Who said anything about the “pop” charts? Rock, especially heavier Rock, has always been about ALBUM sales, not singles. For a long time, Rock dominated both FM radio AND album sales. Neither is true anymore.
I’d like too see some evidence of that wild “100 times more” statement, too. I’ll accept anecdotal evidence, too
The obvious flaw in your argument is that you’re comparing Rock albums with singles charting – not totally unrelated but after about 1966 Rock wasn’t really about singles or “hits”
Led Zep never had a chart hit (if I recall) but they sold tens of millions of albums and were a staple of AOR
Yet I discover new rock that I find fresh and inspiring all the time. Doug, you call yourself a ‘lover of rock’, yet
since you’re the only one here who starts these threads on a regular basis, and makes the arguments that you do,
it seems to me that you’re seeking some validation that you never get - so that you might finally bow your head at the Rock Monument, then move on and begin speaking of it only in the past tense.
Or perhaps you just suffer from Rock thanatophobia. >
This is very eloquent, but I’m not sure what it means. 
I DID claim earlier in this thread “I’m not one those ‘Rock is dead’ guys” so maybe I AM suffering from some sort of deep-seated conflict I’m desperately trying to resolve. I’m just glad I have you buddy to straighten me out! 
I may be the only one starting such threads here at cb.net, but it’s a fairly frequent topic discussed by many others in other places.
I admit I hear new Rock that I like fairly often, too. The article in the OP I linked to I think makes a reasonable case about Rock not being “dead.” I admit, I’m conflicted.
It seems to me that it is more the “standard” perception of how we rate rock to be popular is what is fading. I mean, if you listen to 98 Rock, or one of its variants, you get a handful of songs that were released almost 10 years ago and nothing remotely new. But if we go to new modes of listening, for instance, internet radio, Sirius satellite, etc… you hear a wealth of material that you’ve never heard before. One begins to understand that these old radio stations are a lot like a rickety old man who stubbornly hangs on to the few trinkets he knows and loves, and has no interest in trying anything new.
To me, it is not rock itself that is dying, but the paradigm of methods that brought rock to our ears… once upon a time.
Here’s an interesting article about last year’s sales figures. It confirms part of what we’ve been saying here – that Rock historically has been about albums, not singles – but also contradicts somewhat my assertion that Rock’s album sales had tanked:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-02-07/entertainment/28534889_1_rock-fans-rap-track-sales
I note the article says that a healthy portion of Rock’s sales are of back-catalog.
I did a quick survey and found that in the 13 years since Soundscan started (1998), of the 130 albums comprising the Top 10 from each year, 26 were Rock records. That’s actually not too bad, really
Also, looking at stats of the biggest sellers of albums of all-time (in USA), 10 of the top 20 are rockers (plus another 3 or 4 that had done some Rock but were primarily Popsters), but only one of them (Metallica) was active after 1990 or so.
Ot’s sp NOT about popularity as it is about volume. There just are more in sheer NUMBER of rock albums available then ever before. This is so obvious that the question itself seems ridicuous.
Tony
I knew I was taking a risk by making those lists. I just -knew- you were gonna tell me that my research was flawed. 
Oh…but I think you do. 
I do it because I care deeply about you, Doug. I’m always here for you if you need me.
Please contact me before doing anything hasty.
Now -there’s- a signature that I can embrace!
The 4 majors have all trimmed their rosters, including rock artists.
Of course, it IS obvious that the digital revolution has allowed a flood of product to enter the market, especially DIYers.
But it’s just a FACT that:
Of a total of 98,000 albums released in 2009, just a handful crossed the million-mark. Not good for Rock, which again, is an album-oriented artform
just 2.1 percent of that 98,000 managed to cross the 5,000-mark, a group that made up 91% of total sales. The great majority of artists are staring at a near-zero chance of selling even modest amounts
although the US economy has doubled in the last 10 years, music sales overall have dropped by 50%
song downloads HAVE increased, and my theory on that is that it’s because people got tired of paying $15 for a CD that had one good song on it, and now they can buy the one or two songs they like – again, bad news for Rock, given its album-orientation
So I guess what I’m saying is that the surge in production volume you correctly cite at the end of the day may be misleading, or even irrelevant.
Let me put it another way:
(and I admit I’m making these figures up out of thin air, but I think you’ll get my drift)
Let’s say 10,000 records were released in a given year during the 1970s’, and of that total about 10 rock acts sold 1 million albums each – that’s 10 million sold against 10,000 total records available, or a ratio of 1000-to-1.
If in 2009, there were 100,000 records released, but only 1 rock act (Kings of Leon) that sold 1 million albums the ration is now 10-to-1.
This can be interpreted many ways, but one of the possible ways is that in general, people don’t like Rock as much as they used to! And I haven’t even figured in the variable of population growth, population has grown 85,000,000 (39%) since 1975!
Further
Of the top 50 selling albums of the 1970’s, 32 were Rock artists and all had at least 4 million sales
Of the top 50 selling albums of the 2000-2009 decade, 19 were Rock artists and had at least 9 million sold
Which doesn’t exactly serve my argument
Uh, which it WAS
…or that rock is as big if not bigger than it ever was, but that a significant portion of a new generation of listeners now believe that they needn’t pay for the music, and find ways to get it for free, and artists may find some comfort in the fact that it’s being listened to, which creates a buzz and gets the fans out to the live shows, which is where their bread is now buttered.
I think you’re confusing the questions “Is rock dead?”, with “Is the rock business financially healthy ?”
If the worlds rock artists, for reasons of their own, all banded together and took a vow of poverty - declared
that all their music was available for free download and all their concerts were now free, after the ensuing frenzy
of downloading and packed concert houses - would you be claiming ‘rock is dead’ - because sales had tanked?
Fair enough. I guess I am assuming that piracy has had an effect on all the various genres in proportion with their sales, which may be wrong. But I think in the same way that the collapse of sales of back catalog of books has resulted in a decrease in new signings of authors, the theft of back catalog of music will inevitably result in a decrease of new rock acts getting signed… and that MAY spell doom for the genre.
If the worlds rock artists, for reasons of their own, all banded together and took a vow of poverty - declared
that all their music was available for free download and all their concerts were now free, after the ensuing frenzy
of downloading and packed concert houses - would you be claiming ‘rock is dead’ - because sales had tanked?
I may be wrong, but I don’t think a style can long thrive if there isn’t some sort of remuneration for its creators.
I think the big explosion in available titles can be misleading because it’s extremely difficult if not practically impossible to determine how many of that 98,000 releases are actually Rock. But, assuming that it’s a high number (which I don’t doubt), the only conclusion one can make with certitude is that Rock is still popular among musicians/performers. I think it might actually be irrelevant, too, because, given that music making isn’t just about self-gratification but also about communication with the listener, if nobody is listening then the genre can’t really be thought of as “thriving”
I don’t think I ever really went that far… just asked the question, and think it IS in trouble
Well, only speaking for my particular favourite sub-genre*, and the UK, there is something of a renaissance at the moment, not chart-topping, or platinum album sales, but dedicated magazine, available in the mainstream newsagents, lots of new bands, new venues specialising in the genre, and lots of rather good albums being released. Next Friday in fact I’m off to a local venue to see a three-band gig, which is sponsored nationally, and part of a mini-tour. All the bands are a mixture of young dudes, (and girls) and older guys, creating avibe that is fresh and unafraid to push the boundaries of music in interesting directions.
It all feels very much like the early 70s, a bit underground, a bit subversive, huge fun, and generally not a cape in sight!
Dead? Not from where I’m sitting.
*If you know me, you know what that is, it involves extended keyboard solos, songs about wizards and harmonic resonance, and has in the past involved the odd case of cape-wearing or playing a hammond with knives
Actually, that’s one sub-genre that -did- die. I saw it in the papers. What you’re witnessing is merely a ghost
rattling his chains.
I edited the header to better reflect what I really meant to ask. I agree, Rock isn’t dead, not even close. Really, it will probably never die, at least not for a LONG time.
I like a lot of what I hear coming over mainstream radio, but much of it IS derivative of stuff that’s been done already – I think that’s new for Rock. It probably has something to do with the majors trimming their rosters down – in a desperate move to survive – to just those acts that appeal to the “lowest-common-denominator” which results I think in a dilution of creativity.
But a bit away from the mainstream there’s all kinds of great, interesting and new Rock going on. Which is probably the way it should be, since Rock was never meant to be a commercial – corporate “commodity” in the first place
NOW we’re making progress!!
Glad I could be of service. 
I don’t believe that the question is valid per se. I don’t think any type of music truly “dies”.
Look at classic orchestral music, which I think is a good comparison to rock. A lot of elements from this type has made it into many “other” types of music, and rather shaped some of them, even. I think that the same sort of re-use of musical elements is happening from any and all types. So while “traditional” rock may not exists (and I mean in the same force and reception) in the future, everything that’s been recorded and re-used will of course live on, but new material in the same genre will not be as significant.
So I believe that just like there are people still in the classic orchestra scene, there will be people continuing the rock scene, though not on the same scale and with the same appreciation, or popularity.
I mean, music in itself is pretty generic, meaning there’s only so much “data” in the field of music and the (at any one time) currently “popular” type uses only so many combinations as is necessary.
Everything all around is is cyclical, and if you look at pretty much any art, this is true as well. The same type may never again be created (for whatever reasons) but bits and pieces will be borrowed for new types.
Instruments, styles, rhythms, chords, progressions, scales, etc. go in and out of “style” every now and again. And with all the combinations possible, so many new types of music will inevitably be king-of-the-hill as the tribes of our planet continue to produce music.
So is “Rock” in trouble? (Of course, this would depend on the definition of “trouble”.) But no, it’s not in any more or different trouble than any other type of music ever was, I would answer.
But of course, these are just my (and I saw others in the thread with similar) thoughts.
maybe it’s time to stop judging the state of a genre based upon a bunch of commercial enterprise exploiting that music and taking the lion’s share of the cut.
What about people making music for art’s sake rather than for profit? People can still make music for fun and earn a living in some other way. After all most people hear do it that way.
The Internet and the ease of data transfer has encouraged the scene of making music for fun and free distribution. And I think that’s a great thing.
So why is Rock in trouble? Those who love rock probably have free access to more rock than they can handle these days.
But if you mean ‘trouble’ as in a bunch of usury spawned suits no longer want to exploit it for huge profits then maybe it’s a good thing rock is in trouble :0
