classic rock

I think a large part of the blame for today's lack of originality in music can be levelled at the record companies.
In the 60's, there were no manufactured groups. Anybody who made it to the charts had been doing the circuit of pubs, clubs and whatever else they could get, long before they had a record contract. The gear was, by today's standards, primitive - guitars, mikes, amps, drums and, maybe, echo units. The first real effect, that I can remember, was the fuzz on "Satisfaction" by the Stones.

Today, there are not many acts that are not manufactured by the record companies. They are built to a recipe - i.e. what is selling this week? They seem to work on the basis that the consumer is unlikely to buy two records from one act, in quick succession (and, certainly, not a 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.). If they have 2 (3, 4, or 5) acts that all sound similar, they reckon the consumer will buy one from each.

Unlike the 60's, record companies have no interest in an act that is no longer selling as many records as they did. Why should they? The act is a product, manufactured to fill a certain part of the market. They just need to produce a new act, to fill today's market requirements. It is a very cold, calculated and cynical business practice, which has absolutely nothing to do with entertainment, just profit.

Trying to sell something, that is not "mainstream" entails something, that the record bosses don't want to know - risk. They make enough money selling "safe".

The result, of course, is that originality and talent are stifled. In the 60's, it was just those things, that were likely to get you contract.

Muse played battle of the bands at school from age 13, always stayed together. RHCP played tiny clubs for many, many years before breaking through. All this 'today everyone is commercial, no more creativity etc etc' talk can simply be proven to be false by taking the three biggest, commercial and mainstream rockbands of the 90s. They all had to work their arse of to get where they are. They all sound different. They don't sound nothing like the 60s.

So your open mic sucks? Find another open mic. Your radio station doesn't play the above bands? Find another station. They do play it but you can't hear what I'm talking about? Your loss. Before you accuse the 'music industry', ask yourself if you're really as involved and dedicated in finding good music as you were in your days.

by taking the three biggest, commercial and mainstream rockbands of the 90s

THREE? How many "bands"/groups are there out there and you offer three as a contradiction? Be serious, Arjen :lol:.
There are others, sure, but the overwhelming majority are manufactured acts, designed to sell into whatever the current market is.
They all sound different. They don't sound nothing like the 60s.

Who said they did?

Greybeard: If three of the biggest platinum selling, arena touring and commercial rock-bands clearly show what you say is true, then you can be quite sure that the underground and lesser known bands are even less commercial. Yes, pop music is commercialised. As it has always been. And just like you have your Jimi Hendrix action figure we have commercialised aspects of todays rock bands. So? The fact remains that they sound unique, did it on their own, worked hard for it and got rewarded with fame and money. Which is exactly how it went in the 60s. Later work of Elvis non commercial? Sinatra only cared about his artistic integrity? The Beatles weren't surrounded by managers? Of course not.
Who said they did?
Flip a few posts back, someone did.

I think Arjen's right to point out that much of the music in any era is pretty commercialized. But there were some differences in the late 50s and early 60s. These groups were really groundbreaking and were often controversial because they challenged conventions and often even challenged social norms. I'm often really surprised at how MTV and its affiliates have changed the current music scene into something very much like the variety show I grew up with. It's so much more choreographed than it used to be. And it has become part of the commercial enterprise in a way the Beatles or early Elvis or the Stones weren't. But for all that we had that was truly groundbreaking by the Beatle or Cream or the Stones, we also the Monkees and Herman's Hermits and the Dave Clark 5, Paul Revere and the Raiders, etc. I'm not sure that I see anything emerging from the current music scene that's likely to become the focal point of a kind of pop music explosion that influences society in the way that the music of the Beatles and the Stones, etc did. But there is originality out there. If there's nothing quite like the 60s, it's because the culture of today is so much more, to my mind, like the culture of the mid 50s than of the 60s -- relatively complacent and conservative. Those bands of the 60s were able to have the impact they did in large part because there were significant culture shifts underway. (And by the way, the Beatles only had one manager -- Brian Epstein. When he died in 1967, they took over their own management in the form of Apple.)
End of mini-ramble.

Everyone here makes some valid points. And on the whole I would have to agree that "classic" rock is much more groundbreaking than modern rock. It seems to me that classic rock has a bastard child named modern rock, and from the looks of it modern rock doesn't exactly look like it's gonna procreate into something musically groundbreaking for the next generation. However, that being said, this reminds me of a discussion my mom and I had yesterday in the car. Bear with me.

Nirvana came on the radio (all apologies, mtv unplugged) and I made a comment about how Nirvana had an impact on the music scene in 1991 that was similar to the Beatles. She scoffed and called my assertion short of blasphemy, basically. I pointed out how both the beatles and nirvana permanently altered the musical landscape. There would be no RHCP. no Muse, no Radiohead if not for the The Beatles setting a standard and bringing rock to the masses. And Nirvana furthered this change and sent rock off in a new direction the second Cobain slurs those power chords in Smells Like Teen Spirit. Modern rock would be alot different if not for Nirvana, I think. My mom, still disagreeing, pointed out that I was right abou teh beatles, and how her parents refused to recognize the Beatles and still to this day see The Beatles as "The enemy." On the same note, my mom despises Kurt because of his drug habit. The Beatles had a habit too! When you get down to it, my mom feels the same way about Nirvana that her parents feel about The Beatles, and im sure when I have kids they migfht recognize Nirvana and try to tell me that Band X is just like Nirvana and The Beatles, and I'm gonna say no way.

I think it's totally possible that in a few years, someone will have this discussion defending RHCP and the like and saying it's better than the bands of 2020.

That's my take on this.

The point wasn't that the bowling alley battle of the bands sucked, although it does, it was that there were around 5 different bands that came and left the stage, and I couldn't tell the difference between any of them.
Before you accuse the 'music industry', ask yourself if you're really as involved and dedicated in finding good music as you were in your days.

But again, (to get back to the point of this topic in the first place) I don't really see the need to find NEW music. What in the world is wrong with the old music? I've already found my good music, and it's going to last me a very long time. Then maybe I'll start looking for more good music, I'll tap into SRV, I'll start listening to Hendrix, I'll get into Van Halen. By the time I'm dead, I still won't have heard all the classic rock there is to hear.

The point wasn't that the bowling alley battle of the bands sucked, although it does, it was that there were around 5 different bands that came and left the stage, and I couldn't tell the difference between any of them.

That is not a point, that is something leading to a point. In this case, the point can be:

1) You are unable to hear difference between bands.
2) The band actually were very much alike.
3) Current music industry is filled with capitalistic greedy scum that kills all creativity and makes todays music inferior to anything has happened before.

#1 and #2 are both possible, I wasn't there so can't judge that. But the fact remains that whatever happened at your battle of the bands means absolutely nothing whatsoever about anything regarding the discussion of the old vs modern music industry, which is what has been debated since the second post of the topic, before your first reponse here.
But again, (to get back to the point of this topic in the first place) I don't really see the need to find NEW music. What in the world is wrong with the old music? I've already found my good music, and it's going to last me a very long time. Then maybe I'll start looking for more good music, I'll tap into SRV, I'll start listening to Hendrix, I'll get into Van Halen. By the time I'm dead, I still won't have heard all the classic rock there is to hear.

To bring back the food-comparison: if you like your Italian food and don't feel the need to try anything else but hundreds of different pizzas and pastas, fine. But what exactly is the point you can make in a discussion about mexican vs italian food? You like classic rock? Fine. You rarely, if ever, listen to other music? Fine. But in such a situation there is very little to discuss or talk about.

What you haven't grasped, Arjen, is that the charts, in the 60's were full of acts that had made it through the system. The very first manufactured group was the Monkees, but they and their genre (i.e. manufactured) were in a small minority. Yes, acts were signed so that a record label could jump on whatever the current bandwagon was, but these were acts that already existed.

I'm not denying that there are a lot of acts that play pubs and clubs, week in, week out. The fact is, that they are not commercially desirable. They tend to have a mind of their own, a manager and a good lawyer - in other words, they're going to want to be properly rewarded for their efforts. On the other hand, anyone manufacturing an act, owns all the rights to that act and can parcel it up however they want. As soon as the act reaches its "sell-by date", they're gone, forgotten.

Certainly if an act comes along that is going to have a similar impact to Hendrix, Clapton, Beatles, or whoever, they will get signed. Not just for the money to be earned from their record sales, but also from the 50 or 100 acts that the record companies can manufacture "in their image" (to be slightly biblical) and what they can earn off their backs as well.

Musenfreund: Good points, there ain;t much of a social revolution around here, and hardly any band I know try to voice their opinion like a certain Dylan did way back then.

Greybeard: Before I start I would like to point out there is a rather huge difference between 'grasping something' and 'considering something relevant', and I certainly doubt you are able to properly judge what I do and do not grasp, thank you very much.

Nirvana, R.E.M, U2, Muse, Radiohead, RHCP, Tool, pretty much every modern rock band that 'made it' made it after working their back off in clubs, writing their own songs, and with a proper DIY attitude. Go and check it out, you'll find all of these bands either have their own label or have a contract where they have considerably more freedom then you suggest.

So there are manufactured acts? And they are in the charts? And it wasn't like that in the past? All correct. But I seriously doubt this has anything to do with modern rock. If you're talking about those boy/girlbands, r&B (where has the blues gone in R&B anyway?) and rap stuff, then yeah, that is pathetic. And it is popular, and does pollute the airwaves. But that doesn;t mean anything about whether or not there is good music these days.

But hey, Hendrix never made it to #1 either. The monkees in their days had more hits then Pink Floyd. Abba totally dominated SRV in the charts. Does this mean that there were no proper bands in the 60s and 70s? No? Then why judge the 90s and 2000s by the charts? We've had 40 years to filter the crap away and now have a fine choice of the best those two decades have to offer. Great! Right now there is a lot of modern crap in the airwaves so it is a bit harder to see the good stuff.

Oh, as for commercial etc, it wasn't Hendrix who wanted to tour Europe. It was his manager. Jimi wanted to stay home in the studio but was dragged away. So much for total artistic freedom.

My opinion: there are top-quality, independent modern rockbands with their own sound. Plus a lot of garbage. Like every decade had top quality, independent bands with their own sound. Plus a lot of garbage.

"The point wasn't that the bowling alley battle of the bands sucked, although it does, it was that there were around 5 different bands that came and left the stage, and I couldn't tell the difference between any of them. "

You know, I listen to the classic rock station, and I like what I hear. But I can barley tell the bands apart. They all either sound like the beatles, or they sound like Zepplein or Hendrix, etc.

Let's take a song by zeppelin, comunication breakdown. Profound lyrics? Don't make me laugh. Wonderful lines like 'I don't know what it is I like about you, but I like it a lot'. Yeah, amazing.

But, you say, "I like it anyways, becuase thats good music".

Well thats what people say when I ask them how they can like bands like weezer or slipknot.

Everyone has their shallow pop music. Nothing wrong with it, but it's certainly not timeless.

It doesent mean I dont love Led Zepplein, horrible lyrics and out of key singing and all. But you have to try to have a sense of perspective.

The overall message is, (to quote one of them classic rock bands) " The more things change, the more they stay the same".

But the fact remains that whatever happened at your battle of the bands means absolutely nothing whatsoever about anything regarding the discussion of the old vs modern music industry, which is what has been debated since the second post of the topic, before your first reponse here.

Now call me insane here, but I thought this thread was intended to be a place to voice our love of Classic rock. Thats just what I picked up in the first post, it may be wrong, but I thought I read the line Does anyone else love Classsic Rock as much as I do? Thats just what I noticed, again, I'm not an expert on forum boards though.

It's not that I don't listen to music other than Classic Rock. I do. I have listened to lots of new music played on the radio. Do I like it? Some of it maybe. I find the Offspring to be fairly entertaining, although their newest CD is something I can't say I liked at all. I still don't see what that has to do with anyone's love of Classic Rock.

Sherman: I can't say I agree with you about classic rock sounding the same. Granted, the majority of it has the same forumla (Intro, verse, solo1, verse, solo2) but it doesn't all sound the same. There were many bands that tried to sound like the Beatles (even my own Hero billy joel can be accused of that with his first album), but most havn't lasted to this day. The Who, the Stones, the Beatles, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Santana, Cream, Ray, Billy Joel, Elton, Bruce, The Allman brothers, The doobie Brothers,SRV, Jeff Beck, The Guess who, Creedence, Pink Floyd, The Doors, Don Henly, Don Mclean, The Eagles, Blue Oyster Cult, Uriah Heep, Lynryd Skynyrd (spelling), The Kinks, Jefferson Airplane, Aerosmith, Kansas, Charlie Daniel's band, YES, Eric Clapton, the Band, Fleetwood Mac, deep purple, Elvis Costello, Greatful Dead, Jethro Tull, Joe Cocker, ACDC, the Yardbirds, Queen, Kansas, Steve Miller Band, James Taylor, Boston, Peter Frampton, Paul Simon, Warren Zevon, Lou Reed, George Thorogood, ZZ Top, Black Sabbath all of these bands/artists have unique, different sounds. I fail to see your point man.

Sometimes its hard to tell a couple of those apart. The Guess who as compared to early Beatles is a stumbling block for me.

But I mean all these other people that I've never heard of, and that you (mostly) didn't mention.

That was over 55 bands. A couple of those are hard to tell apart? A couple... So around 50 unique sounds basically. And bands we've never heard of, I thought we were talking about mainstream music.

The only band I ever heard that sounded like the Beatles was Badfinger. And they were produced by the Beatles at Apple Studios which may be some of the reason why.

I have thought that Grand Funk Railroad was trying to sound like Cream. But later in their career they sounded nothing like Cream.

As for the rest of the bands Taso mentioned. They did not even remotely sound like each other. No way.

Today, not only does almost every band play with down-tuned distortion, most of the singers sing with the same style. It is the same style over and over.

No one would say Mick Jagger sang like Robert Plant or Roger Daltry. Music was much more original at that point in time.