Or is it? I don't know. I just get the impression it is.
I disagree. It's The Simpsons of music.
but I love Tim Buckley, Love, Leonard Cohen and The Velvet Underground a whole lot more who are all from that era. I guess there was an 'indie' divide even back then!
about the pretenders' first album. Someone was going on about how it sounded so much like 'classic rock' despite coming out in 1980 after the punk-era, you said 'what's wrong with classic rock?' and they said 'nothing, apart from the fact that I don't like it.'
I don't know why but to me that sums up a lot of DiSer's attitudes.
If it was released today it'd be a fantastic punk inspired indie pop record, it's amazing how time can just shift perceptions of genre.
I really dig classic rock stuff and bands which might as well be considered classic rock (e.g. the jam and the clash) most of my favourite bands are indie, or originally indie (smiths, rem, sonic youth). Bands like the jam and the clash are my second-tier favourites.
there's a huge gap between indie bands I like and indie bands I don't like.
every diser agrees - anyone who doesn't like live and dangerous by thin lizzy should be fired into the sun.
The first Van Halen record is brilliant, and everything after is shite. When Aerosmith still took drugs, they were great. After that, not so much.
Mr Brainlove doesn't dig the Stones, but I think the majority of us would say up to Some Girls was some of the best music that's ever been made. On my top all time, I probably have Gimme Shelter as the greatest.
I'm a Bowie fanatic. Since I was about 11 years old.
Yeah, that's fucked me up pretty good, but I'm still a fanatic for Bowie.
Let me punch the motherfucker who doesn't like Led Zeppelin.
Etc. On the other hand. 70s rock had it's fair share of shite and then some. Foreigner? Toto? Omg, Toto. I was on an airplane one time, back before the high tech shit we have today, and listened to the same 6 Toto songs over and over again. I seriously considered suicide.
Lots of Ozzie Osbourne Black Sabbath stuff...it's really shitty. Alice Cooper is shitty. The majority of classic rock is shitty.
Thin Lizzy, though, fuck. Awesome stuff, my friends.
You know that red Aerosmith Greatest Hits package? I tell you what, you find me a better collection of 10 or 12 songs and I'll eat my hat.
And there's a lot of very decent classic rock. Like Bob Seger. The very definition of meat 'n potatoes rock 'n roll. But really good.
Then there are bands like the Pretenders, who were KROQ alt rock then, but kinda more classic rock now. Show me a band with two better debut and follow-up albums...?...meh, can't be done...or, if it can, we're still gonna put Pretenders I and II in the top 10.
On the other other hand, you can only hear Fly Like an Eagle so many times before you wanna go shoot up a McDonald's.
I will say this about the 70's though. By the end of the decade, ok, maybe going a little into the androgynous British new wave 80's...rock music stopped being an exclusive gift to teenagers.
Music is in the position movies were in. Film used to wow us the new shit...but now filmmakers can do pretty much whatever they wanna do.
With music, we've heard it all before.
Now we separate the pros from little boys with short pants and funny haircuts. In the same way O Henry pretty much outlined every plot twist possible, musicians these days know the plot twists, but they have to invent great new ways to present the same devices that are familiar to our ears.
Fook. What were we talking about again? Maybe I ought'ta split and re-group. Cheers and good morning and good night from SoCal. Love on ya. oR
especially for an Indie-centric site. I think a lot of us dislike the Classic Rock as the complete be-all end-all of music like some of its proponents make it out to be, especially since they conspicuously overlook other artists from that era who were relatively unknown, but arguably much more relevant now (i.e. most of Krautrock, Roxy Music, Eno, etc.).
I certainly like the Beatles and Zeppelin (and increasingly, Nirvana), but there's something extremely short-sighted and bland about the worship of them especially by younger generations. There's often a very rigid outlook of what Rock should be that comes from those circles.
Led Zep, Deep Purple, Whitesnake, Sabbath, Aerosmith, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Rolling Stones, there's a whole long list of bands with a superb musical legacy.
Different things for different people. I love psychedelic and proto punk bands of the Sixties. But of the massive selling English bands of the era I can only stand Pink Floyd really. I quite like Dancing in the Moonlight by Thin Lizzy. The rest bores me to tears.
I liked Zeppelin and the Who and Sabbath and stuff when I was 12-15ish though, it's a good education to have I guess.
I also despise some classic rock, particularly down the 'hard rock/heavy metal' spectrum (except for Led Zeppelin and a BIT of Black Sabbath). I don't really despise that end of the spectrum, I just despise amount the worship that some cliched groups of people give to bands like AC/DC and Aerosmith in comparison to everything else, even compared to very popular acts like The Beatles and David Bowie.
But then I also despise quite a lot of indie. Having said that, Joy Division and The Smiths are basically my favourite bands, so I'd like to think that would exempt me from a banning here :)
with A Night at the Opera being the last classic rock album
Now that is a brave move to make on here.
First 4 or 5 albums are alright.
maybe Flash Gordon for the silly factor.
I'm just disinterested in a lot of indie music, and should probably try harder.
Stop worrying. No-one cares and when you realise that you'll probably start another thread moaning about how much time you wasted so for god sake stop.
Dark Side of the Moon was, is, and will always be a work of profound genius. But if I ever have to hear "Money" again, I will throw myself under a fucking bus.
is Dire Straits
Yeah, Knopfler was a massive cunt, but christ, the riffs man, the riffs.
the group of bands you're pretty much told to love from birth (zeppelin, the stones, pink floyd) generally don't mean much to me but i've got mad time for van halen, ac/dc thin lizzy, zz top, motorhead, whitesnake etc. also formed quite an unnatural attachment to soft rock over the past year. :(
queen are still shit though.
many of us got sick of seeing old farts, and young farts, holding up the likes of the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Dylan, Pink Floyd etc as some kind of golden age & saying it's "real music" and much better than the rubbish you get today etc. The same people who were behind the "disco sucks" movement, who think all hip-hop is shite, & dismiss any music not made with guitars. I could understand this mentality in the 1970s when synths were some newfangled magic from outer space that threatened to destroy the status quo/Status Quo, but to hear people, especially young people, still trotting out that bullshit in 2014 is baffling.
I thought once the baby boomer generation started to retire & hand over the reins to a different generation then the consensus would change, but no, Led Zeppelin are still taken more seriously than Kraftwerk, and Jake Bugg gets praised as "real music" just because he plays a fucking acoustic guitar, as if that were somehow way more difficult than doing what Four Tet or Jon Hopkins do.
Don't get me wrong, I love a bit of the Zep, Stones, Hendrix & others but to claim that they're so vastly superior to anything that has been recorded since is absolute bollocks.
My single word answer to the OP was going to be "rockists."
...has been in the press over the past few days getting slightly tetchy over perceived bias in The UK against Metallica's brand of rock, which I guess is now starting to verge on 'classic'. While I'm no fan of Metallica's output from the past 20 years, I'm fairly sure that if you were to go to the Pyramid Stage stage on Saturday night with an open mind then they will definitely put on a show.
Sometimes it's nice to disconnect brain a little when listening to music and just go with the flow and rock out a bit. EXIT LIGHT, ENTER NIIIIIIIIGHT!!!
Even if the best things Metallica did were 30 years ago, it wouldn't make them classic rock - my parents like classic rock, they wouldn't like Metallica.
Metallica are a thrash metal band turned global (super) stars. Classic Rock would apply to the first wave of Heavy Metal and Rock? (Deep Purple, Led Zep, Rush, Sabbath, real denim patch ,material).
Most of the stuff they've done since then is pretty damn classic rock in my book, including cover versions of Queen and Thin Lizzy stuff...
covering Classic Rock rather than creating it. Their first 4 albums are Thrash classics, but thrash metal (not a criticism). Their 5th album is their only real Classic Rock sound and the commercial edge it has is why it sold 30 million plus. It's their last great album and they are mocking themselves selling out I feel with the non-more blacker / Spinal Tap sleeve.
Load and Reload went much deeper into classic rock territory than their black album, aided by a continuing decision to stick with Bob Rock as their producer. I would say that most of Metallica's output for the whole of the 90s would sit comfortably on a classic rock station. Their most recent album seemed to be an attempt to re-establish some kind of alt-credibility, but ended up pretty much sounding like a Metallica tribute band.
In a perfect (musical) world, The Black Album would have been their last. It's pretty much like they have nowhere else to go after that. Fair enough for fans getting more albums, etc. I feel this way about The Cure also and The Head On The Door, bands reach their natural creative ending and most plod on. It's another string to a great bands bow if they spot this and step aside. Don't get me wrong, I like Metallica and they played a great part in the revitalising of Metal via Thrash. Still prefer Slayer though. Slaaaaayer.
I think early queen was the last bastion of that.
Had the most incredible sit down audiences. The little kid at 9:08 in this never fails to make me crack up. He almost looks terrified.
but that whole fashion thing of people wearing a classic rock t-shirt without liking the band (i.e. ACDC t-shirts on a helluva lot of people, for starters).. that is a sin I would like to see dealt with.
Some great, some good, LOTS of bad.
And what noise_ramones said.
Im now more baffled, please help.
Are boring people who won't let go of the past and have no interest in innovation or songwriting and would rather a wanky 10 minute Les Paul Through JCM800 guitar solo because its 'REAL MAN' than actually say anything interesting or relevant. Also it's a little too hedonistic for my personal tastes. I used to like it a lot when I was younger but now it's everything I abhore. Also any new "Classic Rock" bands are completely missing the point of the words New and Classic.
what is 'classic rock'? maybe to me it looks different.
Is it just a list of bands in your head?
The beatles ...classic rock? yet they didnt follow an establishd vein or style of music, in fact they twisted and turned with their style.
Led zepplin took heavy to a musical extreme
hendrix was unique
the jam were blisteringly tight and economic (something that my idea of classic rock (queen) were the opposite of.
I really dont understand what you mean by classic rock, it looks totally different to me
the beatles 'a day in the life' was bizarrely different from what was the norm
indeed even 'she loves you' was totally radical from the norm.....it launches straight into the raucous chorus
i see bowie, hendrix, roxy music, kraftwork, can, led zepplin, rolling stones, velvet underground, kinks, stooges, beatles, zombies, love, trex,
as all being in the same ouvre imo
Threads often degenerate into nitpicking over how everything should be defined, whereas you tend to use terms such as 'classic rock' in a more general sense.
all those bands you've just mentioned, roughly spanning from 1965 to 1975. Lord knows what you think it is.
"why is rock from 1965-75 frowned upon here?" ((PS the jam were from after this period))
I didn't know what Classic Rock means at all, which is why i asked, I would never have guessed that it would have included Queen, Can, VU and Led Zepplin.
although I'm not sure about Can, they're more krautrock territory. Also not sure about Pink Floyd pre-Dark Side of the Moon.
Not even sure about Velvet Underground, although I think they come under both classic rock and avant-garde. Lou Reed's early stuff, particularly Transformer, is closer to the classic rock I have in mind, as well as David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust era.
I guess other acts such as The Jam, Iggy Pop, Blondie, Television and AC/DC could be considered classic rock as well. After '75 most rock diverted towards either punk and heavy metal, but those genres have evolved a lot since that decade and those bands seem pretty similar now from a 2014 perspective (and not as EXTREME as stuff like thrash and hardcore punk that followed from the 80s and onwards). Joy Division is often argued as the beginning of alternative rock - so in a way you could argue that classic rock stretched between 65 and 79, with the development of punk (then post-punk) and early metal occurring at the tail ends.