“Rock is Dead”: Is Capitalism Necessary For Music to “Live”?
When I was in college, a friend and I were in talks of forming a rock band. My friend brought up how our prospects of achieving fame appeared slim, as he believed that rock music wasn’t culturally relevant anymore, to which I, being the typical progressive-leaning college student, responded to by asking, “because of capitalism?” My friend concurred, saying, in a fake Russian accent, “Yes, because of capitalism, comrade!”
Lame college jokes aside, the saying “Rock is Dead” has been almost as old as the genre itself. Yet since the turn of the 21st century, it is hard to deny that its place in the mainstream has been eclipsed by genres such as rap, pop, and EDM. Dan Ozzi, writing for Vice, states in a harshly pessimistic article that rock is dead from an “industry perspective”, citing the lack of new rock acts on the Billboard charts and the decreasing prominence of Rock in the Grammy Awards, as well as in large music festivals such as the Governors’ Ball. Ozzi compares modern rock to that of a “siren song of a floating corpse”.
Some after reading this article would be convinced that rock is indeed dead, based on the evidence that is given by Ozzi. However, if one reads closer, it seems as if the “evidence” that Ozzi gives proves that he in fact hasn’t really looked hard enough in doing the research to prove his point. He is basing his hypothesis off of methods of measurement that are in some respects outdated, and in all respects influenced by the corporate music industry. And this is where capitalism comes in.
You see, Ozzi has come to the conclusion that rock is dead based on current mainstream music industry trends, and the fact that what can be considered “Rock” music no longer enjoys immense commercial success. That is, there’s not many current rock bands that are actually able to make a decent living off of their music. In order to become a successful musician in today’s capitalist society, one must be signed to a major corporate record label which will then promote their music and ensure their success. But today, it seems that these major record labels are not convinced that the many, many amateur rock bands today will create maximal profits.
In fact, there are perhaps thousands of rock bands in the world today enjoying varying degrees of popularity. Yet very few of them — especially newer ones — are able to achieve even a portion of the mainstream success that was enjoyed once by AC/DC and Led Zeppelin. No major music label has given them a good enough chance to enjoy the immense mainstream success that is currently being ridden by such acts as Drake and Travis Scott. And while there are very rare instances of newer rock bands that break into the mainstream — Greta Van Fleet and Ghost come to mind especially — it’s evident that those are only very special exceptions in a world where the big music market almost always turns a blind eye to rock.
So, if one wants to be of the opinion that rock is “dead” based on Ozzi’s argument, then they have to acknowledge that the reason rock is dead, per se, is because bigwig record labels won’t sign them or give them a chance. They must realize that the idea that rock is now dead is rooted in the preeminence of capitalism in modern society. Therefore, if rock is indeed factually dead, through the measuring of mainstream music sales, then, in essence, capitalism has killed it. In turn, this brings up the question: In our modern society, does capitalism determine whether or not a certain type of music is “dead” or “alive?” Humans had been making music for tens of thousands of years before Adam Smith first observed the market system that was emerging at the onset of the industrial age. Has that system first observed by Smith in the 18th century, grown to the point that it now has the ability to determine the fate of forms of human communication that have preceded its existence for millennia?
And if it has gained it, can it also lose it?
