"It started with rock and roll, now it's out of control."-Ray Manzarek

It's an interesting question that you pose.

I guess the first thing to determine is what exactly "rock and roll" is or was. A definition of "underground" might even be helpful.

Going back to the "architects" and the "kings" of the original form (messer.s Berry, Richard and even Presley and Lewis) - "rock and roll" was a somewhat subversive form enjoyed by rebellious youth to the chagrin of their parents. If this wasn't "underground" it was certainly getting down into the dirt just a tad.

I first started hearing the term, "underground" in the late 60's and early 70's when "rock and roll" was becoming the "new normal" (do I use too many quote marks?). The electric guitars were getting louder and distorted and the songs a little longer. "Underground" seemed to denote music that was over-stretching the socially accepted norms and limits of the original form.

The new, heavier form was too much for the now, "Top 40" format on the AM dial - and had to relocate to the FM spectrum.

It's all good (well, most of it) - though the new stylings seemed to exceed the original structure of "rock and roll" songs. Quite a bit of the "underground" music didn't even resemble "rock and roll". There has been a push to get certain "prog" (more quote marks!) bands inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (whatever!). That's all good, too - but I remember the late Chris Squire saying that his band's (Yes) music "has nothing to do with "rock and roll" ".

Call it evolution, I guess.

Music that by design alienates parents and society at large. Music that finds the edge of social acceptance ... and then intentionally leaps over that boundary. To me, it seems that the current closest thing to "underground" music might be the heavier forms of rap and hip-hop (I'm still not sure what the difference is between the two). Ironically, a lot of this form makes strong and valid statements on the state and condition of society.

Too early in the morning - not enough coffee! I'll bet that I didn't make the point that I set out to! 😉

EDIT: change "socially" to "social".

[Edited on 4/7/2017 by Rusty]

I guess the first thing to determine is what exactly "rock and roll" is or was.

Ha, ha - this reminds me of what Neil Young did when Geffen demanded a rock and roll album :

Rock and Roll Is a Weapon of Cultural Revolution
By Detroiter John Sinclair (manager of MC5, a Detroit rock band, and founder of the White Panthers)
1968

"The duty of the revolutionary is to make the revolution. The duty of the musician is to make the music. But there is an equation that must not be missed: MUSIC IS REVOLUTION. Rock and roll music is one of the most vital revolutionary forces in the West, it blows people all the way back to their senses and makes them feel good, like they're alive again in the middle of this monstrous funeral parlor of western civilization. And that's what revolution is all about, we have to establish a situation on this planet where all people can feel good all the time. And we will not stop until that situation exists.

Rock and roll music is a weapon of cultural revolution. There are not enough musicians around today who are hip to this fact. Too many of your every-day pop stars feel that music is simply a means by which they can make a lot of money or gain a lot of cheap popularity or whatever dollars and ego power, both of which are just a killer ruse, in fact I would have to say the killer ruse of all time. Money is the biggest trick of all, next to the so-called ego, which comes out of the same scene as money anyway . . ."

Maybe in another generation or two, rock will be underground. Right now, rock is too omnipresent in commercials, in movie soundtracks, in music played at restaurants and bars and malls, by bar bands, and of course by top-grossing concert performers.

Only if it pisses off your parents.