I have a problem too with the whole "classic rock" tag. You can't set out to play classic rock, any more than you could write history. That doesn't sound right, but what I mean is, the very nature of classic rock means it will only be seen as such in the future, when people look back at it and see it for what it was, when it attains such a following and becomes such an influence on new bands that it is deemed classic. You could write history, but you couldn't set out to write something that would BE history, as history is another thing that only happens after the fact. World War II is history now, but in 1940 it was not, as it was ongoing.
I believe the term classic rock is an acknowledgement of the work the bands have put in over their time and the influence they have had. When they started up, you can bet (had the term existed at the time), the likes of Zep, the Who and Purple did not get together and say "let's play classic rock!" As Howard says, it's not a genre, it's more a label that's hung --- whether they want it or not --- around a band's neck, but one that only occurs after the fact, usually long after the band have either disappeared or gone past their prime. Classic rock, as a term, looks back, not forward, and I don't think it's possible to view it in that way.
Classic rock grows organically out of the music of a band. Perhaps some of the acts today playing indie, post-rock, emo or whatever may IN THE FUTURE be seen as classic rock, but that will only happen when/if it happens, after the fact.
To sum up: you can't create classic rock, you can only see and recognise it in retrospect.
Great first post, though!
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018
|