Arlo Guthrie

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible since: 1992 (The 1993 Induction Ceremony)

Previously Considered? No  what's this?

Arlo Guthrie @ Wikipedia

Arlo Guthrie Videos

Will Arlo Guthrie be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?
"Musical excellence is the essential qualification for induction."
   

Comments

53 comments so far (post your own)

two words . . . "Alice's Restaurant" . . .

not to mention that he performed at Woodstock . . . imo, everyone who was on that program should be in the HOF . . .

Posted by Michael Micinowski on Saturday, 04.14.12 @ 13:00pm


Even Country Joe And The Fish?

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 04.14.12 @ 14:36pm


One Guthrie is bad enough. The Hall doesn't need to represent the younger, and equally drab, Arlo Guthrie. Alice's Restaurant Massacree is a surefire contender for worst song ever. It's eighteen minutes of Arlo's somnambulistic vocals and coma-inducing guitar playing. No wonder that David Bowie, T. Rex, Roxy Music, Alice Cooper, the Sweet, and others came along to send this anachronistic music back to the Stone Age

Also, performing at that joke of a festival called Woodstock should be an automatic demerit against any act's chances of induction.

Posted by Zach on Tuesday, 10.9.12 @ 20:31pm


I don't think Arlo Guthrie merits induction to Hall. I would expect Mr. Guthrie himseld doesn't think he merits induction.

Am 120% behind Woody being an early influence in the Hall (for the record)

Zach, why don't you vote in the Rock Hall Projected? You could vote for Ted Nugent, Pat Boone, Rick Astley, Wagner (all of whom have not been inducted yet).

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 08:59am


Sorry, Paul, but I have no interest in participating in the Rock Hall Projected. I'm strictly here to give my opinions on the various acts, whether they've been inducted or not, and occasionally suggest choices/vote in the Song Project.

Once again, you prove why the Internet provides a safe haven for cowards. You obviously don't know my musical tastes. I don't like Pat Boone, Rick Astley, or Wagner (I enjoy a few Ted Nugent songs, but he's hardly a favorite and I wish he'd shut the hell up about politics and hunting). For the last time, and I'm typing this in capitals so that your feeble mind can fully comprehend this, I AM NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM A CONSERVATIVE. You've never met me in real life, so you have no basis for any of your ASS-umptions.

Actually, my tastes in music are quite diverse and refined. I typically go through the likes of Louis Jordan, Pat Benatar, Hank Williams (the original), Count Basie, The Coasters, Buddy Holly, Roxy Music, Bo Diddley, Foreigner, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Howlin' Wolf, T. Rex, Dean Martin, JD McPherson, Sonny Boy Williamson II, and Benny Goodman, and that's only a sampling. I doubt you could muster anything comparable to that line-up.

Posted by Zach on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 09:37am


I totes could!

But yeah, Alice's Restaurant is boring and way too long.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 11:27am


Zach, you take the bait way too easily.

If you are not a 'conservative', do you see that some of your posts might lead people to assume you are a conservative?

Also, is it possible that you are a conservative without even conciously knowing or acknowledging it?

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 13:06pm


There's nothing wrong with Alice's Restaurant. In my town on Thanksgiving Day the song is played by several radio stations more than once. The entire 18 minutes worth!

There's nothing wrong with Woodstock. The following notable acts played there:

Santana
Grateful Dead
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Janis Joplin
Sly & the Family Stone
The Who
Jefferson Airplane
The Band
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
Jimi Hendrix


There's nothing different between mainstream liberals and conservatives. Johnson/Nixon = Bush/Clinton = Obama/Romney. They all wage wars and take money from Wall Street bankers.

Posted by classicrocker on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 16:19pm


There's nothing different between mainstream liberals and conservatives. Johnson/Nixon = Bush/Clinton = Obama/Romney. They all wage wars and take money from Wall Street bankers.

Posted by classicrocker on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 16:19pm

THANK YOU!!

Maybe this pointless going back-and-forth political argument on here will cease once and for all now (it's basically the same comment being reiterated over and over again), thank you once again classicrocker!

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 16:24pm


No wonder that David Bowie, T. Rex, Roxy Music, Alice Cooper, the Sweet, and others came along to send this anachronistic music back to the Stone Age

Also, performing at that joke of a festival called Woodstock should be an automatic demerit against any act's chances of induction.

Posted by Zach on Tuesday, 10.9.12 @ 20:31pm
--------------------------------------------------
I'm not so sure that they ever sent anything back to the Stone Age. Basically the folkie end of things went down the James Taylor/Joni Mitchell/Carly Simon/Bread path. I'll readily admit to liking Bowie/T-Rex/Sweet a whole lot more, but in no way did they fully get rid of it.

In addition, just take a look at the list above of some of the performers at Woodstock. That is an excellent Rock show (Rock being the key here).

Don't forget Joe Cocker & Ten Years After as well!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 16:47pm


"Zach, you take the bait way too easily.

If you are not a 'conservative', do you see that some of your posts might lead people to assume you are a conservative?

Also, is it possible that you are a conservative without even conciously knowing or acknowledging it?"

I think he's a 12-year-old know-it-all. That's the only rational explanation for someone to act the way he does and say what the things he says.

Posted by Chalkie on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 16:53pm


If someone construed my posts as being conservative, that would be a complete misreading on his/her part. Some people read way too much into what they see, like you.

Also, it would be virtually impossible for me to be a conservative without being aware of it. That doesn't even make sense. Then again, your talking points and arguments never have any substance.

I'm finished discussing this matter with you. I only replied to defend myself, rather than allow some stranger to continue to pass his twisted delusions as facts. I'm not a conservative, and that's that.

Classicrocker, Woodstock was an abomination because of the sheer amount of garbage acts that performed there. The likes of Country Joe McDonald, Melanie, The Band, Janis Joplin, The Greateful Dead, CSNY, Jefferson Airplane, and Arlo Guthrie are blights on rock 'n' roll and music in general. The only good acts that performed at Woodstock were The Who, Sly and the Family Stone, and The Jimi Hendrix Experience. If anything, Woodstock synopsized what was wrong with music in the late 1960s and why we needed David Bowie, Alice Cooper, and their ilk to send all that trite, naive hippie nonsense back to the Stone Age.

Cheesecrop, all those artists you mentioned all eventually got relegated to the same scrap heap of outdated, irrelevant music. The albums of James Taylor, Carly Simon, Joni Mitchell, and their kind belong in the record store from hell, along with Mantovani, The Boston Pops, Mitch Miller, Johnny Mathis, Pete Seeger, Lawrence Welk, Doris Day, Seals and Crofts, Barbra Streisand, The Partridge Family, Air Supply, Michael Bolton, and other equally putrid acts. You know, square music. I see all this horrible music gathering dust and mold on the shelves at stores like Goodwill and The Salvation Army (No disrespect intended to those fine stores, as I do enjoy perusing them for clothes, videotapes, and other assorted items, just not music).

Me? I'll stick to a healthy, diverse mix of The Ink Spots, Buddy Holly and the Crickets, Gary Numan/Tubeway Army, Al Jolson, Joan Jett and the Blackhearts/The Runaways, Pink Floyd, Little Richard, Louis Jordan, Benny Goodman, The Big Bopper, Chuck Berry, Dean Martin, Nat King Cole/The King Cole Trio, Pat Benatar, Dale Hawkins, Depeche Mode, Hank Williams, Whodini, Willie Nelson, Cab Calloway, Judas Priest, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Hank Snow, Elvis Presley, Madness, David Bowie, Roxy Music, Sweet, Foreigner, Jobriath, John Valby, Prince and the Revolution, Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes, Ray Charles, Huey Lewis and the News, Mickey Gilley, Van Morrison, Fats Domino, The Dictators, The Rolling Stones, Wynonie Harris, The Cars, Bill Withers, Aretha Franklin, B.B. King, Howlin' Wolf, Jackie Wilson, T. Rex, The Alan Parsons Project, The Zombies, Run-D.M.C., Elton John, and tons of others. I'm so glad I didn't get stuck in the classic rock ghetto and ignore everything else going on in music.

Posted by Zach on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 17:18pm


I think he's a 12-year-old know-it-all. That's the only rational explanation for someone to act the way he does and say what the things he says.

Posted by Chalkie on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 16:53pm

Chalkie: Proving why making ASS-umptions, especially about people you've never met in real life, is dangerous to your mind.

I'm actually 24, if you so desperately need to know.

Posted by Zach on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 17:25pm


Classicrocker, Woodstock was an abomination because of the sheer amount of garbage acts that performed there. The likes of Country Joe McDonald, Melanie, The Band, Janis Joplin, The Greateful Dead, CSNY, Jefferson Airplane, and Arlo Guthrie are blights on rock 'n' roll and music in general. The only good acts that performed at Woodstock were The Who, Sly and the Family Stone, and The Jimi Hendrix Experience. If anything, Woodstock synopsized what was wrong with music in the late 1960s and why we needed David Bowie, Alice Cooper, and their ilk to send all that trite, naive hippie nonsense back to the Stone Age.

Cheesecrop, all those artists you mentioned all eventually got relegated to the same scrap heap of outdated, irrelevant music. The albums of James Taylor, Carly Simon, Joni Mitchell, and their kind belong in the record store from hell, along with Mantovani, The Boston Pops, Mitch Miller, Johnny Mathis, Pete Seeger, Lawrence Welk, Doris Day, Seals and Crofts, Barbra Streisand, The Partridge Family, Air Supply, Michael Bolton, and other equally putrid acts. You know, square music. I see all this horrible music gathering dust and mold on the shelves at stores like Goodwill and The Salvation Army

Posted by Zach on Wednesday, 10.10.12 @ 17:18pm
--------------------------------------------------
First - Awesome comment! I would suggest that artists such as Tracy Chapman, Suzanne Vega, Sarah McLachlan, etc., did keep the style going in the 80's/90's, even if you wouldn't be likely to seek it out. That being said, I like the connections you made. Outside of the group America, who I don't mind saying I enjoy (they're an exception in my world), I'm not the biggest fan of the others myself. I did enjoy Taylor in the movie "Two Lane Blacktop", but anyone working with Warren Oates is guaranteed to be working in something of some interest.

I know you addressed the first portion of what I copied to classic, but I hope you don't mind my snagging it (I figure classic can respond in his own way, should he wish). Speaking from a rock perspective, there's a lot of acts there that are quite good. I wouldn't sit there praising Guthrie or Melanie, but the others all had excellent takes on the blues, country, & even a little folk-rock.

Strip the hippie excess away, & get down to the musical roots of the act. Janis Joplin brought a hard-edged blues/soul style to the mix. The Band had a down home Americana country edge to them, while the Dead had a more folkie style, w/some guitar noodling. When CSNY added Dallas Taylor on drums, they started making a solid, harmony inspired take on the same folk areas as the Dead, but w/a more compact song structure. Add that into what Sly, the Who, & Hendrix brought to the party, and you've got a wide array or Rock styles of the moment. In addition, I also noticed you didn't mention Creedence, who were traditionalists w/a compact sound.

None of it takes away from Bowie/Alice/T-Rex/Sweet, etc., as it's a different interpretation of the same thing. I'm just saying, from a Rock perspective, there's a lot of good stuff here, if you can gat past the hippie veneer.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 10.11.12 @ 06:44am


rag on hippie bullshit all you want but why go after Janis Joplin and The band?

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 10.11.12 @ 12:42pm


Cheesecrop does a fine job of highlighting the virtues of the Woodstock headliners, so I don't need to add anything there except to say then when you have a festival that goes on throughout a weekend the way Woodstock did there's bound to be a few forgettable acts along the way. As far as the Bowie/T-Rex "glam" stuff goes, frankly most of it bores me. There's nothing really musically exciting or lyrically stimulating except for Sweet and of course Kimono My House by Sparks. Compared to just about every thing else going on during the late 60s early 70s "glam" just doesn't score very high with me. Compare what TRex was doing to the musical electricity of Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Emerson, Lake & Palmer or the incredible lyrical sensitivity of a Joni Mitchell or the sheer vocal talent of Karen Carpenter and they just seem rather bland. And you can argue that the emphasis on theatrics that some of the "glam" performers employed by dressing up like chicks only helped lay the foundations for the MTV debacle where image became more important than the music-leading to Madonna, Lady Gaga and other musical superficialities.

But having said all that, all that matters in the end is what a person's own ears tell them. So if Zach wants to dismiss the "hippie" scene for being to political or the "soft rock" scene for being too sappy then nobody has the right to try and stop him any more than anybody has the right to stop me from dismissing the "glam" scene. I would only correct him on the spelling. It's Grateful Dead not "Greatful Dead."

And if possible, Zach, could you turn the knob a little to the left on the bravado level if you please. It's entering the red zone.

Posted by classicrocker on Thursday, 10.11.12 @ 13:04pm


"There's nothing different between mainstream liberals and conservatives. Johnson/Nixon = Bush/Clinton = Obama/Romney. They all wage wars and take money from Wall Street bankers."

I think you mean Humphrey/Nixon classicrocker :)

But yeah, there's nothing wrong with Woodstock. Just thought I'd say that to make this post somewhat relevant.

Posted by Jim on Thursday, 10.11.12 @ 16:50pm


No, Jim. I meant changing from 1 president to the next. Nixon followed Johnson, Clinton followed Bush, and it's fairly possible that Romney will follow Obama.

But Humphrey/Nixon still works with the point I was making :)

Posted by classicrocker on Thursday, 10.11.12 @ 17:35pm


Alright, time for a full-blown rant.

Cheesecrop, my point about those singer-songwriter types who followed in the footsteps of the folk revival is that they didn't make any significant advancements in music. I don't consider lyrics to be significant in musical development because it takes considerably less talent and work to write lyrics than it does to master an instrument. Furthermore, I find that lyrics are effective only when a capable voice is delivering them. Of course, what constitutes capable vocals is entirely subjective, but you get my point.

Singer-songwriters and folkies, for the most part, are horrendous singers and even worse musicians. Neither style emphasizes musicianship, which I feel is what counts most in music. James Taylor is strictly a preschool-level guitarist compared to someone more skilled like Bo Diddley or Brian May. Conversely, Woody Guthrie is a dogshit singer compared to a Freddie Mercury or a Nat King Cole. I'm not a musician (Although if I were, I'd take up the harmonica, clarinet, piano, trumpet, saxophone, or electric guitar, all of which are among my favorite instruments to listen to), but I think I've got a pretty good ear for what sounds good.

I've always loathed The Grateful Dead because of their sloppy approach to playing instruments. Jam bands are generally like that, so I'm not surprised.

Janis Joplin's vocals are intensely grating and remind me of someone who's just had tracheotomy performed. That might sound like a contradictory statement coming from someone who loves Howlin' Wolf, but I can defend it. Wolf's voice was totally natural, whereas Joplin wrecked hers with substance abuse.

I'm ashamed to admit that I used to like CSNY. I'm not sure what was wrong with me back in those less informed days before I knew how to truly appreciate music. Again, you're dealing with elementary school-level musicianship in a band like this. Very bland, safe, and nonthreatening musuc. Songs like Teach Your Children and Marrakesh Express marked a de-evolution in rock 'n' roll, once again illustrating why Marc Bolan, David Bowie, and their compatriots were needed.

Classicrocker, your comments are quite laughable. To say David Bowie and T. Rex bore you, and that Joni Mitchell is superior, is mind-blowing. Sure, Bowie and Marc Bolan employed a lot of on-stage gimmicks and costumes, but their musicianship never took a back seat to it. If anything, the stage theatrics enhanced their concerts in the sense that you had to see them live to truly appreciate the overall package. The recordings haven't aged a bit. Keep in mind that Bowie, Bolan, and their compatriots helped popularize androgyny in rock 'n' roll (Little Richard was the pioneer with his high-pitched vocals and use of eyeliner and face power, but again they did not detract from his music.), which was and still is very controversial for male musicians.

This comment of yours is typical of one who does not understand the appeal of glam rock:

" And you can argue that the emphasis on theatrics that some of the "glam" performers employed by dressing up like chicks only helped lay the foundations for the MTV debacle where image became more important than the music-leading to Madonna, Lady Gaga and other musical superficialities."

Are you American? If so, then you pretty much exemplify the typical American attitude towards glam rock and why it never gained any serious attention in the U.S. The American rock 'n' roll establishment couldn't handle Bowie performing a song like Queen Bitch (A song which is clearly about androgyny), yet it lapped up the cock rock of Led Zeppelin like candy. Once again I must emphasize that the visuals of glam rock was not the main point or the only point of the genre. Glam rock encompassed elements of science fiction, sexual ambiguity, prog rock, rockabilly, shock rock, bubblegum pop, and comic book pulp, to name Cabaret/music hall, and horror, to name some of the musical/lyrical themes which were present.

If you don't like glam rock, fine. I'm not going to force you to enjoy it. But understand that your attitude towards it is borderline homophobic (Mocking male musicians who display any hint of femininity is so dumb). I'll have to get my friend Steve to come here so he can explain glam rock's appeal better, although I think gave a good account of the basics.

Oh, and MTV was a damn good network in its early years. Do not confuse its current incarnation with what it was from 1981-1987.

Posted by Zach on Thursday, 10.11.12 @ 21:22pm


I just really enjoy these real folkies ....Its the backbone of political rock..Most of the time...They put meaning in the word meaning

Posted by Happy on Thursday, 10.11.12 @ 22:28pm


I'm an American. I'm also a musician. And I can tell you that James Taylor is definitely not a "preschool-level guitarist." His genius lies in his ability to craft songs that don't sound complicated but use very unconventional chord structures. An example would be Don't Let Me Be Lonely Tonight. When I was taking guitar lessons, that was a song my teacher had me play. And this was after a few years of experience under my belt. Those chords he uses aren't the normal major/minor chords somebody would be playing next to a campfire while they were drinking a few beers. It would take somebody at least a year to be able to play a song like that on guitar if they had no experience whatsoever. The same goes for CSNY. Deja Vu uses some mind blowing chords. Nick Drake used some guitar tunings that haven't been identified to this day. And the voice of Joni Mitchell in her prime was infinitely more delightful than Freddy Mercury or David Bowie. If you think the Grateful Dead are sloppy musicians you really need to listen to American Beauty or Blues For Allah where you can hear some of Jerry Garcia's tastiest leads. And be sure to check out their live album called Reckoning from Radio City Music Hall where they cover many traditional blues and country tunes. You'll realize what good players they really are. So your whole notion that folkies have little musical value is just not backed up by the reality. If you don't believe me then try to start playing the guitar and see how long it takes you to replicate what those people did.

Thanks for the little primer on glam. I really wasn't trying to be homophobic about it. They could have dressed up like orangutans, and I would still feel the same about the theatrical aspects overshadowing the music. As a musician, I really tend to concentrate on the actual music as opposed to how it's presented. Consider everything that was happening in the early 70s. You had some of THE perennial rock albums being released like Exile On Main Street, Who's Next, Machine Head. Black Sabbath and ELP and Pink Floyd were all in their prime. You had the folk rockers like Mitchell and singer songwriters galore-Van Morrison, Stevie Wonder, Carole King, Jim Croce. You had Led Zeppelin (who I think are over hyped) and you had The Beatles just breaking up. Even Elvis was still in the mix. You had Eric Clapton with Derek & The Dominoes and the fabulous Allman Brothers Band. I just don't think that glam stacks up very well compared to that onslaught of musical artillery. It just loses by default. Bang A Gong is a good party tune, but I just don't hear anything close to musical excellence in any of T Rex or Bowie's glam phase. But I'm not about to trash it. I'm not going to say T Rex belongs in a flea market behind a five and dime store located in the basement of a toxic waste processing facility. Don't wanna steal your MO.....

Posted by classicrocker on Friday, 10.12.12 @ 01:52am


Zach, you are just delightful. Tell me more about how knowledgable you are. Please.

Posted by DC on Friday, 10.12.12 @ 02:26am


classicrocker - Even as a glam fan and especially as a non-musician I enjoyed that post. It gave me something deeper to look for with Nick Drake, who I am a fan of, and something to consider about a few acts that I'm not a big fan of, but would not naively toss into the scrap heap like our neighborhood man-child troll would.

Posted by DarinRG on Friday, 10.12.12 @ 02:59am


Zach, an old Sam Clemens quip comes to mind when reading your latest screed.

How would you know how MTV was in 1981 - 1987, if you are only '24' (born around 1988)?

Are you telling us that you have been watching old utube clips of MTV? It can't be reruns, as old MTV footage was never rerun by anyone (even MTV).

You can't consider a video by itself that was made in that era to be 'watching old MTV' as they interspirsed the videos with lame commentary by generally lame 'v-jays', not to mention many, many commercials (IMO).

Posted by Paul in KY on Friday, 10.12.12 @ 07:38am


I'm ashamed to admit that I used to like CSNY. I'm not sure what was wrong with me back in those less informed days before I knew how to truly appreciate music. Again, you're dealing with elementary school-level musicianship in a band like this. Very bland, safe, and nonthreatening musuc. Songs like Teach Your Children and Marrakesh Express marked a de-evolution in rock 'n' roll, once again illustrating why Marc Bolan, David Bowie, and their compatriots were needed.

Posted by Zach on Thursday, 10.11.12 @ 21:22pm
--------------------------------------------------
Zach - Don't be ashamed. You happened to like a rock band. No shame in that, as I can see. For the record, I tend to approach things a little diff. than many folks on this site. I tend not to look for the coolness quotient, but rather, I question what is "pop" (producers, editors, re-mixers, & chosen talent designing an accessible "hit" recording) vs "rock" (where the musicians create a band voice themselves, & take it from the garage to the stage w/minimal dilution of the original collective ideal). If you want to get a better idea of where I'm coming from, take a look at this (you may not care for it, but it is a rough primeron what's "rock" vs. what's disguised itself as "rock"):

1954 - 1959:

Bill Haley / Elvis Presley / Little Richard / Bo Diddley / Chuck Berry / Link Wray / Eddie Cochran / Jerry Lee Lewis / The Coasters / Danny & the Juniors / The Rock & Roll Trio / Fats Domino / The Jodimars / Richie Valens / Dale Hawkins / Duane Eddy / Buddy Holly & the Crickets/ Gene Vincent & the Blue Caps / Screaing Jay Hawkins... & too many more to name :)

1960 - 1963

Pop ---- Frankie Avalon / Fabian / Bobby Rydell / Connie Francis / Brenda Lee / pretty much all doo-wop in it's a'cappella phase

Rock ----- Dick Dale / Link Wray / The Beach Boys / The Ventures / The Contours / Johnny & the Hurricanes / Bill Doggett / The Surfaris / The Chantays / The Belairs / The Sonics / The Wailers / Davie Allan & the Arrows / The Kingsmen / Jackie Wilson / James Brown / The Fender IV/ and a boatload more

1964 - 1973 - 1975 (roughly) Rock retakes the stage

Pop passed off as rock ----- Herman's Hermits / Mama's & the Papa's / Sonny & Cher / The Lettermen / the Searchers / Chad & Jeremy / the Strawberry Alarm Clock / Gary Puckett & the Union Gap / Three Dog Night / James Taylor / Carly Simon / Joni Mitchell / America / Bread / nearly all of Motown (the Funk Brothers were the Rock part of the equation - what sat on top were pop performers) /KISS / B. Springsteen

The Real Deal - Beatles /Stones / Who / Beach Boys / Dylan (though he borrowed his rock from Al Kooper & co.) / Byrds / Cream / James Brown / Muscle Shoals / Velvet Under. / Jimi Hendrix / The Doors / Booker T & the MG's / Jeff. Airplane / Santana / Grateful Dead / Floyd / Vaniila Fudge / Bubble Puppy / Blue Cheer / CSN/ CCR / Sly / Zeppelin / Sabbath / Iron Butterfly / Spirit / 13th Floor Elevators / Love / Blind Faith / Funkadelic / Stooges / Bowie / T-Rex / Seeds / Yardbirds / Pretty Things / Downliner Sect / Deep Purple / ZZ Top / Hawkwind / Steppenwolf / Earth, Wind, & Fire / Eagles / Yes / ELP/ K. Crimson / Sweet / Montrose / Budgie / Rush / Allman Bros. / Stray Dog / Aerosmith / Sir Lord Baltimore / Buffalo / Granicus / Medicine Head / Bad Co. / Free / Black Heat / MC5 / Big Brother & Holding Co. / Grand Funk / and a couple billion more...

1976 - 1990 (pop takes over)

Pop passing for rock ----- Journey / Heart / ELO / KISS / Springsteen / Go-Go's / Def Lep / Bon Jovi / Duran Duran / M. Jackson / Psych Furs / Tears For Fears / C. Club / pretty much all pop metal (w/noted exceptions) / pretty much all hip-hop (w/noted exceptions) / latter period Blondie / latter period Talking Heads / latter period Clash / old rockers (Bowie/Stones/MCCartney, etc.) / Madonna / Van Halen/ far too many folks to name (everyone wanted to be pop then)

Rock ----- Ramones / Pistols / Clash / Talking Heads / Blondie / Foreigner (early stuff) / Boston (the first album) / AC/DC / Priest / Maiden / Metallica / Megadeth / Black Flag / Sonic Youth / Husker Du / Leaving Trains / To Damascus / Legal Weapon / SRV / Sylvia Juncosa / Replacements / Venom / Diamond Head / Guns N' Roses / Los Lobos / Blasters / Georgia Satellites / Murphy's Law / Raging Slab / J&MC / My Bloody Val. / Rabbit / Salvation Army / Truth & Janey / Legs Diamond / Sea Hags / Skid Row / Tesla / Testament / Living Colour / James Blood Ulmer / Queensryche / Black Crowes / Napalm Death / Meat Puppets /& a lot more to dig out...

1991 - 1997 Rock takes over again (yeah!)

Pop passed off as rock ----- Sheryl Crow / Radiohead (after the first two albums) / NIN / Blur / Hootie & Blowfish / Better Than Ezra / some of the one shots (too many to name) / Sarah McLachlan / Chemical Bros. /Prodigy

Rock ----- Nirvana / Tad / Pearl Jam / Guns N' Roses / Metallica / Kyuss / the Posies / STP / Pumpkins / Polvo / Sister Double Happiness / Soul Asylum /Uncle Tupelo / Green Day (the early stuff) / AIC / Tool / Offspring (early stuff) / Black Crowes / Mudhoney / Soundgarden / Teenage Fanclub / MBV / RHCP / J.'s Addiction / Blues Traveler / L7 / Son Volt / Hole / Grant Lee Buffalo / House of Large Sizes / Railroad Jerk / Our Lady Peace / Oasis / Ween / White Zombie / Dave Matthews Band / Elephant Six Collective / Medicine / Mazzy Star / Babes In Toyland / Matthew Sweet / Foo Fighters / Collective Soul / Wilco / Phish / Paw / Specula / Gumball / J. Spencer Blues Explosion / Urge Overkill / Goo Goo Dolls (early stuff) / Breeders / Rhino Bucket / N.Y. Loose / Doo Rag / Mazinga Phaser / Palace Music / Corrosion of Conformity/ The Jayhawks / Counting Crows / Maids of Gravity / Mock Turtles / Radiohead (first two albums), & way, Way, Way too many more to count (whole era stinks of awesome rock - along w/54-59, & 64 - 73, The Big Three era's of Rock dominance in the public domain)

1997 - Present

Pop passed off as rock ----- Nickelback / Creed / Matchbox 20 / late 90's pop rock (Eve 6, Fastball, etc.) / John Mayer / Pink / Jack Johnson / Puddle of Mudd / Trapt / the Killers / Panic at the Disco / Fall Out Boy / MCR / MGMT / Flor. & the Machines / M83 / Fun. / Foster the People/ Linkin Park / Limp Bizkit

Rock of the period ----- Sparklehorse / Moon Dog Mane / Bare Jr. / Huffamoose / Danger Man / Oleander / Jimmie's Chicken Shack / Self / White Stripes / Strokes / Hives / Mooney Suzuki / Vines / Audioslave / QOTSA / The Roots / Seether / Velvet Revolver / Black Keys / Kings of Leon / Secret Machines / American Minor / Priestess / Living Things / the High Dials / Burning Brides / Silvertide / Buckcherry / Soledad Bros. / Wolfmother / Avenged Sevenfold / Raveonettes / OTEP / Cage the Elephant / Band of Skulls / Kings of Frog Island / Surfer Blood / Rival Sons / Mumford & Sons (providing they get a full-on drummer, they'll be awesome) / Black Belles / the Fractals / & others (this stuffs still kicking, it's just sitting under the surface !)

Got a clue as to how I see it???!!!!! :)

To the Whole site:

The first line is the popular line - the second path is the one you want to explore - give it a try, & do so w/out putting up roadblocks. It's totally diff., but well worth the searching. You Will Hear the Diff., I guarantee...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 10.12.12 @ 07:49am


What's wrong with pop? Pop is awesome. So's rock.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 10.12.12 @ 11:41am


Congratulations, Darin - You contributed absolutely nothing of substance to this conversation. All you did was give classicrocker a virtual high five and personally attacking me.

Sadly, too many posters here would rather focus on my negative comments than on my positive ones. Hell, when I contribute something thoughtful and informative (e.g., my analysis on the Johnnie Ray page), it fails to gain traction. But the minute I offer an opposing view on one of rock 'n' roll's sacred cows, you collectively excoriate me. A classic case of groupthink.

Cheesecrop, your designation of pop vs. rock has some validity, but you fail to address that there is no mutual exclusion among rock 'n' roll (I refuse to call it rock, they're both the same. Rock is just an abbreviation.) and pop. Take Van Halen for example. You say that they're pop, but you're wrong. The instrumental Eruption from their self-titled debut album is anything but schmaltzy pop designed primarily to be nothing more than a pop hit. The song never even got released as a single or made the charts, yet it's hailed as one of the greatest guitar solos. But don't take my word for it. Read what GuitarWorld, New Musical Express, MusicRadar, and others had to say about it.

Posted by Zach on Friday, 10.12.12 @ 12:04pm


EDIT: That should read "All you did was give classicrocker a virtual high five and personally attack me."

Also, I couldn't post my previous comment with the links I wanted to share. It was rejected as "looking too much like spam." How do I go about sharing external links here?

Posted by Zach on Friday, 10.12.12 @ 12:09pm


Zach, usually if you try and post multiple links in one post it'll reject it as spam, I'm speaking from personal experience.

Better to break your post up into several pieces, each with its own link. Unless of course, you try making like say, 5 posts in one minute, then the spammer might also snag them up.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 10.12.12 @ 13:04pm


Also how on earth can you call Radiohead pop, but mumford and sons rock?

Posted by GFW on Friday, 10.12.12 @ 13:20pm


GFW - There's nothing "wrong" w/pop. I happen to like a lot of pop. My problem is when folks turn around & grab pop, toss it up there as rock, & then lambast the geniune article as being either "bad", or somehow being a step backwards in some way. When someone tells me that Styx sounded better than the Buzzcocks, we'll, no kidding, it was Meant to sound that way! :)

Zach noted that Van Halen's "Eruption" is clearly rock - in this regards, he's absolutley right. However, this is one of the exceptions. The majority of their work is pop-minded. Putting them up against Black Flag, for example, & then demanding that Black Flag be more like Van Halen, while calling Van Halen the real "rock", is absurd.

W/the Mumford & Son comment, please note what I wrote afterwards. In addition, Radiohead did start to move towards pop after the second album. They fell in lovew/all sorts of electronics, which is just fine, providing you don't let the rock end of the music suffer. An act like Foreigner, on "Feels Like The First Time", employs synths, but never loses focus on the blues end of the deal. Listen to Radiohead on "The Bends" - pick anything - & then listen to them on just about anything from "Kid A" & beyond. You'll hear the diff. It's not a knock, in one sense, as they've been producing the best, & most intelligent pop music of the past decade. Most folks want to hear it as rock though. Whether this is a detriment to the genuine article rock acts is something to be questioned.

The bit w/Zach was more my confusion over his ditching one legit rock act (CSN&Y) for others (Bowie, etc.) & then excoriating the first. I found it both a bit odd, & a bit interesting.

In addition, Zach - there IS an exclusion between rock & pop, just like there is an exclusion between certain pre-rock forms, & pop. Think about it. In the 20's, Dixieland ran the show, while singers adapted to the style. When the 20's caved in, who was left standing? The pop crooners. Nobody rescued the Dixieland boys. It took till the rise of the big bands in the mid-30's for the musicians to regain some sense of balance. In the early 50's, when the big bands faded out, things went in two directions. Who got the better of the deal - Sinatra, Eddie Fisher, Bennett, Patti Page, etc., or the Gramercy Five, the Lighthouse All-Stars, etc.? You got it. They dumped the musicians in favor of the singers again.

It's all about the pop process. They tried to re-assert it again for a few yrs. in the early 60's. Then the Beatles came along & swung things back in favor of the musicians (after Elvis & co. did so in the mid-50's). The powers that be got it under control by the mid-70's, & for 15 yrs. we had to live w/an 80% pop world, w/a few exceptions breaking through. It wasn't supposed to break loose again (the 90's should've been the 80's in their perfect world, just like the 2000's should have just followed in a nice, happy line).

When "rock" the music ran amok again they had to stick the tag "alternative" onto it, lest anyone come to the full-on realization that this WAS the real rock all along, not the pop-metal junk. They've got it under control again, though; we've been back to a good 80-90% pop ratio for the past 15 yrs. Pity the kids can't access massive amounts of rock in the mainstream; it's a totally diff. feeling. Not necessarily a greater or lesser feeling - just diff.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 10.12.12 @ 14:57pm


"How would you know how MTV was in 1981 - 1987, if you are only '24' (born around 1988)?"

"Are you telling us that you have been watching old utube clips of MTV? It can't be reruns, as old MTV footage was never rerun by anyone (even MTV)."

You just answered your own question, Paul.

And no, I do not considering a vintage music video "watching old MTV." YouTube is filled to the brim with old interviews, promos, V-Jay segments, and other material which aired on MTV back in the day. I watch all that stuff along with the music videos in order the replicate the feeling of what it was like to watch MTV, say, in 1982.

Posted by Zach on Sunday, 10.14.12 @ 02:59am


"Zach noted that Van Halen's "Eruption" is clearly rock - in this regards, he's absolutley right. However, this is one of the exceptions. The majority of their work is pop-minded. Putting them up against Black Flag, for example, & then demanding that Black Flag be more like Van Halen, while calling Van Halen the real "rock", is absurd."

OK, here are some more Van Halen songs (just the David Lee Roth years) that qualify as rock 'n' roll - Runnin' with the Devil, Hang 'Em High, their cover of (Oh) Pretty Woman, Little Guitars, their cover of You Really Got Me, hell, pretty much their entire debut album. To say that Van Halen is pop-minded is entirely wrong. Your example would have been more effective had you plugged in Poison or one of the other abominable late '80s pop metal acts.

Also, if Van Halen is so "pop minded" then explain why they never achieved a top 10 hit on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 until 1984 (both the album and the year). They did manage to score six top 20 hits on the U.S. Hot Mainsteam Rock Charts, but only two cracked the top 10 ((Oh) Pretty Woman and Dancing in the Street). Doesn't sound like a "pop-minded" group to me. I must again point out that your example would be credible if you'd used any of the generic pop metal bands from the second half of the 1980s.

Black Flag, as with the rest of the earache-inducing hardcore punk bands of the '80s, is completely worthless. Their "music" is undeniably rock 'n' roll, but its artistic merit is an entirely different matter (IMHO). The guitar playing is amateurish and no different from any other garage band. I don't care what the Pitchfork hipsters say. They're not a credible source of music criticism or history because of their "underground = gold, mainstream = crap" mantra.

"In addition, Zach - there IS an exclusion between rock & pop, just like there is an exclusion between certain pre-rock forms, & pop. Think about it. In the 20's, Dixieland ran the show, while singers adapted to the style. When the 20's caved in, who was left standing? The pop crooners. Nobody rescued the Dixieland boys. It took till the rise of the big bands in the mid-30's for the musicians to regain some sense of balance. In the early 50's, when the big bands faded out, things went in two directions. Who got the better of the deal - Sinatra, Eddie Fisher, Bennett, Patti Page, etc., or the Gramercy Five, the Lighthouse All-Stars, etc.? You got it. They dumped the musicians in favor of the singers again."

What I mean by my original comment was that pop and rock 'n' roll are not incapable of crossing over. I'll refer to Van Halen once again, specifically Eddie Van Halen's guitar solo on Michael Jackson's Beat It. Michael Jackson was definitely a pop artist, but the addition of EVH's guitar work enabled Beat It to achieve crossover appeal with the rock 'n' roll crowd.

"The bit w/Zach was more my confusion over his ditching one legit rock act (CSN&Y) for others (Bowie, etc.) & then excoriating the first. I found it both a bit odd, & a bit interesting."

I'll defend my comments here once again. I abandoned CSN&Y after I was exposed to more adventurous bands like Roxy Music. CSN&Y stuck to a very simple, uninspired folk/rock formula and looked like complete dinosaurs when Alice Cooper, The New York Dolls, and others took the rock 'n' roll world by storm. Roxy Music constantly experimented and changed, keeping their music and sound fresh. Roxy Music's earliest years (1972 - 1975) combined elements of glam rock, baroque pop, New Wave (before the genre even had a name) and progressive rock. Their later years (1979 - 1982) featured a more pronounced New Wave sound along with elements of disco, synthpop, and some of their earlier styles. I would go so far to say that Roxy Music did more to advance rock 'n' roll artistically and musically than CSN&Y ever did. Don't just look at it from an U.S.-centric perspective, look at it from a world perspective.

Posted by Zach on Tuesday, 10.30.12 @ 17:43pm


Never been keen on the whole rock vs pop distinction. But pop definitely sounds a lot more interesting than rock. Pop=interesting, lively, creative, experimental, melodious, etc.
Rock=stale, cliched, boring, intolerant, fearful and without any balls at all. Rock=dead. Pop=alive. Rock=the past. Pop=the future. Rock=failure. Pop=success. Rock=old. Pop=young...
I could go on forever.

Posted by astrodog on Tuesday, 10.30.12 @ 20:52pm


OK, here are some more Van Halen songs (just the David Lee Roth years) that qualify as rock 'n' roll - Runnin' with the Devil, Hang 'Em High, their cover of (Oh) Pretty Woman, Little Guitars, their cover of You Really Got Me, hell, pretty much their entire debut album. To say that Van Halen is pop-minded is entirely wrong. Your example would have been more effective had you plugged in Poison or one of the other abominable late '80s pop metal acts.

Also, if Van Halen is so "pop minded" then explain why they never achieved a top 10 hit on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 until 1984 (both the album and the year). They did manage to score six top 20 hits on the U.S. Hot Mainsteam Rock Charts, but only two cracked the top 10 ((Oh) Pretty Woman and Dancing in the Street). Doesn't sound like a "pop-minded" group to me. I must again point out that your example would be credible if you'd used any of the generic pop metal bands from the second half of the 1980s.

Black Flag, as with the rest of the earache-inducing hardcore punk bands of the '80s, is completely worthless. Their "music" is undeniably rock 'n' roll, but its artistic merit is an entirely different matter (IMHO). The guitar playing is amateurish and no different from any other garage band. I don't care what the Pitchfork hipsters say. They're not a credible source of music criticism or history because of their "underground = gold, mainstream = crap" mantra.

Posted by Zach on Tuesday, 10.30.12 @ 17:43pm
--------------------------------------------------
Key point you've missed here: it is entirely possible to be pop-minded, & attempt to sell yourself to anyone in sight, & not succeed. A perfect example of this, at least in recent times, is the Indian/Sri-Lankan (I'm not sure where she's from?) rapper M.I.A. This lady has tried to stir up any controversy she can, has acres of critical hype, & is working within the hip-hop (i.e. pop) context, & hasn't been able to get over at all here. It is possible to end up in this situation.

My point on Van Halen is that they were already trying to go full-on pop, pre-"1984". You're right that the first album is rock, inasmuch as many musicians will test the rock waters no matter what w/their 1st album; it may be their only one. VH was already trying to find the happy place on the charts by "Women & Children First".

Regarding your comment on Black Flag - I'm simply ignoring it. This is an opinion. I could turn around and trash David Bowie's whole career, but in the end it would still only be an opinion as well. I say this not as an agent of Pitchfork or whomever you wish to choose. I'll simply say that Black Flag plays a fairly impt. role in the way rock was later shaped.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 11.1.12 @ 11:21am


Never been keen on the whole rock vs pop distinction. But pop definitely sounds a lot more interesting than rock. Pop=interesting, lively, creative, experimental, melodious, etc.
Rock=stale, cliched, boring, intolerant, fearful and without any balls at all. Rock=dead. Pop=alive. Rock=the past. Pop=the future. Rock=failure. Pop=success. Rock=old. Pop=young...
I could go on forever.

Posted by astrodog on Tuesday, 10.30.12 @ 20:52pm
--------------------------------------------------
You Could go on forever...

So long as you used simple generalities.

The moment anyone introduces a musical argument to this, your whole scenario disappears.

:)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 11.1.12 @ 11:40am


Pop=interesting, lively, creative, experimental, melodious, etc.
Rock=stale, cliched, boring, intolerant, fearful and without any balls at all. Rock=dead. Pop=alive. Rock=the past. Pop=the future. Rock=failure. Pop=success. Rock=old. Pop=young...
__________________________________________________

m8 i swear u is aving a giggle.

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 11.1.12 @ 12:11pm


@GFW-What's really a joke is the effort to define "real" rock. It sounds suspiciously like an attempt to rationalize failure. Rock is no longer the driving force in music because "real" rock is not meant to have popular appeal and any time an act gets the least bit creative and goes against formula they are not a "real" rock act? Ok then. Quite a recipe for self-marginalization.

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 11.2.12 @ 13:35pm


Wait, you having a go at boring old farts who think rock has to stay EXACTLY THE SAME AS CLASSIC ROCK AND NO CHANGES ARE ALLOWED, then yeah, I totally agree.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 11.2.12 @ 15:53pm


Astro:

On one hand, I don't wish to plow over another man's conversation, so I'll try to avoid directly commenting on your other conversation here.

I'll say this: you describe rock as being fearful, having no balls at all, etc. If this is the case, can you please explain why the two most daring moves in the past 20 yrs. have come from Rock Acts?

In 2007, Radiohead, steeped in the Internet era, put out "In Rainbows" on a pay-what-you-want scale - & stunning everyone with the results. Radiohead is a Rock band.

In 1993, in a pre-Internet era, when MTV was The vital method for publicizing your music, Pearl Jam shunned the music video for it's second album, "Vs.". They set a single week sales record that lasted for five yrs. They also proceeded to reel off three straight #1 albums, all san's video. Pearl Jam is a Rock band.

It was not pop that did this - it wasn't even the allegedly extreme hip-hoppers - instead, it was those stale old rock acts of yours that unleashed the most powerful challenges to the music industry structure, at least in recent memory.

If anything, it is pop that has become so, so much less interesting over time. For the 1st 80 yrs. (roughly) of this century, pop was interconnected in some form or other w/jazz, blues, & country, all American roots forms. Since the dawning of the 80's, most pop has fallen into a synth & drum machine trap.

The major problem here is that synths & drum machines play it safe - as do the artists who use them. A synthesizer does just that - it Synthesizes other instruments. It imitates other instruments. Drum machines play beats that are perfect - so perfect that they eventually become monotonous & boring. There is no feeling or expression coming through these things. There is no risk being taken at all. It is the reason most of what passes for pop, 'lo these many yrs. has come off as dull as dishwater. Most of the vocals are either mock romantic (in an attempt to overcompensate for the chill of the equipment) or robotic (to mimic the equipment).

It's the reason why our "pop" artists are being cross-linked to all sorts of marketing schemes. Elvis never had to sell his own line of jumpsuits when he was alive. The Beatles never had to push their own line of cologne. Led Zeppelin never pushed their own brand of shoes. Today's "artists" do. Buying into pop today is buying into a marketing scheme. And since we all know marketing schemes are plotted by outside forces beyond music, there is no intent to "rock the boat" (pun intended).

Which, when you look at it, can pretty much explain why Pearl Jam & Radiohead, two allegedly "conservative", "reactionary", "boring" acts, were the ones who "had the balls" to challenge the industry line. What do they know - their just rock bands, after all...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 11.2.12 @ 18:16pm


@GFW-That's exactly what I was doing.

@Creesecrop-So Pearl Jam didn't put out a video for an album (thankfully, Jeremy was annoying), and Radiohead put out an album digitally? The conscience of rock. Neither band needed the money.

Anyway, you just basically dismissed synthesizers, drum machines or other technology as contrary to rock and playing it safe. While doing that same old guitar driven routine is taking a risk? At what point are you going to scream at the young whipper-snappers to get off your damn lawn? Didn't you once say that Sgt. Pepper wasn't "rock"? Presumably that goes for Pet Sounds too. But you also said that Metal Box, Fear of Music, Sandinista etc. also weren't rock. What about Court of Crimson King? How about Zappa and the Moher's of Invention? I'm just saying that trying to define "real" rock is self-defeating. Sounds a lot like rockism. I think rock can be more broadly defined. Let's face it, but kids don't seem to identify with rock anymore, and part of the problem is the perceived intolerance.

Posted by astrodog on Saturday, 11.3.12 @ 10:14am


"kids don't seem to identify with rock anymore"

That's very, very wrong. I know many people my age who listen to rock acts, and guitars are still the best selling instruments, as opposed to synths.

Anyway, forget pop and rock. The big changes in music nowadays come from the underground first.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 11.3.12 @ 14:12pm


@Creesecrop-So Pearl Jam didn't put out a video for an album (thankfully, Jeremy was annoying), and Radiohead put out an album digitally? The conscience of rock. Neither band needed the money.

Anyway, you just basically dismissed synthesizers, drum machines or other technology as contrary to rock and playing it safe. While doing that same old guitar driven routine is taking a risk? At what point are you going to scream at the young whipper-snappers to get off your damn lawn? Didn't you once say that Sgt. Pepper wasn't "rock"? Presumably that goes for Pet Sounds too. But you also said that Metal Box, Fear of Music, Sandinista etc. also weren't rock. What about Court of Crimson King? How about Zappa and the Moher's of Invention? I'm just saying that trying to define "real" rock is self-defeating. Sounds a lot like rockism. I think rock can be more broadly defined. Let's face it, but kids don't seem to identify with rock anymore, and part of the problem is the perceived intolerance.



Posted by astrodog on Saturday, 11.3.12 @ 10:14am
--------------------------------------------------
First thing first - PJ opted out of the video world in 93, w/ their Second album - everyone's aware that they did videos for the 1st album. In addition, in 93, they were not yet the powerhouse they'd become, so yes, you could say they Did need the money. In addition, it is not that Radiohead released a digital album, but rather that they offered it at whatever price the customer wished - including free - that is the main thing here.

Beyond this, you're attempting to change my stance for me. Allow me to try this once more: a rock band requires that Human Beings be present, & playing the instruments. Hopefully, these human beings have a certain level of musicality in them. Beyond this, what I've always said is that it requires the musicians to stay true to themselves, As Musicians. When the musicans start deliberately changing their style, or start letting scores of outsiders dictate the manner in which the music is shaped, then you no longer have rock, you have pop. The same is true w/jazz bands, blues bands, country bands, etc. All can be turned into pop. This was not always a bad thing - until recently.

In an above post, you said it struck you as "an attempt to rationalize failure". No. It is not an attempt to rationalize failure. What it is, is an attempt to rationalize free will. Rather the musicians "fail" as themselves, as opposed to buying into a marketing package - the "artist", their producer, their editor, their re-mixer, their promotion machine, their choreographer, etc. When it's packaged, every effort is made to make it succeed - including removing the human element, if need be (i.e. cue the drum machines).

For the record - I did not dismiss "Sgt. Pepper", nor would I dismiss King Crimson or Zappa. My definition of "rock" is just as wide open as yours. What I am asking for (& what apparently is a complete anathema to you) is that I hear collective voice of the musicians As Musicians, w/out the excelsior. My question to you is, why do you want your music buried under mounds & mounds of extraneous clutter? Why not just let the musicans record in the studio, & present their vision As Their Vision?!

If asking for directness, clarity, emotion, & expression, all imbued w/a human element, is now something to be reviled, well then, maybe I am an old codger. At the same time, this old codger can't help but note the varying successes of groups like Kings of Leon, Cage the Elephant, the Black Keys, & Mumford & Sons (more folk, but still...) in recent yrs. Perhaps there is more of a yearning for these "old-codger" elements than you realize...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 11.3.12 @ 16:12pm


give me katy perry over mumford and sons anyday.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 11.3.12 @ 16:16pm


Don't care for them, huh? :)

Write it off as a "for example" case, then... (ha-ha).

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 11.3.12 @ 16:22pm


s'okay, I'll just pretend you put kasabian in their place.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 11.3.12 @ 17:33pm


@Creesecrop-For the record Pearl Jam decided to scale back marketing on Vs. in 1993 after already seeing Ten (1991) go multiplatinum (it reached No. 2 US) and having already done videos for Alive, Jeremy and Even Flow. They didn't need the money and it didn't require any real sacrifices. They knew the market for their second album was already there and it was a harmless way to preserve some alt credibility. As to Radiohead, another wealthy band that engaged in creative marketing. Not a dumb idea either; it created a lot of good will. I just don't think these are strong examples of risk taking. (How about Neil Young in his bluegrass period? How about MC5 at the 1968 Convention?).

I'm all for artists staying true to themselves or what not but not at the expense of refusing to try new things, and certainly not at the expense of dismissing something as inauthentic. Rock has a long history of experimentation (Progressive, Psychedlic, No Wave, New Wave, Electronic, etc.), but when anyone tries to define rock too restrictively it undercuts the very artistic integrity you prefer. Because instead of being true to their own artistic vision, you instead have artists playing to formula and patting themselves on the back for their alleged integrity. I agree that rock should involve certain elements, but within that framework there should be a lot of room to manuever before being called out as not being "real." I prefer to see Sgt. Pepper, Pet Sounds, Freak Out, Days of Future Passed, Forever Changes, Remain in Light etc. as rock. Some rock is more pop oriented, some less so. Some rock is experimental, some of garage variety. Is there a danger of overly slick technology and production sucking the life out of the music? Sure. We've seen it before. But the equally significant danger is that music that shuns anything new becomes stale.

Posted by astrodog on Monday, 11.5.12 @ 00:49am


I'm all for artists staying true to themselves or what not but not at the expense of refusing to try new things, and certainly not at the expense of dismissing something as inauthentic. Rock has a long history of experimentation (Progressive, Psychedlic, No Wave, New Wave, Electronic, etc.), but when anyone tries to define rock too restrictively it undercuts the very artistic integrity you prefer. Because instead of being true to their own artistic vision, you instead have artists playing to formula and patting themselves on the back for their alleged integrity. I agree that rock should involve certain elements, but within that framework there should be a lot of room to manuever before being called out as not being "real." I prefer to see Sgt. Pepper, Pet Sounds, Freak Out, Days of Future Passed, Forever Changes, Remain in Light etc. as rock. Some rock is more pop oriented, some less so. Some rock is experimental, some of garage variety. Is there a danger of overly slick technology and production sucking the life out of the music? Sure. We've seen it before. But the equally significant danger is that music that shuns anything new becomes stale.

Posted by astrodog on Monday, 11.5.12 @ 00:49am
--------------------------------------------------
True.

Perhaps one of the reasons I am so critical of the synth/drum machine creations is that I've heard so little that I really qualify as being truly special. I really Do think pop music took a terrible turn for the worst many yrs. ago, & I do think that this is in fact being played out now. Outside of the 1978-1986 period, when synth-pop really Was a new & unexplored frontier, so little of it has moved me. All the dance/R&B/Hip-Hop/Synth acts seem to be a giant, formless miasma of Something. What, I'm not sure of.

I do think, on occasion, someone get's it right, but it is few & far between. Johnny Hates Jazz did it alright, as a one shot, w/"Shattered Dreams". I think Information Society got it right w/"What's on your Mind" in the late 80's. I'll readily admit to stopping whenever I hear TLC's "Waterfalls", & Savage Garden's "I Want You". Ditto for Pink's "Get The Party Started" & Outkast's "Hey Ya".

I'm not completely immune to more accessible tunes :0

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 11.5.12 @ 15:15pm


Might as well get my parting shots in on classicrocker now than never

"I'm not going to say T Rex belongs in a flea market behind a five and dime store located in the basement of a toxic waste processing facility. Don't wanna steal your MO....."

Funny how you twist my words and take them completely out of context. I never once said that the albums of Creedence Clearwater Revival, Santana, Led Zeppelin, and other rockers should be confined to Goodwill and other consignment stores. I was referring to the weepy, saccharine work of singer-songwriters like James Taylor, Carole King, and Joni Mitchell. That's the kind of music that deserves to collect dust and remain untouched (IMHO), along with other cheesy, square musical acts (Lawrence Welk, Pat Boone, Mario Lanza, The Weavers, Ray Conniff, Ethel Merman). It's very safe, bland music that doesn't really push the envelope, creatively.

I see the early '70s singer-songwriters as a logical extension of the godawful teen idols of the early 1960s (think Fabian, Paul Anka, etc.). It's the kind of music you can play for your grandparents and not worry about them getting offended. An integral part of rock 'n' roll is its ability to frighten older generations. Musically or socially speaking, there's nothing threatening about a song like Fire and Rain or Big Yellow Taxi.

"I just don't think that glam stacks up very well compared to that onslaught of musical artillery. It just loses by default."

Take the foot out of your mouth. Glam rock's formative years took place during the early '70s, roughly the same timeframe that you were waxing nostalgic about. Electric Warrior, which is widely considered to be a pivotal album in the glam rock canon, was released in 1971. There were earlier albums from David Bowie that certainly anticipated glam rock (The Man Who Sold the World, Space Oddity), but Electric Warrior was arguably the first full-fledged glam rock album.

David Bowie's Hunky Dory was released the same year too, three months after Electric Warrior to be exact. There were more glam rock-tinged songs on Hunky Dory than his earlier work. Songs like Queen Bitch, Life on Mars, and Oh! You Pretty Things contain two of the preeminent themes in glam rock: namely, androgyny and science fiction. That's a lot more adventurous than writing a song about smiling on your brothers (Come Together, one of the tritest pieces of dreck ever recorded). Hunky Dory was also significant for being Bowie's first album that included the personnel that would later comprise the Spiders from Mars (Mick Ronson, Trevor Boulder, and Mick Woodmansey).

Add to this such seminal albums as The Slider, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, Aladdin Sane, For Your Pleasure, Desolation Boulevard, and the New York Dolls' self-titled album, and you've got an all-star team of glam rock albums that rivals anything your overhyped, classic cock heroes could muster.

It's people like you that continue to contribute to Americans' ignorant dismissal of glam rock. You focus way too much on the appearances of the artists rather than on the actual music. The British were much more accepting of glam rock in the 1970s and treated it with respect; American rock 'n' roll fans and critics, for the most part, ignored it in favor of the abominable solo work of the Beatles, as well as the dreck released by The Eagles, Led Zeppelin, Neil Young, and other overhyped sacred cows.

I'm done with this discussion. You need to take off the rose-colored glasses and stop fetishizing the late 1960s/early 1970s. It wasn't the alpha and omega of music. I personally love the 1950s the best, but I would never blindly ignore other eras or styles like you do. Your username alone reflects your bias. Classic rock is a crock. I'm glad I snapped out of the classic raaawk mindset and started seeking out music on my own.

Posted by Zach on Thursday, 11.22.12 @ 15:57pm


y u gotta h8 on carole king?

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 11.22.12 @ 17:21pm


Zach, parden me asking, but why is your penis so small?

Posted by mikhail on Thursday, 11.22.12 @ 21:26pm


Wow, mikhail, that was such a mature, intellectual response. And what wit! Groucho Marx hasn't got anything on you. You're well on your way to becoming a master comedian with your verbal put-downs. I applaud you on your ability to offer such an enlightened, verbose comment.



Not! Listen, you schmuck, all you proved was that you're a typical coward who hides behind a computer and makes juvenile retorts that you wouldn't get away with in the real world. Why don't you take a long walk off a short pier and leave me alone? You clearly have nothing constructive or informative to say, so do me a favor and get lost, you pathetic schmuck.

Posted by Zach on Thursday, 11.22.12 @ 23:25pm


Arlo Guthrie tells the story of how he was playing at the Quiet Knight in Chicago and the manager asked him to listen to this guy play his song. He was tired and grouchy and declined. Steve Goodman comes around the corner and says but I just want you to hear one song. Arlo Guthrie agreed that if Steve Goodman bought him a beer he would listen as long as the beer lasted. Six months later Arlo Guthrie had a hit with City of New Orleans. He calls it one of the finest beers of his life.

Thirteen years later Willie Nelson covered the song and had a hit on the Country charts. It also won a Grammy for Country song of the year.

The show Good Morning America takes its name from the chorus of the song

According to Clay Eals over eighty artists have covered the song.

The original by Steve Goodman is #2 on Tin an Alley's Listener Poll for all time greatest folk songs.

Posted by Zuzu on Sunday, 05.17.15 @ 00:04am


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.