classic rock

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.

Oh yeah, absolutely. The lead singers of REM, Our Lady Peace, Green Day, U2, Radiohead, Muse, RHCP, Rammstein and the rest all sing like each other, and they all play with down-tuned distortion. You've obviously spend the last few years conducting research to present these well thought-out conclusions. :roll:

Common, you can do better Wes. You don't have to be interested in today's music, but this is getting extremely silly.

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

Hey.. Thanks for the list. I haven't heard some of these bands/singers, but those I did hear I mostly like. I'll check out the others :)

Oktay

I certainly doubt you are able to properly judge what I do and do not grasp, thank you very much.

I only need to read your replies.

Easy...easy ladies, lets not let this get out of hand.
The lead singers of REM, Our Lady Peace, Green Day, U2, Radiohead, Muse, RHCP, Rammstein

Look man, thats like 8 bands or so (I, for some reason, Find it difficult to count anything on a computer screen). 55 or so bands, all UNIQUE with their music and their vocals as well. Theres no way you can say that about 55 mainstream bands today.

Ok, I'm not even going to bother responding to that. Arjen is right, it's getting a little ridiculous.

However, I would be intrested in an answet to my first post in this thread.

I didn't even read this whole post except the last page or so and I've thought about this along time and I've come to the following conclusions, right or wrong.

Everyone always talks about the classic rock era and the originality etc. I would venture to say that they were no more original than bands are today. What's different is the point of reference. Back in the late 60's your really talking about the beginnings of rock etc. Everything sounded original...well duh..there was nothing before it to compare it to. If all the bands like Cream, Beatles, Stones, you name them, had been born in the 80's or 90's I would bet my life that the music they wrote and played would be much different than what they did back then. So much has changed during that time yet people somehow want to keep music locked up in a bottle to hold onto some sound etc as that being the "best" or most original. Get over it the 60's and 70's are over. To me they are the same people that you meet on the street when your 50 years old and they are still talking about the good old days in high school. Get over that too.

That's not to say that in their time some of these musicians were musical geniuses but that happens in every era.

Music is not static it evolves just like society it will never be the same from decade to decade.

As just a listener I really have a hard time with going back and what I mean is once I listen to music, album/CD for awhile as much as I like it I constantly want new stuff. Since learning the guitar these past couple years I have gone back and started listening to some classic rock stuff cuz I thought it would be good to know some of those songs but for the most part I prefer to hear something new then Clapton's Layla for the 1,900,000 time, and I love Layla.

That's just my take on it.

Oktay: Your welcome, but beware, the bands on that list aren't all bands that I like. lots of them are, but some aren't.

Hi. is it my turn to come down on Arjen?
He he heee
STOP CALLING GARY MOORE A BLUES GUITARIST!!!!!!!!
he played with Thin Lizzy for Pete's sake... Let's not
forget his song, The End of the World. the only thing blues about that
is the pentatonics.

Ok, now I'll jump to his side.... 60's and 70's music? sure it's good,
But what about the 80's bands? Not just Bon Jovi and Motley Crue,
but AC DC and I saw Metallica with Cliff Burton. That was soooo cool, they opened for OZZY ( he had Jake E Lee then) and blew Oz out of the arena.

Also, Iron Maiden - Twin harmonizing lead guitar players!!!!!
Then the bi-polar 90's.... I love STP and Soundgarden...
now in this "new millenium" the pickings get pretty slim
(hmmm...... Nickle Back & Lincoln Park - oh wait...JET! and a whole slew of powerchord screamer bands)
What these guys should do is get that music that they like so much and play it. On American Idol the judge... uhhh... that fat black guy that used
to be in Journey, he told contestants that did really good on a particular performance that they "made the song their own". That's what y'all need to do - retrofit an existing music style you like to the modern day.

Oktay: Your welcome, but beware, the bands on that list aren't all bands that I like. lots of them are, but some aren't.

It's OK. Can't hurt to give it each one a go :) Thanks again.

oktay

Arjen

I am not saying EVERYONE sounds exactly the same. That was a generalization. But I am saying there is not nearly the degree of originality today that there was in the 60's and 70's.

I listen to modern rock. And I'm sorry, most of it sounds like it is written to a formula. I didn't say all, I said MOST.

Arjen
... modern rock. And I'm sorry, most of it sounds like it is written to a formula. I didn't say all, I said MOST.

ditto

Taso: Your list has people ranging from Paul Simon to Black Sabbath. Metal and accoustic isn't quite the same genre. I could easily make a list of 55 bands from these days. Then again, I, and you, can probably add a few more to your list. And then I'll have to add more to mine. Etc etc. I don't think anyone would really gain from such a 'who has the longest elbow' contest.

Wes: I think it depends on what is classic rock and what isn't. Taso just labeled both Paul Simon and Black Sabbath as classic rock. If you look at it like that, and consider pretty much all music from the 60s and 70s as classic rock, then you can say it is a very varied genre. Then again, if I would start to classify Soulwax as modern rock these days are varied enough as well. Right now there is the three day festival 'Eurosonic' in groningen. 150 bands in three days. I can guarantee each and everyone that those 72 hours would cure anyone of any thoughts about lacking diversity.

What I do accept is that this music is much less put in the spotlight. It ain't in the charts, they aren't on major labels and don't get shown on MTV. When you talk about mainstream these days are indeed very basic and similar. You have boybands, post-punkrock, rap and R&B. Thats about it. So if you judge this era by looking at the top100 bands or something like that then indeed you are right. But there is a LOT of diversity around. A HUGE ammount.

RacerY: So, why is Gary Moore no blues guitarist? Because he is white? Because he has a marshall stack? Because he also played in a hardrock band? You can think whatever you want, but if BB King, Albert King and Albert Collins all consider him a great modern bluesplayer, and frequently play with him, then I do as well. You don't need to be an old guy from memphis with a beat-up accoustic to play blues...

As for modern bands all sounding alike - what utter pish. Popular music has come on in leaps and bounds since the 60s and 70s in terms of originality and acceptance of new styles.

I want to argue too!

There's lots of great music floating around these days. It's not going to find you though, you have to find it yourself. Most of it will never be coming through your radio. That's the great thing about the Internet. You can find music from bands that don't have millions of dollars of marketing money. Bands with, like, five dollars of marketing money can put up a site. By paying attention, following links (on musicians' forums) and Googling band names, you can find neat stuff. I consider it immaterial whether good music makes up a greater or lesser fraction of the world's total musical output than it did years ago. I do know that I can find as much as I want; more than I can actually digest.

A few recent bands I'll recommend are: Coheed and Cambria, Nuclear Rabbit, Horrorpops, and King Vegas (his site is really hard to find).

I think in essence the poster here wants to celebrate a certain style of music. That's great.

I think that one of the greatest fallacies is that a musician must listen to all genres of music, else he or she is speaking from limited experience. The reality is that we have limited time and resources to invest ourselves. The poster here is expressing a "satisfaction" with classic rock: it is "enough" for him or her at this moment in time.

Sometimes, I think we all have limitations to our musical experience: how else can we explain the feeling of exhiliration when hearing something new for the first time? Else that music would not be new. We would be forever comparing it with something which has gone before.

As DemoEtc pointed out, we should step outside of what is offered to us, and do our own thing. If I may add, we should approach things with a beginner's mind.

Hearing all the names bandied about, I probably have limited musical experience. Today, I do not wish to listen to jazz; or blues, or electronica. I don't really care whether what I am listening to borrows elements from these genres. If I listen to Eminem or the Insane Clown Posse, and have an honest appreciation of these artists, then, my limited musical experience will not diminish this enjoyment. Rhetorically speaking, will I become less of a musician because of this?

~ghost~