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

    • I gave you a full breakdown and examples from last year as to why I think it's unfair to expect 1k from T-Mac this year if everyone stays healthy. But the TLDR version is we will have 4 legitimately good WRs next year, most rookies who get to 1,000 yards don't have any others on the team with them let alone 3 others, it will be hard for him to put up 1k with out the others being injured or falling short of expectations themselves, but in 2026 without Thielen it's different.
    • Ulcerative Colitis is not CTE. 
    • Last year Thielen had 615 yards in 10 games (had more ypg than his 1k season in 23).  XL had 497 in 16 games with tons of drops and Coker had 478 in 11. They also only had only 192 of our 518 targets to get those numbers. So if Thielen has 1,000 yards again, XL and Coker each improve to say 600 yards each, and T-Mac comes in at 800 yards, you're going to say that's not good enough?  Especially if he ends up with close to, if not getting to, double digit TD's like I think he will, as he's going to be a red zone monster for Bryce? Because if that's the breakdown of just the Top 4 and Bryce plays all 17 games, he's going to be pushing a 4,000 yard season as the TEs, RBs, and other WRs will probably add up to 750-1k yards as well, and I think that would be far more than anyone here could be expecting of him this season. Last year the Giants only had 2 players with more than 331 yards besides Nabers and they were 699 and 573 while Nabers "only" had 1,200 yards (granted in 15 games).  While the Jags second leading receiving was a TE with 411 yards and BTJ also "only" had 1,282 but in all 17 games. If everyone stays healthy and XL/Coker have improved, I think Bryce is going to spread the ball around rather than focus on T-Mac in a way that most of the 1k rookies have been able to get. Again I point to MHJ and the Cardinals last year. They had 3,859 yards receiving.   McBride had 1,146, MHJ had 885, then their 3rd and 4th in rec yards were 548 and 414. Take the 146 and 85 that McBride/MHJ had over my example for our guys and give them to the other two and they get to 7 yards shy of the 600 I'm using for XL/Coker, while the rest of the team added up to 866 yards. So, if you expect T-Mac to get to 1k, where are you taking those yards from? if anything, XL and Coker each getting 600 yards seems like a low projection, so they wouldn't come from there. Maybe they come from Thielen now that we have T-Mac as the true #1.  But I think if anything, having T-Mac draw attention will just make it easier for Thielen to get open and him and Bryce have great chemistry already, he's not going to stop throwing his way if he can pick up easy chunks of yards there. So maybe they come from the RBs, TEs, other WRs, but it's I think a very fair example to show why expecting 1,000 yards if everyone stays healthy isn't necessarily fair to him. It's also why I said I'd then expect at least 1,200 yards in 2026, as once Thielen leave and all 3 of T-Mac/XL/Coker get better, they absorb that 1,000 yards Thielen leaves behind with T-Mac probably taking close to half of it and the other two splitting up the other half.
×
×
  • Create New...