[QUOTE]Nirvana is of course much better then [b]all music[/b] produced in the 80s.[/QUOTE]
I love generalizations like that.
It's unfair to say or to try to imply that the grunge was the new punk and that it saved rocknroll. It wasn't. It was just a bunch of junkies with loud guitars.
If you consider bands that maybe started in the last years of the 70's (76-77 up for example) but had their best stuff released in the 80's... are they still 70's bands in their "essence"? Except for a few classic punk bands, most of them can be all put in the 80's basket. And if this way of thought is valid, a lot of the 90's grunge bands (*ahem* hi Kurt) started in the 80's too. 1989 is still in the 80's. [/QUOTE]
According to that, should [i]No-One But You[/i] considered a 60's song because Brian started his professional career in 1969?
Should 'Liverpool Oratorio' be regarded as part of the 50's?
[/QUOTE]
The problem is that people are mixing things up. If you want to consider say, Queen, they are a 70's band ("commercially" they started in 1973). But the music they did in the 80's was just that, 80's music (and for most, by default, it's crap). And it followed the rules of these days, and this is what is being asked I suppose. Same as many other bands that "adapted" their original styles to what was selling at the moment. But KISS was never a disco band just because they did "I was made for loving you" neither Stones was a disco band because of "Miss you". If you want to be restrictive, they are a 60's band (Stones) and a 70's band (KISS, not considering Wicked Lester the same way as Smile isn't considered for Queen) but during the 80's, they did some of their worst material because the "commercial rules" of that decade didn't fit with what they did the best - "60's/70's music" so to speak.
When a band didn't have time to span their career through several music styles (or commercial tendencies), they get the label of "grunge", "metal", "disco", or whatever. When they have a 30+ years career and went through all these styles trying to adapt themselves to keep them alive and in the business, these "phases" are just ignored, as they should be.
Rick · Member since
I love the 80s because of Toto. Many people consider them as soft cheesy American rock. I don't. I saw them performing two years ago, effing brilliant really. They sure did rock! Perfect musicianship.
If you want to try a little Toto, make sure you listen to the following albums: IV, Isolation, The Seventh One and Kingdom Of Desire. The latter being the last album with the truly magnificant and legendary drummer Jeff Porcaro.
A bit awkwardish is the fact that they had about five different lead vocalists!
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
Neil Young. Covers almost 4 decades doin' extraordinarily above-the-average kindS of music. The Master.
[/QUOTE]
In many ways, Young treads a thin line between genius and complete crap. Even his voice can be both angelic or warbling out of tune, often in the same song. But he has stretched himself, for which he deserves a lot of credit. Powderfinger, on its own, establishes him as worth a listen.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
Neil Young. Covers almost 4 decades doin' extraordinarily above-the-average kindS of music. The Master.
[/QUOTE]
In many ways, Young treads a thin line between genius and complete crap. Even his voice can be both angelic or warbling out of tune, often in the same song. But he has stretched himself, for which he deserves a lot of credit. Powderfinger, on its own, establishes him as worth a listen.
[/QUOTE]
I'll put up with the complete crap; the genius he produces is just worth it by and far.
Poo, again · Member since
The 90's must have been the worst.
aion · Member since
Did no-one listen to The Smiths, R.E.M. and The Cure in the 80s? Or Killing Joke, U2, Motörhead, Sonic Youth and Public Enemy? (Well I didn't, as I was too young, but I listen to that music now.)
There has been good and bad music in all decades, but I do think that the 90s were a particularly great decade. We got Radiohead, the best music from R.E.M. in my opinion, Massive Attack and other trip-hop acts, The Verve, Aphex Twin and other IDM, we got great albums from Neil Young and Tom Waits, A Tribe Called Quest, Rammstein, PJ Harvey, and we got Innuendo, Made in Heaven and many many more, hell I even like Bon Jovi's albums of that decade...
But the 70s were also overwhelmingly good. We got classic albums from Queen, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, John Lennon, Led Zeppelin, King Crimson, Neil Young, Black Sabbath, Can, Kraftwerk, Talking Heads...
There's still much good around, so it's hard to decide which decade is the best. In the end the 80s were surely the worst as the majority of music was quite bad, and there haven't been any new, great music genres invented during the 2000s so 21st century loses too... The 60s had fantastic music but other decades just had more of it, so ultimately I think it's a choice between the 70s and 90s.
The Real Wizard · Member since
In terms of modern popular music, I vote for the 60s.
Nearly everything that came out was something fresh and new. There were so many innovative ideas, and virtually none could be rejected because they had been overdone. The only possible exception I can think of is The Monkees, as they were arguably the first boy band. The 60s brought us records like Pet Sounds, Aftermath, Revolver, and Something Else by the Kinks - documents that spoke for the musical growth of their time, yet they are timeless pieces of art.
Outside of modern popular music, pick any decade between 1600 and 1880 and you'll be hard-pressed to find anything but pure quality and continuous musical evolution.
Bigfish · Member since
I've been through the FAQ with a fine tooth comb and I think you are actually allowed to discuss matters not relating to Queen....but don't quote me.
