[naturalsciences101]

What was the unifying theme that brought together so many seemingly disparate 70's bands under one banner? As far as I can tell, the undesirable 'Corporate Rock' designation was pretty much used interchangeably with that other tag for big-name, big-flash acts of the period - - 'Arena Rock'.

 

Maybe 'Arena Rock' was the pleasant-sounding euphemism for the more deragatory, 'Corporate Rock' label. Either way you slice it, 'Corporate Rock' was not only nasty-sounding, it was also a definite misnomer. It did not accurately define and encapsulate that which it sought to reduce down to a single element - the financial aspect.

 

I'm assuming that 'Corporate Rock' is meant to describe a collective of groups who's output and stage show is controlled to some large degree by their corporate handlers. The tag seems to imply that this type of band has been groomed 'by the company' since its infancy, in the aim of having them churn out a specific formula of songs, those characterized by their knack of appealing to the greatest number of listeners, while remaining on the charts for the longest duration. It's a 'lowest common denominator' schedule that the designation implies.

 

I mainly don't like the sound of the term because it seeks to reduce some really 'good music' down to merely an act of greedy commerce. And, I happen to be an old romantic and an idealist when it comes to music, and like to view the better stuff as artistic expression of some enduring nature. But, there's no doubt that several of those 70's bands did fulfill a role as 'corporate darling' ...either by their own conscious volition, or just naturally by some innate characteristic. But, who were they? Which were the groups that fit the Corporate Rock mold most completely? And, does merely satisfying the powers-that-be qualify one as a Corporate Rock band? If so, then why weren't Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin 'corporate rock'?

 

My second least favourite thing about the so-called Corporate Rock label is that it appears to describe bands entirely of American origin, with the term being coined by, and given its widespread usage and acceptance by American DJs and Rock Journalists. I don't know exactly what year this phrase appeared in the collective consciousness of American pop culture, but, I'm assuming it to be sometime around 1977 or '78. This, of course, coincides with the rise of many of the American Hard Rock bands and the loss of some popularity for many of the British ones.

 

What are the main elements that characterize these CR bands? They all seem to be American. All of them appear to have a Hard Rock edge to their sound, at least heavier than their British counterparts, and much heavier than the singer-songwriter and Soft-Rock prevalent on the radio during this time. All of the bands appear to be influenced to some degree by the British Progressive Rock scene which directly preceeded them. All of these bands seem to be fairly proficient at churning out succesful 'hit singles' for American Radio. Their touring acts grew significantly with each passing year, filling major venues in each American city, and then abroad. What else? Any other criteria?

 

And, who were they? Do these following bands fit the bill....and why...and to what degree...and does the term suck and fail to bear any real relevance/significance? And, regardless of what folks might have felt at the time, don't they all wish that another one of these Corporate Rock bands might arise right now at this moment and drop another slate of albums with convincing Pop Rock?

 

Here's the cast of the usual suspects: Foreigner, Journey, Styx, ELO, The Cars, Toto, Boston, Loverboy, Heart, and even Kansas. Whadaya think?

 

 

[PuppetKing2112]

My definition of "corporate rock" is stuff that's, quite literally, written with the intent to sell records. A band that gets a lot of radio play isn't necessarily corporate rock.

 

I have no problem with it. There are worse ways to make money than by writing music. Doesn't mean I'm going to listen to it.

[naturalsciences101]

I think that once the term got its start, it found itself stamped all over the place, and unfairly so. I think that the most ridiculous, far-fetched example of the designation is if and when someone dares consider a band like 'Kansas' as Corporate Rock.

 

If you sit down with any given Kansas title of the 70's, and, at the same time, fully understand all the many components which go into the making of a Prog Rock band, then, I believe it impossible not to view Kansas as such.

 

They have all the key ingredients of a great Progressive Rock band. The only thing that seems to be missing is their European extraction. They have all the makings of a great Prog band, it's true. But, they also have something in addition to that, which the Euro Prog bands couldn't seem to muster, even when they did try.

 

Kansas was able to conjur succesful hit singles. Not many of them, that's for sure. But, 'one' is still more than the overwhelming majority of Euro Prog bands. The Nektars and Gentle Giants and Genesis' and Pink Floyds of England had about 'one' hit single between all of them.

 

Kansas had Carry On Wayward Son, Play The Game, Dust in the Wind, What's On My Mind, Point of Know Return.....plus, quite a number of 'em in the 80's. And, of course, amazing Prog Rock compositions that put their singles to shame.

 

 

[PuppetKing2112]

Yeah, you don't write stuff like f***ing "Magnum Opus" in order to have a hit.

[naturalsciences101]

QUOTE (PuppetKing2112 @ Mar 31 2009, 11:08 PM)

Yeah, you don't write stuff like f***ing "Magnum Opus" in order to have a hit.

LOL. That is one monster track with no impure ambitions other than to rock your skullcap into smithereens. Which it does quite admirably. Same can be said of the first one in it's lineage - - Death of Mother Nature Suite. Sweet, indeed.

 

Here's one thing that I'd like to examine. And, that is the curious curiosity that the so-called Corporate Rock bands have all remained together over the long-haul....but, many have done so at a very costly cost...their own musical integrity.

 

I think they've all done a bad thing and should be reprimanded for their badness. Maybe even shouted at, and/or penalized for their actions. Their crime is the same across the board. Foreigner and Styx and Journey and Boston and ya-dee-da. They all have one more thing in common now. They've all replaced their lead singer. Not with a new guy who's ready to forge a new direction and a seperate identity....but, rather a clone of the guy who just vacated the slot.

 

Yep, all of these bands have, in effect, become tribute acts to themselves. Journey replaced their longtime frontman, Steve Perry, with a virtual, vocal clone. Styx have done the same. Maybe someone can refresh my memory as to what happened with Foreigner. I know that longtime vocalist, Lou Gramm, was very ill at one point. I'm not sure if he was replaced during that timeframe, or if the band went on hiatus. Boston lost their frontman recently to suicide, and he's currently being replaced by Michael Sweet of Stryper. How about those characters from REO Speewagon?

 

 

[MCM]

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ Apr 1 2009, 12:32 AM)

QUOTE (PuppetKing2112 @ Mar 31 2009, 11:08 PM) Yeah, you don't write stuff like f***ing "Magnum Opus" in order to have a hit. LOL. That is one monster track with no impure ambitions other than to rock your skullcap into smithereens. Which it does quite admirably. Same can be said of the first one in it's lineage - - Death of Mother Nature Suite. Sweet, indeed.   Here's one thing that I'd like to examine. And, that is the curious curiosity that the so-called Corporate Rock bands have all remained together over the long-haul....but, many have done so at a very costly cost...their own musical integrity.   I think they've all done a bad thing and should be reprimanded for their badness. Maybe even shouted at, and/or penalized for their actions. Their crime is the same across the board. Foreigner and Styx and Journey and Boston and ya-dee-da. They all have one more thing in common now. They've all replaced their lead singer. Not with a new guy who's ready to forge a new direction and a seperate identity....but, rather a clone of the guy who just vacated the slot.   Yep, all of these bands have, in effect, become tribute acts to themselves. Journey replaced their longtime frontman, Steve Perry, with a virtual, vocal clone. Styx have done the same. Maybe someone can refresh my memory as to what happened with Foreigner. I know that longtime vocalist, Lou Gramm, was very ill at one point. I'm not sure if he was replaced during that timeframe, or if the band went on hiatus. Boston lost their frontman recently to suicide, and he's currently being replaced by Michael Sweet of Stryper. How about those characters from REO Speewagon?   Ahhh, the replacements, always an interesting subject. You're correct in that it is true sadness that you can go see a band and find only one original member. I guess "buyer beware" now applies to concert tickets.   As in the case of Boston, I think Tom is the only one left, but it was always his band. If Brad were still living, I don't think he would be with them, I think him and Tom had a lot of issues. Michael Sweet did an admiral job of fronting the band last summer and the Home Depot/Youtube guy was also pretty good. Hard to hear Boston without Delp but I was surprised at how good that show was.   You mention Journey, but don't forget the other two singers they had between Perry and the current one, Arnel Pineda, also found via Youtube. Steve Augieri spent many years with Journey and Jeff Scott Soto toured one summer with them when Augieri had problems with his voice. JSS was then hired as the replacement only to be dismissed shortly thereafter. The current singer is very good, but Perry's shoes are pretty big, and that's what they were aiming for with Arnel. At least Journey released new material last year, I don't know how much of it made it to their set list, but at least they did it.   Yes, Styx replaced Dennis, not really with a clone, but they continue to tour on the hits without new music. They also had some other lineup changes thru the years with Tommy gone, Glen Burtnick as guitarist, Tommy back, Chuck gone and Glen Burtnick as bassist, John sick replaced by Todd for that tour, John died and permanently replaced by Todd, Glen leaves replaced by Ricky Phillips, Chuck now only plays selected dates and Ricky plays guitar when Chuck appears.. it gets mighty confusing, but bottom line they only have one original member and no new music in years.   I don't know the full story behind Foreigner, but I think the parting with Gramm was pretty ugly and that Mick is the only original member there. I was also surprised at how well Kelly Hansen handled those vocals, I went to that show purely to see Jason Bonham play, but ended up ranking it as one of the better shows of the summer. They did, at least, release a single last year, but not a full record.   REO? I'd have to look it up but I don't think they are heavy on original members either, I'm pretty sure that Gary is gone, but at least they've got the singer in Kevin Cronin and they also released new music last year.   It is tough to still care about a band when it really isn't the band you fell in love with any more. Makes you think how lucky we are with the rock solid Rush lineup, no drama, just music.

[PuppetKing2112]

This issue is totally on a case-by-case basis for me. If people are willing to pay money to see Journey with some Filipino dude they found on Youtube singing, I'm not going to begrudge the band trying to make a living. Maybe I just don't care about that because I'm not a Journey fan. But if you're a big Journey fan and think that seeing them without Steve Perry is blasphemy, that's also a completely valid viewpoint. I think it's generally easier to replace a member when it's not the singer. There are a couple of exceptions to the rule (AC/DC being an obvious example), but Van Hagar, Queen+Rodgers, that doesn't fly with me.

 

Of course there's been a perfect example in the last couple of weeks. I've been a huge Billy Corgan apologist for the last several years, and there are three Smashing Pumpkins albums from the '90s (Siamese Dream, Mellon Collie, Adore) that easily place in my top 25 of all time. I genuinely think Billy is one of the best American songwriters of the last 25 years. But he's done so much to embarrass himself since 2005 that I can't respect the guy anymore. Taking out a full page ad in the Chicago Tribune announcing the band is getting back together (the ad appeared, coincidentally, on the day that his commercial and critical failure of a solo album was released), and then when it happened it was just him and Jimmy Chamberlain was a bad move, especially since he and Jimmy played in Zwan together after SP broke up originally, making this basically no different from that. Their "reunion" album, Zeitgeist, is actually pretty solid, so I was willing to cut them some slack at the time. But when they went out on tour, they pulled a KISS and actually got lookalikes (an Asian guitarist to replace James Iha, a female pass player to replace D'Arcy Wretzky). All of that made the reunion seem very fake and money-minded to me. (Although ironically my favorite SP album, Adore, is the one that Jimmy didn't play on.) Since then, Billy has started throwing onstage tantrums at Pumpkins shows when people request old songs and calling out fans in the audience who leave early because the shows are terrible. In the last two weeks, Billy has done two things that have been the final straws for me: first, he testifies before Congress in favor of the Ticketmaster/LiveNation merger. I wasn't a Metallica fan when the Napster thing happened in the late '90s but I'm pretty sure that's how their fans felt at the time. Then, Jimmy leaves, a move that makes my level of respect for him double, and Billy announces he's going back into the studio under the name to record by himself. Like I said, the guy has released three of my favorite albums of all time, but if he announced tomorrow that he was cutting the bullshit, getting the original band back together, and going on a free, all-request tour, I probably still wouldn't care.

 

I'm sorry if all of that was incomprehensible. It's late. I'm going to bed now.

[Hatchetaxe&saw]

It's all corporate rock really. You might be releasing your music on a tiny label made in someones toilet, but once you do a festival sponsored by a beer brand or appear on MTV2, your idealism goes down the john.

 

I laughed when Cobain had a pop at Pearl Jam years ago. The hypocrisy stank.

In fairness to Pearl Jam, they've proven themselves to be more anti-corporate rock than they're given credit for.

[Wartypig]

I don't much care for labels in music.....If it sounds good to my ears then great...I've seen great bands in venues ranging from local pubs (Marillion) to huge fields (Zep at Knebworth) and everything inbetween.

[Jack Aubrey]

Boston has to be the ultimate corporate rock band.

 

[tel]

not an expression ive ever heard before,most of the posts on this are more than 3 lines long and so outside of my attention span but sad as it may be music is an industry and therefore fatcats are unavoidable as in any industry

[naturalsciences101]

I think Hatchetaxe&saw is correct in stating that it's ALL Corporate Rock. Isn't it, at least to one degree or another? Even a band like RUSH who states that they've created music only for themselves, and that it's just a happy perk that others seem to like it...but, you know that this can't be entirely true.

 

Because, if their stuff wasn't specifically geared to a mass audience, to mass appeal, it would have taken on a different guise, a different form by now, more along the lines of the convoluted musical statements of the late 70's. It would be rather disjointed in its presentation and much more musical. The fact that all the pieces happen to take on a specific 4 to 5 minute format, with a specific rhyme scheme and song sequencing shows that the band is writing to specific formula. They are conforming to the Pop music paradigm.

 

At least during the 1980's, Rush was conciously writing music directly for the commercial market. Which makes them a Pop Music group. We hate to think of them as such, but they were exactly that. I think the Corporate Rock tag is one that applies to all groups. It's just a matter of degree as to just how much one panders to the commerical market. And, commercial success seems to be rather addictive. Because, plenty of those formerly 'anti-establishment' bands who have garnered for themselves some initial taste of success, have always gone back for more.

 

I happen to always gravitate to the type of band who tries to, at least on its surface, to veer as far away from the Pop scene as possible. But, even on those albums, there's always that one song that seeks to appeal to the widest possible audience. That track is meant to hook in listeners from varied backgrounds and introduce them to the rest of the discog., which is always a bit deeper, and maybe at odds with what the listener usually vibes to.

 

A great example of this is Rush's Farewell To Kings album, with 'Closer To The Heart' being significantly differently than everything else on the LP. This is not to say that a Pop Music song can't be awesome itself. But, it's purpose is dual compared to the other tracks. It's meant to be entertaining itself, while acting as a selling point for the rest of the album. And, every band, no matter how 'anti-establishment' they pose themselves as, still has much use for the 'single'. Dig?

 

 

[metaldad]

QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Apr 1 2009, 04:28 AM)

It's all corporate rock really. You might be releasing your music on a tiny label made in someones toilet, but once you do a festival sponsored by a beer brand or appear on MTV2, your idealism goes down the john.

[launchpad67a]

Labels placed on bands, like "Corporate" or even worse "Sell Out" are simply terms created by fans that don't like the current state of that band. They are self indulgent, meaningless terms that quite honestly are embarrassing. Why? Because who are we to label a band as "this or that" when the band themselves has never said they fall under this label.

Have you ever heard a band member say, "we are corporate rock" or "we sold-out"? Of course not. Because the bands don't label themselves like that, nor do the record companies. Bands write music they want to write and then the fans determine if that music is what they want to listen to. If the fans don't like the current path of that band then these terms are created out of pure selfishness.

As a person who is actually in the industry that's my take on the whole thing.

[Prince Sphinc-Tor]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Apr 1 2009, 10:19 AM)

Boston has to be the ultimate corporate rock band.

What about that "Rockstar: Supernova" thing?

[naturalsciences101]

QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Apr 1 2009, 04:07 PM)

Labels placed on bands, like "Corporate" or even worse "Sell Out" are simply terms created by fans that don't like the current state of that band. They are self indulgent, meaningless terms that quite honestly are embarrassing. Why? Because who are we to label a band as "this or that" when the band themselves has never said they fall under this label. Have you ever heard a band member say, "we are corporate rock" or "we sold-out"? Of course not. Because the bands don't label themselves like that, nor do the record companies. Bands write music they want to write and then the fans determine if that music is what they want to listen to. If the fans don't like the current path of that band then these terms are created out of pure selfishness. As a person who is actually in the industry that's my take on the whole thing.

Ya, but. Ya, but. Ya, but, the fans are like a system of checks and/or balances for these groups, which are like little business organizations. The public are the folks who keep the bands honest by letting them know what they want to hear from 'em. They are 'private' orgs. as opposed to 'public' ones, so they are not obligated by law to honor the wishes of their public, but they sure as schitt better pay attention to these wishes if they wish to continue taking their money.

 

But, as I see it, a band really and truly has to F up pretty badly in order to lose their fanbase and its money. After a band has captured a fan's heart and mind, probably due to that band's earliest work which was guided solely by artistic-vision and musical-integrity, that band can then open up and experiment as it wishes, without losing that fan.

 

Look at what Metallica had turned into after the Black Album. Some might even say during TBA. And, they hadn't released a single worthwhile project until now. That's 17 years, man!!! That's their youngest fans entire lifespans! They sucked for that long. And, yet, many of those old school Metallica fans will still be standing in line on record-release day to see if their heart will be broken once again. Yeah, it's real hard to lose a fan once ya got 'em.

 

Same can be said for Metallica's contemporaries - Queensryche. Many will say that their last great effort was in 1990. Others might say it was two years earlier. Others still, two years before that. The band has released a bunch of studio efforts since those days. And, like clockwork, the album is released...and then the complaints begin to flow like oil. Same story every time. "This is the last chance I'm giving those guys. No more Queensryche after this." Yet, when the next album rolls around a year or two later, the fans are line ready to get their heart broken one more time.

 

I KINDA SIDETRACKED there. But, the pernt was that although a band definitely has the right to do whatever it wants with its instruments, the fans also have the right to shout at them and pelt 'em with tomatos if they hear something they don't like. We pay their bleedin' salaries.

 

 

[ozzy85]

Try living in a college town full of throw-together punk bands and bluegrass. Some of them still use the term "butt rock..." They'll apply the therm to anything that has sold more than six copies, has a guitar solo (gasp!), or is liked by someone they don't want liking "their" band.

[naturalsciences101]

Ya know what really and truly fits the definition of Corp. Rock the most accurately and most fully?

 

That fabricated Post-Grunge crap that came directly after the wave of bands who apparently arose from organic roots.

 

The bands that were natural occurences were Pearl Jam and Nirvana and Stone Temple Pilots and Soundgarden and Alice in Chains...

 

The fakers, who really seemed like they were the result of some board meeting on the 32nd floor of the Sleazo Corp. are the bands like Creed and Staind and Theory of a Dead Man and Nickleback and Puddle of Crudd.

 

One wave of bands was a total breath of fresh air after the crumby Hair-Glam movement of the late 80's, and the other wave was a money-making scheme postulated by a bunch of suits looking to capitalize on that which arose naturally.

 

In fact, the Glam bands themselves were a bunch of faking fakers. They were a corporate solution on how to peddle Heavy Metal to kids and teenage girls. That's what corporate rock is all about. Seeing what's already succesful out there and coming up with a corporate model targeted at a wider audience.

 

 

[launchpad67a]

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ Apr 1 2009, 02:52 PM)

QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Apr 1 2009, 04:07 PM) Labels placed on bands, like "Corporate" or even worse "Sell Out" are simply terms created by fans that don't like the current state of that band. They are self indulgent, meaningless terms that quite honestly are embarrassing. Why? Because who are we to label a band as "this or that" when the band themselves has never said they fall under this label. Have you ever heard a band member say, "we are corporate rock" or "we sold-out"? Of course not. Because the bands don't label themselves like that, nor do the record companies. Bands write music they want to write and then the fans determine if that music is what they want to listen to. If the fans don't like the current path of that band then these terms are created out of pure selfishness. As a person who is actually in the industry that's my take on the whole thing. Ya, but. Ya, but. Ya, but, the fans are like a system of checks and/or balances for these groups, which are like little business organizations. The public are the folks who keep the bands honest by letting them know what they want to hear from 'em. They are 'private' orgs. as opposed to 'public' ones, so they are not obligated by law to honor the wishes of their public, but they sure as schitt better pay attention to these wishes if they wish to continue taking their money.   But, as I see it, a band really and truly has to F up pretty badly in order to lose their fanbase and its money. After a band has captured a fan's heart and mind, probably due to that band's earliest work which was guided solely by artistic-vision and musical-integrity, that band can then open up and experiment as it wishes, without losing that fan.   Look at what Metallica had turned into after the Black Album. Some might even say during TBA. And, they hadn't released a single worthwhile project until now. That's 17 years, man!!! That's their youngest fans entire lifespans! They sucked for that long. And, yet, many of those old school Metallica fans will still be standing in line on record-release day to see if their heart will be broken once again. Yeah, it's real hard to lose a fan once ya got 'em.   Same can be said for Metallica's contemporaries - Queensryche. Many will say that their last great effort was in 1990. Others might say it was two years earlier. Others still, two years before that. The band has released a bunch of studio efforts since those days. And, like clockwork, the album is released...and then the complaints begin to flow like oil. Same story every time. "This is the last chance I'm giving those guys. No more Queensryche after this." Yet, when the next album rolls around a year or two later, the fans are line ready to get their heart broken one more time.   I KINDA SIDETRACKED there. But, the pernt was that although a band definitely has the right to do whatever it wants with its instruments, the fans also have the right to shout at them and pelt 'em with tomatos if they hear something they don't like. We pay their bleedin' salaries. Sure the fans are the bread and butter of any band, but these terms/labels that are created by the fans are not recognized by anyone other than the fans. Bands don't think they "sell-out" nor do they think they are "corporate", or any other label placed on them. They write the music they want to write, period. Fans do not tell bands what music to write, and when they write bad material (according to the fans) they will of course hear about it. But all the music that bands write is "good" to them obviously or they wouldn't put it out. All that matters to songwriters is that they are happy with their song. Success comes when other people like it as well.   All I'm trying to point out is those labels are made up by fans because they don't like the bands current music. No one else recognizes them because they aren't industry terms.

[naturalsciences101]

QUOTE (launchpad67a @ Apr 1 2009, 08:27 PM)

Sure the fans are the bread and butter of any band, but these terms/labels that are created by the fans are not recognized by anyone other than the fans. Bands don't think they "sell-out" nor do they think they are "corporate", or any other label placed on them. They write the music they want to write, period. Fans do not tell bands what music to write, and when they write bad material (according to the fans) they will of course hear about it. But all the music that bands write is "good" to them obviously or they wouldn't put it out. All that matters to songwriters is that they are happy with their song. Success comes when other people like it as well. All I'm trying to point out is those labels are made up by fans because they don't like the bands current music. No one else recognizes them because they aren't industry terms.

Nah, I'm sure that there are times in evey artist's career when they question their own motives and their own worth. They're just as human as all the rest of you earthlings (lol). And, insecurity plagues them just as throughly as all the rest.

 

Metallica serves as a great example of this as well. When they reconvened in 02/03 for the St. Anger sessions, they basically sought out a new musical direction that was in line with what was already happening in heavy music at the time. Instead of being trend-setters like they always were in years past, they now acted like a bunch of trend-followers. They thought that falling in line with the current musical fad was what would make their fans happy.

 

But, they never experienced the type of negative backlash that followed. The longtime fans hated the new album. It did not sound like a Metallica that anyone with any smarts, any taste was going to accept. They read critque upon critique that just slammed that album. Every testimonial with fans seemed to hammer home the fact that the album was just awful.

 

Did the band just ignore what was being said about their latest product? No. The took it to heart. I saw them in live interviews during this period and they were visibly effected by what was being said about them. You could tell that there was a loss of confidence in their demeanor. They know that they had just released something that was way, way below their capability. But, they eventually used all the negative criticism in a postive way to rebuild their broken spirit. They eventually reemerged as a much stronger unit.

 

 

[Presto-digitation]

I'm not even sure what it means...it's just a made up moniker to put certain rock bands in a demeaning category. (Surely Rolling Stone mag is behind this). Still, most of whom fall into that "group" I happen to really like....(Styx, Boston, REO, Kansas, etc.)

[Mandalorian Hunter]

You know when a band's 'gone corporate' (a term we don't really use here), when they go from having hair and beards, and singing about knife and gunfights, to making music that allows chavs to scream 'THIS SEX IS ON FIRE' every time it comes on the dukebox.

[PuppetKing2112]

Kings of Leon have always been awful though.

[Hatchetaxe&saw]

QUOTE (PuppetKing2112 @ Apr 3 2009, 12:50 AM)

Kings of Leon have always been awful though.

What that man said.

[Ancient Ways]

I never heard the term corporate rock in the 70s.

We did have AOR album-oriented-rock which was just to differentiate these bands from bands that were intentionally trying to write hit singles. Just because many aor bands became huge doesn;t make it corporate rock imo.