Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Excellent comparison!
I guess I lean more toward the sociological camp suggested by Jonathan Chance. To the extent they produce the sort of music THEY like, and which highlights THEIR worldview, and to the extent they do so in a tone and fashion representing a giant middle finger in the face of opposition (an important criterion), then sure let’s call it Rock 'n Roll. To my ear, however, they seem pretty calculated, corporate, and polished. They sound like some marketing experts have given them perhaps too much help in developing their sound and look. I can listen to them and not fidget too badly, but their music doesn’t do anything for me, doesn’t inspire me to be a better or more honest me.
Or as The Who put it, we breathe the air blown to us. There is (fresh) Rock 'n Roll out there, and it’s very findable & accessible thanks to YouTube & such. But you do have to dig a little bit to find it.
So, like the Beatles, then?
Same puerile wine, different bottle yeah. Except I can listen to more than 10 minutes of ID and not want to chew my own foot off.
Everybody’s talking about the new sound, funny, but it’s still rock and roll to me.
Although, I don’t think Imagine Dragons is rock and roll, really.
Some of their stuff sounds vaguely Coldplay-ish to me. Although I’m not sure that is earning them any “rock” cred. 
I’d call them some sort of mainstream pop rock.
not Who, Awolnation
I’m not familiar with them, but I went to YouTube and sampled three or four of their songs. I’m hearing some rap and/or hip-hop influences in their sound, including the singer’s delivery.
That may not be relevant to whether they’re rock or not, but they don’t sound like 20th century rock. It’s also a bit of a turn-off for me, personally, though there’s nothing objectively wrong with it.
Now you’ve got me thinking about whether it’s possible to have rock with no guitar.
What if there’s no guitar except bass?
What if there’s guitar, but it’s sort of absorbed into the overall sound, and doesn’t stand out or sound guitarry?
Anyway, I’m uncomfortable with a definition of rock (and/or roll) that excludes “Great Balls of Fire.”
Worst band ever. That “song” Thunder makes me want to kick kittens.
Amen!
mc
They are. Imagine Dragons, for example. Also, have you heard some of the hiphop out there? I can ignore most things but there’s a style heavy in triplicates and mumbly monotone that just bores right into my brain and makes me want to stab something. Then I get all philosophical and it makes me smile–I’ve become today’s version of Ward Cleaver hating on the Rock 'n Roll, the kids are moving on.
Rock is an incredibly elastic musical genre. No doubt in my mind that they’re under that very, very broad tent.
My personal favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUEQYjYgf4
Their music has a dance-y beat to it. Like you’d be more likely to hear it in the club than in a bar. Rock? Ehhh, ok, if you say so.
But are they? Is there any popular singer or band out there that embodies the same spirit of youthful rebellion and sense of danger we saw in rock at its best? Because all I see is overproduced production-line pop and R&B. Even hip-hop has become stagnant and moribund, busy repeating the same old tired shit for the past 20-odd years. Where’s the fire? The passion?
(my enhancement)
I hope this isn’t an unwelcome hijack, but I think the OP is getting at a specific part of this larger discussion so…
Well there’s your problem right there. “Popular” is what gets promoted, and labels promote what sells. There are a lot of bands that either can’t or don’t want to get picked up by Megavinyl, either because they genuinely suck or because they are dead set on having a particular sound or persona that makes them not fit the formula for “financial success” (aka: artistic integrity). They end up absent from the regular menu. Rock and Hip Hop aren’t dead, but the truly living stuff is not available through the same channels that brought us Elvis & Jerry.
ETA: Also Rock 'n Roll was never really about being popular. Kind of the opposite, don’t you think?
This is where we disagree, I’m afraid. Rock has *always *been about being popular. It’s about preaching the Word to the People.
I agree, though, that the problem is with the business rather than with the artists.
I don’t know who’s popular. But Jack White is still out there, so: Jack White.
I don’t really buy the idea that “Rock’n’roll is about rebellion!” A musical form is a musical form. But if you’re looking for someone popular, with a rock attitude, a rock style, rebellion, and youth, those aren’t all the same thing.
Still, Starcrawler is your answer for most of those attributes. Starcrawler remind me a little of the Runaways.
The Dead South seem “rebellious” enough to fit alongside the Doors, the Stones, or the Mothers of Invention. They’re definitely rock-like.
Steve’N’Seagulls are pretty hard rock, even if their instruments evoke bluegrass and zydeco.
For bands that have been around for about a decade:
The Pretty Reckless were doing OK several years ago. They may be the best example of a hard rock band I’ve come up with in this post.
The Maine were pretty big even before that, and may be like a “missing link” between 1990’s rock and Imagine Dragons for old farts like us.
I think it’s not rock, but it is roll. I’ll never understand why the second half of the genre never seems to get its due.