Page 1 of 7
#1
I've been influenced to make this thread after reading various posts on this forum ever since I joined in April of 2005, so here it goes...

Basically, as the title says, "What is Classic Rock to you?"

First off, let me say that, according to the Classic Rock Forum Q&A, "Classic Rock can be generally defined as Rock Music that came into existence between 1960 and 1984."

However, I've determined many people on this forum either don't believe in this statement, or else never read the Forum Q&A before posting.

Now, before you decide, "Man, this thread is a waste of time", please, continue reading.

In these posts I've read conversations such as...

Member A - "Man, I really love this new band Wolfmother."

Member B - "That's cool, but they aren't considered Classic Rock - try the Modern Rock Forum instead."

Member A - "Really? They aren't Classic Rock? That's odd... I think that they should be considered Classic Rock because they sound like it."


Or conversations such as...

Member A - "As of late I've really started getting into The Charlie Daniels Band."

Member B - "Dude, The Charlie Daniels Band shouldn't be considered Classic Rock - they sound totally Country."


Hopefully you understand what I'm getting at with those examples, and that's the reason I'm asking this question.

There may be some people on this forum, like myself, who consider Classic Rock what the the Q&A considers Classic Rock - "Rock Music that came into existence between 1960 and 1984".

Yet, I know that there are at least a few of you who believe that Classic Rock is based on sound, and at that, only heavier bands of Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Led Zeppelin-esque should be considered Classic Rock.

It's possible that other people have another idea as to what Classic Rock is, and that's why I've opened this thread.

So tell me and feel free to discuss "What is Classic Rock to you?"
#5
Quote by yawn
Blink 182 is classic rock to me.


Yes, that's right bitch.


You're a jackass.

Anything from 1964 to 1980 that is rock n' roll and blues influenced. Other stuff that isn't entirely blues based like the Bee Gees and such I could call CR. It's all preference. I could also call the bands that influenced and started a lot of different genres and preferences during that era classic rock. But technically, kickass classic-rock influenced bands such as Wolfmother aren't classic rock. They didnt start anything.
#6
Thanks for sharing your opinion, man.

The only thing I should point out about what you said (this isn't really is disagreeance, mind you), is that you said...

Quote by distilledspirit
But technically, kickass classic-rock influenced bands such as Wolfmother aren't classic rock. They didnt start anything


And in response to this, just let me say, "Yet".
#7
Yeah I can see what you're saying, and many others hav ethe same views. But when I grow up and share with my kids the music I listened to, I don't think I'll be calling Wolfmother Classic Rock. I'll still be showing them my Beatles, Floyd and Zeppelin albums. Well, to be honest I'm not totally sure.
#8
Ah hah! I've caught you doing something I've seen many people do, and something that was another reason I started this thread.

Note that Classic Rock is a time period, not an actual genre such as Blues, Jazz, or Rock; a sub-genre, if you will.

Therefore, you can never call Wolfmother Classic Rock because they didn't release an album prior to 1984.

I'll probably be doing the same thing as you, even though most of, if not all, Classic Rockers will be dead by the time my children are old enough to start listening to and appreciating music.
#10
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean, but because Classic Rock is, as you've stated, an era, you can't classify it by sound.

Yes, there were changes in the sound of Classic Rock from the years of 1973 to 1983, but also keep in mind how many different sounds there were in each of those years respectively.
#11
Erm...does it really matter?

Same goes for "old-school metal".

Is that term based on chronology or the actual sound of the music?

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
#12
Yeah of course. I can call it a sound because when you listen to Devo's Whip It and then something like The Crunge from Zep you can tell one is Classic Rock and one isn't even though they sound totally different from mainstream and well known songs. It's very hard, as you can see to campare and contrast bands like Devo and Led Zeppelin.
#13
I would call Chuck Berry Classic Rock, because even though it isn't in the 1960 - 1984 period, it's still rock and roll. It's not really blues, it's rock. In my opinion, Classic Rock has no particular sound (you can't compare Pink Floyd to AC/DC except on time period) and isn't a time period either. It's a GREAT rock band (note the emphasis on GREAT) whose sound has been able to endure the test of time and was made before 1984. Rock is the genre, I find divisions (Grunge, Pop, Classic Rock) inaccurate and stupid. Rock is Rock, and that's it
Look!

Learn how to spell, grammar is your friend

Member #11 of the Les Paul owners club, pm Waterboy799 to join.

Blues player of the Laney Cult
#15
what about Elvis, and Eddie Cochrane...I consider them to be classic rock...even though some might label them Rockabily or whatever, i consider early rock'n'roll classic rock...Saying that it was from 1960 to 1984 is like saying that all the songs Elvis or whoever did before 1960 was something else, and all his stuff after 1960 was a whole different style of music..that doesn't make too much sense to me.
#16
Quote by distilledspirit
Chuck Berry wasn't between 1960 and 1984?


Chuck Berry's musical career started in 1955, and in the 1955 - 1959 period he spawned his best known songs, such as "School Day", "Rock and Roll Music", "Sweet Little Sixteen", "Johnny B. Goode", "Roll Over Beethoven" and "Maybellene" (coincidence... or conspiration???). Would you call that not Classic Rock?
Look!

Learn how to spell, grammar is your friend

Member #11 of the Les Paul owners club, pm Waterboy799 to join.

Blues player of the Laney Cult
#17
I think for a band to be called "classic rock", their musical contributions have to be of high enough quality to be considered classic. I don't just call any band that was around in the sixties and seventies classic, because many of them are unremarkable and unimportant. I also think that the sound of the band has something to do with it, but not to the point where Wolfmother and Jet can pass as CR. For example, I consider the Black Crowes to be a hell of a lot more CR than, say, Motley Crue, in spite of the fact that Motley Crue falls within the generally accepted classic rock timeline and the Black Crowes do not.
Listen to mah discs.



And coming soon, THE CLEVER DEVILS VS. THE BLONDES.

Vote for me in the
#18
Classic Rock (to me) is a pretty crappy highly overrated subgenre of rock/pop music.
#19
^Why exactly do you come here, Maet? I'm not trying to sound hostile, it's just that half the time I see your posts you're sh*tting all over everyone's parade.
Listen to mah discs.



And coming soon, THE CLEVER DEVILS VS. THE BLONDES.

Vote for me in the
Last edited by VoodooChild15 at Jul 19, 2006,
#20
Classic rock is any peice of music that has been labeled rock and is so high in quality and popularity that it can be remembered as classic.
#21
For me, classic rock is too hard to actually explain, it just has a feeling to it. Now, for certain bands, this changed.

For example, listen to Van Halen's self-titled album (1978) and then listen to 1984 (what do you think) and tell me there isn't a difference. If you're really lazy, listenin to Runnin' With The Devil and then listen to Jump.

But back on point, I agree with the forum definition, except I would include the older ones such as Chuck Berry and Elvis and all that good stuff.

Good thread by the way.
Bishop of Zeppelinism
PM TheHeartbreaker To Join

Quote by IndieMetalhead
I watching porn one time, and this guy sucked this other guys nob. it was advertised as lesbian orgies too.

furious masturbation followed
#22
Quote by VoodooChild15
I think for a band to be called "classic rock", their musical contributions have to be of high enough quality to be considered classic. I don't just call any band that was around in the sixties and seventies classic, because many of them are unremarkable and unimportant. I also think that the sound of the band has something to do with it, but not to the point where Wolfmother and Jet can pass as CR. For example, I consider the Black Crowes to be a hell of a lot more CR than, say, Motley Crue, in spite of the fact that Motley Crue falls within the generally accepted classic rock timeline and the Black Crowes do not.


I see what you mean - classic usually refers to the highest or best, but some Classic Rock bands aren't considered very good by many people.

I still don't think that sound should have a very big influence on whether or not something is Classic Rock or not because Classic Rock, no, Rock, cannot be defined by sound.
#23
Quote by TheHeartbreaker

I still don't think that sound should have a very big influence on whether or not something is Classic Rock or not because Classic Rock, no, Rock, cannot be defined by sound.


But that's the very reason why subgenres were created in the first place. In my mind, the "Classic Rock Sound" is music that shares common elements with that which was made during the 1960s to mid 1970s. I don't think that you can call a hair metal or nu wave or punk band "Classic Rock", because it isn't, even if it's in the same timeframe. I also don't consider many so called "Classic Rock" bands' more recent material as being classic, because stylistically it isn't similar to their classic material (pretty much everything CR bands released in the eighties is an example of this). I can see why people wouldn't share this particular opinion, though, and respect it. My point is, while timeframe is still the most important factor, I think that certain exceptions can be made on both sides of the divider when determining what is and isnt "Classic Rock".
Listen to mah discs.



And coming soon, THE CLEVER DEVILS VS. THE BLONDES.

Vote for me in the
#24
Quote by VoodooChild15
^Why exactly do you come here, Maet? I'm not trying to sound hostile, it's just that half the time I see your posts you're sh*tting all over everyone's parade.


I have to honour my CR forum awards. Biggest Know-It-All and Most Intelligent.

And as to the more recent discussion taking place, Rock in general is not classified as sound so much as it's classified by instrumentation. Case and point, Guitar Solos.
#25
I never knew there were this many different thoughts on what people interpret classic rock to be. Now it has me all muddled. I guess I just never thought about it, really.

Maybe it's a little bit of both. If classic rock is defined by some sort of guideline, perhaps it is a combination of both a time period and influencing artists of that time period (sound). Classic rock could then possibly defined as the time period in which there was a music 'revolution', so to speak, in which artists of the era would lay down the roots and foundations that would carry on to influence future musicians, as well as these artist's music being remembered forever due to being such major influences on the path of music.

Of course, there have been other points in music history where there have been significant influence, such as the ages of classical music and whatnot (which I don't know a lot about).

If you can understand what I'm saying, I commend you, sort of.
#26
Quote by VoodooChild15
For example, I consider the Black Crowes to be a hell of a lot more CR than, say, Motley Crue, in spite of the fact that Motley Crue falls within the generally accepted classic rock timeline and the Black Crowes do not.
someone else who knows who likes the Black Crowes? yay!

I like the time period of 1960-1984, but I do think that sound has something to do with it. Metallica's Kill 'Em All was released in 1983, but are they Classic Rock? No.
How to achieve Frank Zappa's guitar tone:
Quote by Thefallofman
Step 1: Buy a Gibson SG
Step 2: Insert Green Ringer, EQ, 3 dead squirrels and a microwave into said SG
Step 3: Plug in and freak the **** out.
#27
Classic rock doesn't have to be blues-influenced or any of that. I agree with the thread starter in that the only criteria is time period when it came out. Anything else is just useless pigeon-holing.

Edit: After thinking about it further, I think in order to be classified as "classic rock" the bulk of an artist's relevant work or a substantial portion of their career has to take place in that time period. If a band releases their first album in 1984 but has the pinnacle of their career in 89-90, they shouldn't be considered "classic rock," per se.
Hi, I'm Peter
Last edited by Dirk Gently at Jul 20, 2006,
#28
Classic rock has its own personal sound. I can always tell I f a band is classic rock or not just by listening to them. Its just something inside the music that comes to me. I mean its not really all that hard. The difference between a 70's Arena rock band like say, Boston, and an 80's arena rock band are very obvious. But, like someone else has said, if a band is on the borderline in terms of sound. Then it should be an artist who had there most significant output between the years 1962- 1980.
Co-Founder of the Creedence Clearwater Revival Fanclub...PM me or Pi3h-B0y to join!

Member #17 of the UG Queen Fanclub!...PM Hanzi_G to join!

The Sinister Minister of Zeppelinism...Pm TheHeartbreaker to join.
#29
Quote by Dirk Gently
Edit: After thinking about it further, I think in order to be classified as "classic rock" the bulk of an artist's relevant work or a substantial portion of their career has to take place in that time period. If a band releases their first album in 1984 but has the pinnacle of their career in 89-90, they shouldn't be considered "classic rock," per se.


I see what you're trying to get at, but it'd be sort of confusing for a band to be considered two different sub-genres.

Also, some bands never reached a peak, but instead had a career with some well selling and some poor selling albums, but their was never a "trend" in there sales; one album would sell well, but the next poorly.

I'm starting to find more and more, however, that "classic" isn't a great way to describe music, because a lot of us are saying the music has so be really good to be considered "Classic Rock".
#30
Well, when you say classic referring to anything else besides music, it usually just refers to time period. Like classic cars. If you have an old Nova, it's a classic, even if it's a rusty shitbox.

But with that example, I meant like Metallica v. the Rolling Stones. The Stones have been around for about 40 years. They've released a lot of new stuff recently. But of course they're still classic rock. Whereas Metallica released a couple albums in the early 80s, but the bulk of their catalog comes from the late 80s/early-mid 90s.
Hi, I'm Peter
#31
I see classic rock as sort of a feel/sound plus time period.
Charlie Daniels has it, but is also country too, thus southern rock.

Now newer bands, my personal favorites, Silvertide and Guns N' Roses, I believe have the feel and sound to them(well, Guns N' Roses to an extent), yet they don't have the time period going for them, but say they were around in the 70s, we would definately be talking about them right now.

EDIT: Yeah, April '05!
"...And I'm pretty sure what you did to my children's snowman is illegal, if not, sodomy."
-Stephen Colbert: 'The Colbert Report'
#32
Classic Rock is about tight trousers, bulging scrotums and playing instuments mediocrely.

Love it.
Quote by CornLord
Derigiberble would win in a fight against any UGer, n00b or not, just because most people on the site can't help but love him/her.


Get, Get, Get, Get, Get Out And Push.
#33
We have armidillos in our trousers...

BlueOyster23 --> April '05

I don't think that Classic Rock can be defined by sound - it's basically impossible.

One thing I've noticed that's seems sort of odd to me is that Classic Rock is considered a sub-genre, yet so is Southern rock, folk rock, country rock, acid rock, psychedelic rock, etc., but there are bands and artists, such as Bob Dylan, who are considered both Classic Rock, and in Dylan's case, folk rock.
#34
Quote by ZeppelinFan3890
For example, listen to Van Halen's self-titled album (1978) and then listen to 1984 (what do you think) and tell me there isn't a difference. If you're really lazy, listenin to Runnin' With The Devil and then listen to Jump.

If Eddie and the album producer hadn't taken total control of 1984, it probably wouldn't have been that different. I find that only a few of the later songs are radically different from the majority of their other work. Actually, some of the 1984 songs (House of Pain, for example) was written before the band even had a record deal, so it stays more with their original sound.

Quote by Derigiberble
Classic Rock is about tight trousers, bulging scrotums and playing instuments mediocrely.

Love it.

Sigged.
Quote by bigwillie
CornLord, you just blew my mind.
#35
Van Halen isn't the only band thats sound changed over the years.

But then again, what would you expect - the same sounding songs from ten years?

I think that, if anything, a change in a bands play, to at least some extend, shows the band is maturing and evolving musically.
#36
I've come to too many of these...

Officially CR is a RADIO FORMAT introduced in the 80s, with bands like Zeppelin, The Beatles, Stones, etc, basically the biggest money makers and most famous bands of 60s-70s-80s rock.

For me, its about the feeling and all that good hippie crap. I love it, and I've changed my personal definition of classic rock over the years, because its one of the few genres that can bend like that.
Quote by Douche ©
I may not be cool off the internet, but on the internet I am pretty cool.

Aww

The Pit Cliff Notes:
Quote by SOADfreak6
myabe we all suck thats why were sitting at a computer desk talking **** thro the enternet lol


If not all of us, at least him.

<//////>~
#37
Quote by TheHeartbreaker
Van Halen isn't the only band thats sound changed over the years.

True, but they're the only ones I know enough about to argue about it.
Quote by bigwillie
CornLord, you just blew my mind.
#39
Quote by TheHeartbreaker
Well, not EVERY Classic Rocker was a Hippy, though.

For the most part it was about the feeling and the music, but there are some exceptions where it was more for the money.

Well, I meant all that "individual free spirit" thing, the best songs in rock dont just deal with romance, they usually deal with a free-spirited kinda thing.
Quote by Douche ©
I may not be cool off the internet, but on the internet I am pretty cool.

Aww

The Pit Cliff Notes:
Quote by SOADfreak6
myabe we all suck thats why were sitting at a computer desk talking **** thro the enternet lol


If not all of us, at least him.

<//////>~
#40
Quote by distilledspirit
You're a jackass.

Anything from 1964 to 1980 that is rock n' roll and blues influenced. Other stuff that isn't entirely blues based like the Bee Gees and such I could call CR. It's all preference. I could also call the bands that influenced and started a lot of different genres and preferences during that era classic rock. But technically, kickass classic-rock influenced bands such as Wolfmother aren't classic rock. They didnt start anything.

Agreed. Bands such as Wolfmother, I would refer to as Classic Rock style (not actually CR)
..............