Reasons I like Classic Rock better than modern.

[Teresa]

Reasons I like Classic Rock better than modern.

• Recorded using tubes (most studios didn't have those newfangled transistors).
• No obscenities, or vile language.
• No depiction of violence or psychological terror.
• No depressing lyrics
• Sometimes silly lyrics
• Sexual tension and innuendo without ever resorting to graphic descriptions (leaves more to the imagination)
• Hinting at drug use without ever admitting.
• Most songs were about love.

Back then we had some standards in music for airplay and sales.  Thus artists would find resourceful ways to say things without running afoul of the censors.

So in short I like the sound and the cleaner lyrics of the songs of the 1950's - 1970's.   

[david johnson]

yep.  it's much more fun and much less pretentious.

dj

[jowcol]

Reasons I like Classic Rock better than modern.

• Recorded using tubes (most studios didn't have those newfangled transistors).
• No obscenities, or vile language.
• No depiction of violence or psychological terror.
• No depressing lyrics
• Sometimes silly lyrics
• Sexual tension and innuendo without ever resorting to graphic descriptions (leaves more to the imagination)
• Hinting at drug use without ever admitting.
• Most songs were about love.

Back then we had some standards in music for airplay and sales.  Thus artists would find resourceful ways to say things without running afoul of the censors.

So in short I like the sound and the cleaner lyrics of the songs of the 1950's - 1970's.   

I tend to be a big fan of the late 60s and early 70s sound- although I'm not sure of some of the bands like like from that time fit the criteria you've listed.

No obscenities and Vile Language:  I'd say there were less, but I'm also a fan of the MC5's debut album Kick out the Jams, M************!

No Depiction of Violence or Psychological Terror:  I'm a big fan of the Doors.  Also the Velvet Underground, with their classic ode to S&M, Venus in Furs, which I guess could be called a song about love-- for the kinky crowd. 

Drug Use-- Some of the "hinting" wasn't that subtle, but some of it had a more balanced picture, or pleaded for moderation (Take Steppenwolf's The Pusher, or the stark realism of the VU's "Heroin")

For me, what I love about that period was that longer tracks and instrumentals were far more common, and the reliance on "verse chorus verse" and studio processing was less pronounced.  Also, more of the drummers had some jazz exposure, so that the beats were not as monotonous.

Modern Rock has gotten even more diverse and fragmented-- my guess is that if you look around, you may find something that meets what you are looking for.  I've found a lot to enjoy in the Stoner/Psychedelic music over the last couple of decades, particularly some of the European bands, which really try hard to emulate some of strengths of the late 60s/early 70s sound while taking it in new directions. 

[jhar26]

Teresa, I think that the pop & rock artists from the 50's, 60's & 70's were on average just better than those from the 80's, 90's & 00's. A list with the, say, 100 most important bands and artists from the 50's, 60's and 70's would look far more impressive than one from the 80's, 90's and 00's.

Two of the main reasons for this are in my opinion the arrival of punk rock in the late 70's and MTV in the early 80's. Punk rock mainly by way of it's sister movement New Wave produced some interesting artists, but on the other hand it also considerably lowered the bar with it's 'everyone can do it' mentality. For punk rock it wasn't important that you could actually play. On the contrary, being able to play was condidered almost a crime. Punk rock changed the rules and rock has never really recovered from it. I know that everyone can come up with a bunch of examples to punch holes in that little theory, but this is just my general assessment. It obviously doesn't mean that there are no good artists who started after the New Wave movement or where influenced by it. But anyway,  I guess the main difference is that lots of pre-punk rock bands were influenced by the blues and that this is no longer the case for most of them these days.

MTV is responsible for making the image and the looks of an artist more important than the music. All of a sudden you had a bunch of pop artists who were in an artistic sense only able to push the button of a synthesizer but were picked up by MTV because they had blue hair or dressed like transvestites. Rock acts were no longer required to be able to play like Led Zeppelin or the Allman Brothers, but they had to look as 'cute' as Bon Jovi or as outrageous/ridiculous as Twisted Sister. Post-Madonna a good looking 17 year old girl with zero talent but the willingness to prostitute herself before the camera has a better chance of making it than a plain looking girl with the integrity of a Joni Mitchell or the voice of a Aretha Franklin.

[jhar26]

BTW - I voted for the 60's. The 70's would be my No.2. The 50's would possibly be my No.1 if we were to include jazz and traditional pop.

[jowcol]

Two of the main reasons for this are in my opinion the arrival of punk rock in the late 70's and MTV in the early 80's. Punk rock mainly by way of it's sister movement New Wave produced some interesting artists, but on the other hand it also considerably lowered the bar with it's 'everyone can do it' mentality. For punk rock it wasn't important that you could actually play. On the contrary, being able to play was condidered almost a crime. Punk rock changed the rules and rock has never really recovered from it.

I don't fully agree on the Punk argument.  I'm a big fan of the garage-rock 60's sound as is represented by the Nuggets collection, and that has a DIY punk ethos to it.  Some of the classic psychedelic groups were also pretty sloppy when it comes to things like tuning their instruments (Big Brother and the Holding Co?  THe boots I've heard of them are pretty bad).    In some ways, Punk was a return to roots after 70s arena rock got too sterile.  And the fussy sound of 80s pop with heavy synth and overdubbing was the antithesis to punk.

As far as MTV and the role of image-- there is some validity there for sure.  (Although even the Beatles did "videos")  One other change is how cautious labels were.  A lot of the classic 60s bands could release 2 albums a year (like Traffic in the early days), which allowed some experimentation and chance taking.  By the 80s, it was more of an album every two years for the more mainstream bands.  While Punk died out, a more "fussy" approach to engineering took over, particularly in pop.  Most of the "manufactured" pop in the 80s and 90s was the opposite of punk-- it was completely controlled by the studio. 

I agree about the loss of blues influences, as as a big blues fan, think this was a bad direction.  Among other things, was a dumbing down of the beat into a plodding 4/4.  One the other hand, the later 60s had record labels insisting that artists like Muddy Waters and Howling Wolf make their sound more psychedelic-- resulting in the albums like the infamous Howling Wolf "Dog Shit" album.

Agree with you about the Allman Brothers-- I don't like their radio friendly fare very much, but love their extended instrumentals.  I started out as a purely classical fan, but the Allman Brothers High Falls and Elizabeth Reed where my gateway to rock and jazz.

[karlhenning]

Poll's no good for me;  I cannot narrow it down to a decade.

[False_Dmitry]

MTV is responsible for making the image and the looks of an artist more important than the music. All of a sudden you had a bunch of pop artists who were in an artistic sense only able to push the button of a synthesizer

Yes, but mixing up "pop" with "rock" is mixing apples and oranges   Pop is really a semi-musical outpost of showbiz, rather than being a musical genre like rock.

Of course there were (allegedly!) groovy-looking performers miming to discs cut by session-musicians long before MTV

[Sergeant Rock]

Poll's no good for me;  I cannot narrow it down to a decade.

I can't either. I need a choice that runs from 1958 (Phil Spector's first hit, "To Know Him Is To Love Him") to 1984 (Cyndi Lauper's first solo album, and the end of punk as I knew it).

Sarge

[springrite]

I first heard Rock when I wen to the States from China in 1980. So I kinda "grew up" with late 70's to early 80's rock. Therefore I prefer this period. But I hardly listened to any rock after 1987, when I turned to classical.


PS: "Sergeant Rock" sounds like the name of an authority figure on this subject!

[Sergeant Rock]

No obscenities and Vile Language:  I'd say there were less, but I'm also a fan of the MC5's debut album Kick out the Jams, M************!

Reading Teresa's list, that's the first thing that popped into my head 

I don't fully agree on the Punk argument.  I'm a big fan of the garage-rock 60's sound as is represented by the Nuggets collection, and that has a DIY punk ethos to it.

Yes, there is a historical continuity. Punk was simply getting back to rock and roll basics after a decade of inflation and pretension. As Lester Bangs wrote in The Rolling Stone History of Rock & Roll :

"Punk goes all the way back to Richie Valens' "La Bamba." Just consider Valens' three-chord mariachi squawkup in the light of "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen. then consider "Louie Louie" in the light of "You Really Got Me" by the Kinks, then "You Really Got Me" in light of "No Fun" by the Stooges, then "No Fun" in light of the "Blitzkrieg Bop" by the Ramones, and finally note that "Blitzkrieg Bop" sounds a lot like "La Bamba." There: twenty years of rock & roll history in three chords, played more primatively each time they are recycled."

Sarge

[Brian]

yep.  it's much more fun and much less pretentious.

dj

Exactly. More fun, less pretentious. My favorite decade is approximately 1965-1975, so so much for that. 

[Josquin des Prez]

Ultimately, its just stupid pop music. I can take or leave all of it. My contribution to this thread.

[jowcol]

Ultimately, its just stupid pop music. I can take or leave all of it. My contribution to this thread.

And we are deeply enriched by this detailed analysis.... 

[Saul]

Yes they don't write songs like this anymore...

http://www.youtube.com/v/XpqqjU7u5Yc

[jhar26]

Yes, but mixing up "pop" with "rock" is mixing apples and oranges   Pop is really a semi-musical outpost of showbiz, rather than being a musical genre like rock.

Depends on what one regards as pop of course. If it's, say, Phil Spector, Burt Bacharach, Brian Wilson, lots of the Beatles, Holland/Dozier/Holland and yes, even Abba I'd say that it's as valid as any other genre. They are not responsible for the Spice Girls or Wham, just like the Stones or Led Zeppelin aren't responsible for Kiss or REO Speedwagon.

Of course there were (allegedly!) groovy-looking performers miming to discs cut by session-musicians long before MTV

Sure, but I never said that there weren't. One would have to be deaf and blind to argue that MTV didn't have a major impact on popular music though.

[karlhenning]

Depends on what one regards as pop of course. If it's, say, Phil Spector, Burt Bacharach, Brian Wilson, lots of the Beatles, Holland/Dozier/Holland and yes, even Abba I'd say that it's as valid as any other genre. They are not responsible for the Spice Girls or Wham, just like the Stones or Led Zeppelin aren't responsible for Kiss or REO Speedwagon.

And just as Elliott Carter isn't responsible for Lowell Liebermann, nor Beethoven for Dittersdorf ; )

[Szykneij]

I first heard Rock when I wen to the States from China in 1980. So I kinda "grew up" with late 70's to early 80's rock. Therefore I prefer this period. But I hardly listened to any rock after 1987, when I turned to classical.


PS: "Sergeant Rock" sounds like the name of an authority figure on this subject!

I think the age of the listener has a lot to do with the preference (Brian's comment being an exception). I started listening to music as a pre-teen in the mid-sixties, so the rock music of that time through the late 1970's when I graduated from college has the most appeal to me, especially on an emotional level. It was pretty much the soundtrack of my developing years and hearing a specific song often brings back vivid  memories of people, places, and events. (The movie "American Graffiti" is a great film that illustrates how important radio music was in the life of kids of that era.)
  Lately, I've been discovering a lot of rock music I missed along the way. "Under the Milky Way Tonight" that was used for a car commercial recently introduced me to "The Church". Yesterday, as I ate lunch in a restaurant  with my wife, the music that was  playing inspired me to order two "The Cure" CDs.

[Sergeant Rock]

Yes they don't write songs like this anymore...

No, they don't...not since they outlawed castrati anyway.

Sarge

[Franco]

And just as Elliott Carter isn't responsible for Lowell Liebermann, nor Beethoven for Dittersdorf ; )

I haven't heard any music from Lowell Liebermann but the Wikipedia entry says he studied at the Juilliard School of Music with David Diamond and Vincent Persichetti, gaining bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees.  What is your gripe with him?

And Karl Ditters is not so bad as to be the poster boy of "non-great".