• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

On the state of mainstream rock and alternative rock

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Well yeah, why would anyone want to listen to Papa Roach/Seether/Disturbed/Breaking Benjamin/Finger Eleven?

They feel like someone took the "angst" element of the 90's Grunge/Alternative scene and forgot that said groups had talent to back that up.
I can't answer that because I don't understand the appeal to those groups. Honestly, didn't even know they were considered mainstream rock.

I remember them being popular in my age group during school, but I remember thinking this brand of music had no staying power and is forgettable. Pretty amazing it's stuck this long and credit to the people who like and support that stuff.

There just wasn't any value in it for me. It felt like those bands were either loud and over emotional for the sake of being that way or every band sounded like they had the same lead singer. Really music without any of the stuff that makes music special to me like great story telling, unique instruments, humor, maybe new perspectives or songs that elicit strong emotions
 
There are current musicians that invent musical styles and create music just as complex (and I'm not sure I would even use that as any sort of measurement as to how good a band is.. That's sort of a generational divide. Like I personally think rush is self indulgent trash and difficult to listen to and the white stripes who wrote pretty simple stuff were far better. Or a myriad of other bands - and a little band called the Beatles would probably agree ) that I dont think you guys are going to be familiar with because you aren't curating music and it isn't really your guys hobby currently.

Sia is a fantastic writer, diplo has mastered a littamy of different music styles, Corrigan wrote most of smashing pumkins stuff, Matt Bellamy writes muses, skrillex is fantastically innovative and his bands were trash and his solo music is incredibly difficult to write and produce

The reason things are "forgettable," is 1. Because people actually like it better than the bands you guys remember and 2. You guys only remember the good stuff from your times and are less aware oh everything now. We also tend to like whatever we grew up with and identify with it more. The same way we think whatever cast we grew up with for snl and all predecessors suck.
Sia is pretty great, amazing person too if you haven't already looked into her
 
Sia is pretty great, amazing person too if you haven't already looked into her
I've been a fan since she was a much more complex off beat writer. I absolutely love her, both iterations, and so would most of the people complaining about the state of music today.
 
I think you're going to have memorable songs many years from now, but they're not going to be from the current playlists of WRQK or WMMS.

No one is going to sing along to Breaking Benjamin while drunk at a bar.

I could however...make arguments that bands like Jack White/White Stripes, The Killers, etc could be those bands.

On this chart? I'm seeing a lot of fresh faces, sounds and a breathe of fresh air

https://www.billboard.com/charts/alternative-songs

I saw "lovelytheband" play a show in Tulsa on a bill with "Chrvches" and someone else. I've spoken with people about a lot of these others artists in passsing. Even "21 pilots", who I'm not a fan of? I know of them and know their songs.

Flipside? Well....

https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-mainstream-rock-tracks

Disturbed, Godsmack, Avenged Sevenfold, Slipknot, [KoRn] Jonathan Davis, Three Days Grace, Atreyu, Chevelle are all acts I've heard being played on repeat on the rock station growing up in Cleveland/Canton/Akron.

"Imagine Dragons", "Pop Evil" and "Five Finger Death Punch" also seem to share a similiar vocal style to the above artists.

And that is pretty much WRQK/WMMS playlist at this point. And they still headline say, "Rock on the Range".

It's rather stunning.

I remember them being popular in my age group during school, but I remember thinking this brand of music had no staying power and is forgettable. Pretty amazing it's stuck this long and credit to the people who like and support that stuff.

Yeah they're still around which is the stunning part.

I've yet to really understand it. It's been 15 years.
 
There are current musicians that invent musical styles and create music just as complex (and I'm not sure I would even use that as any sort of measurement as to how good a band is..

I completely understand that may not be part of your measuring stick of how good a band is, and complexity/technical proficiency by itself can be sterile and boring as hell. However, the more complexity/proficiency you can incorporate successfully expands exponentially the odds that you are actually creating something more unique.

There is zero chance that any single musician is creating stuff that is just as complex as that of the great, technically proficient bands. For those bands, each performance was different because they wouldn't play it the same way every time. One guy does something a bit different, another guy reacts to that by doing something slightly different, etc.. That's why fans of great bands prize different live performances of the same song so much -- the variations and inventiveness of the moment cannot be duplicated by a single guy making a recording at a computer.

Sia is a fantastic writer, diplo has mastered a littamy of different music styles, Corrigan wrote most of smashing pumkins stuff, Matt Bellamy writes muses, skrillex is fantastically innovative and his bands were trash and his solo music is incredibly difficult to write and produce[/QUOTE]

For actual bands, the "writing" very rarely includes telling each other guy in the band exactly which notes to play and when, or how to play the drums for the song, etc.. Stairway to Heaven was written by Page and Plant, but the drumming is based on what John Bonham chose to do when presented with their composition. Neither Sia -- who does write some beautiful songs -- nor any other musician - ever -- could sit down at a computer and stand up with the complete sound of "Won't Get Fooled Again". Sure, Townsend "wrote the song", but what Entwhistle and Moon added -- the sheer inventiveness they showed on bass and drums -- was a key part of that song. And no one person has done that.

What you get with someone like Sia is they write the melody and the words, and the rest of the instrumentation is just keeping time/backing.

Anyway, what music individual people prefer is actually a different question. But if the issue is "why is rock dying", I'd say it's because there simply are not enough people willing to put in that kind of work, who also are willing to work with people in a band as more or less peers.
 
Last edited:
I completely understand that may not be part of your measuring stick of how good a band is, and complexity/technical proficiency by itself can be sterile and boring as hell. However, the more complexity/proficiency you can incorporate successfully expands exponentially the odds that you are actually creating something more unique.

There is zero chance that any single musician is creating stuff that is just as complex as that of the great, technically proficient bands. For those bands, each performance was different because they wouldn't play it the same way every time. One guy does something a bit different, another guy reacts to that by doing something slightly different, etc.. That's why fans of great bands prize different live performances of the same song so much -- the variations and inventiveness of the moment cannot be duplicated by a single guy making a recording at a computer.

Sia is a fantastic writer, diplo has mastered a littamy of different music styles, Corrigan wrote most of smashing pumkins stuff, Matt Bellamy writes muses, skrillex is fantastically innovative and his bands were trash and his solo music is incredibly difficult to write and produce

For actual bands, the "writing" very rarely includes telling each other guy in the band exactly which notes to play and when, or how to play the drums for the song, etc.. Stairway to Heaven was written by Page and Plant, but the drumming is based on what John Bonham chose to do when presented with their composition. Neither Sia -- who does write some beautiful songs -- nor any other musician - ever -- could sit down at a computer and stand up with the complete sound of "Won't Get Fooled Again". Sure, Townsend "wrote the song", but what Entwhistle and Moon added -- the sheer inventiveness they showed on bass and drums -- was a key part of that song. And no one person has done that.

What you get with someone like Sia is they write the melody and the words, and the rest of the instrumentation is just keeping time/backing.

Anyway, what music individual people prefer is actually a different question. But if the issue is "why is rock dying", I'd say it's because there simply are not enough people willing to put in that kind of work, who also are willing to work with people in a band as more or less peers.[/QUOTE]
Did Mozart play woodwind instruments? Did he compose some of the most complex music we've heard? Surely more than the who.

Producers program all instruments, and synth. Those instruments play all the same notes. A deep understanding of each instrument really just means they understand the same notes played on a different instrument - which, in the name, is a dead give away of what it's capacity is. Knowing them individually really doesn't mean much.

What if I showed you a dozen modern day bands/ musicians that created just as complex music as the bands you are listing?

Have you heard of Imogen heap? Not using Her as The Example, but you have to give that woman some credit for what she does.

Not really into noodling, can't stand jazz and I'm not partial to how good someone is at their instrument as I am the feeling I get from what they write and how well the work manifests. But if that's your thing cool, all subjective. there just are some people that do mind boggling things with computers.

I play every instrument. I used to write music. If I write again I would use a computer. I'm not the only one to follow that path. The interface is different, the instrument is different, but it doesn't necessarily mean much else. Contemporary musicians compose symphonies, just differently. Some traditional sounding and some contemporary
 
Last edited:
Kid born in '97 here. Why would anyone listen to "active rock/mainstream rock" when most acts from the 60s-80s were so much better?

Maybe I have this perception because I envision mainstream rock being bands like nickelback.

Greta Van Fleet sounds just like Zepplin if you're really trying to scratch that itch for a decent modern rock act. Besides that, some of my favorite bands are apart of rock's subgenres like indie rock or psychedelic rock.

Take my opinion with a grain salt since I don't know much, but that seems to me the direction rock is going. Diversifying into a bunch of different subcategories

I have to agree. Right around 2011 I was thinking when was the last time a good rock group made it big and had songs that everyone enjoyed or at least knew? Far and few between.

The Killers I would think were the last big rock band, and even they always had a fusion of New Wave and synthy type sounds that separated them, for the good, from the other bands that emerged in the mid-2000s and are reviled, such as the oft-mentioned Nickleback or Three-Doors Down or whatever.
 
I have to agree. Right around 2011 I was thinking when was the last time a good rock group made it big and had songs that everyone enjoyed or at least knew? Far and few between.

The Killers I would think were the last big rock band, and even they always had a fusion of New Wave and synthy type sounds that separated them, for the good, from the other bands that emerged in the mid-2000s and are reviled, such as the oft-mentioned Nickleback or Three-Doors Down or whatever.
The killers changed everything with their style. I remember thinking that often.
 
'

That's interesting. I'd agree that one person in a lot more likely to create "good" work than are several people without the same vision. But what if those several people do have the same (or even better, different but complementary) visions? When you get multiple talented people working together, adding together their different bits and visions --even if it is just playing within their own style a song written primarily by one guy - you get layers, complexity, and synergies that you simply cannot get with just one guy. One guy sitting at his computer isn't going to come up with Stairway to Heaven, or Sympathy for the Devil, or Close to the Edge, or In Memory of Elizabeth Reed, or Dream On, or any number of the best songs by the great bands.

That's actually what I think is missing nowadays, for the most part. The complexity, intricacy, and depth you get from multiple great musicians, working together but all putting some of their own stamp into each song. What we get overwhelmingly right now are some nice songs, the vast majority of which are pleasant enough but ultimately forgettable. Nobody is going to give a shit about most of them, even the hits, in 10 years. Maybe not even 5.

The problem is that to do that right -- to have multiple competent musicians blending together to make a superior product, takes pretty exceptional musicianship, including an advanced understanding of musical structure. And that's not nearly as easy/fun for some at sitting on a computer and letting it generate music. So...it's becoming a lost art.

Why do you suppose things have moved away from bands with brilliant peers in them?

Do you think that the reorganization of schools in the late 90s and 2000s that began prioritizing test-taking at the expense of art and music programs may have thinned the candidate pool for potential artists?

At a glance, it seems to be that the rock scene in the UK seems healthier than in the US, and it terms of music composition and song-writing in general certain nations like Sweden punch way above its weight thanks to a very robust music education program in their schools.
 
The killers changed everything with their style. I remember thinking that often.

They are heavily influenced by both that blue-collar rock embodied by Bruce Springsteen and the electro-pop influence of the Pet Shop Boys. Hot Fuss is an amazing album and it is remarkable that this band came out of nowhere fully formed with some of the catchiest tunes of the new century.

Everyone knows Mr. Brightside or Somebody Told Me.

Others attempted that fusion in the 2000s but mostly failed. The Killers were ahead of their time considering how many artists now incorporate that techno-pop sound emanating from the late-80s sound that was primarily defined by PSB and Depeche Mode.
 
I have to agree. Right around 2011 I was thinking when was the last time a good rock group made it big and had songs that everyone enjoyed or at least knew? Far and few between.

The Killers I would think were the last big rock band, and even they always had a fusion of New Wave and synthy type sounds that separated them, for the good, from the other bands that emerged in the mid-2000s and are reviled, such as the oft-mentioned Nickleback or Three-Doors Down or whatever.

Killers are a great band. If they ever tour Oklahoma City/Tulsa? I will be there.

I'll throw my hat in for "My Chemical Romance"

Which feels rather laughable, but "The Black Parade" was a rather good record that felt rather ignored on the mainstream rock charts for whatever reasons.

They got labeled as an "emo" group for their first couple of records but they felt like they grew out of that with that record.

I see a lot of Corgan in Gerard Way. Damn shame they fell off the face of the earth.

...

To add? It didn't help that around that time when the Rock genre NEEDED a shot in the arm?
-Alice In Chains saw Layne Staley die a couple years prior
-Soundgarden had broken up.
-Rage Against the Machine broke up during a time when they probably would have made some interesting political observations
-Eddie Van Halen was on meth and only could muster a "Van Hagar" reunion.
-RHCP, while still a great live band were making "adult alternative" music at the time
-Guns N' Roses was still broken up. We pretty much got a medicore STP side project at the time.
-Smashing Pumpkins were minus James Iha so it struggled

I mean these are the type of bands that generally help carry a genre through some times when genres are changing.

Hell even "You know you're right" being uncovered around 02 or so very much helped the genre for that time. It was like this weird desolate vaccuum at the time and to an extent? Still is.
 
I rather like the Black Parade.

I liked the video and its obvious homage to Freddie Mercury.

I saw RHCP and Queens of the Stone Age in Madison WI in 2004. Great show. You are right about how great RHCP are live.
 
They are heavily influenced by both that blue-collar rock embodied by Bruce Springsteen and the electro-pop influence of the Pet Shop Boys. Hot Fuss is an amazing album and it is remarkable that this band came out of nowhere fully formed with some of the catchiest tunes of the new century.

Everyone knows Mr. Brightside or Somebody Told Me.

Others attempted that fusion in the 2000s but mostly failed. The Killers were ahead of their time considering how many artists now incorporate that techno-pop sound emanating from the late-80s sound that was primarily defined by PSB and Depeche Mode.
I personally am not a fan but I get them
 
I rather like the Black Parade.

I liked the video and its obvious homage to Freddie Mercury.

I saw RHCP and Queens of the Stone Age in Madison WI in 2004. Great show. You are right about how great RHCP are live.
I really like mcr. Gerard ways new stuff is not good
 
I rather like the Black Parade.

I liked the video and its obvious homage to Freddie Mercury.

I saw RHCP and Queens of the Stone Age in Madison WI in 2004. Great show. You are right about how great RHCP are live.

I feel guilty but I dismissed them at the time due to their emo reputation.

Equally funny? I dismissed Bruno Mars because I just thought he was a boring pop act when he played at Kent. Didn't bother to see him. To be fair? He got A LOT more of an interesting act after that...that Super Bowl show he put on for example? outstanding. Helluva musician.

...

Honestly I'm trying to find the demo of the "Mainstream Rock" audiences because it's a bit of a headscratcher. The only ones coming to mind are rural teenagers who don't know better, auto mechanics and body builders.

(the three areas I've heard WRQK/WMMS commonly played for example)

This is not to rip on any of those people by the way. I actually feel angry on their behalf and feel that they deserve better entertainment wise.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top