What constitute as being a classic song and do you really think that such could ever be determined w

ith absoluteness?
I mean that it should be a fad during a such and such era and can not ever any be labelled as classic.

classic is more of an opinion than a factual description in music,it depends on the persons taste in music along with the fads and styles of his/her era.

Originally posted by VicDiaz89
classic is more of an opinion than a factual description in music,it depends on the persons taste in music along with the fads and styles of his/her era.

Ya you are kind of right and it was just a funny subject that my friend and I had just had.

reply to post by MichelJCardin


i think all of tupacs songs are classics but im sure others my age will differ lol

I think any tune or song where a majority of the population can "appreciate" no matter what their personal taste are normally should be considered a classic.

But this would take a certain amount of honesty from people who quite often have a "self image" connected to what they will publicly admit to liking.

Eg.... It is amazing how many people will happily foot tap and sing along to Abba when they think n-one is watching .

reply to post by MichelJCardin


Metallica's "Kill 'em All" Album is a classic.
So is The Doors.
To me any-way.
and Tupac is that banga music, hear what I'm screamin?

I think a classic song should say something about the era in which it was written and will evoke memories of such a time .

Vera lynn.....White cliffs of dover.
Barry Mcguire....Eve of destruction.
Scott McKenzie...If your going to San Francisco
Fleetwood Mac ....Albatros
The Beatles...All you need is love
Band Aid...Feed the world.

The above are just a few examples of my opinion and there are many many more.

reply to post by MichelJCardin


great question for a music lover. 'classic' is so over-used for the last 20 years that it lost its meaning IMHO. classic rock used to considered true powerhouse songs or albums from bands that set high-water marks for their musicianship. then it became whatever really sold well, which equals whatever has mass general appeal. Britney Spears sold a lot of music...that doesn't mean it's good.

i think for many people a classic song will be one that stands up to repeated listening because they like it so much; not just while it's new, but a year from now, and 5 years from now. and it keeps on selling as the years go by because it's so well loved people wear it out, give it away to others who like it, give it as gifts, etcetera.

music is a very personal thing and peoples taste will vary depending on a lot of factors. i'm an old fart and something i noticed long ago is people with older brothers and sisters usually tend to have a wider taste in variety and genres of music. i think its because there are more influences on them at home as children, they get turned on to different music growing up.

the more someone knows of music is another variable. some people stay right in a rut with whatever they liked in their teen years, a batch of certain tunes remind them of good carefree times. many people live out their lives as stereotypes based on the music they like; they are walking cartoons and don't even know it.

i know and hang with a lot of musicians and that's where i find you'll really have friends that know what music is about. they've studied, learned, know how to make music and play instruments. usually their interest will have them going back through the generations and learning who influenced who and the roots of different genres. guys i've known over the years have personal collections that are mind-blowing in size and content.

sadly, most people have a limited knowledge and taste in music. they have been fed what has been dictated, ultimately, by profit-seeking suits at recording labels. money has done more to impair, limit and retard most Americans knowledge, exposure and taste in music than most of them will ever realize. this goes right on back to the days when the wealthy commissioned pieces. it's still the same: he who writes the check dictates who gets signed and played.

classic don't mean squat unless you were there



and/or care about it.

i hate 80's stuff, some would say that is "classic" music.

eta; 80's? naw, lol! keep it.

reply to post by fooks


This that I was meaning to highlight about such a labelling was that for example is that how many do we have room for in terms of in the instance of in 100 years from now in ways that we are leading will certainly cultivate in such a time period as many classic songs accumilation as the amount of total songs that exist in total today and another ex. is that I am sure that in the 1950's; they also had their list of these and have since disipated and another sense was that one cannot label anything being as classic until it doing the time it needs to be such and that time is indeffinite and that was my original arguement. I am listening to one now that is a great example that we all would label as a classic and don't know who sings it but maybe Joe walsh Tought enough ; but how long will this be a " classic" and isn't it right in the word " classic" which should mean stay as such forever where this is undistinctable by rights; for it is impossible to foresee this forever. LOL

I have always believed a classic was more about age.
If its a car or furniture, the years are the identifying factor.
I have to say that I hated it when Chevy took over a Bob Segar "classic" in the 'like a rock' commercial. And it seems that commercials are trying to kill all the best old "classic" songs. Even Swiffer has the '70's Heart "classic" on thier commercials. I think the question of classic or not isn't my question but why the MSM has to make every 'good' song into crap that we no longer can enjoy without remembering the dumb commercial.