OK, I’ll say it – Rock ‘n’ Roll needs Miley Cyrus.
Or someone who is outrageous, ridiculous, fun, and willing to pretty much do and say anything.
When the best thing a musical genre has going for it is the news that 70 year-old Paul McCartney plans to continue touring, that’s a definite message about where things are headed.
Now you may look at Miley’s latest antics at the VMAs and be outraged. Of course, MTV couldn’t be happier – her performance was better than Fart Man and it couldn’t have come at a better time for a network that doesn’t make the news like it once did.
And if you’re thinking that this planned, contrived, and calculated stunt is just a bunch of pop star hype, remember what put Rock ‘n” Roll on the map in the first place.
It was John Lennon announcing that the Beatles were greater than Jesus.
It was Keith Moon trashing hotel rooms.
It was Jim Morrison exposing himself on stage (or did he?).
It was Ozzy biting the head off a bat (or a dove).
It was Iggy Popp cutting himself in concert.
It was KISS…well, being KISS.
Now the news is about Joe Walsh has cleaned up his act, is touring successfully with the Eagles, and not trashing hotel rooms. Where’s the fun in that?
Today, nothing much happens in the world of Rock that makes headlines capable of cutting across all media, demographics, and lifestyles. If you ask your grandmother about Miley’s performance last month, she’ll tell you all about it. When it comes to Pearl Jam’s new song, it’s not exactly dinner table conversation.
There simply isn’t a rock band from the past decade that has cut through with outrage, anger, or humor that has caused people to sit up and notice. And you can’t rely on a bunch of 60 and 70 year-old Classic Rockers to reprise their revolutionary youths and act crazy again.
Rock n’ Roll was born out of rebellion, angst, and angst. Today, those emotions have all left town.
Rock ‘n’ Roll could use someone like Miley Cyrus – someone to talk about, to love, to hate, to defend, to criticize.
P.S. By the way, so could Hip-Hop.
Jacobs Media has consistently walked the walk in the digital space, providing insights and guidance through its well-read national Techsurveys.
In 2008, jacapps was launched - a mobile apps company that has designed and built more than 1,300 apps for both the Apple and Android platforms. In 2013, the DASH Conference was created - a mashup of radio and automotive, designed to foster better understanding of the "connected car" and its impact.
Along with providing the creative and intellectual direction for the company, Fred consults many of Jacobs Media's commercial and public radio clients, in addition to media brands looking to thrive in the rapidly changing tech environment.
Fred was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 2018.
- Radio + Thanksgiving = Gratitude - November 27, 2024
- Is It Quittin’ Time For SiriusXM? - November 26, 2024
- Radio, It Oughta Be A Crime - November 25, 2024
Gotta disagree with you on this one.
Several years ago, I had the chance to see the Doobie Brotthers in concert. It was at a small county fair in Clinton Iowa. Most of the original guys were touring with the group again then, including Tom Johnston. The band was tight. The sound was perfect for the venue. The weather was exquisite. But one thing rose above all of this: the quality of the music was superlative.
The Doobie Brothers had built a body of work and consistently excellent execution that was the foundation of their legend, sustaining it to this day.
I saw the Who at the Fifth Dimension in Ann Arbor at the dawn of their career. Their show was a mixture of original material mixed with some way cool legacy blues that they interpreted in a spare, yet powerful way. They weren’t trashing their instruments yet and were working very hard on perfecting the execution of their act. Moon’s later antics were fueled by the drugs and alcohol that ultimately took his life. But he always delivered the musical goods on stage.
After researching John Lennon’s Jesus comment, I concluded that it was taken out of context, something that can easily happen in a world where we work to dispose of our rock stars even as we create them.
Iggy is… well, Iggy. He has a fan base, to be sure. But he’s always been an acquired taste and built his legend from the beginning on pushing the edge. We knew that this was what we were paying for, and like Evil Knievel, part of what you paid for was the chance that you might see him kill himself.
For the most part, the sustainable brands who pushed the edge had exceptional talent to back it up. Think David Bowie and George Carlin. The copycats, like Andrew Dice Clay, had their 15 minutes, and we soon lost interest.
And what about Miley? There is no doubt that she has captured an audience. As a well packaged interpreter of music mostly written by others, she has had some undeniable success. She has the pipes, the family name brand and the training to be able to effectively perform.
Did she need to work dirty on a television show that she knew would be seen by all ages, including children? I think not.
Contrast this to Cee Lo Green, singing, “Forget You” on an awards show in a duet with Gwyneth Paltrow and the Muppets. He made an explicit set of lyrics palatable for a broad audience, performed a well written piece of music with a high level of musicianship and entertained without offending. All three brands raised their positive awareness that night.
Did Miley and Robin do the same. Nope.
Sensationalism has an audience but it only sells broadly in the short term. Working dirty is a race to the lowest common denominator. It’s the easy way out. As H. L. Mencken famously said, “No one in this world.. has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”
But this is not a sustainable career game plan. “Winning takes talent.” wrote John Wooden. “To repeat it takes character.” Miley and Robin have the talent. I’m hoping that their stunt was a lapse in judgement, the result of some bad advice, and not indicative of their true character.
Scott, thanks for the thoughtful response. And we may not be in as much of a state of disagreement as you think. Miley’s act was contrived and in bad taste. She also is talented. And while we may be looking at the antics of a troubled soul – not the first time THAT’S happened in the music biz – we’re also seeing someone who is rebellious, crazy, and attention-getting. And while I certainly appreciate musicianship as much as the next guy (nothing better than a tight Steely Dan concert IMHO), what we’re talking about is the ability to cut through to make noise, and to stand out. Rock’s roots were born out of rebellion, and it’s hard to maintain that edge when you’re living in a mansion with a garage full of sports cars and a great muni bond portfolio. I’m just lamenting that missing edge.
Thanks for taking the time to add to this conversation. Like Miley, I knew going into this post that I might piss off some people and ruffle some feathers. Let’s see what other commenters have to say.
Miley is not talented
To compare a silly autotuned pop act to the Who or Iggy Pop deflates your argument. Beside their excesses and crazy antics, they were insanely talented and influential musicians. Miley Cyrus is a forgettable pop tart who has neither the ability to create memorable music or an iconic song in her repertoire. Get real.
This isn’t a talent debate. If that was the case, adults in the ’50s would have told you that Elvis was 90% gyration (“twerking?”) and 10% talent. What we are talking about is impact and buzz – and that’s my point. Thanks for the opinion and we appreciate you taking the time to comment.
Re: “…we’re also seeing someone who is rebellious…” Perhaps there’s confusion on this word as Dictionary.com shows it to be “defying or resisting some established authority, government, or tradition; insubordinate…” I find nothing in MC’s act supporting a “defying” moment to any of these.
What was done on that show was not “rebellious” but a cry for attention at any cost – aka Janet Jackson, only with less class. That it carried daddy’s support is what I find most disgusting.
I’m surprised that your belief is to showcase this performance as “needed.” It’s a style similar to the disgusting antics that drove morning drive shock jocks into oblivion. Yes stuff like this gets attention, but it over-rides the talent which is required to remain at the top, as Scott Westerman so elequently stated.
“…her performance was better than Fart Man…” No. It was not. Both were offensive, and have no place in entertaining the masses.
Ken, thanks for the thought. But I would suggest to you that some of the antics from the “Classic Rockers” I mentioned were thought of in pretty much the same light by the 30+ population of that time. I’m not defending what Miley Cyrus did on national TV as being in good taste, but I am suggesting that a more spirited, fun, WTF approach would be welcome in the rock community right now. Appreciate you taking the time.
I wonder if the boundaries of what’s outrageous to millennials have become so different that they wouldn’t even know how to be outrageous in a traditional sense. The whole “stick it to the man” concept that baby boomers embraced then abandoned (only to reverse and embrace being “the man” with more commitment than any prior generation IMO) appears obsolete. Millennials and Gen Y seem to just ignore “the man” and work around the limitations he imposes, accepting most of what offends older generations as part of life and inevitable. Fighting the power just doesn’t seem to be part of their playbook, so its not surprising that some indie or alternative artist hasn’t done anything comparable to the classic rock examples cited in the post.
As time progresses and what have been the building blocks of the American Dream (House, stable career, two cars, annual vacation, retirement) remain out of reach, perhaps “…sons and daughters will rise up and fight while we stood still”, but for now rebellion just isn’t how they roll.
“Back in our day rock stars would…” Have we become our parents or what?? 🙂
Of course we have. But buzz is buzz, and every generation defines it differently. My premise is that if rock was being true to its roots – its DNA – outrage was always part of that. As you point out, homes, 401Ks, and SUVs color all that. Thanks for the comment and the POV.
Hey Fred,
While I can appreciate the basic line of thought in your post it ignores the fact that each of those bands you mentioned had to some degree or another amazing music and then amplified their message via the hype. What rock and roll needs is more stations and labels taking chances signing/playing new and or dangerous acts, instead of regurgitating the same old safe gold hits. When most under 20 don’t know the call letters of their local rock stations…you create a self fulfilling prophecy.
Stations don’t play new cutting edge rock and roll music because their consultants tell them not to, then add PPM to the mix and you have the perfect storm. Very little new music, very little chance taking, very little danger and or rock and roll. Some responsibility falls to the artists for sure, but I wager if radio/ mtv was a wee bit more dangerous…the popular music would be as well.
In the meantime all we are left with is extremely safe music masquerading as the unbelievably dangerous and controversial Miley Cyrus. YAWN……
The conservatism in risk-taking that you speak of isn’t just a rock thing – it crosses all formats and is driven by lots of factors, from PPM to the pressure from digital music channels. As you point out, there’s the artists, the labels, and of course, stations. Country has some advantages in all these areas because the genre/format has always been user friendlier to both radio and fans. Thanks for taking the time to chime in, Jason.
This made me think of BRANDO in that classic old film THE WILD ONES, when the girl asked “What are you rebelling against?” and he said “Whaddya got?”
The rock we boomers grew up with was all about bold statement, angst, or offence, in the music and the personalities… and the ones that made it through all that madness are now the elder statesmen of an era radio brands “classic rock”. The boys have generally calmed down; or had to!… Well except for “KEEF”!
I think it’s great that the STONES are in their 50th year; LED ZEPPELIN are in the balcony in their tuxes’ being honored at the Kennedy Center (who would have guessed?); or PAUL McCARTNEY is still out there doing it in song and concert. But as you say, it does beg the question of where Rock has gone in terms of that framework, generationally. Today’s great new rock bands are out there, and as exciting in performance and song. Digital technology, social, and time, has just given them a different plurality and circumstance.
Seeing DAVE GROHL keynote at SXSW on the vagaries of the music industry and those NIRVANA moments, is a forum a JAGGER, LENNON, or PLANT wouldn’t have bothered with or contemplated at the same point in their career. They were too busy living “Whaddya got?” It’s changed.
Maybe we need to see that and evolve radio’s interpretation of “rock” and “classic rock”.
Great comments, Lee, that speak to seismic music changes that seemingly defy are convenient silos. More on this Friday with some reactions to Bob Lefsetz’s letter. And I might use a quote from you. Thanks for the considered response.
It’s too bad Miley has had to struggle so hard to be taken seriously due to starting at Disney. Her band is the very solid rock band, American Hi-fi. I really wanted her to go in a rock direction, and she seemed interested, but when she did a cover of “Smells Like Teen Spirit”, the blowback was intense (but people I played it for, who didn’t know it was her, liked it). This is the kind of article that makes me happy, because I’m hoping that if Miley can feel some acceptance from the rock and roll community, she might give it another try. It’ll probably be at least two album/tour cycles, though. So if Rolling Stone ever gives her a cover (three billboard covers for Miley so far), I’m throwing a party, since I know Miley definitely has the pipes to rock out. I’ve seen her live three times.
If Rolling Stones doesn’t do a cover story on Miley in the next few months, I’ll be surprised. Thanks for chiming in.
I think in a macro sense, Rock has plenty of “Miley’s.” Maybe not in terms of complete domination of the pop culture lexicon, but there is plenty of scandal to go around. Whether is sexual, drug related or political.
See: Pete Doherty, Avenged Sevenfold, Thom Yorke as examples…
It seems the opinion in the article is focused on “Classic Rock.” If you’re looking for a Miley there, it’s never ever going to happen. Classic Rock by design is CLASSIC. All of the angst and rebellion the music was founded on is gone, not only from the artists but the audience who still listens to those artists. The 40-year-old father of two isn’t going to be angst-ridden and rebellious, he’s busy trying to figure out what is making HIS children that way.
Josh, agree totally that Keith Richards has run out of ammo, but I don’t think today’s rockers come close to replicating the noise that their predecessors made. Yes, those were different times, but communication is even easier today to go viral and have impact. There just aren’t those interesting personalities that have cut through who also have the capability of making mainstream hits. Thanks for the comment.
@Fred Jacobs: Did you see Miley’s new “Wrecking Ball” music video?
Fred Jacobs = Prophet
Not sure about that, but there are some aspects of the video that someone may have to explain to me. 😉 Wow, we’ve come a long way since “Sledgehammer.”