Now I'm not going to write a rant about his speech or the timing of his speech, mainly because I agree with the context of what he has said, however nor am I going to tell you how the Arctic Monkeys are the greatest band at the moment etc because although I like and I listen to the Arctic Monkeys a fair bit, I believe there are many great bands from many different genres of rock and roll that deserve to be mentioned in amongst this whole claim that rock and roll will never die. Regarding the Arctic Monkeys however, I would not say they are the sole protectors of the future of rock music. Not in Britain and not in the world.
However there are many different styles of rock bands in the world under many different terms (punk, indie, emo, glam, folk and more) and we as people grow up with different styles that our parents introduce us to, that our friends show us, that the internet gives us, that our opinions lyrically agree with. I have friends who will swear down by different rock bands and rock types. Many like myself enjoy a variation of these different styles. However a lot of these bands do get very little publicity in comparison to some of the stuff that is in our charts nowadays.
Unfortunately for music we live in an era where talent shows produce artists generically formed so that please people when it comes to sight but really in comparison to many other artists, these people lack talent. A lot of them seem to give a perception that they lack respect regarding rock music. Whether that be their lifestyle or the image they are trying to perceive. A lot try to make rock look glamorous and the most desired profession despite the fact that they are not a rock act. Rock is not a totally glamorous profession. A lot of the rock bands we see today have not had the privillaged upbringings that many popstars have today. Popstars like Lilly Allen who grew up knowing showbiz thanks to her dad. Many didn't have a musician school like the Brit school, albeit some of the newer ones have had this. Many have started off on the underground scenes and have had to work their way up from there, some to the disappointment to many of their fans (for instance, the punk scene was not too happy when Green Day signed onto a main stream label).
Now it may seem unfair but rock is actually the purest form of chart music you can really find. Especially when they were the people who chose to pick up the guitar and learn it, wrote the words and got a few friends and made a band. It's refreshing. They also appreciate it more as they have had to rise up from playing gigs as supporting acts in halls, to playing at arenas and stadiums. They influence many people. Often a rock star has issues however and the business of rock is therefore less attractive than it seems. A lot of songs in rock are wrote about ghosts of the band members lives, they have more of a meaning than most genres and often the bands we find ourselves listening to are ones we emotionally, lyrically and musically in one form or another relate to. I find with many this happens in teenage years, as you are growing up, going through those puberty changes and the other gender comes far more important to your life. I evidence this by pointing you in the way of +Ryan Steppel who grew up loving the arctic monkeys with these factors in place, just as I did with Green Day. Sure other bands come along but the first band you connect to in that way is almost certainly a band you will listen to a fair bit from then on. Not as your only band, maybe not as your favourite, but if I'm honest I couldn't imagine having an iPod with no Green Day on it (amongst others now) and I am sure others feel the same.
Going back to a lot of songs being wrote in the ghosts of the band members, we can be talking death, love and often at some point in a rock bands career drugs. And sometimes these are very, very dark people, yet their darkness creates incredible music. The most notable rock star who did this was Kurt Cobain, such a dark person he ended up killing himself (unless you read and believe the conspiracies), then there's the artists that have had issues that have led to rehab, the band splitting and more. Pete Doherty, Billie Joe, Chris Wolstenholme. I also regard Amy Winehouse in this section as close to the rock genre. It isn't all glam.
These people, their antics and their fashions are now highly mimicked by artists who don't have the right to relate themselves to rock music. That said, they do sell the music. By this I am on about acts I would say are generic. I am talking One Direction and the X Factor generation. This music is not as pure as rock. It also will never be as longstanding as rock. Look at rock bands we still hear of today, who made a career for 50 years, from the Rolling Stones to the surviving members of the Beatles and Queen. One Direction may be huge now but they won't leave much legacy. Then there are artists like Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus. Until recently, two innocent young adults who got lucky, one with YouTube and one with Disney. Now both are more famous for filling our papers with their wannabe controversy, some of it beyond low (I've said it before, Miley Cyrus, regardless of her music and whether you like it, is now one truly disgusting being if you look at pictures of her live shows the last 6 months. It's wrong. Drink/drug driving in Biebers case is also low). Maybe they are doing this for attention or to be "rock stars", maybe they're doing it because the fame they have managed to get has led to them cracking as people or them wanting to push boundaries that shouldn't be pushed. Many rock stars from the past show some boundaries don't need this push.
One thing is for certain. In 50 years when bands are reflected on. It's by far the most likely that of all the award winners last week, it'll be the Arctic Monkey's, their music and the boundaries they pushed in indie rock and rock as an overall genre that'll be remembered. The rest most likely will just be other acts.
