Current pop rock vs classic rock

[Khor1255]

I didn't respond before because I was getting bleary eyed and nothing I could come up with was completely free of language that might be considered offensive. It's not that I found those songs really bad just maybe that I was too tired to articulate anything delicate enough to post.

Actually the singer, which in my thread for them I mentioned has a very Hyndes-ish voice at times, especially in the "Sorry For It All" vid. She has a very high range which incorporates everything from Etheridge to Benatar. I'm really curious though whether you've read what I've wrote and why at that point you'd think I classify these same elements of quality under the outdated classic microscope.

If by outdated classic microscope you mean the actual impact of the music itself then I - for one - was thinking you wanted a response about that. I mean, that was the question wasn't it? Whether the music was as good as some of the 'classic' bands on a qualitive measure. I don't think anyone is talking about marketability here.

It's a more varied, faster moving, rotation of music now.

I can agree that it is much faster moving but how would you describe music as any more varied these days?

I know I'll still be listening to this group 10 years from now because the music is quality to me and I can hear it.

And I truly envy you for that. I wish I felt the same way.

I have nothing against The Pretenders or Stevie Nicks but I don't connect to them on that level. The thing is the musics not going to die because Classic Rock is one more niche market that's been created and hyped for a target audience. The business model of music knows in any aspect that old sells. Those ones early to the dance have a built in market simply as they were first to the dance. They have the history required just for being there during the formulation of different genres.

Now I couldn't disagree with the spirit of this statement more. It's like saying Bach or Beethoven were only great because they were 'the first ones to the dance'.
I get what you mean that when someone does something first they have a built in claim for 'goodness' just because they did it first. However, many of the artists in classic rock that did something 'first' usually didn't actually do it first they just were the first people to make it really work. That requires talent and a good ear not to mention the integrety or audacity to go out on a limb and do something that has never been successfully tried before.
Forming a genre is one thing. Forming a genre that becomes popular quite another. Ask B;ack Sabbath how easy it was for them simply because they pioneered so much in a genre. Many in the industry hated and to some extent supressed them. It was the quality of their work and their relatively small fan base that won the day for them eventually.

A lot of times keeping the classic rock ball rolling is just great marketing. It's not as effortless as people say. If it was the main way to hear classic rock would be on a smaller scale like select radio stations but the industry knows when to dust of these vintage icons for biopic, documentary, commercial placement, etc. and boost that mythos to get those sales to surge again. These artist will never die completely but the ebbs and flows now that the original fans of the music are dying off will depend on the marketing rather than the music itself necessarily. Right now classic rock has another advantage. In the same way that movies are nothing but remakes now, the industry while still putting out new music only has faith in something that's already made money. So classic rock sits in the same marketing boat as Lady Gaga in this instance. Too me that's a sad shallow thing rather than a reason to champion older artist.

Or could it be that there is a real reason why classic rock like classic movies has a guaranteed fan base? I mean if there really was a Led Zeppelin or Beatles of the new millenium don't you think the market would be milking them for every last cent as well?

I don't know if you've noticed but I've said nothing about the music itself. I talked about the business model. When we are rating something that's all we have on a mass level so if listeners base their love of music on marketing and High School popularity contest that's up to them. For me, everything I've listened to from day one it's always about how it connects to me. My "legacy" artist from my generation shot himself in the head and has been revitalized through every medium possible and will like outsell and outlive everyone of his peers. I like his music but **** him. "I'll" choose my talent from that era. "I'll" listen to them 10 years from now without any hipster cred or numbers because music is a personal connection otherwise it's as shallow and empty as the marketing agendas we bitch about.

I totally missed that you were just talking about brilliant marketing. I'll agree that anyone who can put a turd in a box and make millions from it is pretty clever. No argument here.

P.S. As much as I like Fleetwood I will always champion the Smashing Pumpkins version of Landslide!

That's really cool. When I was in high school I couldn't understand why everyone didn't agree that Randy Rhodes was a better guitar player than Jimi Hendrix. Maybe that's a bad comparison but I hope you get what I mean. I liked the Pumpkins quite a bit when Gish was out. They sort of lost me after that. But to each his own.

I sincerely hope that none of what I said here offends anyone. I'm just some Yank on the interwebz after all.

 

[Tek_54]

You only say the truth

 

[Soot and Stars]

I didn't respond before because I was getting bleary eyed and nothing I could come up with was completely free of language that might be considered offensive. It's not that I found those songs really bad just maybe that I was too tired to articulate anything delicate enough to post.If by outdated classic microscope you mean the actual impact of the music itself then I - for one - was thinking you wanted a response about that. I mean, that was the question wasn't it? Whether the music was as good as some of the 'classic' bands on a qualitive measure. I don't think anyone is talking about marketability here.

I can agree that it is much faster moving but how would you describe music as any more varied these days?
And I truly envy you for that. I wish I felt the same way.
Now I couldn't disagree with the spirit of this statement more. It's like saying Bach or Beethoven were only great because they were 'the first ones to the dance'.
I get what you mean that when someone does something first they have a built in claim for 'goodness' just because they did it first. However, many of the artists in classic rock that did something 'first' usually didn't actually do it first they just were the first people to make it really work. That requires talent and a good ear not to mention the integrety or audacity to go out on a limb and do something that has never been successfully tried before.
Forming a genre is one thing. Forming a genre that becomes popular quite another. Ask B;ack Sabbath how easy it was for them simply because they pioneered so much in a genre. Many in the industry hated and to some extent supressed them. It was the quality of their work and their relatively small fan base that won the day for them eventually.

Or could it be that there is a real reason why classic rock like classic movies has a guaranteed fan base? I mean if there really was a Led Zeppelin or Beatles of the new millenium don't you think the market would be milking them for every last cent as well?

I totally missed that you were just talking about brilliant marketing. I'll agree that anyone who can put a turd in a box and make millions from it is pretty clever. No argument here.

That's really cool. When I was in high school I couldn't understand why everyone didn't agree that Randy Rhodes was a better guitar player than Jimi Hendrix. Maybe that's a bad comparison but I hope you get what I mean. I liked the Pumpkins quite a bit when Gish was out. They sort of lost me after that. But to each his own.

I sincerely hope that none of what I said here offends anyone. I'm just some Yank on the interwebz after all.

Well I'm glad you used some restraint before posting man! What I asked specifically about the music was going back to the Damien Rice:

Tell me what's weak, generic, commercial, uncreative and what makes him less of a performer, musician or artist?

I commented because the criteria of what's popular ten years from now never entered into my dialogue for what I consider quality. You have no control over what's popular. For the same reason I don't get mad that Justin Bieber is a top selling artist I don't qualify The Beatles as a must hear because their brand name will always be marketable. I love "Eleanor Rigby". "I" think it's brilliant and fits in with my musical vacuum alongside my other favorite modern artist. Lightning struck for a lot of these artist and the business model built around them will keep them around for years. Comparatively that doesn't stop someone like me from throwing a lot of their stuff out like bathwater because it lacks qualities I latch onto.

To me music kicked in on a really emotional base starting in the 90's and really kicking in. The cynics call it whiny and emo for slang but I love how instead of sludgy guitar chords, constant guitar masturbation, excessive use of organs, etc. they play on soft/loud dynamics, have more piano rock, add more orchestration and just have a more emotional approach in their vocals. If you take folky for example I don't mind tunes by James Taylor (actually not a fan),
Cat Stevens or Jim Croce (hate him) it's just so dry and characterless IMO. Their is just a lot more life in folk today and the 2,000's made me such a fan. Even Simon and Garfunkel with the beautiful harmonies almost played it too straight. Folk is about displaying emotions with the simplest of accompaniment. I think some artists like Harry Chapin match what I like about today's intensity in folk. "Sniper" was amazing. One of the most beautiful songs that actually exemplified an emotion was this one by Dave Mason:

Sad and Deep As You


To me these examples are outnumbered by today's artist in which you have the most perfect voices, harmonies and artist that sound like they mean every note. Then again we have our sleepers like Jack Johnson, John Mayer, etc. My point is in just this one genre I can pull out what I like from the vacuum and have legit reasons between the quality of one and the other. I don't want any of the music too die but I also want shit to keep continuing. I don't see how that can happen by putting ideals on an altar. I've never questioned the quality of any genre through a blanketed point of view but I do think that alongside musical quality there are a ton of other factors why anything succeeds or remains. I still stand by people going by what's familiar and comfortable more than anything.

As for variety Khorr, my listening last year spanned almost any genre imaginable or included elements of it from Rock, Hard Rock, Metal, Progressive Metal, Pop, Country, Folk, Electronic, Rap/Hip-Hop, Alternative, Adult Alternative, Classical, Soul, Funk, Indie, Classical, Celtic, etc. All I'm saying by this is I have no problem finding a wide range of artist for every mood I'm in. My proof is in my 2011 thread. My question is why do we keep saying there's a definitive 70's sound yet say there's so much variety. I don't feel there's a definitive sound today which is a factor I love. I go browsing Spotify and I find all sorts of shit and even the stuff I hate I hear as something different.

You miss the point that not once have I stated a dislike for these bands. They are within my realm of listening. I just don't put them on pedestals. It'd be stifling and sad for me to hang on the Pumpkins as Gods and be like "Oooooooh God, the music today can't compete. Where are the drummers like Chamberlain? Where are the epic double albums and the constant shifts in styles?" I love them but not enough to castrate myself for something I hold dear. I love seeing what bubbles up and what the evolution is even if it's tiny bubbles in a ton of different directions. If an artist like Charles Bradley brought back a pure soul sound like lastyear and no one follows to make it a movement does it really matter. Not IMO. It was a great blip on the radar.

I'm not offended by any of this by the way. I find nothing unsettling or upsetting about this convo. It's just an attitude that's centered here because of it's targeted demographic.

 

[Vehicle]

I need a nap.

 

[Magic]

"Current pop rock vs classic rock"


All I can say is I like a lot of today's artists, including Destiny's Child & Beyonce....she has a very pretty voice and she is sexy! *sex sells*


I think the image in the OP is pointing out the fact that it took 10 people to market a song with lyrics as simple as Run the World (Girls) where the incredible song writing talents of Freddie Mercury was all that was needed in Bohemian Rhapsody.


For the sake of argument, I have to agree with those of you who have said pick an era....any era....and you can find music that doesn't appeal to you. I was never ever a fan of punk music and I am not a fan of Rap, but those genres of music isn't what we are suppose to be talking about. We are suppose to be talking about current pop rock vs classic rock, and how can that ever be a fair comparison. They are two different types of music created for two different types of audiences.

Most of the current pop rock stars are female, Justin Beiber excluded. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they are stars. They sing lyrics that young girls identify with, they are sexy (for the guys), and the songs are easy to sing with catchy rhythms. If you compare that to some of the songs by the Beatles..."She Loves You" comes to mind.........then today's pop rock really isn't that different from what would be considered classic pop rock.

Oh and another Beatles song..."I Want You (She's So Heavy)" from Abby Road is extremely repetitive lyrics.......but what makes the song so great is the music behind the lyrics. What is wrong with today's pop rock? The music, IMHO. It isn't as creative as pop music of the past.

 

[Vehicle]

Most of the current pop rock stars are female, Justin Beiber excluded.

Oh, man, laughter, laughter everywhere!!!



You know I have a real problem with controlling my punchlines, and yet you throw stuff out there like this.

You're like a heroin dealer dangling a bag of dope in front of me.

 

[Magic]

***:


'twas my intention......I want to hear more about what people think is wrong with today's pop stars

 

[Vehicle]

I don't have an informed opinion, just an opinion.

To me, it's bland. There are some I like, but in all honestly, I don't listen much.

There are intangibles, though, that have nothing to do with the actual music.

In my day (where's my cane?), the music had a mystique that today's music lacks. Why?

Inaccessability. You didn't see the band, except for magazines, posters, album covers.

On tv, there was:

American Bandstand
Soul Train
Don Kirshner's Rock Concert
The Midnight Special

I'm sure there are other TV shows I'm forgetting right now. (where's my Geritol?), maybe even quite a few.

there were also variety shows back then with musical guests. Late Show, Hee Haw, Sonny & Cher, Tony Orlando and Dawn.

That may seem like a lot of exposure. Bit there was one HUGE difference between then and now.

Back then, you actually had to WAIT for something. You saw it when they showed it, and if you missed it, tough.

Oh, man, The Doobs are gonna be on The Midnight Special! Five days from now.

Anticipation. The wait to actually SEE someone who's music you love, live on stage, playing it turned it into something almost magical.

And now, you can see so-and-so's new video (because you don't cut a record without a video now) the very second it's released. And if you miss it? No big deal. I can watch it whenever I want.

No wait. No anticipation. No magic. No mystique. Just give it to me right now.

I don't even want to go into the agony of not being able to score tickets. They come around every two years or so, and if you missed it, that's it.

Another 2 years wait for another chance to see the magical, mystical, larger than life people you worshipped.

I know the young folks are rolling their eyes at this, but yes, all of us old timers actually did sleep on the steps of the Spectrum, or on the sidewalk outside the Bag and Baggage Travel store, because it also doubled as a Ticket Master.


We had to sleep outside on the ground, because that's where the tickets were. Sometimes it was freezing, sometime blistering, but there we stayed, in line. Everyone was there for the same reason. They love the music. To pass the time, we listened to the music, got the seeds out, using the Frampton Comes Alive double album.Hey man, don't Bogart that joint.

We freaking worked at being a fan back then. I think that's why we're so fiercely loyal to our Classic Rock to this day. We put a lot into it when we were young.


I could buy a Beyonce ticket right now, while watching her latest video & downloading her new cd. All in 5 minutes and without ever leaving this chair.

Even so, I wouldn't trade everything I went through to see my own personal heroes.

 

[Soot and Stars]

^^^

I believe all that is very true and awesome! While I stand up for the artists themselves I hate a lot of modern day attitudes towards music. With all you described I believe the modern day fan is even worse. Now they don't even want to put money towards anything they can get for free but that's another debate. It still says a lot about todays listening audience. Going from the cassette age to know I do realize that the way I can find artist takes way less blood, sweat and tears and lacks the loyalty of prior generations. Great post Vehicle!

 

[Vehicle]

I'm not just another pretty face, you know.



Listen, I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea. I'm not dumping on fans of today's music. They want to hear their music, same as us old timers.

I was just pointing out how much the industry has changed. The fans had nothing to do with that. Us old folk were on the front lines. Today, you never have to leave the bunker.

If I'd had all those resources back then, you better believe I'd get my tickets from the warm confines of my living room instead of spending hours outside in the booger-freezing cold.

Heck, it's easier today not only for the fans, but also for the *ahem* musicians. Go on one of those talent shows, if you're a marginally
good singer, and wham bam thank you ma'am, you've got yourself a record deal.

These cattle calls are a direct result of music industry laziness. Why go out to clubs and scout, when you can just sit on your lazy behind and make them come to you?

An even bigger phenomenon (sp?) of this 'right now' mentality is the instant star because of a youtube vid. This Beiber boy, or girl, or whatever he is a rich millionaire, and I couldn't name a single song. What exactly did he do to attain world attention? Sing on Youtube? Was he any good?

Personally, I'd rather watch Youtube clips of cats walking into glass doors and jumping straight up in the air when they get scared. It's certainly more entertaining than a kid with three hairs on his chest playing grab-@ss with celebrities.