Best decade for music?

obieone

I'm gonna predict the 60's, because, well.....this forum is FILLED with OLD FARTS!(myself included):p

Please feel free to list all the bands/acts that contributed to your choice;)

Knucklehead

80's...Who else.....Iron Maiden!

I like songs longer than 5 minutes.

Polkersince85

xcapri79 wrote: »

How about the 10 years from 1965 to 1974?

Apparently you didn't live thru them, those of us who did, can't remember them.

Norm Apter

xcapri79 wrote: »

How about the 10 years from 1964 to 1973? The Beatles - Zeppelin decade.

That would approximately be my choice, though I would adjust it and fudge a bit (i.e. add an extra year) to make it 1965 through 1975.

Why? Because in 1965 Dylan went electric and the Beatles went Dylan. And then in 1975 you've got both Wish You Were Here and Physical Graffiti coming out, two reasons to make that the definitive bookend. Things started to go into decline thereafter.

Within this period you've got everything by the Beatles from Rubber Soul onward, esentially all of Hendrix's output, Zep from beginning up through PG, (The) Pink Floyd from Piper to WYWH, Bob Marley's Burnin, Catch a Fire, and Natty Dread, Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited through Blood on the Tracks (as well as Desire I guess), CCR and The Door's entire output, etc.

And yeah, I was only alive for 2.5 years of this period so I had no memory of it or even any reason to feel nostalgic about it to begin with.

George Grand

64-72 was an incredible 8 year span.

sda2mike

i went 70s....really, i like around 67 to abt 77...the advent of accessable hi-fi for a wider market, had the effect of records being produced using the studio as an instrument. and most of the best were made/engineered by/for stoners!:cool:

Toolfan66

I voted the 90's but not because of rap or just grunge. IMO Rock Music was just better, and now it sucks again..

Erik Tracy

What a long strange trip its been...eh?

The Beatles was the soundtrack to my youth thru grade school, then the 'trip head' up the street turned us all on to Smoke on the Water complete with frequency pass light show (one for bass, mids and treble). He had these other albums called Master of Reality and Dark Side of the Moon - things get blurry from there....

I gotta say 70's for me

jgido759

xcapri79 wrote: »

How about the 10 years from 1964 to 1973? The Beatles - Zeppelin decade.

That would definitely be my choice, if available. Those were my "formative" years.

bigaudiofanatic

IMO they are all good even some of todays stuff is good as well "excluding most rap" I find myself listening to more older stuff such as Santana, SRV, Journey and my favorite Eagles.

BottomFeeder

I reluctantly picked the 60's but, like others, would prefer '65-'75. Those were such formative years for both music and me as well.

meremortal

I wasn't alive to experience the 1960s but it's certainly among the finest times for music. As already mentioned, Beatles and Stones, plus genres such as Surf, Psych, Garage, ****, and Soul were all thriving.

Hillbilly61

Definitively onto this:

Some background. I reached the age of maturity enjoying the hell out of '70s and 80s music. With exception everything since has been heard as inferior.

My children were born in the '90s. During their formulative years they experimented with all sorts of music. In total, they have come "home" for music from the '70s and '80s. This is not only the consensus of them, but their college roommates as well.

From feedback from my children, I feel blessed by being there hearing that music as brand new tunes.

dekuda

1965-1975 would be the era. But I grew up in the 70's. purchased albums of Zeppelin,Floyd,Sanatana,Eagles,Journey,VanHalen,Sabbath,Stones,Springsteen,Skynard,CCR,AC/DC,ZZ Top,Yes,Bad Co.ELO,Foreigner,Fleetwood Mac,Aerosmith,Allman Bros,Seger,Steve Miller,Heart,Supertramp,Cheap trick,Bad Finger,Bowie,Styx,CSN,Rush,Chicago, Elton john and I am sure many more I can't remember.Also brings back bad memories ofthe clothes which I can't believe I wore.Bell bottom pants covering up my Lennon boots?:eek:

phipiper10

I was born in 73 and would agree with the 64-73 or 65-75 sentiment. In my mind I don't think any other 10 year span comes close.
I made memories from songs from this era.....just not in this era..:)

ScottyDog

Very Late 70's and early 80's!

dl090465

the 80's went very under rated......70's are great

TNRabbit

That would be the 80s.......1780s, that is~

polkfan38

My personal oppinion would be from the onset of the Beatles to the early 90s. After that was the take over of talentless boy bands and the beginning of bad production. Yes there is a few spaterings of talent left but, it seems like it is not in the mainstream anymore. When will we see the likes of George Martin or Allen Parsons? Or Lennon/McCartney? Jimmie Page or Eric Clapton? I hope it is soon!

hearingimpared

polkfan38 wrote: »

My personal oppinion would be from the onset of the Beatles to the early 90s. After that was the take over of talentless boy bands and the beginning of bad production. Yes there is a few spaterings of talent left but, it seems like it is not in the mainstream anymore. When will we see the likes of George Martin or Allen Parsons? Or Lennon/McCartney? Jimmie Page or Eric Clapton? I hope it is soon!

My sentiments, exactly!:) Although I would add prior to the Beatles onset to that.

BTW why is the poll closed so soon?

comfortablycurt

I wasn't alive, but I've gotta go with the 64-73/65-75 period that others have mentioned. Most of the music that I listen to is from that period, though personally, I'd probably make it more like 64-77. Simply because, 1977 is my personal favorite year for the Grateful Dead, and some of their most inspired playing came from that year IMO.

There was also some really good music that came from the 90's. Nirvana, Tool, Alice In Chains, The Red Hot Chili Peppers and Sublime...just to name a few. The resurgence that rock went through in the 90's has seriously declined since then though. I don't even take the time to check new music out anymore, because there's about a 99% chance that I'm not going to get into it.

cfrizz

I'm with the majority on this one. mid 60s-70s was simply great for talented musicians. And this is the majority of what my music consists of.

AGUERRA

cfrizz wrote: »

I'm with the majority on this one. mid 60s-70s was simply great for talented musicians. And this is the majority of what my music consists of.

i agree +1

polkfan38

You might think music producers would catch on to this but, they don't. There are too many people with bad taste out there that supports the crap. So what do they care? And they (the ones listening to the crap) are so addicted to it. They all have their iPods or MP3 players on at all times. I don't understand it. It makes me sick really. The talent in this country has been on a downward spiral since the mid 90s. I will listen to Dark side of the Moon all day long but, it would be nice to hear something good that is new once in awile.
just my $.02

cfrizz

Polkfan, it's about convenience. I play my system from the time I get up to the time I go to bed. How do I do it? By playing my music through my mp3 player that is attached to my system.

All I care about is listening & singing along with the songs. And this way accomplishes this goal just fine & I'm not jumping up & down all day changing cd's

I'm not trying to make a religious experience out of it, I'm not trying to listen to see if I can hear every little flaw to **** about it. To be blunt, I'm not trying to be a so called Audiophile. I just want to hear & enjoy the music.

This is why Ipods & MP3's are so popular, because it's about the music, not the gear that it is played on.

hearingimpared

cfrizz wrote: »

Polkfan, it's about convenience. I play my system from the time I get up to the time I go to bed. How do I do it? By playing my music through my mp3 player that is attached to my system.

All I care about is listening & singing along with the songs. And this way accomplishes this goal just fine & I'm not jumping up & down all day changing cd's

I'm not trying to make a religious experience out of it, I'm not trying to listen to see if I can hear every little flaw to **** about it. To be blunt, I'm not trying to be a so called Audiophile. I just want to hear & enjoy the music.

This is why Ipods & MP3's are so popular, because it's about the music, not the gear that it is played on.

I do too Cath but I get great pleasure out of prepping an LP by cleaning it, destatictizing it (if there is such a word) and getting clamped down just right on the turntable. I then really enjoy the music. However, if I just want to do a quick listen or am feeling particularly lazy on a given day, I use the digital mediums I have.

EDIT; I also get some satifaction out of thumbing through LPs, CDs or SACDs and pulling out the ones that appeal to me at the moment then playing them. I get some kind of surprise by doing that.

Norm Apter

polkfan38 wrote: »

The talent in this country has been on a downward spiral since the mid 90s. I will listen to Dark side of the Moon all day long but, it would be nice to hear something good that is new once in awile.
just my $.02

To be sure, I voted for the 60s/70s (well, I came up with a compromise: 65-75), and while I'm somewhat sympathetic to your point of view, sometimes I think we're too harsh on what has emerged from the 90s onward. In short, I think we need some qualifications.

There has been a great amount of fantastic, innovative and engaging music produced over the past 15 years. There has also been a tremendous (e.g. much larger) amount of crap, and this seems to overshadow the really good stuff because of its omnipresence and sheer volume.

Personally, I'm not a fan of American Idol and how it shapes public perception of what is available (and its sort of acts like an instant feedback loop). I've never heard an 'artist' emerge from that format that has any real appeal to me...the types of acts I get into just wouldn't appear in that format to begin with, but they are out there. And that is the important point. But a show like American Idol does quite literally produce 'pop stars' based on a sort of lowest common denominator factor.

Now, obviously I think the late 60s and early 70s was an incredible time for music. Remember that line in "Almost Famous" by Lester Bangs? Its 1973, and he pretty much states that rock is dead.

But here is the important point. I'm sure there was a ton of crap in the 60s and 70s too; but we just don't hear it. Its forgotten. Why would anybody want to play it. So the farther we get from a specific period in time, the more we (collectively) filter through all of the bad stuff and retain the good stuff which is the very definition of classic, something that stands the test of time.

Slick marketing, MTV, American Idol, and the type of producers who tell Chris Cornell to "drop some beats to his tunes to make it marketable" can divert attention from the really good stuff, but they can't suppress the really good stuff that will last the test of time (just make it harder to identify). So all in all, I'm not quite so pessimistic.


Here are just a few artists off the top of my head who I would submit continue to thrive and do interesting things. I'm not suggesting everything they do will be classic, but they have talent and in my eyes are more interested in producing quality stuff than bending to the will of slick record companies/producers for instant success (See the documentary about Wilco, "I am Trying to Break Your Heart" [2003] for direct proof of this).

Wilco
Beck
The Flaming Lips
The Shins
Danger Mouse
Radiohead
Elliot Smith (RIP)
Spoon
Modest Mouse
Porcupine Tree
Cat Power
Iron & Wine
Neko Case
Ben Folds
Arcade Fire
Grizzly Bear
Sigur Ros
Band of Horses
Fleet Foxes
Bon Iver
Animal Collective
KT Tunstall
Lilly Allen (why not?)

polkfan38

You are 100% right Norm. I give a shout out to Porcupine Tree. They come from that line of King Crimson, ELP, and Tool. Wilson from PT is also working with Robert Fripp and remastering the old KC library! Love it!

zombie boy 2000

I couldn't have put a better list together Norm.

squeeb

Hehe - this kind of cracks me up. I could tell by the way the decades were worded what you thought of each. Reminded me of the political parties putting their spin on things.

80's Hair bands?
90's Grunge?

What about ...
70's Disco - Bee Gees, Barry Manilow, Peaches and Herb
60's Drugged out 10 minutes of the same notes over and over ...

The 80's started out with U2, AC/DC, Queen, The Clash then moved to Genesis, Journey, ZZ Top, Bon Jovi and ended with Metallica, Guns and Roses, and Def Leppard.

Just some generational thoughts for the night. That's one of the great things about music - there is something for everyone.

LuSh

My time started with the Cure in the late 80's and eventually ended with Nirvana in the early 90's. During the mid-90's I got into the 60's and 70's (go figure) but what I find most surprising is I'm purchasing and finding much more music in the last 5 years then all those years put together. The music I'm purchasing now is incredible stuff which extends into so many different sub genres, and I have no personal memories attached to these songs yet.

A few people I know who grew up in the 60's-70's and have really continued 'looking' rather then 'being fed' seem to say these last 5-7 years have been very rich in talent. I think there is a real opportunity being missed by some as you have to scratch just below the MTV/Idol surface and dig, but once you dig a little deeper you will strike it rich with very well produced, talented artists. I usually use youtube.com or grooveshark.com now as my tools of choice when sampling some new stuff. If I like it I buy it, and man...I've been buying. To add a few bands to Norms list check out.

The Good The Bad and The Queen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kku7qVzai3c

The Gorillaz
Enter Shikari
Massive Attack
TV ON THE RADIO