Jump to content
odysseus

When is classic rock not classic rock?

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

The Kula Shaker version is being used on an ad at the moment. Couldn't tell you what the ad was for, but it was certainly Crispian and co.

Not heard that one recently. Usually when i hear a song i recognise i pay attention to an advert. I'm shallow. 😂

Dave

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nicko said:

Some will, some won't.  Let's not forget Wonderwall is from 1995 so has already lasted over 25 years,  Blur's Parklife has been used on adverts for Chanel, Coke, Nike and Vitality Health Insurance. A lot of 90s tracks are finding their way into TV series and films.

How many Deep Purple tracks get played on mainstream radio regularly?  I suspect to some millenials many of the classic rock bands will be considered one hit wonders.

Thing is, what would have been proposed for a definition of 'classic rock' on the late 80s/90s leads to it being open-ended.

The new bands coming through are very much in the template of early 70s to NWOBHM rock bands from the choice of instruments and arrangements to the t-shirts, denim and leather...

But like any broad musical category it's going to have very fuzzy edges, although to join the NWOCR facebook group you have to sign in blood that you won't discuss pre-2010 bands...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 29/12/2019 at 16:52, odysseus said:

Where do we draw the line, if at all?  Spice Girls? 

 

Not if you do it this way 😁 Remember the first time I saw/heard this when he played it at the Guitar Show, and the smiles/looks of horror at the dawning realisation of what we were hearing 🤣

That said I could never get my lot to succumb, even for a joke...and I got overruled  on Crazy Horses after two plays at gigs 😫

Edited by WalMan
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dmccombe7 said:

I still dont class the bands as classic rock bands but that's probably a generation age thing.

Horses for courses.  The last few covers bands I was in used to concentrate on 90s and 00s stuff - it's what the 30-40 year olds used to hear in the student union bars when they were at uni and it went down well.  Some of the songs are classic, if not classic rock. 

* The LL of one venue we played didn't like us because our music was too contemporary, despite the fact most of the set was 20 odd years old.  That venue used to do a lot of 60s and 70s tribute bands and the audience were a bit anti anything "modern". If your audience is made up of Saga customers classic rock might go down better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Nicko said:

Horses for courses.  The last few covers bands I was in used to concentrate on 90s and 00s stuff - it's what the 30-40 year olds used to hear in the student union bars when they were at uni and it went down well.  Some of the songs are classic, if not classic rock. 

* The LL of one venue we played didn't like us because our music was too contemporary, despite the fact most of the set was 20 odd years old.  That venue used to do a lot of 60s and 70s tribute bands and the audience were a bit anti anything "modern". If your audience is made up of Saga customers classic rock might go down better.

I like Saga

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic Rock in the USA is the first song on an album, that everyone knows, and can (try to) sing to, ignoring all the deep cuts that actually make a group great, and sells cars and insurance comercial time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, WalMan said:

Not if you do it this way 😁 Remember the first time I saw/heard this when he played it at the Guitar Show, and the smiles/looks of horror at the dawning realisation of what we were hearing 🤣

 

Yes, I was warned about this by one of my mates who is a massive PG fan.... He actually liked it, which surprised me.... 

Edited by odysseus
can't spel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic rock = Dragons and shagging, denim and leather.

did I miss anything?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, paul_5 said:

Classic rock = Dragons and shagging, denim and leather.

did I miss anything?

No.

The patchouli and mushrooms, Afghans and Labcoats were Hawkwind.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, odysseus said:

Yes, I was warned about this by one of my mates who is a massive PG fan.... He actually liked it, which surprised me.... 

I have to say I love it 😁 IIRC at the guitar show the solo segued into to Stairway solo 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WalMan said:

I have to say I love it 😁 IIRC at the guitar show the solo segued into to Stairway solo 

He's a hell of a talent and that's for sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As most “classic rock” bands tend to only play in pubs, I would say that anything that wasn’t pure “pop” but was quite successful from the early 60’s through to the late 70’s would be accepted as classic rock by the punters.

The reason I say this is because in my experience of watching live bands, and playing in pubs myself, I’ve found that most of the people watching/listening will be in an age range of 45 – 70, because (I’m not saying this applies to all) I’ve noticed that a lot of the younger people leave once the band have started playing, as do a lot of the older folk, so the people left would have started getting into music from around the early 60’s through to the late 70’s.

Edited by thebrig
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, thebrig said:

As most “classic rock” bands tend to only play in pubs, I would say that anything that wasn’t pure “pop” but was quite successful from the early 60’s through to the late 70’s would be accepted as classic rock by the punters.

The reason I say this is because in my experience of watching live bands, and playing in pubs myself, I’ve found that most of the people watching/listening will be in an age range of 45 – 70, because (I’m not saying this applies to all) I’ve notice that a lot of the younger people leave once the band have started playing, as do a lot of the older folk, so the people left would have started getting into music from around the early 60’s through to the late 70’s.

Yep that makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/12/2019 at 16:52, odysseus said:

OK, when I was a laddie it was Thin Lizzy, AC/DC, Judas Priest, Maiden, Motorhead etc.  Now we've got Chili Peppers, RATM and (to me great surprise) Stereophonics creeping in.  (Dakota... always bloody Dakota!)

 

On 29/12/2019 at 17:51, Mykesbass said:

How on earth can we be having this NWOCR thing happening - Classic surely gives an idea of age, so new music cannot be instantly classed as such?

New? Blood Sugar Sex Magic was released in 1991. RATM was released in 1992. Is 30 years not old enough to be 'classic'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/12/2019 at 17:40, SH73 said:

As far as I know Maiden is a new wave of British heavy metal?

 

New as in 45 years old or less. I feel young again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If its after 1980 it's new. 😂

Edited by dmccombe7
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rich said:

 

New? Blood Sugar Sex Magic was released in 1991. RATM was released in 1992. Is 30 years not old enough to be 'classic'?

Depends who you talk to. What's classic to me will be different to someone 20 years younger than me, and so on. It was a conversation starter rather than a statement of fact. 🙂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rich said:

 

New? Blood Sugar Sex Magic was released in 1991. RATM was released in 1992. Is 30 years not old enough to be 'classic'?

My earlier post (don't know how to quote posts which in turn have quotes in them...) was more about the phenomenon NWOCR - brand new music by new bands calling themselves this, not RHCP or RATM.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mykesbass said:

My earlier post (don't know how to quote posts which in turn have quotes in them...) was more about the phenomenon NWOCR - brand new music by new bands calling themselves this, not RHCP or RATM.

There are new bands out there that have styled themselves on classic rock sound. One that comes to mind for me is The Answer. They looked and sounded the part and i'm sure there are others out there. Not sure how i class bands like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rich said:

 

New? Blood Sugar Sex Magic was released in 1991. RATM was released in 1992. Is 30 years not old enough to be 'classic'?

We need a new term for the 50 to 60 year old stuff. Vintage Rock? Geezer Rock?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dmccombe7 said:

There are new bands out there that have styled themselves on classic rock sound. One that comes to mind for me is The Answer. They looked and sounded the part and i'm sure there are others out there. Not sure how i class bands like them.

When The Darkness first hit the radio here I thought I was listening to some band from ages past  I must have missed. Then there was that Aussie band who sounded like an AC/DC tribute wrote some new words.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Downunderwonder said:

We need a new term for the 50 to 60 year old stuff. Vintage Rock? Geezer Rock?

Rock of Aged.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic Rock? Late 60s and the 70s. The rest is a pale copy, mostly over produced, formulaic and derivative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn’t classic rock just have to have 3 chords, I, IV, V?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Downunderwonder said:

We need a new term for the 50 to 60 year old stuff. Vintage Rock? Geezer Rock?

I agree.  You can't define a genre by the time music was recorded. Personally I think the Velvet Underground are much more "alternative rock" than someone like Oasis who mainly rehashed 60s style tunes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...