At first, I viewed Serge's comments with some derision, being that they are less the wild-child rock and roller and more a whiny hippie trying to "keep the spirit alive", no doubt upset that EDM has popped up to steal his fans, their money and chart positions. I suppose it's okay to get a little sour about that sort of thing, but I will also admit that rock and roll doesn't hold the masses like it used to.
There's only a certain amount of the same chords and guitar sounds I can take, but I am also sure that Rock would not have lasted as long had it not had its fans who still enjoyed these aspects of the genre and more, which in turn spawns more bands that may not have the same fan base as, say, Greenday but still...er, rock.
To suggest that Rock and Roll is dying and will completely gone is ridiculous, clichéd and silly - music won't ever die, it will just become more or less popular. To my mind, rock isn't dying, it's just maturing to a vintage where only the better examples of the form last.
Perhaps David Byrne sums it up best:
“As I define it, rock and roll is dead. The attitude isn't dead, but the music is no longer vital. It doesn't have the same meaning. The attitude, though, is still very much alive - and it still informs other kinds of music.”
No longer vital, but it's the same message as always: evolve or die.
1. These labels I hate them as much as the catch-all "electronica" genre. What's wrong with "House" "Drum&Bass" "Dance" "Techno" "Dubstep" and so on? Why the need to have a name that encapsulates these?
2. All this despite America's uneasy relationship with electronic music and their rich heritage in house/techno. Shame really!
Original article in NME: