danelectro Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Much of what is termed Classic Rock is actually Classless. Some of those bands should've never been heard. Many of the ones trying to resurrect their careers should die and go away. Was that on topic? Haha. Yeah I don't know, the older I get the more I like bands I formerly despised like The Doobie Bros and Yes. I'm pretty sure it's been determined classic rock is a vague label at best and it'd be tough to make a case it ever went away since it encompassed everything from Bread to Sabbath. Anything that's been called classic rock can be traced forward to similar sounding modern bands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Haha. Yeah I don't know, the older I get the more I like bands I formerly despised like The Doobie Bros and Yes. I'm pretty sure it's been determined classic rock is a vague label at best and it'd be tough to make a case it ever went away since it encompassed everything from Bread to Sabbath. Anything that's been called classic rock can be traced forward to similar sounding modern bands. That is happening to me too, but NOT Doobie Bros or Yes, but other stuff. There is also some artists that I thought was great back then, but today I can't see what I thought was so great about them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 There is also some artists that I thought was great back then, but today I can't see what I thought was so great about them.. I've been through that too. I think being extremely passionate about music and bands is easy when you are younger. As much as I don't want to admit it that band for me is Led Zeppelin. When I listen now I don't hear anything that sets them as far apart from others of their era as their success implies. There are lesser known and lesser appreciated bands I like more now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Obviously, there were many groups from the CR period we are referring to that put out some albums that were poor, or at least didn't have all great songs on them. I would imagine that the current technology available, that allows the listener to buy or play only the songs that are popular or that they like, shields the newer groups from being evaluated for the entire body of work. That said, I still think Zep were far and away the best at delivering consistently great songs and albums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I would imagine that the current technology available, that allows the listener to buy or play only the songs that are popular or that they like, shields the newer groups from being evaluated for the entire body of work. Many bands pander to the download market too. However I don't think this is any different than before, instead of the 45 we now have the MP3. Just like there's always been single record buyers there's always been artists out there looking to cash in on one or two decent songs because that's all they have or that's what the record company provided for them, the strategy is the same. Bands still turn out cohesive albums, many new releases are available in multiple formats, including vinyl. Bands I like often offer free 7" vinyl with purchase on release day. I don't this has anything to do with any genre of music, especially since recorded music started out as single songs, what may seem new is nearing it's hundred year anniversary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joao Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I think there's some confusion to what 'classic rock' means which is natural. I don't think it's a genre, I see it more as a musical time period or movement like 'grunge'. It's obvious that will never come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I think there's some confusion to what 'classic rock' means which is natural. I don't think it's a genre, I see it more as a musical time period or movement like 'grunge'. It's obvious that will never come back. Fair enough. Either way, call it what you want, there are still many direct ties from what happened then to similar bands and sounds now. Saying it will never come back implies that nothing similar is happening now and obviously there is and has been, it never stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Are you FUCKIN SERIOUS!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? That's rich buddy. You're saying that a bunch of fat cat record execs, who were prolly nose deep in their own problems, wouldn't sign bands that did drugs? Fact is, music goes in cycles. People quit buying all those great bands, that's the one and only reason record companies quit signing them. If you are investing a lot of money into an artist(s) who are hooked heavily on drugs like heroin (I'm not talking about weed and a little blow here and there), have had several ODs, and only show up at gigs half the time, then yes I think you are going to avoid signing those types of bands in the future. Executives want to be able to control their acts on just about every angle. That's why I think you saw a sudden push to the bubble gum crap of the late 90's and 2000's. You stopped hearing new rock on the radios and even less music videos (which were still still fab at the time). You suddenly had "acts" that did nothing artistically. They didn't write most of their music, they were taught how to dance, etc. Yes, Spats, I truly believe heroes of mine like Layne Staley and Kurt Cobain had a lot to do with rock dying in the mainstream. Look at what is considered rock now....Nickelback and shit like that. It's a joke. As for the executives being druggies. Just because you do something doesn't mean you want your investments to do it. I dabble in drugs sometimes (mostly pot) but I hope my kids never do. The people on this site are real rock fans but the general public listens mostly what is given to them. Emo-rock or whatever you call that whiny shit is what they think is rock is. Not to us, the real rock fans. Even though I don't like it, I kind of understand why they changed their minds. Who wants to invest millions on a heroin junkie or free-baser. Make more sense now Arms of Atlas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Honestly I can't make the drug angle make sense any way I try to make sense of it. With big record companies all that matters is whether or not the artist makes them money. I've never heard of one instance where substance abuse was cited as a legit reason for a band being dropped. In fact the opposite tends to be true, they spent a lot of time and money trying to keep Cobain clean and no freakin' way would they have dropped their cash cow. Shit the guy died full of dope and they went on to spend millions promoting him after that. To this day DGC puts out loads cash to promote Nirvana. Drugs didn't kill rock then and it hasn't now. Head to the local book store, guitar publications, fanzines and genre specific rags are full of current bands that play rock exclusively. For every Xtina or Britney or whatever dance star you're implying has taken over the world there are probably 10 or more current well known punk, metal, indie rock and hard rock bands out there. Rock hasn't died. What's died is people's willingness to listen to something else besides 30 year old music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmsofAtlas Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 That's why I think you saw a sudden push to the bubble gum crap of the late 90's and 2000's. You stopped hearing new rock on the radios and even less music videos (which were still still fab at the time). You suddenly had "acts" that did nothing artistically. They didn't write most of their music, they were taught how to dance, etc. Yes, Spats, I truly believe heroes of mine like Layne Staley and Kurt Cobain had a lot to do with rock dying in the mainstream. Look at what is considered rock now....Nickelback and shit like that. It's a joke. As for the executives being druggies. Just because you do something doesn't mean you want your investments to do it. I dabble in drugs sometimes (mostly pot) but I hope my kids never do. The people on this site are real rock fans but the general public listens mostly what is given to them. Emo-rock or whatever you call that whiny shit is what they think is rock is. Not to us, the real rock fans. Even though I don't like it, I kind of understand why they changed their minds. Who wants to invest millions on a heroin junkie or free-baser. Make more sense now Arms of Atlas? You have it backwards. People got sick of hearing that brand of music, so they turned their attention elsewhere. If what you say is true, Guns and Roses, Pearl Jam and tons of others would have never released an album. They all had SERIOUS issues with drugs before they started writing their first albums on the record companies dime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeppFanForever Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Simple question, will it? Led Zeppelin, Cream, The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Jeff Beck, The Who, The Doors, Allman Brothers and the list goes on and on. Now I know you can't bring these people or places or time back, but I'm wondering if my generation will ever get to experience anything like it. I feel like I've been born in the wrong decade all the time and I find 95% of music that I'm supposed to like boring. Sure you might find a good band here and there like The Black Keys or even The White Stripes, but other than that you really have to dig in and search for anything that resembles quality these days. Thankfully I was "saved" by my father giving me some initial directions. I still remember hearing Whole Lotta Love for the first time and I knew as soon as Jimmy played his opening riff that this was it. Two things went through my head: this is awesome and I need to buy me a guitar. I guess Jimmy had a similar moment listening to Baby Let's Play house. Later I would start discovering other bands and music all the way to the roots and Robert Johnson. What a great journey through generations of music. Which brings me back to my generation (and no, I'm not talking about the song ). I'm secretly hoping that kids will eventually get sick of the stuff that comes out of radios and MTV and one day (maybe as an old grandpa hehe) I'll be going to concerts of our very own Led Zeppelins. I know, not bloody likely, but one can hope. P.S. I know there's a question mark in the topic title and there ain't much to answer, I just needed this to get off my chest. How's it going "nki" as well as our fellow die hard Hard core ZEPPELIN fanatics? Good question! My answer is that Classic Rock NEVER left! Bands like THE BEATLES, THE ROLLING STONES, LED ZEPPELIN, THE BEACH BOYS, THE WHO, THE KINKS, THE ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND, PINK FLOYD, BLACK SABBATH, CREAM, THE YARDBIRDS, LYNYRD SKYNYRD and FLEETWOOD MAC to name a few, WILL NEVER DIE! These bands are ROCK ROYALTY that left their marks in Rock n' Roll history and because of this, their music will live forever. ROCK ON! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Honestly I can't make the drug angle make sense any way I try to make sense of it. With big record companies all that matters is whether or not the artist makes them money. I've never heard of one instance where substance abuse was cited as a legit reason for a band being dropped. In fact the opposite tends to be true, they spent a lot of time and money trying to keep Cobain clean and no freakin' way would they have dropped their cash cow. Shit the guy died full of dope and they went on to spend millions promoting him after that. To this day DGC puts out loads cash to promote Nirvana. Drugs didn't kill rock then and it hasn't now. Head to the local book store, guitar publications, fanzines and genre specific rags are full of current bands that play rock exclusively. For every Xtina or Britney or whatever dance star you're implying has taken over the world there are probably 10 or more current well known punk, metal, indie rock and hard rock bands out there. Rock hasn't died. What's died is people's willingness to listen to something else besides 30 year old music. It isn't and often labels have worked with the artist to get them into rehab, paying for it etc. And some of us are ready, willing and DO listen to lots of music that isn't 30 years old A lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 That is happening to me too, but NOT Doobie Bros or Yes, but other stuff. There is also some artists that I thought was great back then, but today I can't see what I thought was so great about them.. I've had that happen with music over the years. Or the reverse where I stop listening to an artist for years and suddenly I put the record on and go, why did I stop listening to this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joao Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Fair enough. Either way, call it what you want, there are still many direct ties from what happened then to similar bands and sounds now. Saying it will never come back implies that nothing similar is happening now and obviously there is and has been, it never stopped. I agree with you, what I meant was that that particular time period won't happen again the exact same way, time doesn't repeat itself that's what I'm trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I agree with you, what I meant was that that particular time period won't happen again the exact same way, time doesn't repeat itself that's what I'm trying to say. Agreed. However it's not like people haven't tried to bring back past era's, sometimes it happens unbeknownst to the participants. Everything in culture has a way of recycling through again. Lot's of kids were running around dressing and acting like Kurt Cobain not realizing it had all been done before via Neil Young ca. 1972. I was recently shocked to hear explicit vulgarity and profanity on a blues record that dates back to 1935, no doubt the first gangsta rapper probably thought he was the first to do such a thing. Fashions come and go, people emulate the past. It happens. However music is never the sole defining thing of an era, too much goes on in the world for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Hip-hop is Classic Rocks' worst enemy. No it isn't. Jefferson Starship is...or make that Starship. Oh, toss in Asia and Journey, too. Seriously, 'Classic Rock' doesn't really exist...it's just a term created by suits to market radio. In fact, you could probably trace the beginnings of the decline of radio to the day the phrase 'classic rock radio' was first uttered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 You have it backwards. People got sick of hearing that brand of music, so they turned their attention elsewhere. If what you say is true, Guns and Roses, Pearl Jam and tons of others would have never released an album. They all had SERIOUS issues with drugs before they started writing their first albums on the record companies dime. How is it that they got sick of hearing it? It was still very popular when it ended. Most the bands broke up to either the death of one of it's core members (Alice In Chains,etc.) or they stop getting along (aka Soundgarden)? There were not many bands other than Pearl Jam and the Chilli Peppers to promote. "Guns and Roses, Pearl Jam and tons of others" started in the very late 80's or very early 90's. I was referring to the end of the 90's. That's when the shift seemed to happen. That's my opinion. A lot of you don't seem to agree. So be it. Doesn't make either of us right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 How is it that they got sick of hearing it? It was still very popular when it ended. Most the bands broke up to either the death of one of it's core members (Alice In Chains,etc.) or they stop getting along (aka Soundgarden)? There were not many bands other than Pearl Jam and the Chilli Peppers to promote. "Guns and Roses, Pearl Jam and tons of others" started in the very late 80's or very early 90's. I was referring to the end of the 90's. That's when the shift seemed to happen. That's my opinion. A lot of you don't seem to agree. So be it. Doesn't make either of us right. IMO what took what was good about grunge and threw it in the toilet was only a few good bands caught on, Nirvana was the exception not the rule. Bands like The Fluid, Mudhoney and the Melvins should have been huge but they weren't. As usual the mainstream record buying public latched on to the shitty bands like Bush and Veruca Salt. When it became obvious there was no real substance to bands like that it faded back to the underground where it was born. Many of the best grunge era bands are still around, The Melvins probably have 30 albums out by now. The Fluid played shows last year and Mudhoney still kicks around. People never really took to those bands and they had major label backing for a long time. Stuff like that is akin to Zep selling millions in 1973 while Mott The Hoople teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. It happens, usually because the mainstream record buyers that follow trends usually aren't the core fanbase. Some bands get big enough to transcend that, others do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 In keeping in character with this thread, Will that be with a straw or a rolled up Ben Franklin? Benny Frank please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmsofAtlas Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 How is it that they got sick of hearing it? It was still very popular when it ended. Most the bands broke up to either the death of one of it's core members (Alice In Chains,etc.) or they stop getting along (aka Soundgarden)? There were not many bands other than Pearl Jam and the Chilli Peppers to promote. "Guns and Roses, Pearl Jam and tons of others" started in the very late 80's or very early 90's. I was referring to the end of the 90's. That's when the shift seemed to happen. That's my opinion. A lot of you don't seem to agree. So be it. Doesn't make either of us right. Well, you're wrong. It's business. If a record company was deciding between 2 bands, drug issues would be the furthest thing from their mind. If they could spend a million on one band with no issues that would be mildly successful or spend $5mil on a band that was a trainwreck to deal with, but had more potential, they're goin with the druggies. People got sick of hearing stuff like AIC and Pearl Jam when the record companies signed a bunch of streamlined band that copied the core sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 People got sick of hearing stuff like AIC and Pearl Jam when the record companies signed a bunch of streamlined band that copied the core sound. IMO Pearl Jam was the beginning of the end, in my book they were one of the first bandwagon jumpers and I don't care if members had roots that went back. They were watered down fluff as far as I'm concered. It was on their backs that terrible bands like STP, Bush and others flourished while the real talent was passed over. Edit: Actually the same could be said about AIC, they were a freakin' hair metal band until grunge became the "new thing". They adopted the look and sounds to blend in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Well, you're wrong. It's business. If a record company was deciding between 2 bands, drug issues would be the furthest thing from their mind. If they could spend a million on one band with no issues that would be mildly successful or spend $5mil on a band that was a trainwreck to deal with, but had more potential, they're goin with the druggies. People got sick of hearing stuff like AIC and Pearl Jam when the record companies signed a bunch of streamlined band that copied the core sound. That is often the problem with many styles or sounds in music. One or two bands make it big and suddenly labels try to find wannabes and the market gets saturated. I think grunge also faded because that's what happens with music - things evolve and change. New stuff comes along and people move on. Although I have to say I really liked Alice In Chains. Pearl Jam I thought their first two records were great but I lost interest in them after that. I gravitated more towards the lesser known groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarlaxle 56 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 KYUSS were the best rock band of the 90s Don't even try and argue that point. Just kidding, anyone can have a favourite, but really, Kyuss fucking ruled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmsofAtlas Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I remember when the Stone Temple Pilots were branded a copy of Pearl Jam but I think they were great in their own right. Funny you mention "core", as that was STP's name of their first cd. danelectro, you didn't like any of STP's music? I saw them in concert and they rocked! Pearl Jam is awesome. I dunno how any fan of rock music could call them watered down fluff. Best band of the 90s and one of the 10-15 greatest ever, no questions asked. STP is great as well. Their guitarist is the closest thing we've had to Jimmy Page for awhile. There is alot of subtle complexity to their music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.