Ah, well that's not even close to what your original post reads, and I quote:

So, what is your actual standpoint here, or are you just trolling us?

I think that when talking about musical revolution, you have to think about the actual cultural impact of the music you're talking about. What you do musically doesn't really matter if noone's affected by it. In the 50s and particularly the 60s, you had emergence of youth cultures that had a lot to do with music. Music collectively became part of the identity of generations of young people with different thoughts and ideals than their parents and I'm not sure that had ever happened before on such a scale.

"Everything" was a bit of an exaggeration. Although nearly everything I like that is being made in the 21st century is made by bands that were around in the 20th century, and there isnt much of that. I havent found a 21st century artist that isnt crap. But yall can listen to whatever you want. My main point is that the pioneers of the sixties were the last true revolutionaries and everything since then hasnt been able to match them.

Exactly. Im glad someone understands. You could make an argument that the revolutionaries of the sixties were the first to build a solid bridge between mass culture and "serious art."

To be honest, it's difficult to take you seriously when you make a statement like this. Sweeping generalizations and a complete lack of effort aren't going to make your point valid.

A revolution is defined as "A sudden, complete, or marked change in something" (to pick the definition that best applies to music, though any definition could be interpreted as applicable to it). I would say that we are indeed living through a musical revolution. The big example here is that advancements in technology (internet, filesharing) have changed the way in which we obtain and listen to music, and the power structure has shifted from corporate labels.

It seems to me that your problem isn't a lack of revolution, it's that the associations you have with it are from a time that has long passed, and you aren't recognizing the form it is taking today, or you simply don't care for it. I'm sure there were people during the 60s who thought the Beatles were pretty crappy and an embarrassment to music. It doesn't change the effect they had. As for us, we can't foresee the changes in music to come as a result of artists today.

You cant take me seriously because I think 21st century music is crap? Haha thats fine. I happen to put a great effort into discovering new music, new and old. There is still plenty of old music to be discovered. I probably try even harder to discover new music that I like. It happens to be a pretty big hobby for me.

To quote my earlier comment:

"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.

Would todays youth be the same without the movement that occured in the sixties?

The only thing that comes close to that is techo and electronic music. The world needed new music, and the world had accumulated enough knowledge to permit the construction of a virtually new type of musical instrument - computers and hi-tech synthesizers. The involvement of humans in creating this music has been diminishing - after all, isn't it easier when you get a computer to write your music for you?

I take a great deal of issue with the second half of this statement. It's so absurd I don't know where to begin to address it.

I had a feeling you would. You think that any one of these electronic or "tecno" musicians are as talented or as influential as some of the great classical composers like Beethoven? Or one of the brilliant jazz musicians such as Duke Ellington? Or one of the great sixties bands like The Beatles or The Velvet Underground? I dont think there is any question that the human involvement in music is diminshing.

You might want to clear up how exactly you think computers "write music for you", because it's an embarrassing statement and I don't think you want to come across as believing it.

Any real musician with a sense of rhythm wouldnt have much trouble making some beats with their computers or keyboards. On the other hand, any techo musician wouldnt be able to do what Bach or The Beatles or Louis Armstrong did. I dont see techno music ever making a cultural impact like Dylan or The Beatles made. I personally know some very talented musicians who dabble in Techno music just for fun and they will tell you that playing their instruments is much harder.