Jarvig

This thread is primalily not about current bands who play classic rock music. Though suggestions will be very welcomed.

This thread is about the thoughts about whether it is possible to make good modern music based around classic rock...and an idea of mine what I would like to hear from some bands today.

Classic rock died around 1975. Punk arrived in US and UK. Krautrock got big in Germany. The children of punk and krautrock in the 80's were post-punk, new wave, electronica and NWOBHM. Since then what made up classic have come back.

The genre I love more than everything is classic rock. I love Pink Floyd, Doors, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Beatles, The Who, Bruce Springsteen and Lynyrd Skynyrd.

Now I have no problem with either music after 1975 (many (most) of my favorit artists and bands are from after 1975) or that a modern band playing and sounding like classic rock are both strange, wrong and dated. Moderne music should sound like the times its produced in.

So what Im thinking of is a new genre - neo classic rock.

What I mean?
I mean that I a lot miss some aspekt af the old classic rock. I like the melodic guitars. The long emotional guitar solos. The songs thats progress to 7-10 minuts songs played live. The fun making good melodies and strong riffs. The lovely sounding analog synths. The interplay and impro between the musicians in the band. The phsycedelic sound. The connection between band and crowd.

But the sound and style of classic rock should not be played. Its the spirit and musicianship of the classic rock era that should be played again in these days.

So what to do? Classic rock were basicly played around the blues. The blues with distorted guitars and analog synths/organs. Though we have bands like The Black Keys around today who actually have succes with playing old school blues rock then its not a path to future. Its a path from the past.

So what Im thinking of is more like Porcupine Tree. My favorite modern rock band. To me Porcupine Tree play something like classic rock though the elements their music is made of is modern rock, pop, alt rock, electronica, prog and metal. They do not at all sound like classic rock....but their vision and spirit is much like classic rock.

So I have some questions:
1. Could any "old" classic rock lovers find interest in my idea about neo classic rock - sounding and using modern styles and gear but jamming, impro, soloing, rocking like good old days?

2. Could any "younger" classic rock lovers find interest in my idea about neo classic rock - sounding and using modern styles and gear but jamming, impro, soloing, rocking like good old days?

3. If so why are there really no bands there today?

My concept band
I miss Pink Floyd. I would love some band who would play in the spirit of Pink Floud but without trying to copy their style. Pink Floyd (beside their lyrics) is all in all just pshycedelic blues rock with spacy rock synths and insane good lead and rythm guitar playing from David Gilmour.

A modern neo classic rock band should'nt be based around blues. It should be based around modern rock, modern alt rock, modern indie, modern electronica, modern prog and modern metal.

Much like Porcupine Tree. But with more soloing guitar. With more epic songs. With a more relaxed spacy, drome like, pshycedelic sound and feel.

Would anybody like a band like that? Or will even old classic rock lovers say that classic rock could never again be played with meaning and sense?

Unknown Soldier

Classic rock didn't die in 1975, it survived despite the punk, post-punk and new wave brigade.

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

Howard the Duck

first of all, "classic rock" is not even a sub-genre, it's just a radio-format, and lumps all kinds of sub-genres together, including hard rock, country-rock, psychedelia and even folk-rock

second, there is already something called "neo-classical" so you might confuse people with the misnomer

third, Opeth are something like Pink Floyd but with metallic overtones, you might want to check them out

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Trollheart

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

Electrophonic Tonic

I pretty much agree with the previous 3 posters, except I'm more inclined to believe the classic rock label is more of a corporate creation that greater than or equal to our own perception of the music. Case in point: one of the classic rock radio stations where I live has gone under a format change and rebranding...

Originally, they were 95.1 the FOX, "Classic Rock that REALLY Rocks! and played a heavy dose of the same 100 or so 70's hits from Led Zeppelin, the Stones, the Who, Lynyrd Skynyrd, etc. with some sprinkling of the Beatles and a few Ozzy songs from the early 80's.

Now, they are 95.1 the BREW, "Playing the NEXT Generation of Classic Rock!" and play a heavy does of the same 100 or so 80's hits from Bon Jovi, Foreigner, Poison, Motley Crue, etc. with a sprinkling of Led Zeppelin and a few Nirvana songs from the early 90's.

Take a look at these Super Bowl car commercials from the early 2000's and from 2012... whose being used as the music?



I couldn't find an older Cadillac commercial on youtube, unfortunately. But think of it as these car companies and radio stations (owned by giant media conglomerates) are trying to advertise to new customers... people age 28-35 who finally have some disposable income to spend on nice cars and other products. When would they have been young kids growing up... roughly around the time 'Rock and Roll' and 'Kickstart my Heart' were released.

Same idea difference product. Retirement commercials recently? Check out the music they're using...



It's all about knowing your audience and things that are "classic" are a great way to relate to others. However, despite all my cynicism about the subject, maybe since we know the classics from our childhood; these corporations are aware of our love for the music and wanting to relate to us. Either if we choose or are told what classic rock is, if you enjoy it... that's really all that matters.

Jarvig

Thanks for the respons to all.

Howard the Duck -> I now Opeth and like them a lot.

Blarobbarg

The type of music that you are talking about exists, but it's not called neo classic rock. Most of it falls under stoner rock or neopsychedelia. Or just straight-up blues rock. Or garage rock revival, whatever that means.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with the above people.

That said, very good first post, even if I'm not totally on board... stick around, we could use somebody like you!

__________________

mr dave

Why not based around the Blues? Aside from 'modern electronica' (whatever that is) every style you mention had the Blues as an original influence, maybe not always as the primary influence but it was still there. Why avoid it?

The other thing, not a single one of the bands you listed wrote 'classic rock', it's just how their particular style ended up being recognized in retrospect. I don't think many people back in the day would have said The Beatles and Black Sabbath were the same style or genre...

__________________
i am the universe

Eyrothath

Neo-classical music is music that is inspired by any form of classical music, doesn't have to be rock music although the more symphonic rock & metal bands have done several renditions of classical music and are heavily inspired by it because that is their nature, they're symphonic.. Trans-Siberian Orchestra is an example of this.. They are progressive & symphonic metal with classical influence..

Howard the Duck

how about Anathema?

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.