Classic Rock. Era or Genre?

[lonewolf]

Somebody needs to clarify the definition of classic rock for me. I thought I knew what it was...at least I thought I knew it when I heard it...until now.

I was driving down the road listening to a local "classic rock station" when, to my astonishment, I was suddenly listening to the Pretenders "Brass In Pocket". I was thinking to myself 'I didn't hear the 1st part of the commercial"...you know, the one with "YOU DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO THIS:" (play chrissy hynde here) "TO GET TO THIS:" (play AC/DC here). After the novelty wore off, the same thing happened with U2's "still haven't found what I'm looking for".

These are both highly successful bands, but CLASSIC ROCK? I don't think so. I can't even imagine what convoluted logic could be used to take '80s pop music and turn it into classic rock.

Please tell me I don't have to start playing this stuff...

[bassist_25]

Jeff, I don't know if I would write off U2 as simple Pop Rock. They're actually a pretty artistic band. They even made it an art to sell out.

I see your point though. I normally don't walk around and make conscious discriminations between genres of music, but I also understand that radio stations must follow a format because a lot of people just aren't that eclectic. My definition of "Classic Rock" is basically anything beginning with the Beatles (I consider the Rockabilly and Du-wop before to be "Oldies") to the beginning of the 80's. Of course, there are a few exceptions to the rule; Even though Dire Straits reached their commercial peak in the mid-eighties, I consider them "Classic Rock" because they actually started in the 70's.

I'm not a radio programmer though. My guess would be that it might be foolish to have a radio station that catered primarily to 80's Rock/Pop. I think that would be a pretty stale format. I think it would be best to play bands like Men at Work or the Police on the same station that plays bands like Foghat or Zepplin. Of course, like I said, I'm not a format director, so I'm probaly rambling on about things I know nothing about.

[Jim Price]

Lonewolf, if you have about 3 days to spare, I could offer several bookloads of thoughts about "classic rock" and what programmers and consultants across the country define it as; and how they come up with those definitions.

Generally, most radio stations rely on some sort of consulting service which does research into national trends, of what people nationwide prefer to listen to, "classic rock" or otherwise. I'll spare you the gory details of how they do this research, even I don't know exactly how they come up with some of the findings they do. (Some of it involves playing samples of music in front of random test groups of people and gauging their reactions to it; the groups are broken down into age groups, men and women, and other demographics, etc.)

In my mind, it's an inexact science; if you poll 10 or 20 people on what they consider to be "classic rock," you're likely going to get 10 or 20 totally different responses. What most radio stations generally try to do with their programming is find that middle ground that satisfies as much of that core group as possible.

There will be core artists that fit that middle ground of what most people consider "classic rock" (Doors, Zeppelin, Skynyrd, Clapton, Allmans, Aerosmith, Stones, Beatles, etc.). The artists you cited - Pretenders, U2, Police, etc. - probably fall on the "boundaries" of that middle ground; some people accept them as classic rock, others don't. The same could be said for artists like CCR and Van Morrison, some people define them as "classic rock," others consider them "oldies."

And it's ever changing, too. As music itself changes, people's definitions of that music change as well. Some music holds up to the test of time and public opinion better than others. I often wonder to myself what music from the 90's and today could be considered "classic rock" someday, and what music will sound terribly dated and silly in another 10 to 20 years.

For radio programmers, it amounts to a numbers game and a guessing game; trying to figure out what combination of music is going to draw the most listeners from a certain demographic group they are trying to reach. It's an inexact science and often a crap shoot. And some consultants in places like New York City and Los Angeles are making nice coin from it.

[lonewolf]

I understand that demographics are changing and that people who grew up in the 80s and early 90s are now in their peak "spending years" as entertainment consumers. I'm not so sure that catering to this demographic makes a song classic rock.

My question was a bit simpler than that. Is it a genre, and era, or neither or both?

If it is an era, then I would think that it would be rock music from artists from the era starting in 1965 with the Beatles' Rubber Soul and the Stone's Out Of Our Heads thru the introduction of MTV. CCR and Van Morrison both fall into that category, otherwise, you couldn't include Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young either.

Calling it a genre is a can of worms and everybody will have their opinion. I would look to the various artists from the era (above) and single out the various styles (i.e. Jethro Tull--Baroque Rock). Later music that follow these formats might be called classic rock. I think Def Leppard would be a good example of an 80s band that followed the patterns of mid '70s classic rock.

Perhaps I missed the boat altogether and "classic rock" really means "rock classic". I think a song can be a "rock classic" without being "classic rock". A Ford Edsel is a classic car, but it just wouldn't fit in with '63 Vette.

Sure U2 is artistic, but "still haven't found what I'm looking for" puts me to sleep.

[bassist_25]

Oh, okay, I undstand what you mean now. To answer your question then; I would say "Classic Rock" refers mainly to an era, rather than a genre. Of course, when the music was first being played, it wasn't refered to as "'Classic Rock". I think you had a lot of delineated characteristics of Rock music, which made obvious differences in generes. You had early Rock, which was a progression of Rockabilly and Blues (Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin), Psychedlic Rock (Hendrix, Cream), Progressive Rock (Yes, Rush), Folk Rock (Break, America), Metal/Proto-Metal (Black Sabbath, Deep Purple), Hard Rock (Montrose, AC/DC), Soutern Rock (Skynrd, Allman Brothers), ect. So I think that classic rock is more of an era people refer to so they can entail all of the aforementioned styles, rather than one term that could objectively describe a style of music. (If definately couldn't be argued from a theory stand-point, if that were the case, most of it would be considered Blues, while some of the Metal would fall under Neo-classical)

Of course, when describing music by generes, you always have a chance of offending the purists; a Jazz purist may not consider Mahavishnu Orchestra to be Jazz, a Bluegrass purist may not consider Nickle Creek to be Bluegrass, and a Punk purist may not consider AFI to be Punk. Again, it goes back to that format thing. Even though Mahavishnu may not be "true Jazz", it's still going to make more sense to play them between Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk than it would be to play them between Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell. (Unless, of course, it's that album Joni did with Mingus ) The Jazz-fusion idiom probably isn't big enough to have a radio station catering exclusively for it.

But when it comes down to classifying music, I personally, have two categories: Music I like and music I don't like.

[Ron]

Perhaps "classic rock" isn't a genre or era, but has simply become a marketing term to be tossed around willy-nilly.

If you look at the definition of the word "classic", then any song performed by a "standard line-up" band, (vocals, two guitars, a bass, and drums, credited to Buddy Holly), could be considered "classic rock", since it conforms to the standard "classic" definition of rock and roll, established when the genre was pioneered.

[Chevelle7982]

I am an on-air persoanlity at CHIX 105.5 WCHX, Oldies 920 WKVA, and Star Country 96.7, and I can tell you that the station co0-owner told me one time that "classic rock" is music that the majority of your listeners will find familiar and will most likely recognize the artist/song. Yet we still have Hootie and The Blowfish, Matchbox 20, and more examples of this type sneak into the line-up. What are "true" Oldies"? It is very hard to seperate "oldies" and "Classic Rock". On Oldies 920 I still play John Lennon, The Beatles, The Doors, Janis Joplin, etc. Really, this is one of those topics where you will not find a right or a wrong.

[Ron]

I like bassist_25's two categories... they are the only ones that matter.

[tonefight]

I think it was about a year ago I heard a guns and roses tune played on the radio and the Dj came on and said something like " classic rock from Guns and Roses" it puzzled me at the time since I always thought of maybe Zepplin as classic rock and Guns as metal but then I realized that it has been awhle that the early GNR songs were out so I figured it was a time kinda thing.

But why put things in a category anyway....... just jam, loud and proud!

[rickw]

Ya know I was never sure about the classic rock label, just as I was never sure about the classical, jazz, or other labels as has been mentioned before. Music tends to morph styles, cross invented boundaries, etc. Maybe the person who coined the phrase was into cars. My car is 19 years old and it's just an old car with a ton of miles on it, but, hey, I like it. Next year it coud be considered a "classic"! Lol!! I know we all consider the 55 Chevy a classic, but an 85 Chevy? Hmmmm, doubtful. (at least not mine!) I think "Rock" is the more confusing term.

[DMFJ03]

I think "Rock" is the more confusing term.

I hear that!

What is even more confusing, in my opinion is "Metal"

I don't even call it "Metal" anymore, because I am not even sure what "Metal" is. I have heard that bands like Poison, Guns N Roses, Quiet Riot, Motley Crue, so on and so forth, are 80's metal. Nothing against them, or anything (since I jam to a lot of songs by those artists and others not mentioned), but looking back at it now...seems a little weak to me. 80's Metal is different from 90's Metal, and 90's Metal is different to what is currently being called Metal. As mentioned before, I don't even call it Metal, now it is either "Heavy" or it isn't.

Within my band, there is always a constant (but never serious) argument of what is "Heavy" and what isn't. I am a major fan of Slipknot, Mudvayne, Disturbed and those type of bands which I have called "Heavy." Our drummer on the other hand, can't stand them and doesn't even think of them as "Heavy." He prefers music like Every Time I Die, As I Lay Dying, Dillenger Escape Plan, etc. To me, I don't think that is "Heavy" either because all I can hear is a lot of treble and have to fight urges of gnawing through my own wrist. ( !Love ya Nagles! ) It is so hard to even describe what we sound like because there is too many titles to throw around anymore. All I know is that it is "Heavy" and that is all there is to it. Anyway, back to the case in point, it all boils down to, as said before, what people like and don't like, and how people classify.

What is "Classic Rock" to me might be different from someone else. The same thing goes with "Metal" (all forms of it -- death, thrash, Nu, whatever the f**k). Pretty much all the rest can blow goats for milk money, save a few bands here and there. I try to keep an open mind when I am listening to whatever it is I am listening to. It is just so hard anymore to try and stomach what is being pushed around.

Holy balls, now that I realize I have posted way off the original topic, I'll stop ranting now. However, to answer the original question - I think "Classic Rock" is an Era, and not a Genre. True "Classic Rock" had and still has its own attitude that just has to be felt. When you hear a real "Classic Rock" song, you just know it. When you go "What in the hell is this..." then it is time to play Road Sign Bingo or clean your house.

[facingwest]

This might be an odd response, but I classify classic rock in a few different ways. First off, pre-80's has a very distinct sound because of technology and how bands were recorded during those times. Once the 80's arrived, recording devices became a little more solid state and early 80's recordings lacked a lot of warmth, as well as how overall guitar sounds changed. Secondly, I'd consider classic rock more of an era from around the late, late 50's to the very early 80's (70's bands carrying over). Think about the lyrics written with the events happening in the world around that time, as well as the loads of experimental drugs. lol The late 70's started developing new sounds, as well as influencial guitar players that would pave new roads for different styles of rock (EVH, Kiss, Black Sabbath, etc...). The majority of 80's lyrics were more about partying and having fun, rather than the meaning behind a good part of classic rock's lyrics. Something else that seperates the change of classic rock to the 80's is look at the demand that was placed on the majority of rock singers. When most of the "hair metal" rock 80's singers sang, they needed kicked in the nuts about a dozen times to hit half the notes they sang. A average band can play classic rock a lot easier than the 80's. Not only did singers have a challenge, take a look at guitar players as well. The 80's players were about shredding licks, rather than more soul, so to call it. From the late 80's to the early 90's, rock became way too depressing. I sorta consider the 90's suicide rock, but that's another discussion. BTW, I think I watched way too much "Behind the Music" on VH1.

[FatVin]

Everybody has their opinion on this and nobody's really wrong but here's my 2 cents: The 70's are an era, Hair Metal is a Genre and Classic Rock is a marketing term dreamed up by a corporate P.O.S. named Lee Abrhams. His theories of Demographics gave rise to formats, which is why radio sucks now. (nuthing personal JP, or Chevelle, it's ALL radio, everywhere) I remember the days of Full service radio, you could listen for hours and days and not hear songs repeated, It went from The Eagles to Stevie Wonder to Skynyrd to Waylon Jennings to CS&N and on and on, and it was all good.

Now we've divied ourselves up into little boxes. They vomit up Britney and N'stink for the kiddies, they rehash Frankie Vallie and The box tops for the oldsters, They pound Pink Floyd down the throats of us, who aren't old just yet and the college kids get a heaping helping of Greed Day and we all stay in out little boxes and hopefully never talk to each other and never agree on anything so the corporate drones can cut us up and take our wallets.

They feed us Crap cause they know we won't take the time to demand something better. Radio has formatted itself into irrevelvency. and MTV? well MTV wrecked everything. MTV is to music what KFC is to chicken. Take something that at one time was a special thing, you cut it up, process it, artificially sweeten it, and sell it to the masses in fancy packaging.

It doesn't F$%^in matter if U2 is classic rock, it matters that someone who likes Zep and Floyd and Skynyrd will sit through a U2 song to hear more Zep and Floyd and Skynyrd.

Ever watch the auditions for American Idol, ALL the guys are doing Luther Vandross or Peabo Bryson, all the girls are doing their best Maraiah and Whitney impressions, Just once, I'd ike to hear somebody who was influenced by Rod Stewart or Patsy Cline, Van Morrison or Dusty Springfield but NOOOOO, it's same same same same same, you know why? Because it's all about packaging, a solo singer is easier to package than a band, and the Neo-R& B (There hasn't been any REAL Rhythm & Blues since Marvin Gaye died) depends heavily on the record company for support, Country too for that matter. A band might want control, someone who plays an instrument might have an actual idea, and you know how corporote people hate ideas.

The Classic rock era, meaning anything before MTV, is over because art doesn't matter any more. Video did indeed kill the radio star.

If we're gonna arguue about something it should be something that matters, like how we are gonna reverse the current climate in music today.

Any suggestions?

[lonewolf]

If we're gonna arguue about something it should be something that matters, like how we are gonna reverse the current climate in music today.

I've been wondering that since the 1st time I saw a sampler in the hands of a DJ...the 1st time I saw karaoke...the 1st time I saw a DJ in a bar so small that you couldn't get next to yourself...

To reverse the current climate, you must first identify the problems with it. The biggest problem I can see is the "democratization" of music production thru cheap technology and the public's willingness to accept this watered down entertainment because it is"cost-effective". Since DJs and pop-rock types are successful at the local level, they become successful at the pro level.

The gestapo (PLCB) contribute to this problem by making the public afraid to leave their respective neighborhoods. They will settle for a $1 DJ around the corner rather than drive 10 miles and pay $5 to see a band in a bar.

I have tried to retake at least some of this market by doing a solo act that has a precision light system, sounds like a band and has the elements of lead vocal and guitar. I have found that even being cost-competitive is difficult, because most people in these venues expect you to be a friggin' juke box with 500 titles...the DJ wins with his $500 PA, $200 lights and 10,000 stolen MP3s.

As usual, it all comes down to economics.

[lonewolf]

As far as classic rock, I have always viewed it as an era. As with other musical eras, there is usually a defining moment, such as the death of J.S. Bach that ended the "baroque" era and began the "classical" era. Of course there are other criteria, such as the size of the orchestra, the introduction of the piano and number of movements in a symphony that differentiate musical eras.

The beginnings of the classic rock era is difficult to define, but I always think of it as when rock & roll lost the "& roll" part and became simply "rock". I would say this happened with the Beatles and others' transition from the "I wanna hold your hand" pop-style to the "day tripper" style--around 1965.

As far as the end of that era? There is no question in my mind that the event that ended the classic rock era was the introduction of MTV. Although the style lived on since most of the artists were still active, its dominance in pop culture was over. All you have to do to confirm this is watch a typical video from the early 80s. I remember talking to Steve Walsh (Kansas) about MTV and he said "We did just fine before MTV and we will do just fine without them now". Perhaps, but you won't see very many Kansas videos on MTV....Bummer.