Is American Classic Rock underrated?

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. So yeah,my original question was, Do you think modern culture has moved on from those kinds of bands, and why?

edited 16th Feb '14 5:43:18 PM by batfan

I'll just stand here... and... pose.

Do you mean by "American classic rock bands" when you said "those kinds of bands"? If that's what you meant, I think it's possible that modern culture has moved on from them but that may be due to elitist rock music critics placing British classic rock bands' albums at high positions in their "Best Albums of All Time" lists. I made a theory that most of these critics are British or American who think that the grass is always greener on the other side.

I also think the Beatles' influence could be a reason why British classic rock bands are so highly regarded. They did start the Rock N Roll Revolution after the genre was dismissed as a fad as early as the early 1960s. Do notice plenty of possibilities that caused the downfall of Rock and Roll involved American rock stars, as noted by rock music analysts. Elvis Presley was drafted. Buddy Holly lived a short life. Jerry Lee Lewis received truckload of flak after the public found out that he had his teenage cousin to be his wife. After a few years.... The Fab Four saved the day (!), or that's what the historians told us at least. The band is British. Therefore, let's jump to the conclusion that British bands were better! This is the mindset I think most classic rock fans have.

edited 16th Feb '14 9:04:22 PM by tropeslave

The Beatles had a large part in influencing the opinion, but let's not forget the contributions of many other British bands. Whether it's the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Pink Floyd, the punk bands and the Post-Punk bands, and so forth. There wasn't really a perspective of "Because The Beatles are good/great, therefore all other British bands are good/great."

It just so happened that many awesome and creative bands came along. Hell, France, Germany and Brazil (among others) also made waves in the international scenes. Why? Because many bands and artists came along who were incredibly creative and different and who innovated through new genres or lots of modifications on already existing and codified genres.

And this is the key factor. Innovation was on the mindset of The Beatles. In the sense of, "let's try crazy stuff that people may not have tried before, let's move the goalposts and break barriers" in musical and sonical terms (I don't buy the bullshit of "there's nothing new under the sun" - there are many definitions of new when it comes to music, btw).

There are American rock bands who were also innovative - but most of the them were or seemed to be located outside the mainstream, at least for a while (e.g. Velvet Underground), or, in terms of artists, had a distinct style of lyrics (e.g. Dylan, Springsteen).

Innovation is one of the big factors among critics to praise music works.

edited 16th Feb '14 10:18:12 PM by Quag15

Let's also not forget, all those revolutionary British bands were in turn inspired by American R&B and rock 'n roll. They were just taking those styles and channeling it through their cultural lens, and at times they can be downright almost the same. Compare any of the Beatles' cover songs with the originals, and you'll find a lot of the time that they're note-for-note, perhaps just in a different key once in a while to match the lead singer's range better. People especially don't consider the enormous influence Motown had on these bands—look at the early ouvre of, say, the Rolling Stones and you'll find alongside rock 'n roll standards a whole bunch of Motown covers—two of their early hits were covers of "Ain't too Proud to Beg" and "Money (That's What I Want)" (though the latter is more associated with the Beatles, I suppose). Motown is hardly forgotten in the world of music as a whole, but it's certainly often overlooked by people observing the British Invasion.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

I wouldn't blame the critics for overly focusing on the Beatles and all the other British bands. After all, they did change popular music for good in more ways than one.

Although Bob Dylan should get some credit; it was partly due to him that people started writing lyrics that meant something. It's bizarre that in ten years we went from "Heartbreak Hotel" to Sgt. Pepper's.

"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."

Thank you. I forgot about Bob Dylan. See, I started this forum and even I couldn't remember the most influential American artist. pop culture gas certainly forgotten him as well, which, like I said is a shame. And yes I do agree that modern music critics also moving on plays a large part in it.

edited 17th Feb '14 6:38:14 AM by batfan

I'll just stand here... and... pose.

Most people would disagree with my opinion that Bob Dylan's music isn't rock music. People think Bob's music is rock because of his association with rock bands in his early years, rather than the structure and composition of his songs. Yes, classic rock is a broad term but I still insist that Bob's music isn't rock.

Is there not such a thing as folk rock?

edited 17th Feb '14 6:50:30 AM by Aldo930

"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."

You're right, I guess.

Also, consider Dylan's going electric at the Newport Folk Festival.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

Dylan did folk, then he did folk rock, then he tried to piss off his fans, then he became a Born Again, then he became a Wilbury.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

Pretty much.

Incidentally, I disagree with the premise of this thread on the grounds that most of the bands that the OP listed as "underrated" strike me as horribly inconsistent, mixed in quality, or generally uninteresting compared to the bands that the OP listed as not.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

All I'm getting out of this is that you really like The Eagles.

Which is fine, Hotel California is a good song, but I really wouldn't call them underrated. Underrated by dumb nerds like us, maybe, but you shouldn't rely on our opinions for anything, as we are but shells filled with cockroaches.

movin out to the country

Yes I like The Eagles a lot, but they're not the only reason for my argument. My argument is that modern culture has a far easier time remembering and recognizing British rock groups.

I'll just stand here... and... pose.

Eh, honestly, I wouldn't say that's necessarily the case. The major reason that British music probably gets so much focus is the British Invasion[s] and the influence the music had on America at the time[s]. It's not necessarily to the detriment of American music, though, as there are still tons of American musicians who are given massive credit for innovations and their general musical contributions (Jimi Hendrix, the Doors, Simon & Garfunkel, all the founding fathers of rock 'n roll, the Velvet Underground... just to name a few who immediately spring to mind for me).

Also, for the record, when I think of "classic rock", my thoughts usually tend to bias toward the '60s more than anything. I don't quite have as much of a working knowledge of the music of the '70s as I do of the decade prior.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

Well, the 70's rock music was inspired by the sixties, but in terms the rock music, more bands like Chigo and Pink Floyd (another British band) were more open to musical experimentation. There was a more eclectic sound. Also people tend to forget that Chicago was one of these early innovators. They started in '68, and were among the first American bands to utilize a verity of different instruments and styles.

I'll just stand here... and... pose.

And they squandered that potential in their later years, to the point that their legacy is just as much about their lousy '80s material as their rather fun '70s stuff.

Also, you are completely ignoring the fact that the roots of psychedelia and hard rock are distinctly American, and while few were that big on either side of the Atlantic most of those bands are very well-respected to this day: Jefferson Airplane, The Fugs, The 13th Floor Elevators, The Holy Modal Rounders, The Godz, The Red Krayola, even noisier bands like The Velvet Underground and The Sonics and proto-metal acts like Vanilla Fudge.

Really, you seem to be fixating on the waning popularity of '70s American soft rock, which is totally different in period and style from the British Invasion and only loosely connected to the work of a band like The Doors. It is unpopular now because it is, comparatively speaking, somewhat dated, and further tainted by the poor reputations later garnered by the same bands as they slowly transformed into bland pop.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

Can't this also be said of David Bowie, or even Genesis? It's so interesting how many artists and bands succumbed to dumbed down material as they progressed through the '80s.

Bowie gets a small pass regarding the early 80's because of Scary Monsters ("Ashes To Ashes", anyone?) and some of the tracks of Let's Dance.

I though the Velvets were the complete antithesis of psychedelia.

edited 18th Feb '14 5:20:57 PM by Quag15

The Velvet Underground may not be psychedelic but they can be considered as hard rock, right?

I'd say they're more one of the roots of punk rock and indie rock (and, really, alternative rock in general) than anything.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

I think you're right. People like Chicago, Elton John and Journey first began at decent state. They were making music they wanted to in the first few years in the career. However, as time went by, they decided to write songs that were similar to the popular Top 40 songs in their latter years. What's worse is that they are more popular for those Top 40 songs than for their earlier material. The novelty of those Top 40-esque songs had went out of style and appears dated today. They immediately lost their originality which they could have maintained and continue that legacy to become well-known classic rock bands in the future. You can't compare the 1970s soft rock bands to British classic rock bands the OP listed out in the beginning of the thread. Those soft rock bands eventually chose the mainstream route and tarnished their classic rock legacy to the point that they can't be Vindicated by History.

For the case of the aforementioned British classic rock bands, The Beatles were in danger of being influenced by their new producers, like Phil Spector, but they quitted before the damage can be done to their legacy. Queen did last for quite some time but they are popular for their earliest works and their latest works aren't so shabby either. The Who's earliest songs are definitely more popular for the public and their latest songs are not as remembered as their earliest. In my opinion, people seem to prefer U2's earliest material and their latest material is only enjoyed by no one but their biggest fans. I think people go to U2's concerts to listen to their 1980s songs.

Some other bands' latest works are considered bland and being forgotten due to Fanon Discontinuity. This actually saves the bands' legacy in the long run because they at least put out great songs early in their career. They are only remembered for releasing brilliant material when they were young although they are still making new material now and then.

edited 18th Feb '14 9:52:39 PM by tropeslave

Er, that wasn't really the case, as George Martin produced all their albums up until their breakup, and Phil Spector was only called in after the breakup to cobble together the listenable stuff from the remains of the Get Back sessions for a marketable album. Even still, if you wanna get technical, they still took influence from Phil Spector after then anyway, since he ended up producing George Harrison's first solo album and most of John Lennon's solo output anyway. (Paul I'm pretty sure mostly stayed on his own, and who even cares about Ringo.)

As for Queen, they definitely fell into following the trends on their later output—they went from putting stickers on their albums proudly declaring "NO SYNTHESIZERS" to drowning some of their music in synths. ("I Want to Break Free", "The Invisible Man", and most of Freddie Mercury's solo output that I've heard in particular come to mind). And then there's the infamous/polarizing Hot Space, their disco album. Not that their music was any worse or better for it, but they still did follow musical trends as well, even if they came to them a bit late.

edited 18th Feb '14 10:03:30 PM by Odd1

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

I'm lumping The Velvets in as a form of psychedelia, but a very particular strain of it: Rather than the utopian hallucinogenic sort, the speed-and-opiates-scarred alienated sort that rose out of the La Monte Young school of minimalism and would evolve into, as noted, noise rock, punk, shoegaze and industrial. It is drug music, but it's not happy drug music, more mind-blanking drug music.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

Eh, if you're gonna classify it that way, I think you'd have to also lump all garage rock together with psychedelic rock, which doesn't quite seem like a proper distinction.

...not that it stopped the Nuggets or Pebbles series, mind you, but still.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.