Editorial: Is Rock and Roll Dead?

Since I started this blog in March I've worked up a decent sized library of stories, poetry, backbiting, etc. and I thought it might be worth actually making the choice to churn out at least on blog entry a week. We'll see how that goes.


But as Gene Simmons has rather modestly declared Rock and Roll dead, I got to thinking about the topic and whether or not there was something to be said on that front. So today I'm happy to present my first editorial:

Is Rock and Roll Dead?

No.

Okay, I just previewed what I've written and for a blog it's a bit on the short side, so maybe I should expand on my opening statement.

First off, I've never really gotten what is and isn't Rock and Roll or what qualifies as Rock but not Roll. I can say Danny and the Juniors is usually not the first group which comes to mind (being a doo-wop quartet) but I find a certain truth to their hit Rock 'n Roll is Here to Stay.

So what exactly is Rock and Roll? Not even Wikipedia is sure. Music historians trace the origins of Rock back to Blues, Gospel, Country, Folk, and Jazz. Fair enough, but that doesn't really answer the question. Maybe the question should be, does Rock and Roll even exist? After all, the roots from which we perceive Rock and Roll to have blossomed are still in existence today. Maybe Rock is only an illusory hybrid in as much as we simply believe it to be.

It's still not a satisfactory thought process. You could just as easily argue that purple doesn't exist because it's merely a red-blue hybrid. Yet the general population accepts that there is in fact a color identifiable not only as purple but also as not-red and not-blue (and for the record, people who insist that color is only a perceived trick of the human brain are just killjoys).

I think we all accept that Rock and Roll exists in all of its subsets; hard (Pat Benatar), soft (Elton John), punk (The Offspring), progressive (Pink Floyd), and all those other adjectives to describe everyone from Violent Femmes to Breaking Benjamin. So perhaps it's safe to say that Rock and Roll truly does exist but as an ambiguity, like morality or humor.

So we can't really define Rock and Roll and we don't know where it really came from, so what if we instead ask "Why does Rock and Roll exist?" I've always assumed it caught on because it sounded good, and possibly because the teenaged culture was in a period of change. I'm sure if you posed the question to the music industry, they'd say "It exists because it sells to the fourteen year old demographic".

You know what? Let's explore that for a minute. Since its alleged birth, Rock and Roll has carried a stigma of being a teenaged thing. Well I'm sure nobody is going to challenge me in the comments section on this (hell, I have YET to receive a comment on any of my blogs) but being a teenager sucks. You don't really know who you are and you're suddenly getting responsibilities dumped on you and you're not getting the accompanying freedoms that the adults are clearly reaping the benefits of. Rock and Roll becomes your voice for the things you're feeling but don't really understand.

Maybe that's what Rock and Roll is: the challenge to someone else's imposed boundaries. That explains why Bill Haley & His Comets can seem like sooooo last century but still have left a defining rebellious mark on music history. Rock and Roll at its core is a defiance of the system, sometimes as a losing battle but sometimes as an actual jolt of 'sense' to outdated notions; the zeitgeist's 'soul' if you will (and you better!).

So then, is Rock and Roll dead? On the one hand Gene Simmons seems to be voicing a concern the world has been discussing since Lou Pearlman was handed a fountain pen; the music industry has tamed the beast. Well maybe. We don't really have pioneers of music anymore, we have a 'here today gone tomorrow' revolving door of substitute icons with funny names and poor fashion sense. And to Simmons's defense, the modern system probably has choked the life out of the modern Tom Pettys and Joan Jetts.

But on the other hand Rock and Roll has a history of thriving on repression. Life...ah...finds a way. We're beginning to see the first round of internet celebrities popping up, and they're willing to commit to their craft whether they get paid to do it or not. Lindsey Stirling is huge right now, and she's practically sidestepped the whole powers-that-be structure. She won't be the last. While the exectives are still fumbling around trying to figure out how to make money off the digital age, creativity will continue to seek its outlet.

So, no. Rock and Roll isn't dead. In hibernation? Yeah. "There is a passion for declivity in this world" but there is also the call to artistic expression against all odds. Rock and Roll came into being because we needed it, just as we need it now. It's quite possible the music industry is dying, and good riddance to it. But it won't take music with it because, again, we need Rock and Roll.

You know, if there's one thing Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure got unquestionably correct it's that Ludwig van Beethoven would have used electric instruments if he'd had access to them. I for one believe that Rock and Roll existed well before the 1940's; as far back as humanity was able to play instruments. It's ingrained in our species. It simply cannot die, in spite of our inherent laziness in nurturing it. To give Danny and the Juniors the deserved final word, "I don't care what people say, Rock & Roll is here to stay".