does rock have any consensual standards anymore?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

by that i mean its so abitrary that one group can get praised for being a bunch of post punk knock offs while another can get slammed for doing the same thing but apparently 'not very well'. does rock have any real set standard for what a rock band or artist should do to be thought of as 'a good rock artist/band' or is it far too splintered and mammoth for that to ever be a reality again?

― splooge (thesplooge), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

There is no accounting for taste, etc..

I think that there are too many critics from too many starting positions to have a consensus anymore. Whether a band fits into a genre is about as far as you can get before someone starts saying "The Strokes are the second coming of rock" or "The Strokes are pretty boy rip-off artists".

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I guess, even back in the 60s, there would the odd (but very rare) critic who would not like The Beatles. It always comes down to taste.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.