The Theory of AORelativity

Jesus christ, take some ecstacy already.

the idea of emo AOR is quite appealing actually, although it probably already exists, as MOR indie

Maybe it's just the trajectory you're drawing (Sabbath --> Loverboy, Nirvana --> Hinder), but Emo AOR sounds like the worst thing I can imagine. I can see MCR turning more and more into a Queen/Smiths hybrid, which might be interesting, but I'm not looking forward to Red Jumpsuit Apparatus's fourth album or whatever.

bodrick iii OTMFMLYCB

Loverboy and Perry-era Journey surely already = at least 2nd gen of AOR (Zeppelin/Yes -> Styx/Kansas/Boston -> Journey/Loverboy)? Within rock, I (possibly following conventional wisdom here) generally regard the early-to-mid-70s as the point where rock had become 'established' enough that mainstream rock artists started looking primarily to other rock artists (rather than blues or folk or classical or jazz or...) for influences. Also, the moment where 'progressive radio'/AOR becomes a sound that can be simplified and codified, perhaps getting at your basic point (which I find evident).

That said, I think it might be more interesting to look at complications wrt this general principle. How much does 'watering down' actually mean syntheses with other genres (disco and new wave in the case of Loverboy, perhaps soul in the case of Journey)? As well, there were surely divergent trends that were contemporary with the ones you cite (Rush releasing 18-minute tracks in the late 70s, Motorhead or NWOBHM, postpunk and Gabriel/Heads/Bush art rock that may have drawn on prog influences; things like industrial or OK Computer as possible alternative 'post-grunge' trends, at least ones that seem to possibly draw on grunge-related elements.)

Also, it seems that Motley Crue/Cinderella-style hair metal might owe more to AC/DC or Aerosmith than to Journey?

(Where "industrial" = Nine Inch Nails and the like, possibly a problematic idea. But if so, let's take e.g. the Pumpkins' electronic efforts.)

I wonder if there might a problem with using the movement from 'progressive music' to AOR in the 70s as a model given that the trends I described:

rock had become 'established' enough that mainstream rock artists started looking primarily to other rock artists (rather than blues or folk or classical or jazz or...) for influences. Also, the moment where 'progressive radio'/AOR becomes a sound that can be simplified and codified, perhaps getting at your basic point (which I find evident).

are no longer new, i.e. MCR etc are already single-oriented pop bands. (If anything, they might themselves be described as the pop version of small-label rock bands from the 90s, which is something quite different from what Zeppelin or Yes were.)

I tend to think that progressive rock was an offshoot rather then a simplification of early 70s hard rock -- in fact, by its very nature, it complicated the music. Not to mention that prog rock had its own AOR phase (Asia, 80s Yes, Styx). And I agree about the Aerosmith assessment, but I would say that you can draw the line from Led Zeppelin to Aerosmith to Journey to Cinderella quite easily (And for the sake of disclosure, I do actually quite enjoy 70s AOR -- not so much the post-grunge or emo, though).

As for MCR and their brethren, I don't know enough about their predecessors, but I would venture to say that they are in the Aerosmith pre-AOR phase of big radio "emo" at the moment. I also dread the coming of emo AOR, Hoos. (And I think I'll pass on the ecstasy, but thanks for the offer)

what are we using "AOR" to mean here? can we get our terms defined, I understood it to mean "album-oriented rock," fairly devoid of further aesthetic baggage

i think it's being confused with MOR.

Hey there, Jeff Treppel, how are things in New York City?

I always understood AOR as being "adult-oriented rock".

i.e. Music for grown ups.

Apples Or Robots

I always thought the AOR bands started out as Prog bands, Punk/new wave came along so AOR got them on the radio. But then again I always thought it meant Adult Orientated Rock too.

Through the early 70's radio still carried a lot of regional acts. It wasn't until the late 70's early 80's that the play lists across the country really became interchangable. I'll leave it too you guys to figure out if that matters to the conversation.
Oh yeah one other thing: AOR = Album Oriented Rock

http://deaconlight.com/music/ddt/radio1983/aor.html

I'll leave it too you
I'll leave it to you

Radio programmer Lee Abrams is identified with the Album-Oriented-Rock formula that in the '70s turned formerly free-form American radio into a narrower formatted structure (that had little to no room for punk). Joe Carducci recently wrote a piece condemming Abrams. Today's "active-rock" radio is a successor to AOR.

I wasn't saying that prog was a simplification of early 70s rock (at all!). Perhaps the confusion arises from the differing definitions of "AOR". What I was saying there was basically just: In the late 60s and early 70s, you get progressive or 'album-oriented' radio, still a fairly broad/freeform format. There's a wide diversity of music on these stations and something like "Close to the Edge" can get airplay despite its length. A lot of the bands from this time draw on heavy influences from non-rock sources, such as blues, jazz, or classical. As the 70s progress and this format becomes popular and mainstream, you start to get bands who are targeted to these stations, who draw primarily on these album-oriented rock bands as influences, who generally simplify and codify the most obvious stylistic traits of the biggest bands within the format (esp Zeppelin and Yes in the case of Styx/Kansas/Boston). "AOR" starts to become a specific sound and the stations' playlists become narrower. Also despite the name, these bands start to become more pop/single-oriented. Obv I wasn't around for any of this (although the Ottawa station was still album-oriented into the late 80s). and am just going by how things have been written and by what the records sound like. This is all basically conventional wisdom, I believe. Just thought I'd explain what I was saying since there seemed to be some confusion.

Fair enough, Sundar.

what are we using "AOR" to mean here? can we get our terms defined, I understood it to mean "album-oriented rock," fairly devoid of further aesthetic baggage.

The definition I was working with for AOR, to clarify, wasn't the literal definition but rather what we've come to identify with the term, i.e. the reduction of challenging music (a.k.a. music your parents shout at you to turn down) into harmless music safe for mass consumption (a.k.a., music your parents can listen to). I mean, while AOR as a term can be fairly devoid of aesthetic baggage, so can "reality television," but let's face it, we associate certain things with that genre. (And this alsobrings up an interesting corollary to the theory relating to the age groups that music is aimed at)

And I'm not sure how things are in New York City, it's been a few years since I've been there. (I assume that's supposed to be some sort of dig, but I'm not really sure what the context is?)

Wait, is the thesis here that whatever rock music style seems like the big new thing will, in 10 years, be the somewhat dilute middle of the road? Because I actually would classify that as blindingly obvious (sorry).

(Seemed a bit obvious to me too, which is why I was looking for complications/exceptions/contradictions.)

I'd also say that it tends to explain small threads of obvious things but not larger and interesting ones -- e.g. it would not have predicted the way the influence of heavy "alternative" acts (like Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, or NIN) would be come back as nu-metal, kinda

^^ sorry, typing errors, but you know what I mean -- nu-metal probably WAS more mainstream in its ethos than most of the stuff it drew on, and it was certainly way more commercially successful, but in terms of sound it could be argued that it was rather LESS middle-of-the-road than those antecedents, or certainly not a straight "dilution"

(In a universe where instead of water there is Metallica, then okay, then it's dilution)

That universe sounds awesome, Nabisco! And while certainly admit that it's not a groundbreaking argument, I do find it fascinating how musical trends overlap and become more commercially palatable as they evolve. And it's not like it's just that people get more used to the music, it's that there is a specific movement towards smoothing off the sharper edges and turning edgy music into elevator music.

fascinating.

(And anyway, just because something seems obvious doesn't mean that there isn't discussion to be had from pointing it out)

And I'm not sure how things are in New York City, it's been a few years since I've been there. (I assume that's supposed to be some sort of dig, but I'm not really sure what the context is?)

-- Jeff Treppel, Monday, May 12, 2008 2:15 PM (Monday, May 12, 2008 2:15 PM) Bookmark Link

I was trying to make the point that emo has already been AORified to an extent by referencing "Hey There, Delilah", which is still the only emo song to reach #1.

Where does the UK reading of AOR as "adult-orient(at)ed" come from? Because that's what I'd always read too and at least I have a Stereolab title to back me up on it.

Though a few googlings around the subject suggest that the US is a lot less eager to convert "oriented" to "orientated", whereas that distinction (almost useless as it is) seems lost in the UK, but that's one for the ILE grammar thread, not here.

I was just about to come and post "is the album/adult-oriented dichotomy a US/UK split, and if so, why?" It seems to be.