Mumford & Sons and Imagine Dragons were the only rock bands that achieved massive success this decade

>Mumford & Sons and Imagine Dragons were the only rock bands that achieved massive success this decade

Why can't you just admit that the rock genre is dead?

Other urls found in this thread:

open.spotify.com/track/37vOJ5qa7AhgVy83XF2h2K?si=ADHkxyY4QrumsoTTY0sLFw
youtube.com/watch?v=QUMuDWDVd20
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>number of massively successful bands determine whether a genre is dead or not
Please never start a thread on Sup Forums again.

Nice meme bugman

>number of massively successful bands determine whether a genre is dead or not

How the fuck does it not?

> financial numbers are the only metric of success

The Strokes killed rock honestly.

>How the fuck does it not?
dead means nobody makes it anymore. plenty of ppl still use guitars and make music
which means you are a idiot. never post again

>rock
>rap

>How the fuck does it not?
There are hundred of thousands rock bands active at this very instant.

Dead means its not relevant in the mainstream anymore
The 2000s were still booming for the rock genre because of the garage rock and emo scenes.
There was no culturally relevant scenes for the genre this decade

rock is the most degenerate genre though. literally a bunch of whites betraying their culture of western folk and fine art music to make lowbrow (((african))) pop.

>Dead means its not relevant in the mainstream anymore
you're on Sup Forums. caring about what the "mainstream" cares about
alright buddy don't post here again

>How the fuck does it not
There are no massively successful post-industrial acts anymore, yet the genre isn't dead
How is it different for rock? What makes rock so special that it MUST be defined by it's current commercial success in order to be considered still valid? Or could it be that you're a fucking moron intent on starting shit on a south korean sewage enthusiast forum in order to validate his pathetic existence after his mother took away his ZX Spectrum?

How many of them are good?

And yet none of them have made any significant impacts like Nirvana or The Strokes did

I'm willing to bet in the next decade there will be a rock revival from all the kids who listened to post-punk revival in the 2000s

>no culturally relevant scenes this decade
australian psych says what

kys

>And yet none of them have made any significant impacts like Nirvana or The Strokes did
mgmt,tame impala and fucking arctic monkeys
have 100m+ of plays on youtube and all over

>when white ppl (anglos) make rock & r&b at a more technically proficient level than blacks (colored) people do
open.spotify.com/track/37vOJ5qa7AhgVy83XF2h2K?si=ADHkxyY4QrumsoTTY0sLFw

Meanwhile Gambinos shit album was nominated for the Goymies. It was fucking amateur.

substantiate your claim, cuz i’m picking up what you’re putting down but can’t articulate how i agree with that statement

King Gizzard is literally making progressive psych rock.

dude that is legit trash what u posted

Imagine Dragons are a rock band? Where's the guitars? I just hear bullshit FL Studio drag and drop garbage.

>I'm willing to bet in the next decade there will be a rock revival from all the kids who listened to post-punk revival in the 2000s
rock will forever be shit. if u all kids can do is make revival genres
make something new

That shit is amateur at best. No one in the band is particularly skilled. Shit is just moody blues meets post punk

>What makes rock so special that it MUST be defined by it's current commercial success in order to be considered still valid?

Not saying valid just relevant to the commercial scene
That's like saying disco was relevant in the 80s because there were a few disco acts or grunge was still relevant in the 2000s because some bands copied Nirvana

>i don't play an instrument or listen to jazz

youtube.com/watch?v=QUMuDWDVd20
again what u posted was legit trash.

Arctic Monkeys and MGMT were popular in the 2000s
Tame Impala did not have a huge impact on the music scene since psychedelic music is still dead

>Arctic Monkeys and MGMT were popular in the 2000s
again you don't know anything do you?

500m plays since 2013
find me a stroke or nirvana song with the same amount of plays
i'll wait

The drums and guitar are both beyond an intermediate level. The rhythmic proficiency of the guitar is better than anything you can think of in r&b or rock.

and its still a trash fucking song. sad innit?

>psychedelic music is still dead
i cant remember the last time so many diy bands were playing psyche rock, i'd argue that psyche along with garage has been going through a massive revival in the underground this decade.

Arctic Monkey was already a commercially established band before the 2010s. Imagine Dragons and Mumford and Songs were the only bands that achieved mainstream success in this decade

Edgy lyricsplebs are the worst. Enjoy your music you enjoy for the image.

i thought you said it was mumfords and sons buddy?
again find me a nirvana or strokes song higher than AM. i'll wait

This decade isn't over yet you mongoloid.

>caring what's playing in the normie charts
lmao why even come here

You're clearly not understanding what is being implied here.
You think rock isn't dead because bands from previous decades are still popular. Radiohead and RHCP had number one albums last year but those bands were already popular for at least two decades and had an established fanbase.
I'm talking about bands that came along in this decade that broke into the mainstream similar to The Strokes in 2001 or Nirvana in '91. Its not hard to understand

this desu

who even listens to imagine dragons? they're unbearably trash even by pop standards
if that's want normalfags want then it's a good thing rock is 'dead'

>You're clearly not understanding what is being implied here.
you realize mumford and sons came out in 2007 right?
imagine dragnons came out in 2008.
again whats your fucking point. oh wait u don't have one

>kids who listened to post-punk revival in the 2000s
I think you're overshooting age here. Kids in their teens then are in their 20s now. Fuck's sake, Take Me Out came out in 2004, someone who was 12 by then is now 25. Sure, the kids going on now have influence of that, but it's lessened. In terms of rock, the thing is mostly psychodelia - after all, the big thing in rock for the last 5 years or so has been psychedelia and jangle pop. The next generation is gonna be influenced by, say, Tame Impala rather than The Strokes.

My point is that there is no rock scene that has been relevant in the past decade similar to the grunge scene of the 90s or garage rock scene of the early 2000s

Are you sure about that?

>the who fighters

what year is this

Indie rock killed rock

>you realize mumford and sons came out in 2007 right?
>imagine dragnons came out in 2008.
Not him/OP, but those bands each became widely popular in the 2010s despite forming in the late 2000s. In order to be considered a 2010s band, you have to either form AND release your most critically acclaimed/commercially successful album in the 2010s, or form in the previous decade, but release your debut album/magnum opus/most commercially successful album in the 2010s.

ex. Linkin Park formed in 1996, but didn't release anything (Xero/HT EP doesn't count) until 2000, with Hybrid Theory (their most critically acclaimed/commercially successful album).