Why do younger folks like classic rock?

[Wayne2]

Classic Rock is starting to appear on the Oldies station where I am. Even stuff from the 80s. Any day now I'm expecting to hear Nirvana on there.

[UstadKhanAli]

There's an oldies station here, K-EARTH, which plays oldies. I always associated them with playing '50s and '60s stuff. A couple of years ago, they played INXS.

[nat whilk II]

Some of us don't give a crap about being "original" either, some of us are playing for the fun of playing, it is relaxing. Pretty much all I do is play Pink Floyd, well because David Gilmour is the man, and it is fun. Do I look to "make it" playing Floyd tunes? No. Not a chance. I am realistic.

 

 

The world could use precisely 226,549,220 more people with that attitude. And if each one could replace one egotistical amateur who has been flattered into thinking that his/her art is great just because it's "theirs", that it's "original".....

 

No shame in being a craftsman. Absolutely none at all. Honor and pride and dignity instead. There would be no JS Bach if there were not untold numbers of nameless by-rote playing and composing hymnists and church organists/harpsichordists preceding him. They add to the human achievement like layers of pearl, slowly, slowly.

 

The real, truly magical genius of music starts at the bottom, with the "folk" - their cultures, their sufferings, their joys, their beliefs, their celebrations and lamentations. All the best things human are not "expert". The "expert" might wonderfully encapsulate them, even transcend them to some extent. But there are no distinctions in truly spiritual things.

 

nat whilk ii

[A. Einstein]

I learned long ago to not take any proposition seriously that began with "Art is....." nat whilk ii

 

 

 

may explain to us what "major art" and minor art" is, instead of talking total nonsense?

[A. Einstein]

Ich m

[yanktar]

I asked my 16 year old and he says "Because a lot of that stuff was really, really good." In 1971, Rock was Derek and the Dominos, Pink Floyd, Traffic, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, CSN&Y, Zeppelin, etc. Much of it WAS very good, even though it was 40 years ago.

 

But back then, when I was 16, music from 40 years ago was 1931--Paul Whiteman, Bennie Goodman, the Gershwins, the Dorseys, Louis Armstrong, etc. It was interesting, but, to a 16 year old 2 years after Woodstock, it was about the same as Classical music, good stuff, but...not what you'd put on your cassette deck.

[A. Einstein]

When I was 5 years old that {censored} was hot and on MTV:

... as good as any hippie {censored} !!!

[ggm1960]

The 50s-60s-70s were obsessed with pushing into new places, in innovation, in the myth of the creative artist forging new worlds through creative genius, etc. It got really pretensious - and the 80s looks to me almost like a conscious parody of "creativity" as the vibe was so hopelessly mannered and aggressively artificial. nat whilk ii

 

 

I doubt that anything has ever changed the evolutionary course of music as much as the electric guitar has. It was totally new in the 50's and few could even play it competently. As the 60's progressed into the 70's we started to see people really start to get inventive, creative and experimental with it using bigger amps and effects. It was perhaps a golden age. As we got into the 80's players started to take it over the top to the point where players almost became parodies of themselves. How can you top Michael Angelo Batio with each hand on opposing guitar necks doing 64th note diminished scale pull-offs? Technique took over and feeling got left behind somewhat.

[nat whilk II]

may explain to us what "major art" and minor art" is, instead of talking total nonsense?

Consult your dictionary for definitions of terms in common usage.

Such a mean liitle puppy!

nat whilk ii

[blue2blue]

 

or in plain English, nobody needs some bands who sound sumilar to Led Zeppelin, or any other original band

Well, art aside... as far as commerce goes, it seemed to have worked for Heart with the girls-doing-zep flavor of their breakthrough efforts.

 

And sounding like a cheap Nirvana knock off didn't seem to keep Bush from being big for a while. Even some of the Beatles wannabe bands of the 70s had their moment in the sun. And look at all the contemporary bands who seem to try to sound just like each other -- just read the musician and recording forums, post after post of people saying how do I get this guitar sound from that record, how do I sound like so and so, what mics did such and such use... ad nauseum.

 

 

But as far as artistry goes, yeah, this is one time I agree with Albert, here.

 

 

________________________

 

 

Of course, that's a different issue than why a number of kids today like "oldies."

 

But let's not forget, it was the decade of the 60s that gave us the Oldies but Goodies radio format. As fashion forward as I was once I repatriated with rock, I nonetheless found myself punching the oldies button when there was nothing but crap on the contemporary stations. Sure, there was Jimi Hendrix, Cream, and Jefferson Airplane on top 30 radio from time to time -- but it was swamped by 1910 Fruitgum Company, Cowsills, and namby pamby pop from a long list of mostly forgotten artists.

 

After a few of those in a row -- punctuated by acne cream adverts -- some good ol doo wop and R&B sounded pretty damn good.

 

 

I'll admit, I didn't start getting into big band music until my late 20s when my dad hipped me up to the bands he liked after I got him a Glenn Miller collection. He appreciated the gesture but it turned out he liked stuff with a little harder swing to it, like Goodman and Ellington. And so did I once I knew my way around a little better.

[Zooey]

 

There's an oldies station here, K-EARTH, which plays oldies. I always associated them with playing '50s and '60s stuff. A couple of years ago, they played INXS.

 

 

I used to listen to that station when I was a kid--they advertised pretty heavily (or maybe they just had a memorable jingle). According to wikipedia, they now play a pre-1964 song once every other hour.

 

This is kind of weird to think about: a high school kid today who learns to play Crazy Train is playing a 31 year old song and probably doesn't think much of it.

 

When I was in high school, this is what a 31 year old song looked like:

 

Popular Songs 1954

 

1. Mr Sandman - The Chordettes

2. Little Things Mean A Lot - Kitty Kallen

3. Sh-Boom (Life Could Be A Dream) - The Crew-Cuts

4. Secret Love - Doris Day

5. Hey There - Rosemary Clooney

6. Shake Rattle and Roll - Bill Haley and The Comets

7. Cry - Johnny Ray

8. Three Coins In The Fountain - The Four Aces

9. Oh! My Papa - Eddie Fisher

10. Make Love To Me! - Jo Stafford

 

Believe me, I would not have expended the effort to learn and play these songs when I was in high school with the possible exception of Bill Haley, of course.

[Lee Knight]

There's an oldies station here, K-EARTH, which plays oldies. I always associated them with playing '50s and '60s stuff. A couple of years ago, they played INXS.

god, I know! We get K-Earth 101! down here in San Diego. And I grew up listening to it in LA. It was doo wop and low rider music then. Sometimes I'll pop in the numbers and think I've got the wrong station and then I realize I'm just freaking old. What's INXS doing on K-Earth?

[Bookumdano2]

There's an oldies station here, K-EARTH, which plays oldies. I always associated them with playing '50s and '60s stuff. A couple of years ago, they played INXS.

 

 

Yeah, I noticed they finally added a decade when I periodically click them on in the car. For the past 25 years or so, they seemed to cut off classic rock & roll at 1975. Guess they redefined things up to 1988. Whatever that means.

 

Categories are silly. My kids roll their eyes at old stuff (all of it) and are off to concerts every week by people I've never heard of and who apparently only release stuff online. Dunno how krth will handle that in 2037.

[Lee Flier]

 

I doubt that anything has ever changed the evolutionary course of music as much as the electric guitar has. It was totally new in the 50's and few could even play it competently.

 

 

Actually, the electric guitar was invented in 1932, and many blues players were doing very innovative things with them in the 40s... Elmore James was a TV repairman and modified his own amps, etc. It just took awhile for white people to catch on.

 

Really, beginning with jazz in the 1920s, and continuing into the 80s, we had an incredible golden age of musical innovation. The generation gap in music didn't really exist until the jazz era, after which music and culture began to change so rapidly that by the baby boom generation (with the help of a lot of marketing), it was a truism that you were "supposed to" listen to music that would piss off your parents. I think this whole attitude is, in fact, a Boomer artifact, in other words, an older person's mentality in itself. Young people today have far fewer people dictating to them what their tastes should be - they discover music on the Internet and if they like it, they like it - regardless if it's something their parents listened to or when it was made. And many of them (not all, of course) happen to think the older stuff is better, more "real," more "passionate" etc. whether it is 60s or 70s classic rock/punk/new wave or 80s dance music or 80s/early 90s hip hop or early 90s grunge. Once you get past 1995 or so it suddenly becomes harder to find stuff that really stands out. The focus has been more on the technical aspects of music than the emotion, seemingly.

[Lee Flier]

 

The classics are recognizable because they are time tested. Crap songs have already been weeded out over time, so whats left?

 

 

True, but it's not as if we didn't know at the time that the "classics" were released that they were great. There've been a few exceptions that weren't much appreciated until later, but most music that is considered classic today was considered great from the moment it was released. I can't really look at current music and say that a whole lot of it will be remembered in 40 years, and a lot of good stuff flies under the radar now and does not have the kind of cultural impact that music once did when we had fewer choices... ironically.

[nat whilk II]

or in plain English, nobody needs some bands who sound sumilar to Led Zeppelin, or any other original band

 

 

I do think we need bands like this. For the same reason we need grade-school music teachers teaching kids how to sing "Oh Shenandoah", and we need the bottom 39 to define number one on the top 40. People are so obsessed with the individual creative hero that there's this massive blindness as to how cultures actually work as incremental, communal activities.

 

The really good, creative types don't just materialize out of a vacuum through will power or a lucky DNA configuration. It's like anything else - take sports for example. The countries with the best soccer players also have the largest number of lousy soccer players - kids on every block everywhere kicking the thing around.

 

Contempt for the amatuer is one of the most common signs of second-rate aspirants, desperately trying to identify with their betters.

 

nat whilk ii

[A. Einstein]

Consult your dictionary for definitions of terms in common usage.

 

 

 

Thanks. I know now what it means:

 

Major Arts -- The art of Brian Major.

 

Minor Arts -- Welcome to Wendell Minor's Website.

[blue2blue]

Actually, the electric guitar was invented in 1932, and many blues players were doing very innovative things with them in the 40s... Elmore James was a TV repairman and modified his own amps, etc. It just took awhile for white people to catch on. Really, beginning with jazz in the 1920s, and continuing into the 80s, we had an incredible golden age of musical innovation. The generation gap in music didn't really exist until the jazz era, after which music and culture began to change so rapidly that by the baby boom generation (with the help of a lot of marketing), it was a truism that you were "supposed to" listen to music that would piss off your parents. I think this whole attitude is, in fact, a Boomer artifact, in other words, an older person's mentality in itself. Young people today have far fewer people dictating to them what their tastes should be - they discover music on the Internet and if they like it, they like it - regardless if it's something their parents listened to or when it was made. And many of them (not all, of course) happen to think the older stuff is better, more "real," more "passionate" etc. whether it is 60s or 70s classic rock/punk/new wave or 80s dance music or 80s/early 90s hip hop or early 90s grunge. Once you get past 1995 or so it suddenly becomes harder to find stuff that really stands out. The focus has been more on the technical aspects of music than the emotion, seemingly.

I actually see a continuity back through punk, through acid rock, through rock and roll, through jump blues and R&B, jitterbug, swing, bluegrass, blues, jazz... what I'm wondering is if Stephen Foster really ticked off the old folks when he first hit the charts.

[RockViolin]

... what I'm wondering is if Stephen Foster really ticked off the old folks when he first hit the charts.

Maybe. But he put them right at ease with his smash hit, "Old Folks At Home."

[evets618]

Critics:

Those with the least knowledge of the subject being critiqued.

[philbo]

It was important for me to read your OP thoroughly, because (as far as San Antonio radio stations are concerned), "Classic Rock" has a rather circumscribed meaning: Local radios have decided that "Classic Rock" means things like Thin Lizzy, Led Zep, Heart, Boston, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Foghat, Edgar Winter, Aerosmith, Jethro Tull, Alice Cooper. In other words, "headbanger" stuff from about 1969--1985. They would consider Rolling Stones to be Classic Rock... but not The Beatles. I know; I don't quite understand their criteria, either.

 

 

Lucky thing commercial radio is now completely irrelevant except for those who can't afford internet & smartphones...

The only people I know who listen regularly are that peculiar sort of extraterrestrials called Limbaughians, and they pretty well stick to the AM band.

[Anderton]

Once you get past 1995 or so it suddenly becomes harder to find stuff that really stands out.

 

Because they stopped collaborating, and started doing everything themselves in the studio

 

I also think the emphasis on live performance in the "golden age" was a factor in influencing the music of that time, not just because musicians were honing their chops, but because they were "collaborating" with the audience...the audience was almost like a focus group.

 

If you buy into the concept that music is a language, well, a conversation will usually be more interesting than a monologue (Jean Shepard and Spalding Gray notwithstanding!).

[Vito Corleone]

I can't really look at current music and say that a whole lot of it will be remembered in 40 years,

 

 

I can distinctly remember my parents saying the exact same thing about the stuff I was listening to 40 years ago.

 

 

and a lot of good stuff flies under the radar now and does not have the kind of cultural impact that music once did when we had fewer choices... ironically.

Not sure that's ironic. The fact that there ARE so many more choices now---and not just musical, but so many other things to impact the culture of youth---is probably THE biggest reason any individual song or musical act doesn't have the same impact such things had 40 years ago.

[MrKnobs]

Not sure that's ironic. The fact that there ARE so many more choices now---and not just musical, but so many other things to impact the culture of youth---is probably THE biggest reason any individual song or musical act doesn't have the same impact such things had 40 years ago.

 

Yep. That's what I was trying to say too.

 

Terry D.

[Folder]

I think there are two main reason why a lot of young people like classic rock.

The first is that it was good music that has stood the test of time. There's always an explosion of creatvity at the beginning of any new art form. Starting in the 50's and up through the 80's or so their was a rapid evolution in pop music and the technology used to create it.

In those days the "music business" was still being run by people who had a passion for music. Originality was the name of the game so things that were new or different were embraced. Artists were nurtured and felt free to experiment and grow. Also the technology of the day and the way that records were produced contributed to the sound of organic and aurally pleasing records.

The second reason is because there is no outlet for new up and coming young rock bands to get mass exposure today. With radio playlists getting smaller and smaller it's virtually impossible for a new band to get any significant radio play unless they fit into a very narrow style format.

Rock radio is pretty much dead in this country. Without radio play no artist can become well known. For every Nickelback who makes it big there are probably a hundred better bands who nobody will ever know about because they will never be heard.

In the classic rock days the cream rose to the top because the record company people and the radio people were in the business of promoting quality music. They worked in the music business because they liked music and knew a lot about it. And they appreciated VARIETY.

There is a lot of quality new rock music out there, but if young people don't know it exists then they only have a choice between the new stuff that sucks or the old stuff that's good.

Many years ago Ted Turner was asked why he showed so many old movies and TV shows on his networks. He said that he thought his viewers would rather watch good old shows than bad new ones.