Where's the dividing line...?

Granted, time is always a-marching on, but where do we establish the "classic" vs. "modern" eras for rock, blues, jazz, or whatever genre?

The art world determined for itself the "modern era"...and then the "post-modern"...and then (depending on whom you speak with) even the "post-post-modern".  Beyond that, they're painted into a corner (no pun intended).

So, given your druthers, where would you set the boundary?

Examples: "B.L.C." = "Before 'London Calling'" or "A.L.Z." = "Anno Led Zep" or "P.P.J." = "Pre-Pearl Jam" or "P.P." = "Post-Pixies"

How about "Pre-MTV" and "Post-MTV"...?

 

 

 

 

Without giving this a whole lot of thought, I think classic rock has to be at least 25 years old, so right now it would be anything mid-80's and prior.  That's a totally arbitrary definition, but I'm not sure anyone can come up with one that isn't.

I wouldn't draw any lines.

It's only fair to delineate, to give credit where it is due to the trend setters and pioneers of a newly derived style of music.  It's done, and quite fairly, in all genres.

This is my perception, but I doubt my perception differs from any pre-determined definition that's already been said.   

The modern rock era was established in the early 1990s.  Grunge to Alternative to a later form of hard rock, maybe.   Complete and radical changes took place, not only in the music, but in the "costumes" (spandex to flannel, big hair to stringy, tousled, if not "unstyled" hair), the subject matter of the lyrics, the stripped down sound, all of it, harkened a new era.   The main list is quite familiar: Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, AIC, NIN, RHCP, Collective Soul, Alanis Morrisette, the list goes on.  

I'm no expert, but that decade seems to be the defining moment in heralding in the modern rock era.   As discussed in other threads, the 1990s was one of the best decades for rock, because it took rock music in a whole new direction.   The true moderns ended by the late 90's; that's when you might get into post-moderns.  :)      

What we are lacking are precise definitions of "Modern" and "Classic." My view is that the old line "there is nothing new under the sun" has a lot of truth to it. Music changes in much the same way that fashion changes. Most of the change is in appearance but not in substance.

I read somewhere that disco may the dividing line between classic and modern rock. Prior to  disco, most classic rock was album oriented, and that changed a bit after disco, which was more hit oriented imo.. During the disco period, bands began to experiment with newer sounds which gave way to alternative and modern rock, with bands like Pet Shop Boys, Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, Cars. These bands benefited from the advent of MTV and hit oriented radio. Classic rock, or AOR  made a revival in the 90's with Grunge, and this is where the definitions become cloudy because many of today's classic stations  play not only hendrix and and the Stones, but Pearl Jam, AIC, Styx and Rush. Today's bands like Maroon 5, Adele, Gaga are pop rock, and other bands such as DMB, Black Keys, MMJ fall back into the AOR cat, all of which makes putting labels on music difficult.

See, I tend to use the "Modern Rock" tag on a lot of rock music within the past 20 or 25 years, particularly in iTunes where I can sort more effectively.  I've also made the distinction between Modern and Classic Pop for this purpose.

There could maybe also be a case for Classic vs. Modern Alternative, Classic vs. Modern Punk, etc., but maybe the goal should be more general categories, if we're going that way.

This was prompted by the Blues thread, btw, in ref to Classic Blues vs. Modern Blues.  (Country & R&B already do this, I believe.)

Plus, I'm bored.  I was hoping for more year-end choices from others to tide me over until santa comes.... 

 

In response to polar123's comment:

And then we have the dreaded "Adult Alternative"...whatever the hell that is.  (makes me think of adult book stores...not good...especially when some aren't suitable for adults, much less kids.)

 

I saw some lists over the weekend.  I was waffling about putting them up for discussion.  

The sentiment and assessment on the current end-of-year batch of hits (and misses) is that there were no clear stand-outs that took absolute center stage (such as Adele's "21" for better or worse last year), and (as it pertains to this thread) ... the lines are more and more blurred on what's popular with regard to categories in rock.

Sneak peek: if you don't like the intersection of hip hop / rap / and R&B, then you might as well skip all the "bests" lists.   Well, not entirely, but ... 

Now some of you might think that's a good thing, but due to the state of the quality of the popular music ATM, I'm left wondering if there's been too much fushion.  You know, it's like putting a bunch of colors together without any thought (like when you fingerpaint) and all of a sudden, you're looking at mud color, and it ain't pretty; and it didn't take much talent, either.  

Anyhow, I will post some of the year-end lists tomorrow.  If you want modern, post-modern, post-post-post modern ... or whatever you want to call 2012 in review.  

Anything up to '79 is Classic.......the rest falls into one of two catagories modern rock or crap!

If the cutoff point is 1979 that leaves out an awful lot of good hard rock and metal albums from 1980 to 1984.  The new wave of heavy metal, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, Scorpions, Van Halen.

Maybe the cutoff point should be when David Lee Roth left Van Halen for Sammy Hagar.  That was when things really started going in the crapper. :-)

While some of older people might consider 1980 and newer as modern rock,there's younger people who,I'm sure would also consider groups like Nirvana,Soundgarden and Offspring as classic rock (while still in the Alternative vein).There's also probably older people who consider anything newer than 1960 as modern rock. 

 So,IMO the lines can get blurred according to the age of the person answering the question.

In response to RogerTaylor's comment:

Rename the "classic rock" era to "Romantic Rock" since everyone is always romanticizing how perfect it was ... :)  

List O Mania comin' up tomorrow.  

I cannot wait for you to see one of the lists I found.  It's a real *LIST*, not slides, so I can copy it into a comment box, easy breezy.   The list is all over the map with classic rockers who had new albums, alongside moderns; an excellent blend of the past and the future.     

 

 

Having given this some more thought, one thing that seems clear is that defining the dividing line as simply a point in time doesn't work.  Guns N Roses came along around the same time as grunge, but G N R follows the lineage of classic rock.  New classic rock keeps being made.

 

To me, MTV is the dividing line. Prior to, music was what we heard on the radio, The Midnight Special and Don Kirscher's Friday Rock shows. Some bands did promo vids for the music dating all the way back to the Beatles, but these were run on select TV shows. After MYV, the whole scene changed. It was visual as much as musical.

And the term modern rock is ridiculous. At the time, what was more modern than the Beatles, Bowie, King Crimson, etc. In fact, what music today sounds more modern then those bands at their musicial peaks?

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

lmao.

That paraphrases a punchline to a long-ago Bloom County strip.  Hilarious.

And as good a cutoff point as any, I suppose.

 

One thing that very much bugs me about the "classic rock" station where I live is, they have a very loose definition of "classic." Just because something is 25+ years old ("Jack and Diane" springs to mind) does not mean it's a classic.

I've always defined Classic Rock as mid-'60s ('65 to '67 or '68) through 1989. Anything prior to say 1965 is oldies rock and anything 1990 is IMO modern rock.

There are a number of 1960s bands that straddle the oldies classic rock line. The Who and the Stones definitely are Classic Rock. The Byrds, Buffalo Springfield -- you make the call.

The Beatles could be oldies -- pre Sgt. Pepper or pre-Rubber Soul -- and Classic -- later albums.

Maybe you make the starting date 1968 and term 1962 through 1968 a transition era. The start of the era, to me, as always been fluid. The end, to me, is more easily defined.

I don't have a lot of problem with heavy metal of the 1980s being lumped in with the Classic Rock, for those who wanted to end the term in 1979, because there are a lot of 1980s bands group that started in the 1970s and heavy metal was a natural growth or evaloution of 1970s' hard rock.

The beginning of grunge, to me, signifies the end of the Classic Rock era because, again IMO, it was a significant change of direction. So much seemed to have changed around 1989-91 that I view the cutoff period easier to define.

I don't view "Classic" as defining some good or bad as much as an era or style. There can be crp in the classic era and great stuff in the "modern" era. In that way, it comes down simply to taste.

This post has been removed.

In response to jesseyeric's comment:

Agreed. Actually, I'm not even sure what modern means. Can it be determined simply by the sound of the music without knowing when it was produced? If it is based on a date, then it is an arbitrary definition.

I'm sticking to my guns. I don't see the point in trying to apply precise labels to music. Mostly it seems that labels are applied in order to exclude, rather than include. It reminds me too much of the lowest level of political debate when people sling terms like socialist or facist in order to narrowly label someone's view in a negative way. Nothing is that simple.

Yes, there are general musical styles and sounds belonging to different time periods. But I don't  think that labels like modern and classic add anything to our understanding of music since each of us has certain prejudices that affect what we think of when we hear these labels.

I think the answer is that there is no answer except for the arbitrary and subjective answer each person chooses.  Which is fine.

I feel a rant coming on ... especially since Zilla is not around.    

I mean, I could take this to a whole 'nother level, but am not sure it's where we want to go, so maybe I should hold my peace.

Then again, with doomsday being tomorrow ... 

In response to yogafriend's comment:

I certainly approve of you taking it to another level.

I'm not the biggest fan of labels, either, but we're talking a grand total of two (2) categories here and what makes a logical point of reference.  It's certainly no more arbitrary that grouping by decade or even country of origin.

But I think it matters in terms of trying to understand where music and art are derived from.  It doesn't appear out of thin air.  There are influences, and today's bands have made their own recipes from ingredients they like that came before them.  We can certainly debate how important it is, but not whether it exists.

And the thing is, some influences are fairly easy to spot, but others are not.  Most people know Aerosmith, but only a handful might know Blodwyn Pig, a major influence.  The latter is clearly classic rock, but Aerosmith is both classic and modern, because they're still around.  Can we say that 'classic' Aerosmith had more of an influence than "modern" Aerosmith?  Maybe.  

I often read how a newer band has "classic rock sensibilities".  I've used the term myself, but now I wonder if it means anything, or if it's just another lazy concoction of the rock media.  Also of note, the term "jam band", which didn't really exist until the 90s but was then applied retroactively to groups like Traffic, the Dead and Allmans.

Public Enemy will soon be inducted into the HoF.  They would seem to fit a "classic hip-hop" niche,  but "Fear Of A Black Planet" (awesome) came out in 1990.  So, is 1990 now in the "classic" era...?  That would make The Black Crowes' debut "classic rock" (derivative though it may be)

One of the lists posted mentioned "comebacks".  Well, what if they never left?  If we never missed them, were they really gone...?

whew...

</rant off/>

 

 

 

In response to yogafriend's comment:

Go for it...!