When is something a "classic?"

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Nov 23, 2002 4:04 pm

I've been wondering about this since I overheard some folks in their mid-20s talking about music hits that were seven years old. All agreed they were classics. Now, I'm used to thinking of a classic as something that has stood up to the back-alley knife of time and emerged with no scars, usually several decades down the road. What do you think?

Zelgadis · Post by **Zelgadis** » Sat Nov 23, 2002 4:17 pm

Hmm.. something thats still good after 25% or more of your life

Bloodmist · Post by **Bloodmist** » Sat Nov 23, 2002 5:48 pm

Originally posted by Zelgadis
Hmm.. something thats still good after 25% or more of your life

That would, in fable's life, include the invention of fire?

Zelgadis · Post by **Zelgadis** » Sat Nov 23, 2002 5:51 pm

Originally posted by Bloodmist
That would, in fable's life, include the invention of fire?

That depends when he invented fire

Ambiorix · Post by **Ambiorix** » Sat Nov 23, 2002 6:13 pm

A song is a classic when you can still occasionally hear it AND it is from the seventies.

Seventies rule!

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sat Nov 23, 2002 9:31 pm

In a broader sense...

...I think that classics are stuff still very much appreciated for what they are despite the years... so much so that members of the generation who were not born/did not grow up when these classics were already hits also appreciate them with high regard.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Sat Nov 23, 2002 10:01 pm

In American Archaeology, things are considered Historical once they are 50 years old. I think the same applies to Antiques (like the Roadshow). But I think the term Classic has more to do with nostalgia and the relative forgetfulness of the hive-mind of a given population. Music of the 70’s is by no means ‘classic’ among my peer group, but these dern kids these days don’t know what real ‘classic’ music is!

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Sun Nov 24, 2002 12:59 am

Chanel, and Ralph Lauren...

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Sun Nov 24, 2002 4:51 am

Fable, you're a classic.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Sun Nov 24, 2002 5:45 am

Originally posted by Zelgadis
Hmm.. something thats still good after 25% or more of your life

Actually, this sounds about right if you ask me.
Different age groups have different classics.

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Sun Nov 24, 2002 9:30 am

I actually have a similar question: How modern the "Modern" is/should be?

Do you think people in the later 21st Century will regard 17th Century as "Modern"?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Nov 24, 2002 9:37 am

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Fable, you're a classic.

Er, well...yes, and thank you for the double-edged compliment, there. I return it, knowing that we're probably the only two people here who could and would discuss the battle of Thermopylae, and enjoy it.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Sun Nov 24, 2002 11:04 am

LOL

How ironic - a classic battle from "classical" times.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Nov 24, 2002 11:29 am

Originally posted by fable
Er, well...yes, and thank you for the double-edged compliment, there. I return it, knowing that we're probably the only two people here who could and would discuss the battle of Theropylae, and enjoy it.

Yeah... I didn't much enjoy that one... Damn Trojan through a rock at me, gave me a spilting headache...

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:51 am

Classic is something which
1- is "evergreen"
2- has style!

So Iron Maiden are classic!!

Damn, even their last album is a classic!!
Always in the player!!!

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 7:42 am

"Iron Maiden...excellent!"

I think some things come straight out of the box and are instant classics, regardless of genre, style or polish, they just have that something that marks them out as different and great. There are also other things which garner that tag after a number of years, like Nick Drake for instance, widely ignored throughout his tragically short life, then come the 90's and Five Leaves Left et al are hailed as classics. Why the difference? I don't know...I could theorise I suppose.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Mon Nov 25, 2002 12:22 pm

Re: In a broader sense...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...I think that classics are stuff still very much appreciated for what they are despite the years... so much so that members of the generation who were not born/did not grow up when these classics were already hits also appreciate them with high regard.

I think if you would take my definition of classic, this would be the closest to what I would say....actually it sounds exactly like what I was thinking when I read the topic.

I think its the appreciation but there is an implication of age to it aswell. I mean you see the BMW Z3 on the road...

*drool*

And you think its an awesome car. *drool* But is it a classic? Not yet, as its quite new.

You could thinkk of it as an instant classic, but that implies that it will become a classic.

I think its appreciation, but beyond that, Id have to say that nothing like it is still being made. So it would be missed in a sense that theres nothing innovative from that field or no replicas that earn the same degree of excellence that the classic is from.