Classic Rock Defined

I’ve been thinking about this for awhile now.

When it comes to rock music, the word “classic” gets tossed around far too generously. Classic Rock is something that seems to have this floating definition that depends on the perspective of the person using the term. One person’s idea of classic rock can be dramatically different from someone else's.

A few years ago I was in the car driving around with Nephew #1, easily the most musically literate of the nephews. The CD that had been playing when I picked him was Nine Inch Nails’ brand new (at the time) album “Year Zero.” It had gotten very strong reviews, both for its provocative political themes and its consistent sound. In the landscape of popular music at the time, “Year Zero” was thought to be a fairly important release. Plus it was just a good album.

Nephew #1 hops in the car and listens for a minute. “Who is this?” he says.
“Nine Inch Nails,” I tell him.
He sits on top of one his trademarked thoughtful pauses. “Aren’t they... old?”

I was almost offended. I nearly shot back, “What?! Old? Come on, this isn’t Crosby, Stills, and Nash! It’s Nine Inch Nails! It’s electronic, industrial music with really dark themes and offensive language! This is the kind of stuff that moderately uptight parents rightly fear!”

Now, before you go gettin’ up in my face about being the uncle who plays music with f-bombs around my teenage nephew, let me refocus to the point. I did not shoot off that comeback because I thought about what he said and decided that, from his perspective, maybe the band WAS old. After all, the first NIN album, “Pretty Hate Machine,” had been released a few years before he was born. So I didn’t really have much of an argument to make. And if anyone wants to give me a hard time about being a Nine Inch Nails fan, I’ll point out that the guy who pretty much IS Nine Inch Nails just won an Academy Award for co-composing the musical score to “The Social Network.” Just saying.

Anyway. The point here is that I never would have thought to label Nine Inch Nails as classic rock, regardless of how long the band has been around, but maybe my nephew would have. So how exactly do people label Classic Rock? Would it be similar to the governmental pornography definition/cop-out, but just changed to “I know it when I hear it?” Because I don’t even think that’s good enough. Take KQRS for example, or whichever dusty old-fart station in your hometown still has a playlist that mixes Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and the Eagles with Head East and Canned Heat. The station calls themselves classic rock radio. I disagree. Music being old isn’t enough. I think songs, or albums, or even artists, need to earn their way into being considered classic. So I’ve been working on a list of criteria on this, along with examples that I believe will prove my points. Of course, all of this is opinion because love of music is completely subjective. But as usual, I’m pretty sure I’m right. To keep this post from getting out of control, I’ll limit myself to ten items. Let’s get started:


(1) It has to be at least twenty-five years old.* That gets an asterisk because this cutoff is always changing, but twenty-five is a good, round number. I picked this based on that’s how long an artist has to have been around before he/she/they can be considered for nomination into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. If you want to be classic, you need staying power. 2011 - 25 = 1986. Let’s take U2’s “The Joshua Tree.” That came out in 1987, so in a few months it will officially hit the 25 year mark. Hard to argue that album’s status as classic.

(2) Classic rock is accepted by a solid majority of people as classic. Take The Eagles and The Doors. Both of these bands bore me to tears. But that’s me. The Eagles have a huge catalog of beloved songs that can’t be denied. And on the day Kurt Cobain died, I remember thinking “He just became this generation’s Jim Morrison.” And he did. And I wouldn’t have locked on that comparison so quickly if Jim Morrison wasn’t so widely revered.

(3) The music transcends its era. When you hear a Beatles song, does it sound like a 60s relic or does it sound like a Beatles song? How about Zeppelin? Okay. Queen, for crying out loud? Yeah, that’s right. Now, what about KC and the Sunshine Band? AH HA! Music from the 50s sounds like music from the 50s. Music from the 80s sounds like music from the 80s. It takes something classic to break out of that.

(4) The music transcends its genre. Metallica = metal. Motley Crue or Whitesnake = hair metal. Pearl Jam = grunge. Billy Idol = new wave, even if the wave subsided close to thirty years ago. Genesis = art rock or pop, depending on the line-up. Now, how about John Mellencamp? Not so easy to pigeonhole. The Sex Pistols and The Ramones were both huge punk bands. But which song will get people on the dance floor at the wedding reception -- “Anarchy in the UK” or “I Wanna Be Sedated”? Both songs could be called classics, but one of them is more strongly identified with that ‘punk’ qualifier.

(5) Classic Rock needs to come from established artists. No one-hit wonders allowed. Katrina and the Waves. ? and the Mysterians. Most of the acts from the disco era. Now, how about Van Halen? Or Bruce Springsteen? I’ll concede this is the point that could have the most exceptions to it; “My Sharona” by The Knack could be considered classic rock, and I might even call it that depending on my mood when I hear it. But all the same, I stand by the rule.

(6) Classic rock is not a guilty pleasure. This goes back to #2. If most people recognize it as a classic, you have nothing to feel guilty about. One of my cousins wisely pointed out years ago that nothing about music should ever be considered a guilty pleasure, which is an idea I try to live by, in theory. But that doesn’t mean I’m proud to have Quiet Riot’s Greatest Hits on my iPod.

(7) The music has to work as a whole. This is harder to define, but I’m trying to get at the idea of a song that doesn’t have something about it so distractingly bad it becomes the only thing about the song you notice, which takes away from the rest of the song. For example, I could never consider Twisted Sister’s “We’re Not Gonna Take It” as classic because the drums sound like they were recorded in someone’s bathroom, and that has always bothered me to no end. You don’t believe me? Remember that point the next time you hear it. (Plus there’s no way Twisted Sister could ever break far enough out of the glam-metal genre to be considered classic, so Dee Snider winds up a two-time loser here.)

(8) Just because an artist or band is recognized as classic rock doesn’t mean every song of theirs earns the label. Take Styx. We’ve got “The Grand Illusion,” “Come Sail Away,” “Crystal Ball,” “Blue-Collar Man,” and “Lady” to name a few undeniable classics. But what about “Mr. Roboto?” Um, please. Really? No.

(9) Not every recording of a song can be called a classic. How many people are really all that familiar with the original studio version of “I Want You to Want Me?” I’m not even saying who’s song that is to prove a point -- I don’t need to. You know who it is. You’ve sung along with it at some time in your life. But I bet you’ve only heard the live version. And which version do you think appears on this band's greatest hits album?

(10) For a song to be considered classic rock, it needs to have a certain amount of cultural gravity. The song has to have, in some manner, left a thumbprint on society. “We Will Rock You” is a perfect example of this. But to make the argument, how about Peter Gabriel’s “In Your Eyes?” Personally I think that’s one of the most perfectly written songs in popular music, and I think a lot of people would back me up on it being a classic. But how about “Big Time” from the same album? “Big Time” still stands today as one of only two songs I have ever called a radio station to request (back in 1986 when I was packing up to move out of my dorm for the summer). But does that make it a classic? Not hardly. The same could even be said about “Sledgehammer” from the same album, though I think that was too big of a pop hit to earn the classic label, and almost approaches one-hit wonder status since it was really the only monster hit song Peter Gabriel ever had. But “In Your Eyes?” Hard to argue.

And on the subject of arguing, I’m really hoping to stir up some Facebook comments from this post. Not because I need an ego stroke and want to see my hit count shoot up, but because I think it could be an interesting discussion.

So let’s see what you’ve got, people. Hit me with your best shot.

(Yes, I’d count that one, too)

Little Kids vs. R-Rated Movies

When I was in junior high, my family was visiting some relatives in South Dakota. I don't remember what the occasion was -- I think it was a cousin's high school graduation. Several families were there for it, as has always been the tradition in my extraordinarily large and close extended family.

This trip was important because it was when I saw my first ever R-rated movie: "Conan the Barbarian." I saw it with a couple of my cousins who were old enough to get me in, even though we knew my parents weren't necessarily going to approve. Well, some of us knew -- the oldest of us who went is someone so guileless that it wouldn't surprise me if he'd thought I had permission to go. And this was back in the days before things like VCRs and HBO were widely available, so if you were going to see an R-rated movie, your only option was the theater.

I went into this feeling a combination of exhilaration and fear, and for someone who today makes such an issue about people talking during movies in the theater, I was too energized to possibly keep my mouth shut. The movie, for those of you who've never seen it (which is probably many) wasn't great, but you couldn't tell me this at that age.

But you know, I was in my mid-teens here. I'm not someone who would really describe myself as socially conservative, but as a teacher I have a real problem with parents who let their young kids (I'm going with eleven and younger here) watch R-rated movies. As somebody who knows a little bit about the psychology of the pre-teen mind, I can tell you that being exposed to the stuff that goes on in these movies can have a desensitizing effect on young kids. There are literally thousands of movies PG-13 and down that are great and more appropriate entertainment for kids that won't twist their sensibilities inside out.

I read an interview with Zach Galifinakis in Rolling Stone. He said when little kids tell him how great "The Hangover" was, he tells them they have awful parents and he means it. Sure, there are much bigger mistakes parents can make other than letting kids see R-rated movies, but I respect his point. If I have a kid in class start loudly blabbing away about an R movie they've seen just to show off to everyone else how cool and mature and sophisticated they are, I'll shut it down point blank: "It's an R movie. You're ten. It's ridiculous anyone allowed you to see that. Stop talking about it. I'm not impressed."

Where is all of this coming from today? Well, I just read an article online that reminded me that a remake of "Conan the Barbarian" is about to be released into theaters. We're kind of in the dog days of summer movies now here in late August, so there isn't much to pick from out there that I haven't already seen. So am I planning on going to see the new version of Conan?

Probably not. Because I don't want to run into any of my recent students at the theater.

The Next Logical Step in 140 Characters

Kind of a throwaway post tonight -- granted, that's not the best way to engage the reader, but you can probably see already this isn't very long so perhaps you'll still manage to read all the way to the end.

So anyway. While having a night of "I'm kind of bored" not long ago, I decided to start up a Twitter account. Just kind of dove into the idea without thinking too hard about it; I know, go ahead and pick your jaw up off the floor now. Ever since I started thinking about starting an account, it became about what I was going to do with it. I seriously doubt more than a dozen or so people in my everyday life are on Twitter (maybe I'll be surprised), and I already have three or four ways to get in touch with anyone I'd care to reach.

So then the question was about my platform: Do I want to try and have one of these pages where I just post a bunch of off-kilter one-liners and try to gain a following? Do I use it to network with other deluded aspiring writers? Do I move my Facebook 10-Word Movie Reviews there instead? Does it become a networking tool for my career? So many possibilities. But in the end I just decided to set up the account and see what happened. This blog surely became something different from what I thought it would be in the beginning, and I think that's worked out okay.

So if you're curious, my Twitter name is Tomulroy424. Or is it supposed to be @Tomulroy424? Something else I need to figure out. Anyway, go ahead and follow if you're on there. I'll follow back anyone who follows me.