The demise of Rock

[Chris Misfit]

I was thinking (tick-tock) about why rock music is not selling anymore, well, I always think about it, but I've given some thought to another reason as to why it's in a shit state.

Pop culture.

Yeah, I've said that before, but lets start a serious discussion. Hopefully we can keep people like  Matt (Blink rule, duuur) and Sky (when I'm proved wrong, I run) out of the conversation.

Are we too concerened with our looks? Has what looks good, taken over musical substance?  As Korn said "you'll never get signed unless teenage girls find you attractive".

Looking back Axl was fucking ugly, so was Kiss, Alice Cooper, Iggy Pop, Freedie Mercury, Ozzy, Metallica. Iron Maiden, Judas Priest.

I'm not just talking about looks, ok? And I don't want any girls posting "Axl is a hunk" because if he wasn't famous and you passed him in the street, you wouldn't give him a second look.

What I'm asking is, do you think pop culture has forced it's way into rock n' roll?

You've got to look rock, before you are rock. We've got desinger rock gear now, all created for those who want to fit in.

Hopw many people do you see now, look alternative, but own no CDs and don't have a fucking clue about rock music ?(and saying that, there only seems to be maybe 5 people here who have a clue).

Some of this rock gear costs shitloads, new rock boots, designer t-shirts, ?50 baseball caps, designer jeans. I have no problem with people who want to be stylish, but  those pretending to be something they're not, piss me off.

Whatever happened to a t-shirt and a 2 year old pair of crap jeans bought from oxfam?

I remember meeting people, when I was young, who looked like rockers, who I could have a serious musical discussion with, because WE BOTH BELIEVED IN ROCK N' ROLL. Now we have too many fakers, too many 5 minute wonders, who care more for their looks than the muisc.

Discuss.

[jarmo]

I think it started with MTV becoming popular.

First it seemed like the image and look was only an important factor if you were in a boy band or a pop artist. But nowadays it's taken over every genre.

But I think it's still the worst among the "pop stars". People who can't sing but "hey, they have awesome videos and they can dance!" are selling records.

I remember back when "grunge" became popular. Along with it the clothes became "cool" too. The "stars" themselves wore second hand and army surplus clothes while the rest wore expensive grunge wear.  


I think you can see how important image is when you read some interviews with a band like VR. They were telling people they were a real rock band and dangerous way before their album was out. Just to make sure people knew.



/jarmo

[MadmanDan]

Rock nowadays is a big joke. It's played by white trash idiots that banged two guitars and a drumset all day long in their daddys's garage thinking they're soooo cool,when,in fact,they had no idea what rock music is. What are today's rock bands? Nerdy idiots like Linkin Park,Blink 182 or Good Charlote,bands with no real skill or musical knowlege.

  But the fact that irritates me the most is that all these morons list bands like GNR as their "musical influences". Probably their manager gave them a few band names to learn,for them to mention in interviews.

  It's clear to me that Nirvana destroyed Rock music,making it OK to sing when you have absolutely no voice,guitar skill or songwriting ability. Listen to all teen-rock "bands" of today and you'll find a little bit of Kurt Cobain in all of them.

Allthough their frontman is a fuckin pussy,The Darkness has the best music,instrumentally speaking,that I've heard in many many years.

Except them who the real rock bands of today? Bands like Red hot chili peppers,U2,Bon Jovi,bands that were born when singing on radio and MTV required skill and talent,not only a teen-idol image.

But the situation was about the same in 87/88,but something happened(we all know what!!!). Maybe it will happen again...

[Miz]

Nerdy idiots like Linkin Park,Blink 182 or Good Charlote,bands with no real skill or musical knowlege.

Well, can't really argue about Blink or GC, but I'd bet my life that Brad Delson has about three hundred times more "musical knowledge" than Slash, Duff, Izzy, Keith Richards, Chuck Berry, Eric Clapton, and about every other rock icon you'd care to name.  At least when they were in their heyday.

But the fact that irritates me the most is that all these morons list bands like GNR as their "musical influences". Probably their manager gave them a few band names to learn,for them to mention in interviews.

Marty Freidman did this.  Dave Mustaine told him to say in interviews that he was influenced by Michael Schenker, because when he started talking about Segovia, the metal fans got confused and didn't like him.

If you look back, I think you'd find almost every big rock band just went with what the public wanted.
Look how Maiden proclaimed that they were metal and everything.  Now in magazine articles they say "We're not metal, we never were, it was just something that was tagged on us.  We just play heavy rock.  Melodic rock"
Now I love Maiden, but that is the biggest crock of shit I ever heard.

It's clear to me that Nirvana destroyed Rock music,making it OK to sing when you have absolutely no voice,guitar skill or songwriting ability. Listen to all teen-rock "bands" of today and you'll find a little bit of Kurt Cobain in all of them.

This is silly.  You can hate his voice, but he was in tune.  You can think his guitar playing was crap, but point of fact, it wasn't.  You can critisize his songwriting ability all you want, that is subjective, but a lot of people would disagree with you.

Allthough their frontman is a fuckin pussy,The Darkness has the best music,instrumentally speaking,that I've heard in many many years.

That's because they just ripped of AC/DC and Queen.  Weren't you critisizing every modern "band" for copying Nirvana?

Except them who the real rock bands of today? Bands like Red hot chili peppers,U2,Bon Jovi,bands that were born when singing on radio and MTV required skill and talent,not only a teen-idol image.

But the situation was about the same in 87/88,but something happened(we all know what!!!). Maybe it will happen again...

You know, there were shit bands in the 80s too.  And in the 70s, and in the 60s.  Just because only the good ones get remembered, it doesn't mean the bad ones weren't there.  MTV never required skill and talent.  MTV always played what was popular.

[jarmo]

It's clear to me that Nirvana destroyed Rock music,making it OK to sing when you have absolutely no voice,guitar skill or songwriting ability.

It's called punk.

Look up a guy named Sid Vicious. He was in one of the biggest punk bands ever and he couldn't play.


/jarmo

[Walk]

MTV was huge in the 1980's as well. Image was more important back then. The thing is now, talent is not as appreciated as much as it used to be. Part of it was a backlash against the guitar "wankery" of progressive bands, like Queenscryche, Yngwie Malmsteen, and others.

However, now the opposite is the problem! People don't care to develop musical skill because bands like Linkin Park and Nirvana got away with the basic power chords, and they think they can do the same thing. We've just gotten sick of the same, boring songs.

[matt88]

In my opinion Grunge was the death of Rock N' Roll, the whole world turned their backs on rock n roll and went with the new hip alternative stuff. Then when Grunge died people couldn't really go back to what they rebeled against in a sense. This left the door open for all kinds of music and untalented artists to come through the door. And we're still in this phase. Maybe this will never end. I can't honestly see a band revolutionise music the way other big bands have done. I mean what else can they do that hasn't been done. Sure the next big band (if it comes) can have legions of fans and change the industry but it's already been done before numerous times.

[Oddy]

i think tv combined with music is what is causing problems in general. i don't really care for video clips unless they're just of the band playing the song......like in a live situation.

as soon as you ad a visual aspect to music, well, you're gonna have to expect that people will also look at the image of a band etc. people watch music now, not listen to it. yeah its fine sometimes, but let me use an example.

rap music, i know this is a topic of rock music but the same problem occurs. rap that is played on mtv and vh1 is based tremendously on image. i think 90% of the people that listen to the pop rap on mtv listen to it for the image that comes a long with it. You know the ones, riding in their done up cars, with massive sound systems playing some 50 cent song driving down a main street nodding their head while looking out the window with a look taken from Zoolander........like the blue steel look.......or maybe the ferrari look. They could care less about the musical content, it's all about looking "hard" and like a gangsta. That's why they have the music playing, to convey an image to whoever's out on the street.

very few people these days when asked why they like a song say "oh its got a kick ass solo, the drums are real good or i like the chords changes they came up with in the bridge or its got a mad rhythm or rhyme or whateva". The teeny boppers would say they love music because its cool, or i like the dancing. I'm not saying you need musical knowledge to justify why you like a song, but a lot of people justify why they like it for the wrong reasons. "its got a mad ass ill video clip".

rock music has had the same thing happen to it, when ironically thanks to kurt kobain it was trying to become less about image. well sorry kurt, all you did was make songs for people that feel like outcasts and losers. They think "ah welll kurt is a loser and is proud of it.........i should listen to his music". Then you get the people that like something because its not the cool thing to like. A lot of punks do this. they dress in ways and such that associate them with being punks and like obscure bands just to show that they're not "suckers" for mainstream music like the rest of us pop music folk. me and my friend tried to start a band, he's a big fan of punk. i'm a big fan of blues rock n roll and heavy rock. whenever we would play he would stop me and say "that sounds too old rock...........or that doesn't sound "punk" enough". Hell apparently i didn't dress punk enough, and i needed stickers on my guitar. Too much worrying about the genre of music we fall into and how we look etc i mean what the fuck i just wanted to play guitar. It seems music has become lost in this way.

i mean because of the image of a band we have people that try to follow the fashion of a particular band. you know, wear the same clothes and stuff. Before, the fashion came from the music you know? But now it seems like the music comes from what you wear.....like if you like wearing big baggy clothes you start listening to rap or if you buy some chains and some studded wrist bands because they're fashionable........hell you might aswell start listening to punk.

i tell you what would be real interesting, if there was no tv. imagine if the only image of a band is what you see live and the pictures on the back of their album. all you would have is their music. It's like today we're dependent on something visual to like a song. we must see the band playing or whatever. If someone just only received an album........no pictures on it.....nothing just a name of a band and some songs.........they're forced to judge it only on the music. Once you bring in video clips and everything.......well they can like it because they look cool or dislike it cuz "that guy wears cat suits and is a fag".

Ofcourse music will always be subjective.........everybody likes different things. and ofcourse videos aren't the bad thing.....its just they help portray the image of a band nice and quick. it's the image that causes the problem and gets in the way of the music.

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...............aaaaaaam not a crooooooooook *shakes cheeks making flappy noise*  

[Mr Cowbell ?]

3 reasons for me

1-Record Companies dont let Bands build
2- Lack of lead guitarist
3-All new rock songs are about break-ups.

I think Record Companies dont let bands build. THey sign them for one or two records put out there regional single that made them big in their terrortory and push it at us. when the single has run the course its off to the next band.  I think this is one of the biggest problems.

I also believe the lack of Bands with Lead Guitarist help to demise rock. So many bad ass bands of the 60's to 90's Had Bad ass Lead Guitarist which made the Band usually have two frontmen. LEAD SINGER and LEAD GUITARIST. Now without the lead guitarist bands just used a distorded guitar to keep a shitty beat.

All songs nowadays seem to be written about Breakups. I would say 9 out of 10 new "rock" songs you hear are about breakups.  I want songs about Drugs, Alcohol, Parting, Sex, the core that made Rock what it was from 70's-90's. I dont need to know how you cried when your gf left you.

[Chris Misfit]

I think Record Companies dont let bands build. THey sign them for one or two records put out there regional single that made them big in their terrortory and push it at us. when the single has run the course its off to the next band.  I think this is one of the biggest problems.

I agree. In the 70's with bands like Maiden, Priest ect the record companies would ensure that the bands they release do extensive tours, to build up a fan base.

But with modern technology they don't have to spend the money on tours, and can drop a band, if things start to go wrong, instead of sticking with them and doing what they should.......support them. Get a cute guy, sling a guitar on him, write a so-so song about his girlfriend....you've got 20,000 single sales. Stick them on a few festivals, if he crashes, no worry, there's 40,000 other cute bands awaiting.

I also believe the lack of Bands with Lead Guitarist help to demise rock. So many bad ass bands of the 60's to 90's Had Bad ass Lead Guitarist which made the Band usually have two frontmen. LEAD SINGER and LEAD GUITARIST. Now without the lead guitarist bands just used a distorded guitar to keep a shitty beat.

Yeah, probably blame punk for that one. But rock n' roll is out there, I tend not to listen to bands who have no lead guitarist, because solos make me orgasm.

I'm surprised more GnR fans don't listen to bands like EF, Dog Toffee, Hellacopters, Backyard Babies, Wildhearts, Silver, Turbonegro ect ..... because these are the bands that GnR influenced, and you can hear it in their sound.

I think it started with MTV becoming popular.

First it seemed like the image and look was only an important factor if you were in a boy band or a pop artist. But nowadays it's taken over every genre.

Yeah. See if you agree with this point........

Right. When punk first became huge, the whole system was taken over by leather clad gimps (see Sid Vicious), who took it as a battle cry to act violently towards anybody or anything. The whole point of punk was missed. Of course alot of people will say punk is dead, but it's not. To those who see it through the eyes of MTV, yeah, that's dead, because like every genre, it will only sell for so long. That applies to very genre.

So what we've got, when a genre is exposed on MTV, is the generation of idiots who miss the point of the music, and just see image. It's pop culture. These people don't care for the genre.

When a scene first starts out, it's hard to get the records in shops. Would you say that the person who aquires the CDs by searching and seeking the out is the true fan?

Obviously my above point doesn't apply to everyone, beacsue I'm sure there have been people who have got into metal, beacsue they saw a Linkin Park video. But it's still safe to say most Linkin Park fans, have no idea about metal, and are into it, beacsue the lyrics, and image relate to them, and thosands of others because it's inoffensive, compared to other forms of metal, but still protrayed as rebelious, in a child like way.

[MadmanDan]

Nerdy idiots like Linkin Park,Blink 182 or Good Charlote,bands with no real skill or musical knowlege.

Well, can't really argue about Blink or GC, but I'd bet my life that Brad Delson has about three hundred times more "musical knowledge" than Slash, Duff, Izzy, Keith Richards, Chuck Berry, Eric Clapton, and about every other rock icon you'd care to name.  At least when they were in their heyday.

But the fact that irritates me the most is that all these morons list bands like GNR as their "musical influences". Probably their manager gave them a few band names to learn,for them to mention in interviews.

Marty Freidman did this.  Dave Mustaine told him to say in interviews that he was influenced by Michael Schenker, because when he started talking about Segovia, the metal fans got confused and didn't like him.

If you look back, I think you'd find almost every big rock band just went with what the public wanted.
Look how Maiden proclaimed that they were metal and everything.  Now in magazine articles they say "We're not metal, we never were, it was just something that was tagged on us.  We just play heavy rock.  Melodic rock"
Now I love Maiden, but that is the biggest crock of shit I ever heard.

It's clear to me that Nirvana destroyed Rock music,making it OK to sing when you have absolutely no voice,guitar skill or songwriting ability. Listen to all teen-rock "bands" of today and you'll find a little bit of Kurt Cobain in all of them.

This is silly.  You can hate his voice, but he was in tune.  You can think his guitar playing was crap, but point of fact, it wasn't.  You can critisize his songwriting ability all you want, that is subjective, but a lot of people would disagree with you.

Allthough their frontman is a fuckin pussy,The Darkness has the best music,instrumentally speaking,that I've heard in many many years.

That's because they just ripped of AC/DC and Queen.  Weren't you critisizing every modern "band" for copying Nirvana?

Except them who the real rock bands of today? Bands like Red hot chili peppers,U2,Bon Jovi,bands that were born when singing on radio and MTV required skill and talent,not only a teen-idol image.

But the situation was about the same in 87/88,but something happened(we all know what!!!). Maybe it will happen again...

You know, there were shit bands in the 80s too.  And in the 70s, and in the 60s.  Just because only the good ones get remembered, it doesn't mean the bad ones weren't there.  MTV never required skill and talent.  MTV always played what was popular.

OK,first of all,thank you for not agreeing with me in a decent manner.Lots of people in this board just call you a fuckin idiot when your opinion doesn't coincide with theirs
 And to answer your critics:

1. I don't mean "musical knowledge" as in stuff you klnow about music,but how they play their instruments. All I care about is that they can't play it like a real rock band.

2. Of course lots of people won't agree with me about Nirvana,they're still a popular band.But in my opinion Kurt Cobain's charisma wasn't about music at all.He just appealed to young people that felt they didn't fit into society.He was a reject,just like them.

3. It's ok to be inspired by other bands.Even GNR has a little Aerosmithor Led Zeppelin in their sound. But,like I said before,musically speaking,Nirvana are not an example to follow.

4. True,there have allways been shitty bands.But there were also good ones. Right now almost no good music makes the charts.

[axls_locomotive]

i think the change in the rock attitude over the last 20/30/40 years has a lot to do with the increase in people's disposable income... sure it was rock and roll in the 60's and 70's to have a t shirt and jeans but now i think most people associate that image with being poor...and bands can buy custom guitars and expensive gear because they can afford it...unfortunately any joe doe seems to think they can pick up a guitar and be a great guitarist now because they can afford it

and kids are easily manipulated anyway...plug them with hours upon hours of crap and they will think its good...so i guess the rise in advertising and selling the product has been influential albeit not a good influence...

there is also a negativity associated with rock music in general, none of my family like the current rock music, they say its either its too depressing, or its in your face or there isnt much fun involved with it...too many bands are hitting a guitar as hard as they can and shouting expletives thinking its rock and roll when its actually just crap..rock and roll used to be uplifting and intelligent but 90% of rock music now is just a waste of time

[Dot]

I must say that MTV is been having a lot to do with it..they basically only play pop and all of their reprsentatives, you know, Britney, Christina,......they also play lots of Hip-hop, and that has everything to do with the ratings, they know that rock and metal ain?t very accesi ble tothe kind of audience that give them the ratings. has any of you had the chance to watch MTV latin America? I must say it?s ten times better, they ply a lot of rock, and even videos that you don?t get to watch that often.

Someone said something about rockers being ugly....well I guess it also has lots to do with image, people love to see their share of well-manicured guys and that brings us to the crappy boy bands, that?s also why they are so accesible other than because of their music. The most talented guys in rock throughout history are not the best looking(Hendrix, Slash,Page,to name a few)and I?m sure tyhat has a lot to do with the topic being discussed. Anyway, rock?s quality has clearly gone downhill but there?s still good stuff out there, the thing is that is not exactly the stuff you hear on the radio, you?have to know where to look.

[Miz]

4. True,there have allways been shitty bands.But there were also good ones. Right now almost no good music makes the charts.

No good music ever made the charts consistently, because it's all about flavour of the month.  That's what the charts are.  Like Chris said, it's all about what's 'cool'.  Things get old and are no longer cool, and it's then bad for your image to be associated with it.  So one week they buy a busted CD, then 50 Cent the week after, then the Cheeky Girls the week after that.

I think Chris pretty much hit the nail on the head in his first post.  The reason rock died is because people these days aren't concerned with music.  They're concerned with whether their jeans are torn, whether their mobile phone can take pictures, and Big Brother.

Having a conversation with most teenagers is like having a lobotomy.  I talk to people, I talk to my friends, and about three of the people I know have a clue.    A lot of people listen to one or two bands that I'd consider have integrity, or a genuine belief in what they do, but for the most part, they listen to MTVisms.

That's the problem, because that's what rock is, it's a feeling, it's about the desire to make music.  Look at all the artists who make rock or rock n' roll.  Compare Les Paul, to Deep Purple.  You see, some of them are so far removed from each other, that you couldn't even try and argue they play the same kind of music.  That's because they don't.  But they do the same thing.  They live it.  They have a geniune talent, and creativity, and love of music.
But people now don't.  They don't care.


That and money.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

I think it started with MTV becoming popular.

First it seemed like the image and look was only an important factor if you were in a boy band or a pop artist. But nowadays it's taken over every genre.

I dont know... image & look was important for the Beatles way back in the 60's. (The haircut, the clothes, my mom told me all about it).  I know some people consider them 'pop' and others call them rock, but I think image is an important part of rock, as it was for GNR.    And MTV was very popular in the late 80's.  What year do you say that rock died?

Posted by: Miz
I think Chris pretty much hit the nail on the head in his first post.  The reason rock died is because people these days aren't concerned with music.  

Everybody always says that about the current generation - no matter what decade we're in!  It's always "their" fault b/c they're so image-conscious blah blah.  But you know what - you're right in a way.  In every generation, the majority of people dont really give a fuck about music.   They consume what they see on mass media such tv and radio.  So, from 'doo-wop' in the 50's to disco in the 70's to hip-hop of today, they'll eat what is marketed the most.

So do we just blame it on MTV?  Yeah... we could.  But we have an advantage these days that other generations didnt.  We can communicate with each other through the Internet without the intervention of tv and radio.  There are now many more sources of information than before.  I've learned about bands I'd never hear of otherwise b/c of this board.

So with this advantage, why isnt rock taking the underground by storm to rise up and conquer the masses one day?   Is there a Mick & Keith, or Axl & Slash waiting in the wings somewhere?  Maybe they havent been signed because record labels dont believe in the relevance of rock anymore?

Posted by: The Mask
i think the change in the rock attitude over the last 20/30/40 years has a lot to do with the increase in people's disposable income...

yes...and these people are also more culturally diverse.  Not all of them will identify with a long-haired, guitar playing rockstar.  You can dislike them for it, but it's all about representin'.   If they identify with Tupac more than Bob Dylan, why should we automatically hold them in contempt because of that?  At the risk of getting beaten up, I say I like some of Tupac's songs & lyrics.

So among the rockbands of today, is there anyone who represent a large portion of today's youth?  Is there some angry young male that a lot of us can identify with?  

The spokesman of this generation is.... _________    

You see, the rap world has Eminem, who do we have?  Jack White?  

[Chris Misfit]

So with this advantage, why isnt rock taking the underground by storm to rise up and conquer the masses one day?  Is there a Mick & Keith, or Axl & Slash waiting in the wings somewhere?  Maybe they havent been signed because record labels dont believe in the relevance of rock anymore?

It can't happen, it won't happen. Never, ever. The 4 major companies have made sure there will never be another hugely sucessful rock n' roll band. Not only do the companies dictate what people wear, they also control the airwaves, the promotion, the bands, the producers, everything.

The only way rock n' roll can possibly rise to the surface again, is if those who care about it, support it, but that ain't gonna happen.

Either way, i don't care. Rock n' roll bands will always release music, so I'll always have my fix.

So among the rockbands of today, is there anyone who represent a large portion of today's youth?  Is there some angry young male that a lot of us can identify with?  

Me?

Nah, that's a good point. Maybe there's just so many genres of music now, we don't know what to like. Nope, that's not it.

[Walk]

I think even the best rock music is usually a fad. Kiss was a fad because people thought the blood vomit and fireworks were cool. How long did GnR last, 6 years? Some fads are better than others, but they're all fads. Sometimes they pop up again to satisfy nostalgia, like Aerosmith and Kiss.

Metal doesn't care about selling records, just about the music. Didn't Metallica's Kill 'Em All peak at 143 on the charts?   I think popular rock is history, but there is still great metal being made.

The truth is, great music is being made, but it isn't found on the charts. The current fad of rap sucks, and maybe there will be another rock fad sometime, like the glam bands of the 80's.

I would like to add something here. A lot of music seekers are discouraged by the underground fans who rave about hardcore punk, black metal, true alternative rock, and other inaccessible genres. Pop music fans aren't used to it. You have to be so patient and open minded when looking for new music, because 90% of underground bands suck, no matter the genre.

A lot of people look to music for entertainment, not art. Pop music is music for people who don't like music. It requires a degree of thought to appreciate more complecated music, and this is too much to ask for some people.

[Izzy]

Could it be the 'decline' of rock' is more to do with the ''death'' of the major rock acts out there rather than anything MTV did

Look at the late 80's early 90's the dominant rock/metal groups either fell to bits or produced shite music

Queen and Guns N Roses broke up, Judas Priest and Iron Maiden changed lead singers, Van Halen and Motley Crue are generally regarded to have churned out substandard music, Metallica took 6 years to release another album -  i could go on with an endless list i think we could all name major bands that vanished in the late 80's early 90's

The new rock acts that emerged weren't sufficiently good to replace them (Pearl Jam and Nirvana are rare exceptions) and so the genre slowly faded into obsurity while other genres gew in strength

Its just a point of view,

[jarmo]

I dont know... image & look was important for the Beatles way back in the 60's. (The haircut, the clothes, my mom told me all about it).  I know some people consider them 'pop' and others call them rock, but I think image is an important part of rock, as it was for GNR.    And MTV was very popular in the late 80's.  What year do you say that rock died?

True, image was important before MTV. But I think it became too important when MTV came around.

The Beatles had an image, but they could play and sing. Same thing with the Rolling Stones, Aeromisth, Led Zeppelin etc.


Rcok isn't dead for me. I stil listen to it, several of my favorite bands still release records.... Maybe they're not on MTV as much as they used to because rock isn't the most popular genre at the moment.

Rock is probably dead as a way to make lots of money for the record companies. They'd rather sign a Justin Timberlake than a rock band. A Backstreet Boys clone rather than a rock band.

And it seems like hip hop is where rock music was at one point. I wouldn't be surprised if people get tired of it soon.



/jarmo

[gnrmadagascar]

     There's still some good rock out there, it's just a little harder to find then it was in 1991. Bands like the Darkness and Jet in my opinion are going to be the next generation of rock.

     I just miss bands that have lead guitarists and great singers, etc. Take me, I just turned 14, have been a rock fan all my life and while my peers are growing up on Good Charlotte and Linkin Park, I'm listening to KISS, Guns N' Roses, and Alice Cooper, which isn't a bad thing. I've already turned quite a few of my friends into GNR fans, with Greatest Hits, Appetite and VR.

     Rock isn't popular as of right now, and if it's true that history often repeats itself, then we will have an uprising in rock soon.

Great thread by the way!