The following survey was recently conducted on the music-buying public. While the percentages which were the top percentage of the answers would not seem to be a majority of percentages, the other percents of answers were miniscule and one would have to assume that this is a dominant opinion as follows.
1. Q. What musical direction would you like to see rock and roll take next?
A. Back to basics, old rock and roll, early 50/60s. (16.7%)2. Q. How do you feel rock and roll today could be improved?
A. Less hard rock, away from punk. (30.0%)3. Q. What makes rock different from other types of music?
A. Beat, rhythm. (31.7%)4. Q. Why is the beat such an important part of rock and roll?
A. Makes you dance, move. (35.0%)5. Q. Why do you think so many rock songs are about love?
A. Everybody can relate to it. (48.3%)6. Q. What does rock and roll do for you?
A. Makes me feel good, puts me in a good mood. (30.0%)The above would seem to indicate that the music-buying public at least has some agreement on what rock is and actually, it is not too bad a description.
A rather long-term study of charts indicates that record sales of rock are overpoweringly greater than that of any other type of music. It has the lion’s share of sales.
At the same time this is occurring, the music industry is going downhill on a toboggan slide. It reportedly is really in the doldrums. A review of the charts of bestsellers at this time reveals a few groups and a review of their cassettes does not, hold your hat, reflect very much adherence to the genre. It is an oddity about these top of the chart groups that these days they seem to appear and disappear, the bulk of them, with considerable speed. One could rationalize this by saying that public taste is fickle but this is countered, on analysis, by the fact that the records of old rock stars continue to sell, and heavily. In other words one could assume that these very modern groups have begun to depend upon freak impact or appearance rather than on music or adherence to the genre. Of course this is open to a great deal of analysis and other opinion but the survey quoted above would seem to agree as 30% of the music buyers in question 2, demonstrated dissatisfaction. And the number of bankruptcies in the music business seem to agree with it also.
One could go into a lengthy discussion of various rock stars but it would begin to lead back to the Beatles and Presley and their records are hot sellers even today.
But this point can be made concerning the beginning of careers of the real stars of rock. It has been observed that the real giant stars burst into huge, long-lasting fame at an exact point in their careers: They used orchestral backup. And the Beatles were actually playing and recording classical backed up by an orchestra even though you see the four of them out there in front. Their producer, George Martin, was a classical man, who also did most of the arranging. (He was called the “fifth Beatle.”) From this a point can be concluded: That rock stars and rock groups who back up with an orchestral have lasting duration. This is a new observation arrived at by somebody who is a student of this sort of thing and it seems to check out. Three or four electric guitars are not the background which make lasting rock stars. Thus one can conclude that successful rock employs not just a twanging gimmick or two but a whole, well-skilled orchestra as backup. This is true of singers and music in other fields: You should hear the orchestral backup in terms of numbers and arrangements of Rudy Vallee, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, etc. Since the focal point of the public is on some star, this tends to get overlooked but it is not basically overlooked by the public.
The point here is that three or four guys with electric instruments get beat out every time by somebody with full orchestral backup.
Choral also enters into this scene. The Presley use of choral was amazing and today choral is extensively used in rock backup. This is, actually, the spiritual stream which seems to have entered into modern rock.
One can conclude that successful and lasting rock music has (a) heavy and numerous orchestral backup which sometimes includes choral and (b) is well arranged.
A study of the rock genre as it is modernly and even historically performed, shows that it lacks in the aggregate the following (with exceptions here and there which exceptions have actually made stars).
1. Melody,
2. Articulation,
3. Plan,
4. Arrangement (aside from a few spectacular pieces),
5. Message,
6. Trained voices and
7. Expert instrumentalists.Where some pieces included one or more of these, it has been successful.
What rock has is:
a. Physiological impact,
b. Chords,
c. Beat, and
d. A feeling of excitement (or hysteria).And it is to be commented on that current rock even lacks one or more of the (a) to (d).
Reviewing some of the more all-time successful pieces demonstrates that they did have some of 1 to 7 and had (a) to (d).
The above however, as an analysis, gives you a key to what could become very successful rock. All you have to do is combine 1 to 7 with (a) to (d) and you should have it made.
