Classic Rock Artist's later era albums. Will any of these ever become "classic"?

Endless Wire by the Who is a pretty good album...

 

I don't think there is as much of a herd mentality today that helps create what are considered classic albums. People are more likely to listen to whatever they want to from the vast and diverse world of music today, much of which will never be “classic” but is at least as good as anything from the revered past.

 

I'm with you on this one. Me and a couple of Bowie-loving friends were talking about the record in terms of it being up there with his '70s work only the day before, and it felt to us that maybe he was starting to embark on a new, exciting phase. His death was such a shock and it was only after the fact did it become apparent that his impending death was what he was singing about. The work was already powerful enough prior to that, though.

 

Well, it’s gotten better press than it originally received. That happens a lot with reissues. There is also a slight PR bent that pushes this narrative, too. The RAM reissue really went to town with “hippie Paul creating ahead of its time indie rock.” When at the time Paul (1971) admitted that he went to NYC to find the best session musicians, etc as a reaction to the slagging he got for McCartney S/T.

Wild Life is a fun listen. It’s not a classic. Look up a list of 1971 releases by bands and solo artists and explain how Wild Life would even grace the top 100.

 

Wow. Blackstar appears to be the only recent album being discussed.

I think we have to a step back and examine what is actually being discussed. Classic Rock artist is the the dumbest thing ever, invented by radio executives when outfits like Clear Channel (now known as iHeartRadio) started buying up radio station after they made money through billboards much same way Ted Turner did with television. They attacked the independents with an exclusive list of artist. And for whatever reason it worked. Then they created another fake format called "Alternative Rock". It's all perception, if people can be convinced something is true, it actually becomes true. All of a sudden there are two camps; Alternative Rock and Classic Rock. The dumb thing is that Alternative isn't rock, it's music that fulfilled the spirit of Punk. Punk was an attempt to move away from formulaic Rock bands that filled the radio with music from huge Stadium filling acts. This movement didn't really take hold until Nirvana cleared the path. Stadium shows by the gods of Rock were being replaced traveling musical festivals like Lollapaloosa and the the Warp Tour. But Radio isn't going to let that happen. So a dichotomy of the factions is portrayed. And the general public believed it. The Alternative Rock stations start playing Alternative music and make the artist the new gods of Rock. Their stars started selling out stadiums. The Classic Rock camp insist on not playing new music, any new music, including new stuff from the artists in the rosters. All the while the executives at Clear Channel are laughing, because they own both stations. The independent Rock stations are being driven out business, you know, the guys that probably would have played music from both camps. Why did this happen? Well remember Clear Channel owns roadside billboards. And if you can't sell advertising on roadside billboards for actual products, because TV is a much more effective, you start promoting the radio stations you own. Then sell radio ads. We've all been played as fools. I challenge anybody who lived through those years who didn't notice all the billboards for radio stations. I'll even go out on a limb and state that most of the billboards today are for promoting enterprises owned by Clear Channel in the USA.

None of these artists started out as Classic Rock artists. The same way Mozart wasn't a Classical composer. He was just a composer. Classical Music wasn't a thing until radio brought the big band sound of Jazz to ears of the world. But, the funny thing is we are arguing whether new albums are classics. And it just seems to me that the discussion is falling into the same trap set by those executives. The new stuff isn't played on the radio, so how can it be possible that these can ever be considered classics?

To me the album becomes a classic because generations agree that the older generation was correct. This isn't much different from what the radio executives came up when Classic Rock was invented. Teenagers in the '80s discovered bands from the '60s & '70s were better (to their ears) than the synth pop being broadcast by radio and MTV. The difference, there seems to be some kind of time-lock on what is included in that Classic Rock era because of Radio. In this thread, we seem to be debating whether or not the executives got this right. Come on. They were wrong. We're 30 years past the divide. Alternative bands have albums that can now be considered classics. The Smashing Pumpkins' Siamese Dream is one. Jane's Addiction's Nothing's Shocking is another. If those are considered classics, there is no reason an album like Van Morrison's You're Driving Me Crazy or even The Prophet Speaks can't be considered classics. I just listened to Springsteen's Western Star album. It's great. I don't know if it's a classic, later generations will determine this. I do know that it probably won't get any radio airplay. I also think it's at least as good as Tunnel of Love, which I do think is a classic album.

Sorry everyone, if I went on a rant. But, I see a lot of people spamming lists of albums and very few people are answering the question being asked. "Will any of these ever become 'classic'?" The lists are great. Good examples. But if we are using a <quote>classic<unquote>, I think the answer is an emphatic NO. That quotational classic is that creation of the radio executives in the late '80s, and their robot DJs are still not playing new songs from these artists. But there is no reason active artists from the '60s and '70s can't release an album that captivates generations of listeners. The list of examples quantifies it. And if we remove these quotes, that NO reverses itself. Personally, I'd just prefer if we just not use these quotes. The fact that we're using quotes degenerates our discussion of finding great music because someone, most of us don't even know, would state it's an undeserving work of art.

 

What you saying is at the center of my question. It can be a "no" answer. Maybe the discussion resides in the idea that music fans 10, 15 even 20 years from now may not even remember that Born To Run came out 40 years before Western Stars. And that both records deserve consideration as a worthwhile investment in their time. That may be the utopian view. The original quest for perspective is validated with the list of albums we have in this thread. A list worth looking at in 2019. The recommendations here are from the heart from what I can tell.

 

I feel that the Neil Young & Crazy Horse album-Psychedelic Pill ranks up there with his and their best.

 

Interesting you mention this, when I first heard it I thought it was a jab at DDY. I read an interview with Glen and he said the song predates Cyclorama and isn't about Dennis. He recorded it before Cyclorama and they ended up using it and re-recording it for the album. I don't care for the production on Cyclorama and feel that some of the vocals are buried in the mix. These Are The Times was originally written for the "Return To Paradise" CD.

 

The discussion came up in another thread -- "Should The Stones make another studio slbum"?

I guess this is one of my points going in -- is it relevant?

I think they owe it to themselves to see what an effort to produce a great album would result in. Keith Richards made a fine record a couple years back, so you know he has songs left in the tank. I feel like these guys can actually clear their minds of the distraction of those classic albums and just focus on a building a collection of really good songs. A Bigger Bang was almost there. I would love to hear their attempt at it.

 

Pretty much true, but "classic rock" was invented around 1988, so it wasn't Clear Channel just yet. It was Lee Abrams and those other jerks.

 

I would guess more like 1986...unless my memory is wrong (so if you're going off more than memory, I defer to you)

 

I don't really need to get wound around the axle about who coined the term "classic rock" or why. It doesnt change that the albums in question are both good and largely ignored. The question about what's revelant in new music from these artists is still valid. As is the notion that future music fans might even know or care about them in comparison to their golden era records.

 

The question came up on a classic rock radio station the other day: is "Classic Rock" a sliding scale? IOWs as time goes by, does the length of the classic rock era expand? As one poster asked can we now consider bands like REM in the range? Will the 1990's ever fit that description? Do any of the punk bands of the 80's (Clash, the Jam, Ramones, Elvis Costello) fall into that category?

 

Eric Clapton - Reptile (2001)

I would think he probably has continued to play "Don't Let Me Be Lonely Tonight" live beyond the Reptile tour.

 

I consider these 'classic' albums although the last is perhaps too new and we'll need to wait a few more years...

John Fogerty Centerfield (1985)
Mick Jagger Wandering Spirit (1992)
Iggy Pop Post Pop Depression (2016)

 

The FM Classic Rock station in Philadelphia has recently started including early Pearl Jam and Nirvana. It actually reminds me of how the general Rock station(s) sounded around 1992. Billy Joel- Pearl Jam- Yes- Led Zeppelin- Tom Petty- Nirvana- Fleetwood Mac- Ozzy- Heart

 

Bang, ‘Bridges to Babylon,’ and ‘Voodoo Lounge’ all have great highlights. Each one also has what feels like about a week’s worth of filler.

 

I love ‘Heathen.’

 

They could have taken the best of those to make one bona-fide great album.

 

Exactly. I’ve been saying this for years. I think I need to make this a playlist project.

 

You could post your playlist in this thread..

 

Same here in Detroit. We actually have 3 classic rock stations in this town now, which says something for what I'd consider an all but dead medium. One plays more 60's-80's. One plays 70's-2000's. One plays mtv rock and dance with a bit of bonjovi thrown in. And then we have a sports station. The rest of FM radio in Detroit just sinks into the background.

 

Yes; agree on EATB Siberia & I know that other members' on this Forum would agree, too...1 in particular, as we've discussed that particular release....
they probably haven't seen this thread yet! - Are they under the "Classic Rock" umbrella, though? - I usually think that term refers to 60s & 70s; not 80s onward...even though 80s & 90s should be contained therein, by now.
Crocodiles was released 1980; plus, their sound is usually considered post-punk &/or new wave. I doubt traditionalists/sticklers would include them as "classic rock".
Either way, Siberia's great!

 

The topic creator is simply asking if any later-career albums are likely to ever have the culturally iconic status of albums like Sgt. Pepper, Blood on the Tracks, Exile on Main St. etc.

 

I agree that to become a classic song or album the best barometer is radio play. Maybe radio can reinvent itself over time. As I said a few posts back. We have 3 rock stations in Detroit. There is every practical reason for one of those to tuck in a track from Petty's Hypnotic Eye album, or a new Spingsteen tune on the "2 for Tuesday" or "3 for Thursday" segments. They just gotta jump in the deep water.