Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Sion · 07-29-2004, 10:42 PM

roachboy, before I address your concerns point by point, I wish to make a few general comments. you are obviously passionate about music, and not just the current crop of top-40 stuff that will be forgotten in a few months time. I see that you appreciate the importance of what has gone before, as it relates to what is made today. And that's great. I wish more people had your zest for music. But I think you overlooked my comments that preceded the list. To wit:

"I've also added a number of my own suggestions, as well as removing a few that don't, IMHO, quite fit. These are included as appendices at the end of the LIST. If one of your suggestions is included there, please don't be offended, or think that I don't consider that artist's contribution to the music world valid or valuable. Just understand that I don't consider them to quite fit the criteria. The fact is that some of these few (roughly a dozen or so) are in fact good bands that I enjoy. That doesn't make them classic rock.

Remember, as initiator of this thread, I will be the final arbitor of what does or does not make the list."

Also, please remember that the basis for my defintion/criteria of "classic rock" is the rather generic formula that is in use by mainstream radio. If you think my list is too small, you should listen to one of ClearChannel's "classic rock" stations. I think you'd find that 30% of what is on the above list is NEVER played on these stations. Their definition is so narrow that it starts with 1967 and ends with 1985. And of course, there are other stations that consider anything older than 10 years "classic rock".

I tried to give some very basic and general guidelines that would be neither too inclusive nor too exclusive. And in point of fact, if you think about it, as the list grows, it will, of neccesity include a wider range of styles.

ok, on to your comments. my responses are enclosed by the {} brackets.

Quote:

Originally posted by roachboy
this motown exclusion seems arbitrary to me.

{It is arbitrary. And I am that arbitor.}

i understand the argument, but think you underestimate both how good the rhythm sections were and how important they have turned out to be. this is even more a problem if you think about stax recordings.

{Actually, I do NOT underestimate anything about Motown. I LOVE a ton of that stuff. And yes, the rhythm sections on most of those records were great. But again, it comes back to the nature of the work: ie that most of the stuff was written by in-house writers, produced by a small number of in-house producers, with the backing music typically performed by some permutation of the house band (typically, whoever was available of some 2 or 3 dozen session musicians, or at the discretion of the producer if he was trying to capture a specific sound that he knew only a certain player could produce. Phil Spectre was notorious for this). And while a lot of really great music came out of that hit-factory, none of it really fits the defintion of "rock music", classic or otherwise. For me, the genre of "rock" music means more than just the obvious stylistic components (guitar driven, blues based) and instrumentation (typically a guitar, a bass, drums, vocals and perhaps a keyboard). I also include as part of the defintion the idea that the band/artist writes the majority of its own music. Call it a criteria of self-sufficiency}

if you are going to apply those criteria to motown, then you probably need to delete war from your list as well.

{Perhaps, except that War fits my defintion of a rock band in that they wrote and performed their own stuff.}

and i do not have any idea how you would defend not including curtis mayfield.

{no one suggested him. its really that simple. remember the reason for this thread in the first place, that I wanted some help. If I could have thought of every "classic rock" artist off the top of my head, I would never have started the thread to begin with. Also, this is a WORK IN PROGRESS. That means it aint finished yet. If you think a band or artist should be on this list, then make the suggestion. I'll consider it and add to the list as I see fit.}

and maybe there is an alternate universe in which journey, toto and edgar winter are more classic anything than james brown, but i do not know that construct and i am not sure i would want to be there.

{again, I think you are misinterpreting the term. James Brown IS a classic artist. But he is an R&B artist, not a rock artist.}

blood sweat and tears was primarily about the horn charts and david clayton thomas's voice...devo was primiarily a synth band, if i remember...did supertramp even use guitars? i remember mostly fender rhodes and whiny vocals.

{all three of the bands you mention here used guitars in most of their work. was their music strictly guitar-driven (as suggested in my intial criteria)? no, not by any means. But there are a number of other artists on that list about which you could say the same thing. Crosby, Stills and Nash (and Young), for example. Most of their work features acoustic guitars, but the main focus is their lyrics and their voices. But there is no denying the CSN(&Y) belong on ANY list of "classic rock" artists. In the end, it comes down to having to draw a line somewhere. Without that line, it would merely be a list of all bands/artists from any generation, it would go on for pages and pages and wouldnt really have any point. I understand that not everyone will agree with where I draw the line, but thats OK. Here at the TFP, we agree to disagree with each other without getting upset that others have opinions that differ from our own.}

if the stooges are too punk, then what is the mc5 still doing on the list? on this, i am just a bit pained, personally. the stooges were among my favorites in the early 1970s--they explain singlehandedly why i thought punk was not a big deal.

{primarily, when deciding whether to include a punk (or new wave, or folk, or metal, or etc) band on this list, I look at whether the artist in question has cross-genre appeal/success. In that respect, Iggy & the Stooges falls short. Their fans are only people who like punk music. Whereas a band like The Clash, surely as big a punk icon as Iggy Pop, did have that cross-over appeal to the more general rock audience. MC5 also had some of that, although to a much lesser extent than The Clash.}

why is the only blues player on this whole list a white guy?

{look again. there is more than one blues player here. as for the fact that SRV was white, why does that even matter? He was one of the greatest blues guitarists EVER. While it may be true that the blues originated from people of color, that does not mean that only those people can play it, or be great at it.}

there would have been no 60s "classic rock" had it not been for the systemiatic plundering of the electric blues--howling wolf, albert king, muddy waters, t-bone walker etc etc etc....

{you are absolutely right in pointing out the influence of these guys on the "classic rock" genre. rocknroll IS the bastard son of the blues. of that there is no doubt. but the difference is that those guys were blues men and blues men only. whereas Led Zeppelin, The Stones, The Who, etc, etc, even SRV to some extent, included rock elements in their music. Sure, they played the blues, but they played it as filtered through a rock sensibility. also, those who rail against bands like Zeppelin for "plundering" the work of those who came before them have obviously missed a very important point about music. And that point is that EVERYONE "steals" from their predecessors. That is the nature of music, and of art in general. None of this stuff exists in a vacuum, wherein all work comes solely and completely from nothing. Art, music, language, science, philosophy, etc, these are all living forms of expression. That means that anyone working in these fields builds upon the work of those who preceeded them. Now sure, there are cases (Led Zeppelin is an easy example, but there are others) where a band reworked a song by a previous artist but failed to credit the original songwriter. But those cases are fairly few and far between, and in some cases, the reworked version is SO different from the original as to constitute a new song. That does not excuse them for failing to give credit where due. However, I submit that this whole issue is a case of making mountains out of molehills. These bands never hid their influences, and if you read enough interviews and articles contemporary to when this music came out, you'll see them mention Willie Dixon and Robert Johnson and Muddy Waters and whoever else as their influences, as people whom they consider true greats. And in that respect, I think the free advertising they gave some of these old blues masters makes up for whatever "stealing" they may have done. You'll also notice there has been almost nothing in the way of litigious activity from the blues masters towards their blues-rock progeny. I've read more than one interview wherein some of these old greats were flattered that their stuff was being covered/stolen by these rock bands. An overblown issue, in my book.}

no velvet underground? but you include the knack?

{I fail to see the connection between VU and the Knack. The Knack were a rock band, plain and simple, and had a couple/three good songs in their brief career. VU was an avant-garde jazz/rock/folk/punk/experimental-whatever-you-want-to-call-them. Also, as mentioned above, re Curtis Mayfield, NO ONE suggested them.}

how is roger waters solo work classic anything at all?

{Roger Waters solo work is much the same (stylistically and thematically) as any of Pink Floyd's group work, primarily their most well-known stuff (The Wall, Dark Side, Animals, Meddle, The Final Cut) which was all driven primarily by Waters. I dont want to get into the whole Waters vs Gilmour debate, but there is little doubt that in the 70s, Waters was the primary musical force in Pink Floyd, in that he wrote most of the songs. Given this, his inclusion as a solo artist makes sense. You could argue the same point about Ringo Starr's inclusion as a solo artist, or David Lee Roth. In the end, I made a choice, and as I happen to like Roger Waters' solo work, he stays. Sorry if you dont agree.}

you stick the beach boys and bo diddley on the same almost ran list as dreck like america and bread? have you listened to any of these bands?

{Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. All four of those bands/artists made some music that I like. I just dont happen to consider any of them classic rock. However, remember that these were suggestions by others participating in the thread. The fact that they were all on the same list means nothing in terms of whether any of them have a commonality of ability or value. Again, I made a choice. These names were suggested and I considered that they sort-of fit the criteria, but not enough to make the list, IMHO. Other than that, they have nothing in common.}

WHERE IS CAPTAIN BEEFHEART?

{Trout Mask Replica is a wonderful piece of aural art. But it aint classic rock. See my VU comment above.}

geez.

{geez indeed. calm down son. its just a list. MY list. not something to get upset over.]

and where is early-to-mid 1970s miles davis?

{Miles Davis is a fantastic JAZZ musican, not a classic rocker."

ok i obviously do not understand this list thing.

the criteria for inclusion on the list laid out above was guitar driven, and apparently played for the most part by white men.
it is a shame, the way this "classic rock" category was defined since the rise of formatted radio (early 1970s in its current form)---most of the music from the 1960s occurred in dialogues that crossed racial and stylistic boundaires--apparently it doesnt any more.

{as I mentioned above, I see no reason why race has anything to do with any of this. I will NOT be including any artist on this list for reasons of race alone. Nor will any be excluded on the same basis. If a given band made music that is, in my opinion, classic rock, then it matters not one bit to me if the musicians therein were black, white, red, purple, green or pink. If I gave even two shits about race, then the likes of Jimi Hendrix, Prince, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Living Color, etc, would not be on the list. But they are, because they did. To me, their ethnic heritage is of no more consequence than the color of their eyes, or their shoes sizes.

you are right, however, when you noted that music in the 60s and 70's "occurred in dialogues that crossed racial and stylistic boundaires" as opposed to today's formulaic mainstream radio. the rise of corporate control of radio has caused a certain staleness of content to radio today. But I think you have misjudged when this ocurred. Corporate radio didnt really get going strong until the late 80's.}

maybe that an important reason why the form is dead.

{I think this last comment really misses the point. "Classic rock" is an after-the-fact genre. MUCH after the fact. When Zep, or the Stones, or Van Halen, or any of these bands, really, were recording, they were not trying to be classic rock bands. They were trying to be rock bands. The "classic" designation came much later down the road (I think I first heard the label in the mid 90s). It came not from the musicians themeselves, but rather from someone trying to come up with a name for a loose assemblage of bands and artists that had in common only that they made "rock" music and that said music had been recorded in the period of roughly 1960-90 As such, "classic rock" is not a form that is now dead, because it was never alive in the first place. Rock (or if you prefer, rocknroll) however, is very much alive, just as jazz, the blues, gospel, rap, hip-hop, country, etc are all very much still alive.}