catapult magazine

catapult magazine




Aug 19 2008
02:59 am

my personal opinion is that "classic rock" as a classification, can only be correctly attributed to music created between the years of (roughly) 1965-1975*.

many would disagree with me on this point saying something to the effect of: "that’s what classic rock was before, but it’s different now due to the passage of time." i do not buy into this philosophy of certain musical genres being dependent upon where we currently are in history. adult contemporary? yes. top 40? yes. these are formats specifically designed by radio stations for the purpose of staying current. classic rock needs to stay what it is, just as oldies need to stay what they are, just as molecules need to stay what they are. if not, where does it all end? we may as well make "jackFM" the format for ALL radio. this is a hill i am willing to die on**.

in answer to your question "no". i do not approve of nirvana being played on classic rock radio. i think it’s very very naughty.

*i could probably be pushed on this all the way through the 70’s, but there is no doubt that as this form of music began to become more and more aware of its identity and what it was supposed to look and feel like, the quality began to suffer.

**mainly because i know i would never have to actually do any suffering of any kind due to this viewpoint.