Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 54 of 54

Thread: Rockism: Are you a Rockist?

  1. #51
    Mod or rocker? Mocker. Frumious B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Smyrna, GA
    Posts
    1,114
    I wouldn't say it's rockist because rock isn't the only genre to which I listen, but I am biased in favor of music performed in real time that represents an organic performance as opposed to this cut and paste Garage Band sounding crap loaded up with auto tune. However, I did get in big trouble on another board not long ago for saying that I don't believe that you really need anything to make a great rock record that wasn't also available for use back when they made Abbey Road.
    "It was a cruel song, but fair."-Roger Waters

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Baribrotzer View Post
    1972. That date, though, tells the story. Eclecticism was the word of the day. So for a rock band, even the hardest and heaviest of hard rock bands, to record what I hear as an anomalous attempt at soul music wasn't necessarily "off". Fans probably just accepted it, so long as it was only one shortish track.
    So why were hard rock/metal fans accepting of ballads in 1972, but not a decade later? Or were they? I wonder if there's any record (say in the "letters to the editor" sections of the respective music publications of the day) of such approval or disapproval. In other words, were fans of the first three Sabbath records saying, (Ray Milland mode) "IS THIS SOME KIND OF A JOKE?!" (Ray Milland mode off) when they heard Changes at the time, or if did they just accept it for what it was at the time, ie a band changing things up a bit.

    I wonder what Kiss fans thought of Beth or Hard Luck Woman back in 76-77, as another example. And when I say "Kiss fans", I'm not talking about the people who made Beth a hit. I mean the people who ewre already fans, if not from the first three studio albums and tours, but at the very least since Alive and who perhaps snapped up Destroyer and Rock And Roll Over on their respective days of release.

  3. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    To make a guess, it was because people were used to it. The rock esthetic was still in the shadow of the Beatles at that point, and they went all over the place, so everybody else went all over the place (not everybody else, but lots of artists, and it was accepted). It was only later that the "all killer, no filler" approach - under which if a song didn't sound like a potential hit single, it didn't get on the album - took hold, and that way of doing things was so superior from a business standpoint that it took over completely.
    Last edited by Baribrotzer; 03-07-2016 at 12:53 PM.

  4. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Seguin, TX
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by StevegSr View Post
    I heard Tull played on the PA of my local food store one day! Bungle In The Jungle! That's not for classic rock, that's for "Golden Oldies!"
    Funny you should mention this. Back in 1973, the "Golden Oldies" consisted of rock n' roll from the 1950s and pre-Rubber Soul 1960s - sometimes less than a decade. There seemed to be a Great Leap Forward around 1965 or so, give or take a year...

    Bob

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •