What do you call "Classic Rock" that is new?

I'm curious just what people might call music that fits in the genre of Classic Rock but that is new. I'm a musician and I've come to realize that my band's music fits in this world but it obviously isn't "classic" since it's new music. We're compared to Petty, Springsteen, Allman Brothers...so what do we call it? What do you call it? A buddy of mine said "steeped in 70's rock tradition". Is it possible for new music to be "Classic Rock"?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

network founder!Permalink Reply by Rich Page on December 20, 2009 at 2:20am

I agree with you regarding the time frame of the era... but its more than just the era though. I mean, Beach Boys - they aren't classic rock, but they peaked in that time frame. There is definitely a particular sound to classic rock in that era too - usually very guitar dominated in particular.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Drew Perkins on December 20, 2009 at 12:28pm

So what do you call music that is not "classic" since it's not from that era but draws heavily from those influences or sounds like artists from that era? What term or terms (descriptors?) would draw you into a new band like that?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andy Hubble on December 20, 2009 at 7:20pm

This talk of what to label what is a bit frustrating because it is inconsistent and inaccurate, I think. How has "classic" been defined? The first time I heard "classic rock" defined was by a new radio station that came on in the late 1980s, and it was never actually defined-it was just how they marketed their station. They played Zep, Doors, Jimi etc., but also played a lot of Police, Dire Straits, and new stuff from bands that had been around for awhile. They left the newer bands to the "rock" station, and the so-called "alternative" music was difficult to find on the radio. An argument can be made to put "classic" into a certain era, but I think that era should be quite long and inclusive of so many different styles that the term "classic rock" becomes vague and meaningless. In a sense it already is. Black Sabbath and The Eagles are two bands that couldn't be much more different from each other, yet both are considered "classic rock". We can do this all day: AC/DC and Yes. Bruce Springsteen and Pink Floyd. Queen and The Grateful Dead. Warren Zevon and Styx. These are all classic rock acts that sound completely different from each other. It seems to me that the question that started this discussion can never be answered until an indisputable definition of "Classic Rock" is made, and I doubt that will ever happen. There is a marketing gimmick that might help, it's the term "instant classic". You could use that to say the new music you create is classic rock. You could make your music and not listen to it for about 5 or 6 years, after which point it could legitimately be called "classic rock", much like the classic rock station that was playing 1981's Rush screamer "Tom Sawyer" in 1987.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by uduwudu on December 14, 2010 at 12:30am

Classic rock is a marketing term. If it's new rock that sounds "classic rock" it might get called retro. Or just rock.

Let the public decide - mind you the public are "guided" by the media / companies. (Top 40 etc is a record biz device, not a musical one.)

Let it be rock and damn the crtics!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by richard yanick on January 14, 2011 at 6:37pm

It's definitely a label. When you hear the term you immediately think of guitar driven 70's songs. But the word "classic rock." hell Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Elvis can be considered "classic rock" but not in the terms that is labeled classic rock, which is kinda silly when you think about it. I'm sure 20 years from now what is popular now will be labeled as well. "Computer Generation Rock" anyone? lol, who knows.