Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Rock Isn't Dead. It's Just Old And Tired.

Stevie Van Zandt, Bruce Springsteen's lead guitar player, makes some interesting points in this article regarding the state of rock and roll. I agree with most of what he says, but I'm not convinced that rock is a viable creative entity anymore. In the end, all musical idioms run their course. For my money, I think that the apex of rock was between 1967 to 1975. There's been some great stuff since then, but most of it, even the great stuff, is derived from the template set down by the likes of The Who, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Yardbirds (and by extension, Cream, The Jeff Beck Group, and Led Zeppelin), ELP, Yes, Gabriel-era Genesis, King Crimson, David Bowie, The Stooges, Procol Harem, Frank Zappa, Creedence, The Doors, and a few others that don't come to mind immediately. Can anyone really come up with something completely original in rock and roll anymore? I don't think so. In the last two and a half decades, the only bands that I've heard that sounded 100% original and exciting were the grunge bands (Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, and Alice In Chains), The Clash, U2, and Van Halen. I'm not discounting that there's an undiscovered band out there capable of knocking everyone out with their originality, but even if there is, when you consider that most of the bands that I listed above were by-and-large contemporaries of each other (or close to it), will there ever be that many great acts out at the same time toiling within the rock and roll idiom? Highly doubtful.

No comments: