The hippy movement/why modern rock is shit

Ok.. The following post may be totaly off, or it may be common knowlege. It's just a theory I thought of that I hadn't heard before, so I thought I'd post and hear your thoughts.

IMO... The greatest rock n roll took place in the 60's and 70's, from what I can tell (I'm a teenager, so I wasn't there to experience it) these bands were inspired by the hippy movement. They wernt about the money, writing a hit, or what they looked like, they just fucking played music. Most of these bands were formed in the 60's and carried over to the 70's, and had a goal (not their only goal, but one of them) of sticking it to the man, rebelling.

Well.. When the 80's came, 2 things happened.
1. The people who listened to these bands became the people to rebel against, they became the man.
2. The bands that were forming did not have the hippy band mindset, because that's not the movement that spawned them, so what we got was a bunch of hair bands, that were totaly in it for the money.

While the grunge movement killed the hair bands, the mindset never came back of just playing music.. Which leaves us with a pile of horrible bands that can't compare to those of the 60's and 70's.

Thoughts?

 

Rock n roll is derived from the blues which is a simple structure. You can only do so much with music based around a 3 chord structure before it either gets dull or changes into something else vastly different than from its original inception.

By the way in the 70's rock became the music to rebel against because it became very much about the money and punk was created railing against bloated 70's corporate rock. There were even pop rock bands in the 60's, the beatles are techincally a pop rock band.

I do think there was something really special about rock from like 1966-1975 or so.

 

its the same story the crow told me..

 

I'm not really talking about the beatles (though I do appreciate some oftheir stuff) and pop has always sucked..

I'm refering to Hendrix, Zeppelin, the Who, sabbath, the stones, and every else who rocked..

 

Ok but other genres have had that exact same attitude you are attributing to rock.

Punk: 77-79
Metal:83-88 or so (referring to thrash like metallica/slayer)
grunge:91-94
Rave:89-94
hip hop:88-92

Some of those timelines probably aren't perfect but just trying to point out rock is not the only music to have that attitude and all those genres have succumbed to the same thing as rock did in either changing and/or becoming more bloated and commercially viable.

 

Hmm that's a good point. I was only really thinking about rock, (modern rock sucks)

maybe those bands were so awsome because they played their music before their music was "cool"

edit: so maybe the mindset wasn't from the hippies at all..

 

Their music was cool as far as I know. The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and The Who were all very successful, It was just the right music at the right time.

The Velvet underground is an example of a band who was not terribly cool at the time but their music has become cool since.

 

^ I agree. A lot of rock listeners are listening for something with the spirit of 60s and 70s rock that still sounds like rock. They are bound to be disappointed. Music has moved on, and it has left behind people still stuck in the past. Modern popular rock sucks, but so did old popular rock. The flame carried by the 'greatest rock n roll' continues to burn, but in other forms of music, branching out ever diversely. So instead of having a bunch of great bands in one group (rock) back in the 60s making then easy to find, now you really have to be on your feet to dig out the best because you're covering something like 50 genres.

 

I don't know what you are considering modern rock but Radiohead's "ok computer" set the template for alot of modern rock to me and unfortunately its the best of it. There is that whole other type of rock like nickleback, 3 doors down but I don't find much of anything rebellious in that music.

Like radiohead is definitely about the music and has some rebellious songs but they rely more on texture and soundscapes then riffs.

 

I can enjoy some of those songs occasionaly, but really, it's just pop aimed at a different sub-culture. the song "rockstar" (by nickelback) is a testament to what the genera has become. There's nothing rebellious or groundbreaking.. It's just a race to see who can get the most downloads on iTunes.

Edit: I don't listen to much radiohead, but to me, bands like tool are the closest it gets to good.

 

Yah I was going to mention Tool too. I saw them last week, great show but they are essentially metal eventhough they have toned down a bit, I don't know if I am splitting hairs here.

 

Radiohead is okay, but hardly comparable to the wild, unrestrained heart of rock. It's really just mellow rock dressed up to appeal to the young - no rebellion here. I'm actually surprised more old people don't like it.

 

Yeah.. I guess you could say they're metal.

Now that I think about it.. metal is really the only current music I listen to.

Edit: oh, and I guess stuff like shpongle and royksopp

 

well I consider the way "ok computer" is constructed to be quite rebellious and then "kid a" essentially ditched all the instruments for cold synthetic ambient arrangements. No one else really did that before them and they started off as moping alternative rock, its at least comparable to the beatles going from please please me to sgt. Peppers lonely hearts club band.

 

blah blah, names of music groups and stuff, blah blah blah, if it sounds good i like it!

 

I hate to divide stuff in mainstream and underground but I have to to make clear modern rock does not suck. Just like lots of 'rebellious rock musicians' in 60's and 70's rock bands were concerned with their looks, money and scoring a hit there's rock today that is just played to make fun and grooving rock.
Main thing why modern rock seems shit is you only see the mainstream rock which is just like most other mainstream/pop genres overcommercialized and mainly aimed to please as many people as they can. An other reason why the groovy rock bands aren't on mtv or your average radio station is because it is not new/'hip'/'the big thing'/'in' anymore. A genre always evolves over time and gets followed by the new cool thing, some last longer than other.
Hair metal wasn't killed by grunge, their trendy time just was over and grunge came around, something different and got big fast because it was something different. It didn't stayed refreshing for the mainstream obviously, cause it was even sooner over than the hair metal stuff. Also, punk did not kill folk rock, nu metal did not rape other kinds of metal, they just come around when the time's right. Kind of like the same with the psych rock in the 60's I guess.
But just because the mainstream popularity is over doesn't mean there isn't rock music being made with the most righteous intentions. I for one immensly enjoy modern rock, but I am neither intrigued by the modern rock sounds in the charts. I choose a band like Dead man or the Bakerton Group above Radiohead, Muse or Them crooked vultures anyday.

 

There is some truth in what asmodean says. But I also believe that much music follows what is happening in our culture at that time. I had a long list typed out here of years and the music that occurred and what was happening in the culture at that time, but I decided to delete it because I know it would anger many. The truth often does that. Just look back at years in recent history up until the present, what was happening in the world at that time, and the music that occurred, and see if you can see the connection.

 

^This is exactly why I said "Ok Computer" was such an amazing record and to me the splitting point between everything before it and after and why alot of bands have tried to chase it, it has the complete alienation of modern day life as well as the theme and music to further the idea of relying on technology.

All we've done is further that reliance on technology, I'm surprised the unpopular wars in iraq and afghanistan didn't inspire some new rise in bands, i mean it seemed like Black eyed peas 'where is the love' and the remake of 'what's going on' was it.

 

One thing you could be seeing is that, artists in the 60's and 70's did not grow up on a established rock. I mean, thier was 50's rock yea, but these guys when learning thier instruments still proly had to learn "real" music like blues,jazz,classical,folk etc. And so many times i read about a 60's/70's artst saying elvis or someone changed thier life. So they stopped playing that "real" music and wanted to make rock and roll. But they never totally forgot thier roots. They are better musicans then todays artists. You see, someone making music in the 90's was for instance, was proly influenced by a band like ramones or ac/dc etc. Stuff thats not exactly super artistic. So they learn music based on that , not the "real" music the older artists grew up on. They never knew a non rock world. Or a world of rock thats just starting out. Todays players don;t learn the blues or other non rock styles . They didn't grow up on it and don;t connect to that. And frankly, alot of them are inferior by light years. Robbie krieger was a talented non rock guitar player before be joined the doors. The guitar player from nickelback is not really that talented. Beause when he was growing up, rock was alredy everywhere and he just learns a few chrords and goes from thier. Krieger grew up when rock was like, just starting up. Most likey thier wern't many guitar teachers in the 1950's teaching rock guitar. Becaused they would obvsiouly not be from the rock era (since it had just started) and proly have nothing but contempt form it. If your only going on this based on whats on the charts, yea this could be part of it. Now, thiers good music, with artists who can actuly play, you just have to find it.

 

Ill let derek trucks shit on your entire theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vuadh1o0yC8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vuadh1o0yC8