Hey, I don't think we like classic rock because it was first, or because it progressed anything in particular. We just like it. I like lots of modern rock too, maybe even more so now...that is, modern *rock*, not *modern* [derivitive].

A good example of what's going on here...I think other types of music (techno, rap, country, etc., etc.) sound more or less the same 80% of the time (there are exceptions, obviously). I'm sure there's plenty of people who like those genres and think the exact same thing about rock :P. That's just how people are...you like what you like, and things you don't like, even if you can appreciate them, do tend to sound the same a lot of the time.

And then there's just music that *does* sound the same

Just because I like more recent rock now more than classic rock (which I used to like more) doesn't mean that classic rock has somehow degraded in quality
It just means my tastes have changed.

Did someone just call PINK FLOYD TALENTLESS? What kind of world are we living in. Jesus CHRIST!

"Why is Classic Rock stuff so popular?"

It sounds good.

i didnt say talentless, i said bland, repetitive and predictable, in the "oh my, i've heard guitars make that noise before" type way. I'm sure it was very groundbreaking music for hippies and stoners 30 years ago, I just can't enjoy it in this day and age.

Theres so much more varied music out there compared to stuff like that.

if someone can point out a pink floyd song that they believe will make me think they're fantastic, please go ahead. Mostly however, I think its exceptionally dull.... and this comes from someone who listens to epic prog ramblings in one form or another.

No offense to you classic rock lovers, but I don't like it.

The only resaons I have for not likeing it, are because it's slow, old and boring.
Especially AC/DC, the vocals are so bad I wish he would just lose his jaw.

However, there are some classic rock bands I like.

I tend to usually go for faster, harder music

[QUOTE=Mr. Stafford]if someone can point out a pink floyd song that they believe will make me think they're fantastic, please go ahead.[/QUOTE]Echoes

'cept that's a silly suggestion because I'm sure you've heard it, and it is kind of repetitive. But it's still good. Along with much more.

Repetition of good music isn't a bad thing.

[QUOTE=Mr. Stafford]stuff[/QUOTE]
How many Pink Floyd songs have you listened to? Not just heard on the radio in passing, not just heard 30 seconds of, which have you heard in a quiet room by yourself? Or at least how many? And from which albums?

You should not be allowed to talk about things you know nothing about.

I doubt that you even like music.

Wow, me and Mr. Stafford share brain waves. Actually, I'm sure Pink Floyd are talented musicians, but it's their song writing that lacks talent.

all of The Wall and The Dark Side of the Moon.

Fugazi, more <3 than I can type.

Les Savy Fav are pretty sweet too...

a lot of the others have some good tunes but we can always start a "Why is xxx stuff so popular?" thread for those.

(Not including pearl jam, I love grunge, but you can't beat a good Screaming Trees album :D)

Yeah, I'm just trolling.

I've got nothing wrong with Pearl Jam or REM, if you say those others are good, I'll check them out.

Stafford, those are two of their best, so okay.

Well, I gotta say your reasons aren't very justifiable. Slow compared to what? Old? Well that tends to happen to things. Boring? You must be easilly bored.

And to say what you said about AC/DC is just highly unforgivable. The singer sounds like that because the original singer had a thick Australian accent. So, they had to find another singer that sounded similar to him. And besides, with his singing style, it makes them stand out among other bands. AC/DC just happens to be a great band. They know how to write good songs, which is why so many people love their music (which is also why they're in the R&R hall of fame).

Can't say I've ever really got into AC/DC. All their songs sould too similar to me. Theres very little variation. Pink Floyd however, just plain rock.

And Eversor comes in with the *****-slap to take the match.

Hells yes. hehe

There are a plethora of reasons classic rock is GREAT.

Theres a strong element of fearlessnes that carries with all classic rock. People weren't afraid to go places like they are now. Commercial, manufactured crap wasn't the norm. Why? Because even up untill the early 80's rock music was a pretty new thing, and no one knew how to market it.

Thats a very small piece of the pie, when it comes to why older bands are better than the majority of the manufactured crap that gets pumped through the veins of the media.

Some of the groups I like are The Beach Boys and Lynyrd Skynyrd. The Beach Boys were a pop rock group from the 60s but kept making good music through the 80s. Lynyrd Skynyrd started out recording in some time around 1973 but a plane crash in 1977 killed the lead singer, Ronnie Van Zant, and 2 (i think) other members. His brother, Johnny Van Zant, some new members, and I think 2 original members still tour as Lynyrd Skynyrd. The Beach Boys still tour too. When the drummer, Dennis Wilson, died in 1983 when he drowned, they kept touring. But when the lead guitarist Carl Wilson died in 1998, Al Jardine (rythm guitar) and Brian Wilson (bass, keyboard, piano) left and started their own groups. Mike love (lead singer) and Bruce Johnston (bass, keyboard, piano) tour with the new group of people they got together. They still tour with the name Beach Boys.

And then the drummer spontaneously combusted?

Anyway, when it comes to classic rock I'm quite partial to Rob Zombie.

yes, I said that just to elicit a reaction

This one sentence negated your argument. In fact, why is there always the view from Classic-rock lovers that new music is mass manufactured crap? Elitism? Too some extent. Ignorance? I think everyone here has a healthy dose of it and none of us are perfect.

Musicians didn't stop innovating at some magical reverse nirvana somewhere around 1985 like you people are claiming. The huge commercial aspect has always been a part of the music business, from the early Delta Blues musicians that created 'Rock n Roll' to Linkin Park. There has always been a huge business side to music.

I think the main thing to remember here is that it's true the Classic Rock bands were innovators and bands nowadays are just imitators to some extent, but that's because almost every avenue has been searched out before.

Led Zeppelin ripped off a great many Delta Blues artists and even got sued a couple of times. Did this make them any less of a great band? No. The Eagles and Lynyrd Skynyrd could be combined into one super band and the world would probably be better off because they could just buy one ticket instead of two, but both of these bands had great musical moments. David Bowie has been copied ever since his first album was released. The Beatles, need I say more? The point is that music does evolve and artists do influence each other. There is no pure artistry/innovation as everything evolves from something else. Bands today are copying their predecessors who copied their predecessors who copied their predecessors who copied Brownie McGhee/Ralph Stanley and all the rest of the old Blues men.

This thread doesn't deserve to derail into "well, music now sucks." Because that's just a ridiculous argument for liking Classic Rock. I can dig someone saying "Battle for Evermore is one of the most haunting songs ever and has a great allusion to Tolkien in it."

But seriously, don't trash today's music just cause you don't get it.

Because alot of popular music today is bland, manufactured, mass produced crap.



I never said musicians stop innovating, however there has been alot less innovation that makes it to the common person. You can't deny that. Half the jerks out there are in it for the money. Its almost as bad as professional athletes...

Also, commercialy, rock is still a very new and unstable product. Thats why when a popular formula is discovered, it is done to death.



Thats not true at all. There are tons of great bands that go out and do something different. You just don't hear alot about them, and for the most part they turn out to be one hit wonders.

Like Thomas Dolby.


At the end of the day, music is an artform. All art is stealing. All of it.

(Which is why riff stealing claims as a whole bother me)

I never claimed there was a pure artistry. There is however a stifling of artists that WANT to and can do something different, due to rampant formula exploitation. Of course due to the cormercialism that ALL MUSIC now suffers.


Thats kind of what the thread was about, so we aren't derailing it. Its all pertitent to the conversation at hand.




I LISTEN to alot of todays music kthx.

Yeah, I agree with Rob in most points. Much of today's popular rock is just a winning pattern used again and again (and the bands that are guilty of this are Linkin Park, Nickleback, Creed, etc.). In fact, I think I could actually tolerate Linkin Park if not all of their songs sounded the same. Part of being a good musician is not just being able to play your instrument well, but also to have creativity.

As much as I hated Creed (Due to lyrical content) they really were a little different than the rest of the angst crap out there.

I'm coining a new phrase for what they created;

"Angsty-Jesus"


They were okay musically, however Scot Stapp can't write. At all.