Rock is Dead?

I think about this quite a lot from time-to-time. Wasn’t it Gene Simmons of Kiss who last used this phrase and I guess it stirs up the ‘old guard’ into action. It gets debated for a while and then we return to our former state and the debate edges a little further away?
So, is Gene Simmons correct?
It seems to me, without just wishful thinking, rock continues to reinvent itself. Certainly, that would appear to be the case if you look at past movements and developments across the decades… 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and into the ‘new’ millennium.
Rock is scarcely noticed in the mainstream charts these days so I guess we see that musicianship, live performance, and slow burn careers can no longer be squeezed into neat little areas. As a result, it’s less dominant but was that ever the point?

Looking beneath the surface, it seems to me that rock is quietly flourishing. Festivals sell out. Vinyl sales have increased. Legacy artists continue to draw decent crowds of varied age groups, whilst newer/younger artists build loyal followings and communities outside traditional media. It would seem that rock has shifted from the centre to the edge of town and that’s still a place where interesting things can happen.
Perhaps the real question isn’t whether rock is dead, but whether it was ever meant to be forever in the mainstream. Some would say rock has always been at its best when it’s disruptive, defiant, and slightly out of step with the world around it. In that sense, it may well be that it’s alive & kicking?