|
||||||||
Why the UK (mainstream) rock scene is struggling |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,167
|
Why the UK (mainstream) rock scene is struggling
Just read this excellent blog about mainstream rock & possibly why there is hardly any mainstream rock about these days - agree with so much of it (perhaps not his references to Pet Shop Boys).Otherwise it is so well articulated.
http://www.collapseboard.com/death-r...k-in-the-90s/5 Oasis & Libertines etc. fans will be absolutely infuriated by this article
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
hmm... thats abit harsh! but not that far from being the truth! lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,098
|
Some parts I agree on some I don't.
If you ask me British music was destroyed when The Libertines and Bloc Party showed up.And now The Vaccines and Brother nothing has changed in this ten years space and time.But I agree with Bob Geldof on the fact yes it's the right time for rock and roll music too comeback.But will people find them no just like NME and the Vaccines there not hot in people eye anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 759
|
I don't know if I agree totally with that article, but it does make some interesting and provocative points. There were three waves of trite lad idiocy that made it fashionable to be a football hooligan stomping on flowers, not just one. The Stone Roses were brilliant, but the bands marked as flagship along with them weren't (not just the imitators). Albeit not as popular as Britpop, Madchester was a let down anyway.
And now for an opinion that could go in the 'controversial' thread: they ignore Blur's bandwagon hopping contribution to the destruction of British rock music. Suede was pushing what the Smiths did further and creating intelligent music for the charts and then Blur's singles turned Britpop into an absolute heap of nursery rhyme shit. Although Blur released a lot of good songs on their albums, the odious influence of their most popular songs is felt across all British rock music even now, and bands like the Monkeys follow on from them, not Oasis. Oasis' influence was consigned to the period they were popular. I can think of plenty of bands in the last decade that sounded like Blur, but not many like Oasis. Although that might be because 'Popscene' and 'Country House', both being dissonant shit, are much easier songs to imitate under the guise of 'art' than 'Live Forever'... The nineties was the death knell of popular rock music anyway, not just in Britain but in America as well. After c. 1997 it was always going to split, diversify and go in pretty much two directions... the commercialised youth orientated genres like pop punk/nu metal/post-grunge/emo, the countless indie 'mature' markets like electroclash/extreme metal/alt folk and the acts that manage to carve out a niche for themselves like Radiohead, Placebo and (recently) Arcade Fire. In popular terms, rap music like Eminem catered better to the new generation of reality tv addicts and internet users. Even the 'revival' in the middle of the 2000s wasn't going to last because most of the bands were crap. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,098
|
Plus UK Media don't look at great people like John Lennon or Mike Jaggar or David Bowie and Ozzy or Plant and even John Lydon anymore.What they like is happy crappy pappy like Matt Cradle and Jordan and the rest.If there is going too be another great rock revoltion it wont come out of the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 4,901
|
I do remember the great Oasis vs Blur hype being treated like the Beatles vs the Stones 30 years earlier.
Unfortunately it wasn't 'Ticket To Ride' vs 'Satisfaction' we were presented with, it was 'Roll With It' vs 'Country House', which were both terrible. I think he is right to scorn the press as many music fans liked both the Orb type stuff as well as Teenage Fanclub etc. I think they coexisted pretty happily, and overall the music wasn't as bad as he recollects. The whole lad/ladette thing was a complete embarrassment though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
I think he's a tad harsh on Screamadelica and unforgivably Teenage Fanclub. Grand Prix & Bandwagonesque were two of my favourite albums of the 90's.
Teenage fanclub were being all Byrds and Big star long before britpop and long after it they're still doing it. Kudos for whoever brought up Suede. They always get left out or brushed over by Blur Oasis and all that. Dog man Star is frankly a masterpiece and criminally underrated along with Boo Radleys Giant Steps |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,098
|
Quote:
I think he's a tad harsh on Screamadelica and unforgivably Teenage Fanclub. Grand Prix & Bandwagonesque were two of my favourite albums of the 90's.
Teenage fanclub were being all Byrds and Big star long before britpop and long after it they're still doing it. Kudos for whoever brought up Suede. They always get left out or brushed over by Blur Oasis and all that. Dog man Star is frankly a masterpiece and criminally underrated along with Boo Radleys Giant Steps |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
Quote:
Not too forget Babylon Zoo,Ned Atomic Dustbin and The Levellers.
I'd forgotten about them. They were pretty popular in my year in school for some reason. Them, The Wonderstuff, Jesus Jones and Pop Will Eat Itself. There was a lot of long hair in our year. long hair and embarrassing choices in clothing which now make for cringe inducing photos (and hair yearning) |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DTG Bunker
Posts: 5,044
|
That article is something that I've been trying to articulate for ages. When I was a fanzine editor, many moons ago, I would lampoon the lad-rock revivalists as "The Campaign For Real Rock". Creativity in music hasn't gone, it's just been marginalised for a long time.
I genuinely think, in what passes for the "indie scene" at least, it is trying to make a comeback now. Whether it will succeed against the forces of the X Factor and the ageing, grimly-hanging-on lad culture, I don't know. I hope so. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 16,969
|
Too much emphasis on the same indie sound regurgitated year afer year to appease Radio 1 and the NME. I really think it's time this tedious, dated and unadventurous music is put to bed now.
Perhaps British bands should rediscover real rock of the heavier variety that bands like Motorhead and Iron Maiden made massive 30 years ago. I know there are quite a lot of younger metal fans out there, but not many newer bands breaking through due to the music industry's diktat that British guitar bands should be indie. Motorhead to me are rock of the don't give a toss, let's make an almighty noise variety and new bands should emulate the real rockers, not nineties throwbacks. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,436
|
Quote:
That article is something that I've been trying to articulate for ages. When I was a fanzine editor, many moons ago, I would lampoon the lad-rock revivalists as "The Campaign For Real Rock". Creativity in music hasn't gone, it's just been marginalised for a long time.
I genuinely think, in what passes for the "indie scene" at least, it is trying to make a comeback now. Whether it will succeed against the forces of the X Factor and the ageing, grimly-hanging-on lad culture, I don't know. I hope so. I don't think one kind of rock is more real than another. It's a matter of personal taste. I personally like indie/alternative forms of rock. I'm not a fan of the harder more metal types of rock. I don't think there's some law that British bands have to be indie. It's just that a lot of people tend to like the more melodic kind of indie rather than the harsher heavier mainstream metal kind. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,408
|
Quote:
I think indie rock is making a comeback, now. There are lots of indie acts like the Joy Formidable, Yuck and Anna Calvi that I love and that are getting attention. I don't know if you'd call them indie but the new Strokes album is great also.
I don't think one kind of rock is more real than another. It's a matter of personal taste. I personally like indie/alternative forms of rock. I'm not a fan of the harder more metal types of rock. I don't think there's some law that British bands have to be indie. It's just that a lot of people tend to like the more melodic kind of indie rather than the harsher heavier mainstream metal kind. This debate has been had on this forum before, but I do struggle to call a lot (not all) of indie music 'rock'. Put it this way - aliens come to earth tomorrow, and want to know what rock music is. Do you play them Led Zeppelin or Elbow? Guns N' Roses or The Vaccines? AC/DC or Arcade Fire? |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,436
|
To me rock music is anything that involves live instruments, guitar, bass and drums, rather than electronic programmed elements primarily.
All the bands you name are rock. Obviously, you have your taste and prefer the more metal stuff. But that doesn't make indie bands less rock just because you don't like it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,436
|
Quote:
Personally I'd associate the term melodic more with a band like Iron Maiden than half of these hyped up indie acts. Dreadfully dreary and couldn't write a decent hook to save their lives.
This debate has been had on this forum before, but I do struggle to call a lot (not all) of indie music 'rock'. Put it this way - aliens come to earth tomorrow, and want to know what rock music is. Do you play them Led Zeppelin or Elbow? Guns N' Roses or The Vaccines? AC/DC or Arcade Fire? That's just my taste in music. I don't like the harder dance techno stuff where it's just thumping. That's noise to me too. I like softer more well crafted things. That's what I call melodic. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DTG Bunker
Posts: 5,044
|
Quote:
Perhaps British bands should rediscover real rock of the heavier variety that bands like Motorhead and Iron Maiden made massive 30 years ago.
Also, there are more women in bands than there have been for years. I think that's something healthy. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,408
|
Quote:
Synths, computers and non-standard instruments are where it's at, not tired rehashes of past glories
BUT, they and their fans shouldn't attempt to garner extra credibility by labelling themselves as rock. Because they're not. The poster a few above me defined rock as guitar, bass, drums etc, but rock is more than that. Rock is in an attitude, a swagger, instrumental virtuosity and technicality, showmanship...for me, very few of these indie bands have that. I'd call Arctic Monkeys and Oasis rock, but draw the line at a band like Elbow or Mumford & Sons. That's why a band like Apocalyptica, who play on cellos, are still widely labelled as a metal act, because there is an attitude and performance element in their music that you don't find in classical music. And also, "tired rehashes of past glories"? Iron Maiden are still making new and exciting music, 30 years on since they started. They're one of the top touring acts in the world, which is a tremendous comeback when you consider their very low level of popularity through the 90s and early 00s. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,436
|
If a band uses just synths and computers, they aren't rock. But there are many bands that incorporate synths with live instruments which are rock.
Rock isn't just attitude. There are many pop/dance performers like Madonna for example who have tons of attitude but aren't rock. I love Madonna, but I would never call her rock despite her in your face attitude. If someone is more low key and that's their personality, that doesn't stop me from enjoying their music. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DTG Bunker
Posts: 5,044
|
Sorry, I was a) getting ahead of myself and talking about music in general and b) drunk when I posted that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 16,969
|
Quote:
Personally I'd associate the term melodic more with a band like Iron Maiden than half of these hyped up indie acts. Dreadfully dreary and couldn't write a decent hook to save their lives.
This debate has been had on this forum before, but I do struggle to call a lot (not all) of indie music 'rock'. Put it this way - aliens come to earth tomorrow, and want to know what rock music is. Do you play them Led Zeppelin or Elbow? Guns N' Roses or The Vaccines? AC/DC or Arcade Fire? |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,408
|
Well I personally agree that metal is more interesting, although each to their own obviously, I can understand why some people don't like it.
For me, I'm a real stickler for technical profiency, which harder rock and metal music has in spades. Half of the most hyped indie bands don't know what a guitar is for, can't write a riff to save their lives and prefer to drown their guitar volumes out with synths and effects because they're not technically very good. And no, before anybody raises the comparison, I don't like most punk music either, for the same reason - not good enough instrumentally. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,487
|
it's struggling because all the bands suck. All the great rock music, at this time, is from mid state USA, rust belt rock and no UK bands want to take that step into a classic rock sound. The bands that try like '9 Black Alps' are shunned and wont get any radio play and as a result wont get signed. The music industry in this country has not got a clue about rock music. There are bands in this country that sound like 'Sabbatah', 'Foo FIghters', 'Led Zeppelin' but nobody is interested in listening to them except for people like me, my friends and some of you guys
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 53,841
|
Quote:
If bands wanna use synths, computers and other bells and whistles, then great. I encourage that, I think it's a great idea to experiment with new styles.
BUT, they and their fans shouldn't attempt to garner extra credibility by labelling themselves as rock. Because they're not. The poster a few above me defined rock as guitar, bass, drums etc, but rock is more than that. Rock is in an attitude, a swagger, instrumental virtuosity and technicality, showmanship...for me, very few of these indie bands have that. I'd call Arctic Monkeys and Oasis rock, but draw the line at a band like Elbow or Mumford & Sons. That's why a band like Apocalyptica, who play on cellos, are still widely labelled as a metal act, because there is an attitude and performance element in their music that you don't find in classical music. And also, "tired rehashes of past glories"? Iron Maiden are still making new and exciting music, 30 years on since they started. They're one of the top touring acts in the world, which is a tremendous comeback when you consider their very low level of popularity through the 90s and early 00s. Thankfully, the likes of Rick Wakeman & Brian Eno didn't quite see things your way. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 559
|
Quote:
Rock bands were using synths, alongside guitars, drums etc as far back as the '70s. Prog rockers such as YES, art rockers like Roxy Music & mainstream acts such as Bowie. If it wasn't for those rock pioneers, the music scene we take for granted today would sound very different.
Thankfully, the likes of Rick Wakeman & Brian Eno didn't quite see things your way. I love it when "rock" fans think of only metal as rock. I don't know whether to call it blinkered or ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 16,969
|
Quote:
Well I personally agree that metal is more interesting, although each to their own obviously, I can understand why some people don't like it.
For me, I'm a real stickler for technical profiency, which harder rock and metal music has in spades. Half of the most hyped indie bands don't know what a guitar is for, can't write a riff to save their lives and prefer to drown their guitar volumes out with synths and effects because they're not technically very good. And no, before anybody raises the comparison, I don't like most punk music either, for the same reason - not good enough instrumentally. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:43.


