Post-rock is dying,so whats the next phase for rock?is it the end?

I think the time has come, for us to wonder why,

There seems to be a birth, out of the abyss,

all around the earth, * .

*1 Rock just takes a piss

*2 Cupid blows a kiss

*3 Rock is not amiss

*4 Super-Snake goes "hiss"

(*3 : Or a mister for that matter)

this would be just too good

depends where would you live: post war germany for example:bad

"

That said, I've always found that movements work like this. It gradually builds up steam with plenty of classics for 5-10 years and then towards the end the major artists all release incredible records at the same time. This in turn means that thousands of copycat acts get signed in a rush, release stuff that sound exactly the same and then the scene ends up strangling itself. Case in point, IDM circa 2001.

Music Executive #1A : "Blip-Bop is the current fad, let's
go ! Green Light, Green Light !"

M.E.#2B : "Blip-Bop is now in prime demand, churn out
the Blip-Bop records faster !!!"

M.E.#3C : "We've got to sign more Blip-Boppers.... huh ?
You can't find any... well then start creating them as
a synthetic project of commercial plastic !!!"

When the current crop of Blip-Boppers start replicating previous Blip-Bopper's ideas, it becomes shallow, stagnant, derivative, repetitive, and ultimately, it collapses unto itself, and then
things get desperate.

Like a tank of cannabalistic piranha Blip-Boppers, they consume
their own kind, and the manufactured movement (fad) becomes
extinct.

What the Music Execuitives fail to realize, is that innovation
within the movement is more financially viable than parasitic
copying in the long term.Band for band and style for style.

An executive with a long-term view will sign and promote
U2 over New Kids On The Block (or N'Sync, or that
British Boy Band(s)) any day of the week, artistically
AND finacially.

FIGHT!

Arcade Fire to thread?

But then Tortoise and LaBradford will still be selling records in 20 years' time. Short-termism as basis of 21st century economic planning: classic or dud?

Sickoakes
http://www.typerecords.com/artists/full.php?id=30

Sure, they might gross $20 million US Dollars per year for a few years, but their longevity is nil because of a lack of internal creativity, innovation, and an inability to re-invent themselves.In the same year, U2 grosses 60-70 million, but sustains it for 2-3 decades.Do the math.

Also, look at this.It's called long-term finacial viability.Decade, after decade, after decade.

U2
Rolling Stones
Paul McCartney
Bruce Springsteen
The Eagles
Elton John
Celine Dion
Dave Matthews
Neil Diamond
Green Day
Coldplay

And they say that Rock Is Dead (or Dying)... they've been saying it
for decades !!! The Anti-Rock better hope it's dying because it's
had a virtual monopoly and has wiped out 2-dimensional posers like
N'Sync (or Aqua) 1000's of times through sheer artistic domination,
songwriting and instrumental skill.

Prolific writers RULE the Rock-Pop world, always have and always will.The classic writers DOMINATE the faddish posers.

We must find this executive and eliminate him.

N'Sync over U2 ? Now that's quite funny.U2 has a shelf life of
(hmmm, 1978-2006= 28 years) vs. N'Sync (5-10 years).U2 outearns
them 60 million to 20 million in any given year.

I think I'll sign & promote U2 over N'Sync, given the obvious "dilemma".

Indeed, and it partly answers the original question - but that hardly paints them as some record company exec's idea of how to milk the cash cow that isn't post-rock dry.

Short-termism as basis of 21st century economic planning: classic or dud?

A whole nother question. How many record company executives concern themselves with 21st century economic planning? People have been chasing the fast buck since bucks were invented, my strawman executive is no different.

The wise man would sign both, since the short-term gains of one act necessarily subsidise the long-term ones of the other.

At the time they were signed, the executives were thinking of the big picture... long-term.Green Day, Coldplay, Oasis & Dave Matthews
were all signed (and re-signed) in the corporate rock era of the 90's-2006, and they have reeped magnificent finacial rewards for all parties involved.

It boils down to talent.Songwriting talent (Dylan & McCartney), instrumental virtuosity (Alcia Keys or Eddie Van Halen), innovative
transformability, durability, versatility and overall creativity (U2).

It boils down to talent.Songwriting talent (Dylan & McCartney), instrumental virtuosity (Alcia Keys or Eddie Van Halen), innovative
transformability, durability, versatility and overall creativity (U2).

[spellcheck]

The first time Alan McGee has been accused of long-sightedness, anywhere, ever.

No, they were taking a risk (as any signing is) and hoping for the big picture. Many bands in the same era were dropped after one album, possibly by the same forward thinking executives you are applauding.

has wiped out 2-dimensional posers like
N'Sync (or Aqua) 1000's of times through sheer artistic domination,
songwriting and instrumental skill.

Has it? Have you ever looked at the charts? The next "2-dimensional poser" is just around the corner waiting for the current crop to fade away. It isn't either/or you know - you can have global rock behemoths *and* here-today-gone-tomorrow disposable pop. As Marcello says, the executive who signs both makes the cash in the long and the short term.

Green Day were signed during the OMG AMERICAN POP PUNK flurry like Offspring and even I think No Doubt, and relatively late in it.

Weren't Coldplay signed because someone thought they were a bit like Ooberman, who were troubling the bottom of the charts at the time?

I'm more of a Parcel Rock man myself.

I'm not saying that Arcade Fire are GYBE copyists, but a case for them being GYBE-goes-pop could be made.

-- Marcello Carlin (marcellocarli...), March 2nd, 2006 6:45 AM.

That's the first thing I thought when I heard Arcade Fire. GYBE aren't given enough credit for contributing to the grandiosity of groups like AF, Broken Social Scene, Destroyer. Whether that's good or ill is debatable but at least they've got some fucking ambition (and not a GYBE copycat among them). Tired of motherfuckers with no ambition.

Motley Crue

(yuk)

Jimmy Buffet

(yawn)

Gwen Stefani

(allright)

U2
Rolling Stones
Paul McCartney
Bruce Springsteen
The Eagles
Elton John
Celine Dion
Neil Diamond
Aerosmith

(mixed bag of old dinosaurs)

Green Day
Coldplay
Dave Matthews
Oasis

(mixed bag of young dinosaurs)

but they really do represent the top, with britney spears, n'sync, madonna and the like a very very distant 10th or so (on occasion).

Double-myth.

Actually he does have a new single out featuring DMX of all people. It is rubbish though.

and inevitably, the next good thing'll come outta left field, as always...

I am pretty sure "Don't Believe The Truth" has sold more than "Heathen Chemistry" did.

What's wrong with that? That would be a popular message in these days of anti-downloading pogroms. What they need is a smart marketing push. They should do a new record tying the war on Iraq to Bush's wiretapping and the RIAA angle - it could be a hit, I tell ya!