MR

"Corporate rock" is a term that has always caught my curiosity. My personal assessment is that in an industry that loves to label things, this is a term that really has little to no actual meaning. Still, as I listen to a few bands that have been labeled by this term, I thought I would throw a few questions around for discussion:

- What band provided the impetus for the term "corporate rock"? When was it coined and by who?

- Do you think the term is valid?

- Do you think Journey was/is unfairly labeled as such?

- What other acts have you seen/heard labeled as such?
(I've seen/heard Heart ('80s era), Foreigner, REO Speedwagon, Starship, etc. labeled as "corporate rock")

Of course, this was addressed in Journey's "Behind The Music" episode:
"The thing we were most branded by was the word 'corporate rock'..." -- Steve Perry
"I hated it..." -- Jonathan Cain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4iYY4IO ... re=related (about 1:00 in)

Your thoughts on "corporate rock"? And a final thought to ponder, since when has popular music not been corporate?

Styx ...the one word titled bands of the 80's!!
We, the people, seemed to love this thing called corporate rock!!
What does that mean, really?!?! Hitmakers?! Are today's artists
corporate?!?

Yes, its a legit label, the band europe is a perfect example, problem is it stuck to many
bands that that it should not have, Journey & Boston included.

Ray

all music, if for sale.... is corporate in nature..

Rock music that incorporates Keyboards on a regular basis and places emphasis on catchy hooks over lyrical content = Corporate.

I always viewed the term "corporate" rock as having big choruses, melodic guitar solos, synthesizers/keyboards and soaring vocals. This "genre" seemed to put an emphasis on having singers that could actually sing (Journey, Boston, Loverboy, Europe, etc.) and that seemed to piss a lot of people off. And that's exactly why Rolling Stone always hated Journey. The bands they liked couldn't hold a fucking candle to Journey's vocals.

Saint John wrote:I always viewed the term "corporate" rock as having big choruses, melodic guitar solos, synthesizers/keyboards and soaring vocals. This "genre" seemed to put an emphasis on having singers that could actually sing (Journey, Boston, Loverboy, Europe, etc.) and that seemed to piss a lot of people off. And that's exactly why Rolling Stone always hated Journey. The bands they liked couldn't hold a fucking candle to Journey's vocals.

Right on, brother.

I remember opening a Rolling Stone catalogue some years ago and skimming through the ratings RS gave to various artists. I literally threw the book away when I read the rave reviews of "Katrina and the Waves'" debut album (4 1/2 stars) and the condescending shredding of Raised on Radio (1 1/2 stars) and the Outfield's Play Deep (2 stars). Bullshit.

I think the term "Corporate Rock", much like the term "Hair Band", was initially brought on as an insult. In the 70s, when bands like Foreigner, Journey, Boston, Styx, REO, etc were getting massive airplay and had, in essence, pop hook choruses, rock critics began hurling insults at these bands because they were popular, melodic and slick...the complete antithesis of an Iggy Pop or the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, etc. Calling them "corporate" meant they were "selling out to the man" for money and were not "true rockers". It was a simple eletist mentality coming from a small-minded group of people who felt that "rock and roll" was one, singular thing.

Circa 2010, your "corporate rock" bands would be Nickelback, Creed, Daughtry, etc...rock bands who are all over the radio, have hooks, are popular and sound slick.

Pelata wrote:I think the term "Corporate Rock", much like the term "Hair Band", was initially brought on as an insult. In the 70s, when bands like Foreigner, Journey, Boston, Styx, REO, etc were getting massive airplay and had, in essence, pop hook choruses, rock critics began hurling insults at these bands because they were popular, melodic and slick...the complete antithesis of an Iggy Pop or the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, etc. Calling them "corporate" meant they were "selling out to the man" for money and were not "true rockers". It was a simple eletist mentality coming from a small-minded group of people who felt that "rock and roll" was one, singular thing.

Circa 2010, your "corporate rock" bands would be Nickelback, Creed, Daughtry, etc...rock bands who are all over the radio, have hooks, are popular and sound slick.

Spot on.

Saint John wrote:I always viewed the term "corporate" rock as having big choruses, melodic guitar solos, synthesizers/keyboards and soaring vocals. This "genre" seemed to put an emphasis on having singers that could actually sing (Journey, Boston, Loverboy, Europe, etc.) and that seemed to piss a lot of people off. And that's exactly why Rolling Stone always hated Journey. The bands they liked couldn't hold a fucking candle to Journey's vocals.

I couldnt agree more with this about Rolling Stone Mag. Somehow I am getting a Trail memebership to to this shit bag rag mag. They have more photos and article about Lady Gaga, Lil Wayne coming out of Jail and his writing of an album? When was the last time a " corporate rock" artist was in jail on a weapons possession??? So wrtiing musing to sell records to make money means you are selling out ?????

I believe the term originated from "corporate" heads putting together musicians they felt
would sell millions of records. Boston was sucked into this insult by the fact their original
album was recorded completely by Scholz, less vocals of course. The record company
demanded to see a live performance, forcing scholz to assemble a band worthy of a&r approval.
Europe, damn yankess, Mr.Big, were some of the groups that originated from the ideas of
studio heads, its a bogus label, that never really applied to the bands that were so accused.

Ray