Now I was just going to mention both these bands. Everyone else doesn’t even come close to wimp rock.
How 'bout The Archies or any of the other bubblegum rock bands?
THe Cowshills
The freekin’ Osmonds
Now there’s some wimp rock. But you need to walk away from the others. They simply don’t fit.
Not all of the bands fit your criteria of a whiny voice, but pretty much any band in the New Romantic or non-electronic New Wave genre fits. In fact, one of the wimpiest-seeming bands that had more than one or two songs is, IMO, Echo and the Bunnymen, whose lead singer’s low voice rivals that of any classic crooner. But the lyrics and the attitude are whiny and pathetic, usually.
Then there’s other examples of the genres, for instance, Duran Duran, Spandau Ballet, OMD (okay, they’re electronic), etc. I picture the listeners of this genre as either being your stereotypical “wimp”, or just pretending to be one to get chicks. They’re so teddybear tender and tragically hip.
Which reminds me of two things. The first, more obvious connection, is Canadian bands. There is something whiny about most Canadian bands/singers that immediately classifies them as wimp rock, the counterexample of whiny-yet-still-not-wimpy Rush excepted. Tragically Hip, Odds, and Neil Young all seem to have a bit of wimp rock in them no matter what the subject matter, just because of the voice.
The second connection is the aforementioned Elvis Costello. I’d agree that he’s more classified as “nerd rock” rather than “wimp rock”, but I disagree that it’s his image rather than his songs. Granted, many of them are simply cool rock songs, but half of his songs have double entendres you need a 160 IQ to have a chance of understanding, and that makes up for his straight-up rockers.
Yeah I think a key criteria here is the “type of band that would play at a bookstore.”
For more reasons than one. First, the type of environment - small, chamber-like, intimate, personal. What kind of music fits that? Wimp music. Second, the type of people that would be in the audience? Intellectuals. Liberal arts majors. Nerds. Hipsters.
It’s about a prostitute.
A grave error must be rectified… Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young most definitely DO NOT belong anywhere near the “wimp rock” category! Stephen Stills trademark snarl, Latin rhythms, and badass bluesy guitar are chemically incompatible with wimp rock, as is Neil Young’s rock godliness, and David Crosby’s musical and lyrical sophistication… Graham Nash could possibly apply his pop mastery to the wimp rock category, but not in the context of CSNY.
CSNY = NOT wimp rock. It’s science.
You must be pretty mad about it to post this eleven years later.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don’t forget the Carpenters.
Everything’s relative, and music criticism doesn’t have much to do with science. If the most appropriate attire to play a style is a shirt with flowers embroidered on it, it’d be fair to say that it’s not the most hairy-chested, balls (or boobs, if that’s what you’ve got) out rock n’ roll of its generation.
If say you’re like me, and enjoy The Carpenters, who bridge that uncomfortable chasm between soft rock and adult contemporary - it’s totally OK. Own it. Pretending that it’s hard or heavy doesn’t do you any favors.
I will respond to a zombie with a zombie - here’s a thread discussing how CSN are the Motley Crue of Laurel Canyon rock: Because CSN are basically the acoustic Motley Crue, that's why - Cafe Society - Straight Dope Message Board