour podcast on each of these genres. So no I don't think it's that I just happened to grow up during one of the many distinct eras of rock music.
To wit if you just look at the data, classic rock from the 60s and 70s is still the most popularity form of rock music today (rock is #1 still in the Commonwealth countries, and among American whites). It's a lot more popular than grunge and alternative. Do I like alt more than classic rock? Yes. But admittedly it's less popular. It didn't have the same enduring cultural impact and legacy.
Which is all to say I think I'm pretty unbiased here in my assessment. I don't think there's any cultural nostalgia factor for Limp Bizkit or Brand New. The fact young people are turned on by this music is just because they like it. There are no eras of popularity anymore, it's all just millions of individuals who are following their own micro niche of personal taste. If anything good comes along people will want to hear it. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 12:26 PM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) with all of this knowledge you must have some theory about *why* "good" music just stopped being popular, and *why* the eternal demand for good rock suddenly stopped being fulfilled despite the billions of dollars and cultural impact that lies unclaimed for the next good rock n roll band? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48727763) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 12:43 PM Author: backroom poasting couch Well I have laid it out extensively ITT if you read everything.
The difficulty of creating the product is paramount. There aren't too many airlines, car companies, or investment banks that come out either. I mean, Skrillex was in a rock band but he quit to make techno and got really big. It easy, it's on the table. I have met some famous DJs and they're all lunkheads. It's easy to push play on a laptop. Path of least resistance.
Napster was also crushing like people mentioned in my other thread Flaming Lips were selling 50k records but they probably made more money off of a non hit record selling out of a truck to their core fans than Justin Bieber makes from all streaming revenue combined. That's a huge impact. No money for record sales kills the artistic album concept.
There are a ton of factors. Maybe some day I will make a thread enumerating them all. I have some of my own theories too. I think Millennials being mentally weak is part of it too. A lazy generation. But yes the billion dollar industry is still there if great bands came out like gangbusters people would eat it up. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 1:00 PM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) doesn't all of this explain why it's no longer popular from your POV, but not why the unmet demand you believe exists hasn't been filled?
it's not "difficult" in terms of total effort to make rock per se. most of the best bands were kids. lennon was in his 20s when beatlesmania started. it takes a lot of talent and hard work of course. but it's not something that people wouldn't do because it's "hard." most rock bands are talented kids, many with limited technical proficiency and doing a lot of hard drugs, that tapped into a new sound that resonated with that generation.
if popularity was strictly correlated to quality then the charts would be topped by julliard kids. but it's not, it's always been topped by stuff the older generation thinks is bad that resonated with kids. frankie valli to cardi b. what's popular has always been a new sound for a new generation, not a rehash of an old sound. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 1:07 PM Author: backroom poasting couch Greta Van Fleet made millions of dollars and they were about as big a ripoff of an old sound as ever. They were widely panned for being unoriginal and it was still popular.
Technical proficiency doesn't translate to songwriting talent. Julliard kids are just cover bands that play classical and jazz and shit. I am pretty sure they are banned from doing anything contemporary. I've heard stories of them getting punished for playing pop songs, no idea if it's true.
Lennon came up in a time when there were lots of other people doing what he was doing. And these bands all had a ton of help. They had producers and engineers with a ton of experience. And people who were well versed in physical instruments. There was a big scene. Everything was easier. Today rock bands have to self finance for years, produce their own shit. There was a Rick Beato video recently where he said that the only thing record labels do in looking for new talent is they scroll social media to seek who's popular and that's who they sign. Lennon never had to deal with that. They just took a few pictures and a team of people did all the promo. It was a completely different time. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 1:26 PM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) obviously there is *an* appetite for rock, which is why greta van fleet and billy strings can make a living. what im saying is that the appettite for it is less than it was in 1994, whereas you seem to be saying it's the same but there's just no supply.
more kids want cardi b than nirvana. adults don't consume as much new music as kids. balding lawyers predominantly listen to sounds of their youth, as it has always been. theyre not searching for more of that sound, they're listening to wonderwall FOREVER just like boomers are listening to yesterday FOREVER. a few real fans are consuming new classic rock, just like jazz nerds are listening to whoever the 2025 version of herbie hancock is. that guy isn't less talented the herbie and if he is 5x better he'll still be far less popular because kids arent listening to watermelon man. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 1:32 PM Author: backroom poasting couch If there were 4-5 need original rock bands that came out today on the same artistic tour de force level as Nirvana and Oasis it would become a massive cultural movement and people of all ages would lose their minds for it. Period end of discussion. If someone builds it, they will come. But no one is building it. Fact, not opinion. You have the right to be wrong.
Your main hangup is you think some guy strumming random chords at the pub is 'just as good' as Kurt Cobain but was born in the wrong era. This demonstrates your inability to discern music quality. If you can't tell why some open mic loser isn't as good as Smells Like Teen Spirit that's on you.
But people who truly believe there is rock music that's just as good coming out now are insane. There's not. It's not true. But you're entitled to your delusions.
Great art is truly rare and only special people can do it. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 1:47 PM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) i just live in the reality where dababy and cardi b top the charts and have doubts that those same consumers want pearl jam.
you can't be "right" about a untested theory. i said that a revival is possible, just that it isn't certain if there was talent like you claim.
my hangup isn't about my subjective taste of quality. it's that your theory is clearly wrong as demonstrated by the fact that "bad music" as defined by you is popular, and your absolute certainty is this fair world where "good music" is fated for acclaim and commercial success. that's never been the case and isn't now. i'm not saying that it never happens and that there is no chance for a revival. trends can be cyclical. maybe rock will have a resurregence and maybe JNCOS will be fashionable. im just saying that there is no guarantee based on quality, which is undeniable considering many great artists take years to break out or are discovered after they're done, while many shitty ones go multi platinum.
pounding the table about a "fact" you have no evidence for does not make it more factual. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 1:52 PM Author: backroom poasting couch You can't produce one example of 'quality.' You don't have any post 2015 quality examples. You have 10 years of no quality, at the very least.
Take for instance Greta Van Fleet, who grossed in the millions, Take King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard who tour relentlessly and sell out. These still are not examples of quality rock music. They are widely panned by critics.
You don't have anything on the level of Nirvana and Oasis to point to and say, this is as good as the peak period of 90s rock. You don't have one song to proffer. And there aren't any respected music publications that are saying that contemporary rock songs are just as good as Nevermind. And that's because it's not true.
The only way you can prove your case is to point to a high quality rock song that ought to be famous but isn't. And there would have to be acclaimed critics who agree with this. This is your only out, here. But there's not one. There's not one example of Quality. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 2:11 PM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) sam evian is a great modern indie rock guy. viagra boys are a great punk band. i see shows all the time and the talent is there. it's simply styles that are not popular right now. if either of these artists where around in their genres heydays they would be household names.
tastes change. that's why gone with the wind doesn't sell out theaters but capeshit does. there is no invisible hand ensuring that "great art" will be successful. again, this is demonstrated by the fact that many great artists never achieve success in their lives and are only discovered later while shitty ones often sell out stadiums. the best rag time band would not have completed with the beatles in 1964 and the beatles would not compete with dababy in 2025.
|
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 2:19 PM Author: backroom poasting couch No one has EVER heard of Sam Evian or Viagra Boys. And anyone who has heard them would never compare them to Nirvana or The Beatles.
Rock music is still #1 among whites in every country. I absolutely think The Beatles would compete with DaBaby. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 2:26 PM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) see the issue is that you tie commercial success with quality and cannot consider that perhaps they aren't 1:1 correlated. in fact it's objectively and demonstrably true they often aren't as proven by greats often being unpopular in their time.
it would be really great if merit was the end all be all. but it's not. that's why dababy is multiplatnum and u: poast. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 2:31 PM Author: backroom poasting couch Why did Nevermind sell 20 million copies if there was something better no one has ever heard of? Why did Mellon Collie sell 10 million? MAYBE, NSAM is right and Guided By Voices is actually great art and Nirvana was just the DaBaby of its time. How do we know that Nirvana wasn't actually just trash and maybe some historical fad that will fade quickly. If only there was some way to measure enduring popularity over time. If only we had examples like Duke Ellington or some really old shit that people still liked. If only we had something even further back like Greensleeves that showed us some stuff is popular in any age.
Endurance by definition is a hedge against fads.
Here's an example. Fender guitars built before 1965 are worth millions today. Then in the 70s they got worse. People thought this era would never be valuable. It did eventually go up a lot but not by as much as the 50s and 60s. And then post 1980 they like never go up.
Some eras store value better than others. And we can actually measure that by seeing where investors are going. Hint: no one is dropping capital on owning the Da Baby catalog. If DaBaby was just as good as The Beatles but for a different generation you would see a lot more investors piling on. But you don't. I think Beatles catalog is still appreciating every year, and at a faster rate than modern music.
I'm sure you could cobble together an investment group to jump on the untapped potential of DaBaby publishing royalties! |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 2:39 PM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) did duke ellington and nirvana sell more records than dababy last year?
you're proving my point. if your world of fairness where merit always wins was true then zoomers would be buying nevermind and clamoring for more. but they aren't. why is that? |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 2:58 PM Author: backroom poasting couch Smells Like Teen Spirit 1.9 billion views. November Rain 2.2 billion..
I would say, saar, that they in fact are. Not only that but read through Spotify's disclosures. Essentially the record labels have been furious that people aren't listening to new music. By virtue of being large shareholders of Spotify they were able to bully the company into retooling their interface to make it harder for users to click on old playlists of vintage music. They are desperate for people to listen to DaBaby but they aren't. Revenues are actually down because no one is buying the woke nonsense just like how the Oscars are flame. I think every data point is pointing in my direction. Do some research. Way more people would rather listen to Pearl Jam. It's true, all of it. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 3:53 PM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) nirvana is not charting in sales or streams despite the market being able to choose teen spirit over dababy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48728312) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 4:03 PM Author: backroom poasting couch Not sure how they're charting but pull up any grunge band they have billions of streams brah lol.
A new Beatles song briefly went to #1 in the UK last year. Charts aren't everything my guy. Who even understands how that voodoo is cooked up in the digital age anyway. SOMEBODY listened to Smells Like Teen Spirit billions of times in the internet age.
Follow the money, you can always make a bid for a private sale of any musical catalog. I'm sure if DaBaby is undervalued there's money to be made. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 4:16 PM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) you're moving the goalposts, the value of dababys catalog and nirvana getting some views (1% of dababys) isn't relevant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48728381) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 4:49 PM Author: backroom poasting couch The most surefire sign of enduring popularity is the value of the publishing royalties. It's dead to rights. I may not like Taylor Swift but her publishing is worth a billion dollars. That's a fact. People don't buy things for a billion dollars they don't expect to go up over time. I don't care about DaBaby's bot farm. Nirvana is still worth millions at least. It's very valuable. People still listen to it all the time. I think Pink Floyd just sold for 400 mil. It was going to be more but apparently Roger's controversial behavior in the media knocked it down a lot.
You cannot in good conscience tell me DaBaby is a 400 million dollar investment. LOL |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 5:18 PM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) what is the relevance of that to your claim that there is a current unmet demand for new rock? the belief that nirvana will have enduring value has nothing to do with the *current* demand. people are not consuming "good rock" more than dababy. this disproves your assertion that "good music" will always be more commercially succesful than "bad music".
you can't explain you why the demand for "good music" is not being met when "good music" is not being consumed anywhere near the rate of "bad music". you just have this completely bizarre faith that nirvana II will be a cultural phenomenon despite nirvana I not being one in 2025. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 5:45 PM Author: backroom poasting couch I think I've already proven that on the whole more people are listening to old records than new ones. The valuations tell a tale. And also the fact that so few people were clicking on new music that the labels forced Spotify to change their layout to try and get more people to listen to new shit. There's a mountain of evidence on my side. Talk to any industry expert, old music still sells more than new on the whole. Listen to any active musician who will tell you they're competing against the entire catalog of world music history. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48728553) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 5:58 PM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) "There's a mountain of evidence on my side."
cite some. here's some evidence that new artists are outselling classic artists.
https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-official-biggest-albums-of-2024/
https://newsroom.spotify.com/2024-12-04/top-songs-artists-podcasts-audiobooks-albums-trends-2024/
are you aware that you can research who the best selling artists are today and not guess at it by comparing the price of classic catalogs? |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 10:39 AM Author: baseball fan cr been saying this for years (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48727513) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 10:42 AM Author: backroom poasting couch 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48727519) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 7:13 AM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) this is a great clarification of your point.
you can't call a language "alive" just because some people learn to speak it. something is not a living fashion just because one person wears it.
lots of great rock continues to be made. just like i bet someone out there is busting out bangers for medieval folk music. still doesn't make it a not dead style |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:36 PM Author: barnabyjones Rock was fine after cobain's clever career move. -Nu-metal in the late 90s (headlined woodstock 99, trl) -Strokes/hipster rock in the 2000s (dominated mtv, radio)
death is probably whenever the "most popular" band became the black keys or Muse or whatever fag bands were left. there is no signature "look" to any of these bands - a sign that they mean nothing to no one. |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:38 PM Author: hank_scorpio basically once you take away the drugs and fucking around you ruin it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726744) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:38 PM Author: backroom poasting couch What comprises a signature look? Is it that hair metal guys had big hair and were skinny and wore women's clothing? Was grunge just looking like The Dude? Do other bands have to get with the program for it to be a 'thing'? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726745) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:41 PM Author: SkaddenArse (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726750) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 11:42 PM Author: .....;;,,.........;.;.;.;.,;,;,;.;.;,; Cr late 00s. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726902) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 2:44 PM Author: bigeastboy CR. nu metal was 180. not as good per se as classic rock but it was the last time rock was rowdy and fun. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48728115) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 10:59 PM Author: Metal Up Your Ass twist: cobain thought it was already dead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726777) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 11:05 PM Author: Voodoo Child (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726801) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 11:07 PM Author: https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK He was a roadie for the Melvins during what would have been peak grunge, before got big outside Seattle. He stole a bunch of riffs from the Melvins too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726807) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 11:18 PM Author: backroom poasting couch He'll never make it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726849) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 12:38 AM Author: https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK The Melvins were still putting out quality shit as recently as 10-15 years ago. Dale Crover was still getting gigs last I checked. At the time Cobain killed himself I believe they had just released this album, which is probably their best:
https://youtu.be/ogbBbXt7MdQ?si=QkQ7bgqTQX8SvLN7 |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 11:19 PM Author: queensbridge benzo the strokes was the last rock band to exist (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726856) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 11:29 PM Author: backroom poasting couch They were more of a jangle pop act than a rock band. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726884) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 11:42 PM Author: .....;;,,.........;.;.;.;.,;,;,;.;.;,; Jack White is very much a cryptkeeper/curator (literally) who is pretty obviously the grim reaper of rock. His biggest song is also an anthem that reached a level of like Americana in that you still to this day have college kids singing it accapella at football games. But any answer other than this is retarded, and certainly any answer that cuts out the 90s when rock was still the dominant form of pop music and hip hop was still fully racialized. Hip hop doesn’t overtake rock until the millennials who grew up with it as a neutered cash grab that Puffy turned it into after Biggie and 2Pac. And that is also the exact moment that Jack White has made his mark and begins losing relevance, somewhere in the mid-late 00s around that Kanye/early Drake softbatch moment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726901) |
|
Date: March 7th, 2025 11:47 PM Author: backroom poasting couch I tried to play Icky Thump once at a frat party in 08 and everyone got mad and switched it back to Lil Wayne and TI. Not sure if this helps your case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726910) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 12:35 AM Author: cowgolf You're close on the date but it's because of the GnR downfall post/Use your Illusion (has nothing to do with Kurt Cobain) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48726959) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 8:03 AM Author: Bob Stinson I woke up one day -- mid-2000s probably-- and realized it was dead.
I used to be on an email bulletin board thingy with a bunch of rock critics-- guys who wrote books about this shit and reviewed music for the Village Voice, etc. I was just friends with the dude who started it and liked music. Around late 90s early 2000s. The theme was two-fold: 1) don't shortchange pop music that charts because popularity does not mean something automatically sucks and power to the people; and 2) don't be a rockist-- meaning don't assume that the only good popular music is made by white dudes in bands. It was pre-woke shit and I realized I didn't fit in because I thought Mariah Carey or N'Sync or whatever was popular sucked and I, in fact, preferred white dudes who played in bands.
|
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 8:19 AM Author: butt cheeks (✅🍑) It was the day the world decided DJs are musicians and artists, and pressing “play” on a CD player at a dance party is the equivalent of playing an instrument. I think this happened in the time not long before Cobain’s death. Rock struggled on for a while after the arrival of the DJ artist, as others have pointed out, but it was doomed from that day. This coincides temporally with Cobain but without causation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48727280) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 9:34 AM Author: YOU THINK YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND SYNTHPOP, FRAUD$?! (gunneratttt) coinciding temporally but not casually is exactly his point
https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&mc=54&forum_id=2#48726667
really, what's popular grows and fades. it doesn't "die" abruptly. cobains death was the high watermark of rock. it was on the downswing after, with various revivals and new "rock" that blended the previously dominant music with the then dominant, like incorporating rap.
i think an art form "dies" when it starts to fade. and rock has faded since 1994. there will always be new rock, just like op pointing out there are great modern operas and oil paintings. but it's still "dead" as a genre in the way op frames an art form being "dead." |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 9:35 AM Author: daniel gay luis Deftones made better music than Nirvana ever did and this is a stone cold fuckin fact (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48727404) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 2:42 PM Author: SkaddenArse (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48728113) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 9:49 AM Author: Risten 1994 is the correct date but not because of "Kurt." It's because that's the time Lou Pearlman's rotten dick first penetrated the 13yo holds of the boy band members (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48727427) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 10:06 AM Author: Candy Ride When the Big Bopper died. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48727458) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 10:43 AM Author: Brussels Sprout: Brussels,Helsinki,Stockholm,Kyiv what date was Taylor Swift born? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48727521) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 1:33 PM Author: .......,.,.,.,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, wtf? 2003-2007 was 180. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48727955) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 1:35 PM Author: backroom poasting couch 2000-2005 was 180er than 2003-2007 but agreed that period was also fairly 177.
Although many have pointed out though no one other than Gen Y listened to new rock music in that era though. Boomers, Xers didn't care for it. Gen Z never picked it up. But it was 180 even if it's lost to history. |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 3:11 PM Author: .......,.,.,.,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, “Hinder” lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48728187) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 3:09 PM Author: SkaddenArse 2007 Linkin Park minutes to midnight. the last big album launch by a rock band. after that the MSM hasnt bothered to put rock on the front page. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48728183) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 3:11 PM Author: backroom poasting couch That album sucked too but otherwise cr one of the last mainstream rock albums. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5690720&forum_id=2#48728191) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2025 6:42 PM Author: ,.,..,.,..,.,.,.,..,.,.,,..,..,.,,..,.,,. it kind of feels like the strokes were a harbinger of rock's downfall. i never cared for them. they seemed kind of bland and pussified in various ways, but they became the media's 'face' of a supposed 2001/2002-era rock 'revival' along with long-forgotten acts like the vines and the hives:
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/fIgAAOSwDolk0lcF/s-l1600.jpg
that was a signal that 'rock' as an active apex cultural phenomenon was being euthanized. |