Is classic rock really all that classic?

[ArmsofAtlas]

I hear alotta people say that new music isn't as good as old music. I just don't find that to be true.

Popular music was definitely better back then, but that's not what is up for argument.

IMO you have the true greats of every era, and the "classic rock" era had quite a few of the best of all time, but aside from that, the music is pretty bland for people that aren't into really bluesy music.

I like about every form of rock and roll and I feel that overall, the last 20-25 years is much better than the 20-25 years before it, goin back to 65 or so.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[jimmie ray]

Definitely disagree on this, but music can't be bluesy enough for me. But I try to listen for some elements of musicianship in newer songs, no matter how much I can't relate to the lyrics or general sound. There's very little there, beyond the whining, than a dull drone or erratic noises. Musicians 30, 40, 50 years ago were less about personal angst, even though many of the older ones (James Jamerson, for example) had real problems. They rose above it, and delivered. That's what the blues is all about.

[lucyinthesky]

Not all that glitters is gold. Surely some classical bands are overrated, but in general, they're best! There was more feeling (was about to say magic) in it; this mixture of old blues and new, exiting rock.

[ArmsofAtlas]

More feeling? I dunno how that can be decided unless you are in the room watching the people make it. If you are talking about the emotional side in music, it doesn't get any better than the early 90's.

Grunge really put emotion front and center and there were very few bands from the 60's and 70's that tackled real personal things besides real basic emotions.

I like Hendrix more, but I don't think he put any more of himself in his tunes, than say, Alice In Chains put in theirs.

Would also like to say that I think the great bands of today are as original, and in some cases, more original than the greats of yesterday.

Edited July 15, 2008 by ArmsofAtlas

[Jimmy's A Legend]

I think that it is just a matter of taste, i mean i love "old rock" and i don't listen to rock beyond the 80s, to me rock today doesn't have that overall fire and excitement, to me it sounds the same.

Don't think that i am ignorant because i have listened to modern day music and it is just not my cup of tea, just like people today might think that old rock is too over powering for them or something like that.

Basically it's opinion and taste...

[Dancin'Days]

Of course you hear a lot of people say this because it is on another thread (Is anyone with me?) like where this post should have been added to.

[Jarlaxle 56]

If you like Metal like I do, there is very little to choose from before the 80s =P And there are very creative new metal groups coming out these days.

[JethroTull]

I totally disagree with the presenter. Every time I hear some latest "Next Big Thing" such as Kings of Leon or Drive-By Truckers I'm totally unimpressed and can't help but think "been there, done that". So much music today seems overdone and overblown. I'll take a simple song by Chuck Berry, The Beatles or The Kinks anyday.

[SteveAJones]

I like about every form of rock and roll and I feel that overall, the last 20-25 years is much better than the 20-25 years before it, goin back to 65 or so.

Thoughts? Opinions?

I'd say '65 to '75 was rock's Golden Decade and much of what was released and performed after pales in comparison.

I think the true test of a piece of music being "classic" is for how long after it was released was it considered popular or at least held in high regard? For example,

Elvis Presley's 'Heartbreak Hotel' still meets this criteria roughly 50 years later,

whereas MC Hammer's 'Too Legit to Quit' is neither. I find it fascinating so much

60s music remains popular four decades later. I know it has much to do with the

baby boomers and the overwhelming accessibility/availability of that music, even

so it's unpredented. I believe several of those songs will still be considered classics

150 years from now but I doubt very much from the last 20 years will be.

[Zepaholic]

I'd say '65 to '75 was rock's Golden Decade and much of what was released and performed after pales in comparison.

I think the true test of a piece of music being "classic" is for how long after it was released was it considered popular or at least held in high regard? For example,

Elvis Presley's 'Heartbreak Hotel' still meets this criteria roughly 50 years later,

whereas MC Hammer's 'Too Legit to Quit' is neither. I find it fascinating so much

60s music remains popular four decades later. I know it has much to do with the

baby boomers and the overwhelming accessibility/availability of that music, even

so it's unpredented. I believe several of those songs will still be considered classics

150 years from now but I doubt very much from the last 20 years will be.

Absolutely agree. Music must stand the test of time to be legitimitely "classic". I just don't see high demand for Alice in Chains in 20 years time but thats just me. Pearl Jam is probably my favorite grunge/seattle band and yet i see them fading faster than what i would have liked. In 10 years, i hope to still be listening to Vs. and 10 as much as the 65-75 stuff. I justy don't know...

[Matthew!]

I hear alotta people say that new music isn't as good as old music. I just don't find that to be true.

Popular music was definitely better back then, but that's not what is up for argument.

IMO you have the true greats of every era, and the "classic rock" era had quite a few of the best of all time, but aside from that, the music is pretty bland for people that aren't into really bluesy music.

I like about every form of rock and roll and I feel that overall, the last 20-25 years is much better than the 20-25 years before it, goin back to 65 or so.

Thoughts? Opinions?

I don't even listen to classic rock anymore. Not even Zeppelin. Grew out of it all about two years ago, and I'm just as happy with my taste now as I was with my taste back then. Personally...I DO find classic rock bland now. Just from overexposing myself. In fact, the vast majority of the music I now listen to was released in or after 2005.

Listening to new music has advantages over the old stuff, too.

New music is...NEW.

There's more and more coming out every day, and it's exciting! I'm sure those of you who grew up in/around the 70's can relate.

Music is more expansive now, there are more genres, styles, etc. It has evolved very much.

Plus, I actually have a chance of seeing some of my favorite artists live!

And merch is often actually priced decently. Especially if you buy it from the artist's store.

Wahoooooo!

People who think it all sucks haven't honestly given current music a chance. Or they haven't tried hard enough to find something they do like. Which is a shame.

But when they give me crap about the music I listen to? It's almost laughable. But mostly it just makes me feel bad for them.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Matthew!

[Dancin'Days]

I don't even listen to classic rock anymore. Not even Zeppelin. Grew out of it all about two years ago, and I'm just as happy with my taste now as I was with my taste back then. Personally...I DO find classic rock bland now. Just from overexposing myself. In fact, the vast majority of the music I now listen to was released in or after 2005.

Listening to new music has advantages over the old stuff, too.

New music is...NEW.

There's more and more coming out every day, and it's exciting! I'm sure those of you who grew up in/around the 70's can relate.

Music is more expansive now, there are more genres, styles, etc. It has evolved very much.

Plus, I actually have a chance of seeing some of my favorite artists live!

And merch is often actually priced decently. Especially if you buy it from the artist's store.

Wahoooooo!

People who think it all sucks haven't honestly given current music a chance. Or they haven't tried hard enough to find something they do like. Which is a shame.

But when they give me crap about the music I listen to? It's almost laughable. But mostly it just makes me feel bad for them.

No Zeppelin? I just can't imagine!

[MHD]

I don't even listen to classic rock anymore. Not even Zeppelin. Grew out of it all about two years ago, and I'm just as happy with my taste now as I was with my taste back then. Personally...I DO find classic rock bland now. Just from overexposing myself. In fact, the vast majority of the music I now listen to was released in or after 2005.

Listening to new music has advantages over the old stuff, too.

New music is...NEW.

There's more and more coming out every day, and it's exciting! I'm sure those of you who grew up in/around the 70's can relate.

Music is more expansive now, there are more genres, styles, etc. It has evolved very much.

Plus, I actually have a chance of seeing some of my favorite artists live!

And merch is often actually priced decently. Especially if you buy it from the artist's store.

Wahoooooo!

People who think it all sucks haven't honestly given current music a chance. Or they haven't tried hard enough to find something they do like. Which is a shame.

But when they give me crap about the music I listen to? It's almost laughable. But mostly it just makes me feel bad for them.

Not getting at ya Matthew, but how come you're on here if you don't listen to LZ anymore and you've "grown out of it"?

Personally, I can't go a day without listening to some Zepp...it's good for my soul!

I am open to any new great rock music, but I never seem to discover anything that really moves me in the way my classic favourites do...I suppose some would say that I am not looking hard enough but a lot of stuff nowadays does sound the same to me

The only band that has got me genuinely excited recently are The Raconteurs.

[jimmie ray]

No Zeppelin? I just can't imagine!

My wife is just starting to get into Zep, as well as other music that I've enjoyed for so many years. It's almost like a new experience, listening and conversing about the albums and songs. She asks the darnest questions though!

[Dancin'Days]

My wife is just starting to get into Zep, as well as other music that I've enjoyed for so many years. It's almost like a new experience, listening and conversing about the albums and songs. She asks the darnest questions though!

That is awesome Jimmie! Was she into other music before or not at all?

[jimmie ray]

That is awesome Jimmie! Was she into other music before or not at all?

She liked disco and easy listening stuff, before. I think she had battles with her brothers over music, that turned her off to anything heavier, many years ago. We're adapting to each other's tastes, now.

[Dancin'Days]

She liked disco and easy listening stuff, before. I think she had battles with her brothers over music, that turned her off to anything heavier, many years ago. We're adapting to each other's tastes, now.

Nice to hear it!

[ArmsofAtlas]

I'd say '65 to '75 was rock's Golden Decade and much of what was released and performed after pales in comparison.

I think the true test of a piece of music being "classic" is for how long after it was released was it considered popular or at least held in high regard? For example,

Elvis Presley's 'Heartbreak Hotel' still meets this criteria roughly 50 years later,

whereas MC Hammer's 'Too Legit to Quit' is neither. I find it fascinating so much

60s music remains popular four decades later. I know it has much to do with the

baby boomers and the overwhelming accessibility/availability of that music, even

so it's unpredented. I believe several of those songs will still be considered classics

150 years from now but I doubt very much from the last 20 years will be.

I'll agree with that.

Aside from the cream of the crop from back then, what really sells in volume now?

Boston records aren't flying off the shelf or from an itunes server.

Zep, Floyd, Beatles, etc.etc.etc.? yeah they sell, still.

People judging this by popular music, have no clue.

If the media was the same back in Zeppelin's time, Zeppelin would've never conquered the world.

Take a band like PJ. Their musical path is very similar to Zeppelin's. But since they quit makin videos, and started doin their own thing, they are basically shunned by the media, so it makes it that much harder to attain success, but I feel, in 25 years, when people mention Zep as the greatest rock band ever, Pearl Jam's name won't be too far behind.

[jimmie ray]

Current selling statistics are no measure of lasting influence. Most people that grew up listening to classic rock are now involved with their families needs or methods of entertainment, and many I see are now just TV coach potatoes. They probably have a large collection of older albums already, or are just satisfied with the various Classic Rock radio stations' offerings. Younger people can get a hold of their parent's collections, or download from various sources?

[Medhb]

I'll agree with that.

Aside from the cream of the crop from back then, what really sells in volume now?

Boston records aren't flying off the shelf or from an itunes server.

Zep, Floyd, Beatles, etc.etc.etc.? yeah they sell, still.

People judging this by popular music, have no clue.

If the media was the same back in Zeppelin's time, Zeppelin would've never conquered the world.

Take a band like PJ. Their musical path is very similar to Zeppelin's. But since they quit makin videos, and started doin their own thing, they are basically shunned by the media, so it makes it that much harder to attain success, but I feel, in 25 years, when people mention Zep as the greatest rock band ever, Pearl Jam's name won't be too far behind.

I'll second that motion!! I just posted a thread on Eddie singing with the J's, I think he'd be GREAT! But fat chance in Hell Eddies bailing on PJ...plus I love PJ too much....but I think they'd make a magical combination....

[ArmsofAtlas]

Current selling statistics are no measure of lasting influence. Most people that grew up listening to classic rock are now involved with their families needs or methods of entertainment, and many I see are now just TV coach potatoes. They probably have a large collection of older albums already, or are just satisfied with the various Classic Rock radio stations' offerings. Younger people can get a hold of their parent's collections, or download from various sources?

Yes it is. The good stuff still sells.

The SHIT music doesn't sell, b/c you can go get compilations with all the good songs from most of those bands.

If somebody can look me straight in the face and tell me that bands/artist like Journey, REO Speedwagon, and Boston are as good or even remotely interesting as Pearl Jam, Tool, or Soundgarden, I would grab them and have them committed to a nut house.

[Dancin'Days]

Yes it is. The good stuff still sells.

The SHIT music doesn't sell, b/c you can go get compilations with all the good songs from most of those bands.

If somebody can look me straight in the face and tell me that bands/artist like Journey, REO Speedwagon, and Boston are as good or even remotely interesting as Pearl Jam, Tool, or Soundgarden, I would grab them and have them committed to a nut house.

Oh, you mean Pearl Jam and the other 50 bands that sound just like them? Including Soundgarden and Tool!

[jimmie ray]

If somebody can look me straight in the face and tell me that bands/artist like Journey, REO Speedwagon, and Boston are as good

Eeeeewwwwww! You don't think I'm defending THAT, do you!?!?!?

[Medhb]

Oh, you mean Pearl Jam and the other 50 bands that sound just like them? Including Soundgarden and Tool!

Wow DD! I like Tool AND Pearl Jam...and I don't see the similarities in their music at all! Don't have any Soundgarden in my collection but I'm sure I know their music if I hear it and don't turn it off. But if you can't tell Tool from PJ then I really think you haven't listened to very much of them, honestly.

[ArmsofAtlas]

Eeeeewwwwww! You don't think I'm defending THAT, do you!?!?!?

No, but when I say shit music, that is the kinda stuff I mean.

When I say the greats, I mean stuff on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Now there's nothing wrong with listening some Boston now and again, it just seems like alotta bands are viewed as "the best" just b/c they are from the classic rock era. I am referring to the more middle ground bands.

Here's an example: Lynyrd Skynyrd was a great band, live and studio, but did they really put out more than a couple really good albums? They are viewed as one of the greatest bands ever. I love me some Skynyrd but on my scale of rockin-ness they can't compare to alotta newer bands.

Edited July 16, 2008 by ArmsofAtlas