The Official "Music Was So Much Better in the Glorious Days of Yore" Thread

[blastingas10]

Originally Posted by Zer0

But what defines traditional music? It could mean music going back hundreds of years. Would jazz and blues musicians not have broke a traditional boundaries as well and set off a creative revolution in the early part of the 20th century? Musicians are always trying to break "traditional" music and create something new and different no matter what decade.

I certainly respect the likes of The Velvet Underground and The Beatles for what they've contributed to music but there's been plenty of other bands throughout the past few decades which have had a profound impact by doing something different. A lot of these bands don't get recognition until after they've split up, as was the case with The Velvet Underground, and I'm sure there are some bands today that will be seen as revolutionary in 20, 30, 40 years time but it's impossible to compare them to 60's bands at the moment because they have not yet been filtered by time.

Yes youre right, its those jazz and blues musicians along with the pioneers of the sixties and the musicians XVIIIth century who were the real revolutionaries.

To answer this question, one has to ponder upon the tricky question of what is a musical revolution and what are normally its reasons and its consequences. A musical revolution represents an essential turning point that brings in a completely different musical style: not just a new instrument or a new time signature or a new approach to singing, but a certain change in musical conscience. Roughly speaking, there have been three important musical revolutions over the course of the last few centuries - the Classical Revolution of the XVIIIth century, the Jazz Revolution of the early 1900's, and the Rock Revolution of the 1960's. The first one established a new type of music - music for the sake of art, music that had to be listened to as a self-estimated value, not devoted entirely to church or festival or other applied necessities. The second one was a crucial point in toppling the old, bearded values of Classical: music was rejuvenating, throwing off the shackles of the European style and going back into the masses. And the third one was very important in that it was a blistering, successful attempt at reconciliating everything: old values with new ones, 'elite' with 'working class', and protest audiences with conservatives. Come to think of it, what is rock music? Out of all the known genres, it is probably the hardest to define. If one takes Dylan's 'Mr Tambourine Man', the Clash's debut album, and Yes' Close To The Edge, all of which are normally considered to be 'rock', one can see that such enormous gaps that exist between the three can hardly be found in any other type of music.

[TockTockTock]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I don't think we'll know if we're experiencing a musical revolution until after it's passed.

Well said.

Oh, and I think that true innovation in rock music ended years ago. However, that doesn't mean it can't be found in other genres.

[blastingas10]

None of the rock artists since the original pioneers of the sitxties and even late fifties have done anything worthy of being called revolutionary. Will there be another musical revolution? Its almost certain there will be, some day.

[Necromancer]

Originally Posted by Argento

I think that the 70's were the golden age.

Progressive Rock, Blues/R&B Rock, Funk/P-Funk.

[blastingas10]

Originally Posted by Jack Pat

Well said.

Oh, and I think that true innovation in rock music ended years ago. However, that doesn't mean it can't be found in other genres.

Youre right, but there can still be creativity in rock.


There was a great deal of crap written in the Sixties, thats true. But certainly less than in our times, when crap is regarded as norm and good bands regarded as rarities. What im saying is, Good bands were more common back then, and crap is in an abundance today.

[Phantom Limb]

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Saying that there are a greater quantity of good bands today is a close minded thing to say. Thats a fact? It certainly isnt. There are also more people alive today than there were in the 60s, so, that means there are more people to make music. Of course the quantity of music is greater, but i wouldnt say the quality is. Bands of the 60s were revolutionary, they breaking through into new territory. They were breaking barriers of traditional music with their creativity and paving the way for todays bands.

This is exactly what I said before. I never said the ratio of good to bad music changed over the years, I simply said that there is a greater quantity of good music today (and a greater quantity of crap).

Don't make uneducated claims like "Good bands were more common back then, and crap is in abundance today" especially if you are only going off what you hear on the radio (which it appears you are). There is ssssooooo much great music today, all you have to do is look for it a little harder and you'll find it.

[blastingas10]

Originally Posted by Phantom Limb

This is exactly what I said before. I never said the ratio of good to bad music changed over the years, I simply said that there is a greater quantity of good music today (and a greater quantity of crap).

Don't make uneducated claims like "Good bands were more common back then, and crap is in abundance today" especially if you are only going off what you hear on the radio (which it appears you are). There is ssssooooo much great music today, all you have to do is look for it a little harder and you'll find it.

Uneducated? Its completely correct. Popular music was good in the sixties, and you had great underground bands like the velvet underground. You just admitted that there is "a greater quantity of crap" today. Good music wasn't hard to come by in the sixties, all you had to do was turn on the radio to find some. These days, it's much harder to come by. Turn on the radio, all you hear is crap. Sure there are some good bands today, but there are more crappy ones.

And no, im not just judging based on radio music. Im sure there is plenty of good music today, its just harder to come by than the crap, which is bountiful.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by blastingas10

No i wasnt there but luckily I can still listen to the music. Im sure there are, but Traditional music isnt as strong as it use to be. Musicians were walking down the same traditional path for a while until the revolutionaries of the late 50s and 60s came along.

What traditional path are you talking about? There were plenty of musical revolutionaries prior to the late 50s. I mean, even if you ignore most of the thousands of years of musical history leading up to that point and just focus on, say, the 20s through the mid 50s, you're still talking about a time period when everyone from Charlie Parker to Alban Berg to Little Richard to Harry Partch were out there blazing trails that were arguably a lot more revolutionary than some of the classic rock you're naming in his thread.

[Paedantic Basterd]

Good music is not hard to come by unless you're expecting it to be spoonfed to you. All you need is the right resource to help you find it, and you're on this website, so... problem?

Ultimately, I think hindsight is 20/20, and we can't make any accurate claims about the quality of this decade until we're out of it. I bet in 10 more years, the 00s will look pretty good in comparison to what's being produced.

[blastingas10]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

What traditional path are you talking about? There were plenty of musical revolutionaries prior to the late 50s. I mean, even if you ignore most of the thousands of years of musical history leading up to that point and just focus on, say, the 20s through the mid 50s, you're still talking about a time period when everyone from Charlie Parker to Alban Berg to Little Richard to Harry Partch were out there blazing trails that were arguably a lot more revolutionary than some of the classic rock you're naming in his thread.

If you thoroughly read all my comments, you would see that i already talked about this.

Yes, the original beginnings of rock'n'roll go back to the Fifties. after all, it wasn't the Beatles or the Rolling Stones who started rock music: Chuck Berry, Bill Haley and Buddy Holly all came before them. But in the Fifties, rock'n'roll was just a new type of popular music, teenage-oriented dance ditties that were catchy, groovy, and certainly innovative(some of the beatles early music does fall in this category), but not as innovative and revolutionary as the music of the 60s. Nobody could predict Sgt Pepper back in 1956 or 1958. The rock n roll of the fifties wasnt far removed from R&B or the blues.

Yes youre right, its those jazz and blues musicians along with the pioneers of the sixties and the musicians XVIIIth century who were the real revolutionaries.

To answer this question, one has to ponder upon the tricky question of what is a musical revolution and what are normally its reasons and its consequences. A musical revolution represents an essential turning point that brings in a completely different musical style: not just a new instrument or a new time signature or a new approach to singing, but a certain change in musical conscience. Roughly speaking, there have been three important musical revolutions over the course of the last few centuries - the Classical Revolution of the XVIIIth century, the Jazz Revolution of the early 1900's, and the Rock Revolution of the 1960's. The first one established a new type of music - music for the sake of art, music that had to be listened to as a self-estimated value, not devoted entirely to church or festival or other applied necessities. The second one was a crucial point in toppling the old, bearded values of Classical: music was rejuvenating, throwing off the shackles of the European style and going back into the masses. And the third one was very important in that it was a blistering, successful attempt at reconciliating everything: old values with new ones, 'elite' with 'working class', and protest audiences with conservatives. Come to think of it, what is rock music? Out of all the known genres, it is probably the hardest to define. If one takes Dylan's 'Mr Tambourine Man', the Clash's debut album, and Yes' Close To The Edge, all of which are normally considered to be 'rock', one can see that such enormous gaps that exist between the three can hardly be found in any other type of music.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Good music is not hard to come by unless you're expecting it to be spoonfed to you. All you need is the right resource to help you find it, and you're on this website, so... problem?

Ultimately, I think hindsight is 20/20, and we can't make any accurate claims about the quality of this decade until we're out of it. I bet in 10 more years, the 00s will look pretty good in comparison to what's being produced.

Im not saying there isnt good music. Im saying that there hasnt been any revolutionaries in music since the 60s and somewhat the 70s with prog rock. But music doesnt have to be revolutionary to be good.