Quote:
Originally Posted by guyy
Yah, but rock-n-roll is more or less a zombie now anyway so the question is kinda appropriate to the genre.
|
I'd be interested to know what you mean by that.
Rock and roll is a very broad category. If we want to be traditional about it, strictly speaking the only music that really deserves the classification is Bo Diddley/Chuck Berry era blues-inspired stuff. If we include the subcategories and off-shoots, which I think most people here do judging by the responses, then we're looking at the bulk of popular music since the early fifties. Rock is not as rebellious as it used to be, but I would hardly classify it as zombified.
Genre labels are tricky. Some people seem to think the solution is more, to infinitely pigeonhole music into subgenre after subgenre until each song is a genre unto itself. I try to get by with less and just enjoy the music for what it is. Broad classifications like 'rock,' 'blues,' or 'jazz' can be very useful in providing touchstones. Subcategories like 'indie rock' or 'alternative rock' can also occasionally come in handy when discussing variations. Subcategories of subcategories like post-rock (a subcategory of indie) start to get silly.
Whatever music you like that makes you feel it necessarily to exclaim pretentiously that rock is dead is probably in itself a type of rock.
On topic, there are dozens of musicians in the rock and blues landscape whose deaths could be considered untimely. One of the hazards of the profession, seemingly, is the increased mortality rate. One could argue that the drug-related deaths were self-inflicted and I don't know that I'd disagree; I don't know that I'd agree, precisely, either though. It's a very tough world to be a part of and most of the people who seek it out are emotionally damaged to begin with.
Nick Drake is an interesting candidate. Elliott Smith could also be included, as could Janis Joplin.