Why Rock music is always linked to Negativity, evils? Many a times, i have discussed with my friends about the nature of Rock music as i myself is a big fan of Rock music. Here, i just want to collect the opinion of many people.
___________________________________
new car information ~ automobile club ~ automobile pictures
nature of Rock music
Moderator: TGN
-
symaniaxta
- New member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:40 am
nature of Rock music
Last edited by symaniaxta on Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
hseiken
- Winner of Silver Medal
- Posts: 1307
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:11 am
- Location: San Diego
- Contact:
Re: nature of Rock music
Rock is linked to negativity? I wouldn't say it is, but it's got a lot more varied history because of it's performers and the messages that the establishment didn't want resonating with young people...
For instance, John Lennon and Kiss both caused controversy for very different reasons with their music and John was ultimately killed as a result. Then you have people like Kurt Cobain and Keith Richards who are poster children for habitual drug use which could be considered negative. Hair metal in the 80's did a lot I think to tarnish the genre too with bands like Poison, Winger, etc. But overall, I think these kinds of events aren't as prevalent in other genres like country (where it's most controversial artists are Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash) and hip hop (who's most notorious artists are 2 Live Crew, 2Pac, BIG, NWA) has it's negativity based in misunderstandings, pushing freedom of speech limits and very sadly, shootings.
So as far as pop styles, I think rock has been around longer and carries all that baggage with it, but it is, along with most pop (discounting today) was about messages and standing up against the establishment and keeping it in check. Hip hop picked up the reins when rock abandoned it in the 80's but it too has been beaten into submission by money in general. There's a couple of good mainstream artists in a sea of garbage imo. But I guess most of that can be considered trap...idk...I stopped giving a fuck.
For instance, John Lennon and Kiss both caused controversy for very different reasons with their music and John was ultimately killed as a result. Then you have people like Kurt Cobain and Keith Richards who are poster children for habitual drug use which could be considered negative. Hair metal in the 80's did a lot I think to tarnish the genre too with bands like Poison, Winger, etc. But overall, I think these kinds of events aren't as prevalent in other genres like country (where it's most controversial artists are Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash) and hip hop (who's most notorious artists are 2 Live Crew, 2Pac, BIG, NWA) has it's negativity based in misunderstandings, pushing freedom of speech limits and very sadly, shootings.
So as far as pop styles, I think rock has been around longer and carries all that baggage with it, but it is, along with most pop (discounting today) was about messages and standing up against the establishment and keeping it in check. Hip hop picked up the reins when rock abandoned it in the 80's but it too has been beaten into submission by money in general. There's a couple of good mainstream artists in a sea of garbage imo. But I guess most of that can be considered trap...idk...I stopped giving a fuck.
-
yo-yo crunch
- Member
- Posts: 577
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 12:49 pm
Re: nature of Rock music
go back to the invent of rock- little richard/chuck berry etc... it was bad because it made you want to move your hips and dance sexy time--things conservative parents were worried about in the 50s. it encouraged sexual deviance