No such thing as Rock and Roll

I'm sure they're still rock and rollin' ( original meaning ).

From Elvis to Stormzy, it's like evolving from a Lamborghini to a Lada.

Eddie Cochran, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, Gene Vincent, Jerry Lee Lewis etc etc.....proper music.

slade, trex, golden earing,def lepperd, bad company, queen (early) jethro tull, magnum ,thin lizzy,whitesnake, free, need i go on??????

Rock and Roll was late 50s.

rock and roll was 50s -mid 70s

nothing ever really mattered after that

It was just called rock from the 60s.

i was borm in 58 sparrow and my parents called it the devils music and i said

i know its only rock and roll and but i like it

When I was younger me mates mum and dad used to go off to rock an roll evening, he had long black side burns and she had the dress and blonde hair, no doubt they used to dance the night away lol but he used to remind me of Fred west

the point i was trying to make was that wonderful music , has gone forever.

my kids who are 32,30 and 21 never get to listwen to rock music unless they are with me

Nowadays you got that weird northern soul where old men make their feet move in funny directions

I reckon mes is into northern soul

I don't know about rock and roll T.D. but I see kids, say 14 or 15, vaping and talking about their pronouns and whether a woman can have a dick and still be called a woman. WTF.

In my day it was was a few beers, pass the joint and go to a live concert. I actually feel sorry for them, like a lost generation.

you are not wrong SB but

as john miles once said

Music was my first love and it will be my last.. music of the future and music of the past.. the prob is mucic of the fiuture prob does not ibnclude rock and roll

I was born in the 40s dragon and the thing was that before Elvis and rock and roll, as John Lennon rightly said, there was nothing. Just your parents music with all the crooners but the late 50s was a great time for young people and music.

I lost interest in music after The Clash split up.... but looking back, I missed out on a few half decent bands... such as The Manic Street Preachers

I find it astounding and depressing that young people have been happy to listen to such absolute garbage for 30-odd years. And it ain't getting any better. How the hell can people like Ed Sheeran and Dya Lipa (and many others) make money from the unimaginative shyte that they churn out? It makes no sense to me at all. Not only that, but these so-called "artists" seem to have incredible longevity compared to the bubblegum pop one-hit-wonders of the 70's. People like emily sande and sam smith have made a fortune from very mediocre songs that they released over a decade ago. And yet they still make the "music" headlines, and somehow still get lucrative gigs. I don't know whether to feel sorry for the young people or not. Many of them will never hear and appreciate the genius of Hendrix, Dylan, Bowie, Joni Mitchell, Gil Scott Heron, Peter gabriel, Elton John,The Byrds, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa or even the Beatles. Yet it has never been easier to access real music, and still they will swallow any old tripe that DJ's tell them to. They get what they deserve, I suppose. Dumb, bastards!

sorry i omitted to include the genius that was Bill nelson

Kevin Ayres and Nick Drake

grew up in the 90's/early 00's where Indie music was all the rage, Manic Street preachers, Sterophonics, Oasis, Blur, Ocean colour scene, the Verve, all great bands and they were just the mainstream ones, quality especially when you stand them to what's out there in 2022, you had to work seriously hard to get to number 1 back then let alone before, now nobody actually cares about chart positions or knows who's first because any rubbish can top them and you don't have to sell many copies to get there.

The main reason why music has deteriorated is in large parts due to the dynamic range compression of Timbre (quality of musical sounds/notes) which is thanks to the rise of Kitsch music which dominates today, low brow, mass produced pap such as Taylor Swift, Katy Perry and Beiber, music (or noise) that is cheaper to make with simplistic drum machines and computer software rather than the vast array of instruments the likes of the Beatles utilised. Modern pop all sounds the same is because it is the same, they all use the same simple and repetitive note sequences with the same repetitive lyrics all mostly written by the same songwriter Max Martin who injects hooks (catchy melodies) into songs early in response to the modern listeners short attention span, with mindless fillers such as la la's la's or oh, oh, oh's etc that means absolutely nothing and conveys even less. This repetitiveness is deliberate to breed familiarity, people like familiarity as it brings comfort. That's the idea anyway.

Elton John, Bob Dylan, the Beatles, Bob Marley, Joe Cocker, Jimi Hendrix and the like would all fail modern TV talent shows because they're not formulaic, couldn't be moulded into a production companies image and would refuse to sing songs by the likes of Adele who cornered the whiny break up market over the last decade. If you're talented and can play instruments, X factor and Idol shows are not for you. And that's what's been watched in the millions recently, the decline of music encapsulated in a nutshell.

A lot of truth in that, Mes.

just read your post des, we were mentioned the same musicians, my post was in transit

des

Nowt wrong with a bit of Northern Soul mes.

Mainstream music has been **** for decades (and uncomfortably probably always was) ...find the stuff you love...yes they'll be less of it than when you were younger and the current bands won't recreate your musical highpoints of decades passed as much because of you as anything else and the substances you were taking,.....and above all stop being old gits that criticise everything you don't like !

that's advice rather than dictatorial...

Aug 13, 2022 -- 9:09PM, mesmerised wrote:

grew up in the 90's/early 00's where Indie music was all the rage, Manic Street preachers, Sterophonics, Oasis, Blur, Ocean colour scene, the Verve, all great bands and they were just the mainstream ones, quality especially when you stand them to what's out there in 2022, you had to work seriously hard to get to number 1 back then let alone before, now nobody actually cares about chart positions or knows who's first because any rubbish can top them and you don't have to sell many copies to get there.The main reason why music has deteriorated is in large parts due to the dynamic range compression of Timbre (quality of musical sounds/notes) which is thanks to the rise of Kitsch music which dominates today, low brow, mass produced pap such as Taylor Swift, Katy Perry and Beiber, music (or noise) that is cheaper to make with simplistic drum machines and computer software rather than the vast array of instruments the likes of the Beatles utilised. Modern pop all sounds the same is because it is the same, they all use the same simple and repetitive note sequences with the same repetitive lyrics all mostly written by the same songwriter Max Martin who injects hooks (catchy melodies) into songs early in response to the modern listeners short attention span, with mindless fillers such as la la's la's or oh, oh, oh's etc that means absolutely nothing and conveys even less. This repetitiveness is deliberate to breed familiarity, people like familiarity as it brings comfort. That's the idea anyway. Elton John, Bob Dylan, the Beatles, Bob Marley, Joe Cocker, Jimi Hendrix and the like would all fail modern TV talent shows because they're not formulaic, couldn't be moulded into a production companies image and would refuse to sing songs by the likes of Adele who cornered the whiny break up market over the last decade. If you're talented and can play instruments, X factor and Idol shows are not for you. And that's what's been watched in the millions recently, the decline of music encapsulated in a nutshell.

I've never heard such arrogance in all my years on here. It is clearly obvious that one is a product of their environment, hence why you never listened to Ma rainey or Arthur Collins from the early 1900s, you grew up and learnt to like the music around you, you were force fed everything, the same as today's teenagers.
Everything you said is subjective babble, music hasn't declined mes, it changes like everything else otherwise we'd still be driving around with a horse in front, if we didn't change we would end up like you all stagnant.
You simply cannot say that something is better than something else, pure arrogance. Even if you liked Beethoven's 6th symphony it is no more melodious than a dog farting, simply subjective nonsense and you know it! Sitting in a recording studio for months strumming a guitar to produce pink Floyd's comfortably numb is no different to Justin Biebers song peaches made on a computer or whatever. If you think it is you have mental problems. Break it all down mes go on,use your noggin instead of the words you've been force fed that are on repeat 24/7 in that limited world of yours. Go to bed!

mes' ... not starting yet another row for you (you seem busy )  but most of the best Indie bands of 90's/00's  never made it mainstream ...

A pretty idiosyncratic and contrary viewpoint Mega. Do you really seee no difference between Pink floyd and Justin beeber? I don't think so.

I remember listening to the members of a girls band on the radio, talking about how excited they were at the release of their second record. And saying that they were taking singing lessons. Why were they in a pop group, trying to sell records if they didn't know how to sing? We all know the answer to that one, I think. And this was 20 years ago, which demonstrates how long ago the muscic Industry was already halfway down the pan. Only Amy Winehouse of the last generation has come close to emulating the likes of Janis Joplin, Aretha Franklin, Grace Slick, Mama Cass etc. The rest are over-produced, auto-tuned, catterwauling parodies who have produced little or nothing worth listening to.

Aug 13, 2022 -- 11:19PM, Des Pond wrote:

A pretty idiosyncratic and contrary viewpoint Mega.  Do you really seee no difference between Pink floyd and Justin beeber? I don't think so.

The brain has tastes in music or food etc, it can abstract all kinds of wonderful thoughts and feelings and for each of us they are different depending on your genes and environmental aspects. Without getting too technical you really need an understanding of how the ear and brain/memory interprets sound. I would prefer to listen to pink Floyd than Justin Bieber but at a another level there is no difference. The same as there is no difference between a Ferrari or a Skoda.

Class is permanent.It will come again.Doesn’t stop me listening to it.

I blame the generation (irrespective of colour of politics) that's run  things for the last 50 years myself - yes that's you lot. Well done for (in all your own words) for fecking things up for future generations - who else is there to blame? BTW the difference between now and the past is that there is all the new stuff and you can listen to all the old stuff as well  - it isn't against the law you know.  Good god the amount of 50's nights etc is staggering. If it is so crap then it is down to you and your generation simple as.

Do you really seee no difference between Pink floyd and Justin beeber? - I do, Justin Beeber has not yet reached his self indulgent stage!

Re Kevin Ayers and Nick Drake, I believe if they came along today, Dragon and many others on here would treat them with the same disdain as Ed Sheeran.

It's still out there - you've just you've got to look harder and take lots of anti-retroviral 'BGT / MTV / Radio 1 / Notional Good Taste' drugs to appreciate it.

Happily there's Spotify, which enables you to sample some of the great artists that are out there, before you go out an put real money in their (mainly struggling) pockets by buying their album and merchanidise.

I won't insult you by naming names - this is all clearly a matter of your own personal taste, but if you stay open minded and have Shazam and Spotify on your phones, you won't go far wrong.

I enjoy listening to Nick Drake. I don't enjoy listening to Ed Sheeran. I've heard a few of Sheeran's songs, and i don't think much of them. As for the great talent that is still out there, why don't you suggest a few names to listen to? And I'll give them a listen, and tell you what I think. No plagiarists please.

Alice Phoebe Lou is very good tbf, Deserves a wider audience.

Music, like food and fashion is a taste thing. Each to their own. Golden era for me would be 75-85 but generally like most.

Almost agree with you there HGS. Definitely up to mid 80's (but not beyond), but I would start earlier at 1970/71. I don't mind the 60's either and I do like the occasional bands after the mid 80's but the bulk would be in this timeframe. The main problem is that because I don't listen to modern music a few other bands could slip under the radar. As an example, I didn't really get into Pearl Jam (who are superb imo) until around 10 years ago and only after a recommendation on this forum.

Aspro - why would you start earlier?. I think 1971 to 1975 inclusive is the nadir of rock music.  Very little of note between the progressive bands getting self indulgent and the start of punk.

I was a big Sweet fan back then, as they began to progress from bubble-gum. T-Rex were huge and influential and my favourite band of all time released not one, but two of the greatest albums in existence (Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here)... to name just a few. How could I ignore these?

Aspro - my case rests

Stairway to Heaven was released, Queen formed, Deep Purple rose... I could go on and on. I guess our tastes differ quite considerably if you rest your case. I'm certain that I'm far from alone here.

Not by as much as you think Aspro - more to do with our definition of Rock methinks - I saw Floyd about 30 times beginning almost weekly in 1967/68 at the UFO and the Marquee right thru to Bath and Plumpton(?) and despite their success, I do not regard their latter years as representative of Rock as I know it.  As for Sweet and T-Rex;  I saw Tyrannosaurus Rex several times but gave up when SPT left and they went commercial. As for Deep Purple, a perfect example of a fine band who got self indulgent when Jon Lord led them astray in 1970. Anyway each to his own.

Like I said asp I like most music and would have before 75-85 than after as a rule. Put 75-85 as the decade I'd prefer as don't have it as 70's or 80's mesen but somewhere in the middle if you get me.

Band-maid are certainly interesting. Loads of videos, millions of views. Ive hardly got any work done this week.

Guitar solo = 

.
https://youtu.be/ZpAYnVJX9CY