classic rock

Wow, little war going on here.

I love Classic Rock. It's what I grew up on, so I guess I feel an attachment to it. But I try to listen to modern music as well (don't have as much free time as when I was young).

But Arjen, sorry to say this, Classic Rock kicks the s--t out of modern music. Sorry. But it's true. I am not saying the musicians were more skilled or anything like that. But todays artists are just too conformist. I know there are a few styles out there, but really, for the most part it all sounds the same. That is the difference to me.

It really was not like that in the 60's and 70's. There was a lot more variety within Rock itself. You had groups like the Grateful Dead where you could hear the Bluegrass and Folk influence. With Santana you heard the Latin influence. With CCR you could hear that Delta Blues style. With Steely Dan you could hear the Jazz. There was Soul music, Funk, R & B, Psychedelic, etc... and it was all going on at the same time. I could go on and on.

No matter what you say, you will hear the same thing over and over from people today. IT ALL SOUNDS THE SAME. Yeah, you have 3 or 4 styles going now. And 50 groups in each style that all sound like each other.

I get tired of Classic Rock sometimes and turn to the modern stations. After a half- hour I turn it back.

Arjen,

Sorry, but just wanted to say a little more. Last night I was listening to a modern Rock station. A song came on (not sure of who it was), but I thought it was Tool. I mean it sounded EXACTLY like them. I was surprised when the DJ told the name of the band (but I forgot the name).
In the 90's everybody said STP copied Pearl Jam. And as much as I love STP, when you listen to the vocals it's Eddie Vedder's style. And Puddle of Mudd DOES sound a lot like Nirvana. To me, the most original group in the 90's was the Smashing Pumpkins. Now they had their own unique sound.

It was not like that back in the 60's and 70's. No one would say that the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Jefferson Airplane, Santana, The Who, Sly & the Family Stone, (you name it) or any of these groups sounded alike in anyway at all. They didn't. Not even remotely. You cannot say that today.

If the groups of today would quit following trends and just play their own original music, it would be like that again.

This is a like/dislike post so I believe all opinions posted are valid. I'll chime in with my own.

I have been in the States for about 6 years now although I used to listen to mostly English stuff when I was back home as well. A friend of mine just before college was very well versed in all the bands and music and he introduced me to bands like Tesla, Jethro Tull and New Model Army. All my favorite bands today, the last having an extra special place in my heart :).

I am not what you would call a music maniac but I have been exposed to maintstream music just like everybody else over the years and I can't say that I liked it. Even bands that are supposed to be great rock bands such as U2 don't really do it for me. So I started looking for alternatives in the past and started to educate myself with the stuff from Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin etc. (Not only old rock bands either. I really enjoy Pulp, The Cure etc) I intend to keep checking out older stuff and can see that constituting a major portion of what I listen to for years to come.

However, it is not really fair to say that all bands today suck. I happen to live at a place where a lot of smaller bands have shows all the time and I like some of them although they do not play classic rock. I especially like Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Franz Ferdinand, Travis, even White Stripes to some extend.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, although older stuff might have tended to be higher quality, there was also a lot of old shitty bands making shitty music too, just like there are decent new bands now among all the shitty MTV ones. It is not fair to group all old bands and all new bands under the same umbrella.

So, such it is. For what it's worth. My opinion.

Oktay

oktay

I agree with you 100%. I do not think bands of the past were better than today. But I think they were more original. Part of that was the times. It was the late 60's. Everybody was taking mind-altering drugs and experimenting with new forms of consciousness. Now, I do not think that is good. Drugs are bad for anyone, period. You don't need to take drugs to play creative music. But... that was the times and that's what people were doing. And I think you can hear that in the music. And of course there were lame bands back then.

I think the problem is the media. In those days musicians were allowed a lot of freedom in the studio. They were pretty much allowed to experiment and make any kind of music they wished to make. That is the reason for the greater variety of influences heard in that period.

Today, I think the successful bands are controlled by the big corporations. They make music to a formula. They say, "Hey, this worked, so let's make another song just like it". I doubt bands are free to experiment in the studio like they were in the 60's-70's. So it has nothing to do with ability. Today's musicians are just as good as ever.

I really hope that is the reason. Because if they are just copying each other because it sounds cool, they lack imagination.

I think the problem is the media. In those days musicians were allowed a lot of freedom in the studio. They were pretty much allowed to experiment and make any kind of music they wished to make. That is the reason for the greater variety of influences heard in that period.

Today, I think the successful bands are controlled by the big corporations. They make music to a formula.
i agree, w i

i think that anymore, music is a means to an end (contractual obligation) and not an end in and of itself (ultimate expression)

I was reading an article in GWA including an interview with maroon 5, it was funny to me because my opinion is that they were trying to present themselves as a band who was not formulaic in a way above whinnign and bashing like certain other MTV artists, yet this was plainfully clear.

Which was all well and good, except one of them got cocky on one of the questions and said something like "When we handed Songs About Jane to our label, we were just like "here, here's a bunch of songs, you can release them if you like and see what they do." The guy speaking must have thought that uncaring was a sign of being an artist, personally I find that an extreme lack of artistic attachtment when you don't care about the performance or even arrangement of your tracks.

I like classic rock, others don't. But in my opinion, our allegiance to what has gone before, should end.

Well, unless we're in a cover band and we 'have' to learn it.

But I think to a lot of us (hopefully), since we're not merely music consumers, but in a way, music creators, it's almost our duty to ignore, more or less, what's going on. It's not to say that we should never listen to anything or enjoy other people's work. But for us, the musicians, there's a certain point where we have to break free of what we like and even what we don't like and start to do 'our' stuff. Even if it's stuff that has a lot of things from someone else's style or technique, there's a moment in time when we have to break the habit, so to speak, of being so intent upon other people's accomplishments. Their accomplishments are theirs, and the real big question is what will ours be?

Someone else mentioned the 60s. I agree as far as artists and bands sounding different. But in my opinion, they sounded different because they were 'trying' to sound different from their contemporaries. Hendrix might've heard Clapton play a lick and go "Hmmm, I like that one. I'm going to use it" but when he did use it he did it his way. Nowadays, also as someone else has mentioned, there seems to be a drive to sound like someone else - going the direct opposite direction of what creativity is. It's like...'recreativity' or something.

And, as someone else mentioned, it has to do with The Gig: getting the corporate guys to include you in their formulaic playlists so you can make money. That's where you'd have to try and sound just like someone else, to try and cop a style or tone in order to be accepted. But by whom?

Big Money Entertainment. I blame it above everything else because they make it impossible for folk to do their own thing as we used to say. But on the other hand, there's a point where people have to start thinking for themselves. There's a point where modern day artists have to perhaps make decisions that will lose them huge amounts of money. I wonder if they would?

I would hope so. The Big Money will still control, but maybe, maybe, we can get back to less formulaic stuff - which is, in a way what this thread is about: "Which Formula do you like the best?" - and go another direction.

I know this is just one of hundreds of similar threads going on all over the net, but I thought I'd just put my thoughts in.

I don't listen to music very much. When I do it's normally some classic or 80s type station. But it's not often. I find, after all these years, that I'm not a consumer anymore, and haven't been for just about as long. I'm trying to be a music creator, even with the traditional stuff my wife and I do. There's originals in there, but the traditional stuff, at least to me, is brand new stuff since I never was really into it back when. I have an idea of what it's supposed to sound like but I don't go to records to cop licks to put them on the tracks. I'm trying to listen to my imagination and sometimes, listening to other people's music too much clutters that up - at least for me.

:)

But Arjen, sorry to say this, Classic Rock kicks the s--t out of modern music. Sorry. But it's true. I am not saying the musicians were more skilled or anything like that. But todays artists are just too conformist. I know there are a few styles out there, but really, for the most part it all sounds the same. That is the difference to me.

It really was not like that in the 60's and 70's. There was a lot more variety within Rock itself. You had groups like the Grateful Dead where you could hear the Bluegrass and Folk influence. With Santana you heard the Latin influence. With CCR you could hear that Delta Blues style. With Steely Dan you could hear the Jazz. There was Soul music, Funk, R & B, Psychedelic, etc... and it was all going on at the same time. I could go on and on.

I'm gonna have to go with Arjen on this one. I think you guys are thinking of Classic Rock as more of an idealized genre than the actual music.

Todays mainstream artists are conformist, yes. But didn't rock start out as obscure anyways? I don't think it got mainstream until later. Now obviously I wasn't alive to be there, but from my understaning a band like
Blue Oyster Cult or Led Zeppelin was considered heavy metal and distatseful. If I know my rock history correctly, didn't Led got their name from a guy( cant remember exactly who it was, sorry) who said they had just as much chance of being succesful as a lead balloon?

So people had to seek out this music. And they loved it so much that they shared it. That still is going on today. It's the ultimate and timless way to build a brand name.

This is how good music evolves. Check a click off the mainstream and you can see it coming.

http://www.garageband.com

Now there are alot of copycats on there, but there are a heck of alot of talented artists on there too.

There are band with that variety you speak of around today. Wilco is country, or are they bluegrass? Wait, I thought they were pop, no mabye rock...

Funny thing is, I don't think anyone ever expected there to be anything called "classic" rock. Hmmm, maybe that means I'm a classic too! Well, an antique at any rate. :twisted:

I do not think bands of the past were better than today. But I think they were more original. Part of that was the times. It was the late 60's. Everybody was taking mind-altering drugs and experimenting with new forms of consciousness

I think they were more original because it hadn't been done before. Now we wish we could have the same music as in the '60s and '70s, but then it wouldn't be original, it would be a rip-off. Today's musicians thus find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

I'm 44 and grew up on "classic rock." But I've found plenty of music in the past ten-fifteen years that's just as good, just not nearly as popular. You have to really dig for it.

I'm not a fan of blanket statements on any subject. But I also believe that when it comes to musical taste, there is no right or wrong. Saying someone doesn't like today's music is no different than saying they don't like Mexican food. There may be some dish they would like, but in general they don't like Mexican. How can I argue with that.

Heh, you could say that modern musicans are stuck between rock and a hard place.

bada boom *cymbal crash*

in my long life of 21 years i've listened to all kinds of music. while my tastes do run run towards the "classic rock" side i don't limit myself to it. sure i think zeppelin is the greatest band ever, but i also really like instrumental surf, SRV, delta blues, jazz, blues rock, thrash metal and so on and so forth. the only thing that really bugs me about newer "rock" is the that alot of it does sound the same to me. but what people don't realize is that there are countless other genres of music today and the artists asscociated with those genre's are putting out respectable music.

the white stripes, although a "rock" band breathed some new light into rock. in the midst of nu-metal you had a 2 person band that was covering a Son House song. i respect that

If the groups of today would quit following trends and just play their own original music, it would be like that again.

Ok, let's make it real simple. I present you guys with Radiohead, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Muse. All with their own unmistakeble sound. Two UK and one US band of the 90s. Go and tell me which 60s or 70s band sounds like these two bands. Feel free to admit that you can't. Anyone dares to suggest noone tried to sound and look like the beatles back then? No? Guess there was a nice group of clones back then as well.

I agree that there is a lot of conservatism in the guitar world. Every new guitarist gets told he/she needs either a Gibson LP with a marshall stack or a Fender with a Fender amp. All tube, ofcourse. If you have to use pedals you can take Stevie's TS9, David's Rat or Jimi's Fuzz. The more vintage the better. Classic, retro, vintage, pre-worn, re-issues. That's what we should desire. Variax, modeling amps and guitar synths are blasphemy. They sound different, and not like what we are used to. And we only want what we are used to. Like in the old days. And when we've convinced the new guy that this is the Only Way to the One and Only True Sound we go and blame them for being unoriginal. Sounds rather weird to me, but I see it every day on every guitar forum.

You don't like Radiohead, Muse and the RHCP? Fine. But suggesting they are weak clones of each other and older bands is highly ridiculous and seems to be based on nothing at all.

By the way, this topic is rather self-contradicting. Either people now are cloning the old bands, and then you should like it since it is the same style, or they do sound different but then you can't blame them for being unoriginal. It is simply impossible to have bands sound different from what you like and explain yourself disliking them by suggesting they are similar.

Hear, hear!

I was gonna say something, but you nailed it Arjen.

I don't think anyone participating in this discussion was referring to every single band that wasnt pre 80's, that would be a ludicris statement. We were all speaking generally. All I know is this: When some friends of mine suggest new bands for me to listen to, and give me a list of about 5, and I put them in a playlist, I cannot tell when the band changes 97% of the time. At open mics at the bowling alley, I cannot EVER tell when the band changes.