Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

What is Classic Rock?


Jangler

Recommended Posts

Listening to Rock 92, and I hear a lot of songs that are not classic rock. So I thought I would start posting thses songs, and get decision here.

Now this first song is a cool song, but is it classic rock?

I say no and should never be played on any classic rock stations.

btw the chick off of Palmers right shoulder....mmmmmmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol yeah I know the past is the past and rock and roll is rock and roll. But I'm talking about Rock. I guess you have to decide when rock started.I think rock started in the mid-60s. Now classic is supposed to be anything 25 years and older... So 1991 and older is classic. But that doesn't make this...

classic rock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a senior in high school  in 1992, Rock 92 played songs from the 60s and 70s. That was 24 years ago. The 80s are fair game now. And when the sprinkle in some Pearl Jam and Nirvana I don't get mad at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must be at least 5 mins long and include at least one guitar solo.  A saxophone is fine as long as it meets the two aforementioned requirements.  An instrumental is also allowed so long as any of the three are included. 

If the song is over 5 mins and includes any of the requirements yet there is makeup or long hair and this band didn’t start playing until after 1980, it is NOT classic rock. KISS is ahem, grandfathered in.

Robert Palmer has other stuff that is classic rock but Addicted to love isn't it but i concur with stirs on the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it has more to do with the popularity/recognizability of the song itself. If you can sing the words before the words start, then it might qualify. And it has to be rock, not pop. Madonna fits those criteria, but was never misconstrued as rock.

Name one song by the Knack other than "My Sharona"......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, cookinbrak said:

I think it has more to do with the popularity/recognizability of the song itself. If you can sing the words before the words start, then it might qualify. And it has to be rock, not pop. Madonna fits those criteria, but was never misconstrued as rock.

Name one song by the Knack other than "My Sharona"......

That's the real problem, confusing hits with rock. Very few rock songs are hits now, so doubt there will be much confusion in the future. But that transition from the radio to MTV screwed everything up.

Only song I really know from Edgar Winter only cuz just couldnt get into it...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • First on T-Mac, I 100% expect him to be the top WR from this class, however I think expecting him to put up 1k+ as a rookie isn't necessarily fair, especially since you're putting it in perspective of how many other rookie WRs have done that in recent years. And Thielen is the reason for that. Not many (if any) of those 1k+ rookies had someone like Thielen there when they were drafted, and no matter how good T-Mac is this year, Bryce is still going to lean on his existing chemistry with Thielen unless he's drastically lost a step this offseason and just can't get open like he's been able to in his career. As I pointed out in another thread the other day, looking at MHJ last year is the way to look at T-Mac's season if Thielen plays a full and healthy season.  MHJ had McBride "steal" 110+ catches and 1,100+ yards in what was a pass happy offense (Kyler was 9th in the league in attempts), it's going to be hard for any rookie to put up more than the 800ish yards he had last year in that scenario.  Especially if we follow a similar game plan to last year and be a run heavy team. In terms of XL, you're completely right, jumping up to get a project 2/3 isn't smart, and if we knew we needed a future slot from that pick, yes, Ladd would have been a much better pick. But at this point, those are all sunk costs, even taking T-Mac at 8 is now considered a sunk cost. Forgetting the past or who we maybe should have taken last year now knowing future roles, I still think T-Mac, XL, Coker can be one of the Top 1-3 WR rooms in the NFL in a few years, I honestly think they really do have that potential in them.
×
×
  • Create New...