The Worst Musical Decade?

[AboutAGirl]

After 1959, the top slots on the charts were handed over to the likes of Paul Anka, Connie Francis, Brenda Lee, Bobby Rydell, Ricky Nelson, Pat Boone, Bobby Vee, and Frankie Avalon.

Rock n roll doesn't belong on the charts anyway. It deserves to roam free.

 

[troggy]

I dig the 50s sound. The problem with it is it lacks one crucial innovation: album-oriented recording, and along with it the amount of consideration put into creating an album.

Interesting, if albums had been important in the 50's, I wonder if you'd dig the sound as much. The rise in the importance of albums was one of the driving forces that changed the production techniques you like so much. It would have changed the length of songs and probably the gritty sound. I say we're much better off with a full decade of rock and roll as a singles dominated genre.

 

[AboutAGirl]

Interesting, if albums had been important in the 50's, I wonder if you'd dig the sound as much. The rise in the importance of albums was one of the driving forces that changed the production techniques you like so much. It would have changed the length of songs and probably the gritty sound. I say we're much better off with a full decade of rock and roll as a singles dominated genre.

Can't say I agree with you necessarily. Granted, many artists would get smoother. But the greatest artists would remain raw, just like in every decade of music. And I'm not an encompassing man, I only need to listen to the greatest. The thing about the album format is that it can be used as a means to any end. If the artists believed in what they were doing, then a focus on putting together consequential albums wouldn't have change the length or rawness of the songs. I agree that in general what you said is exacty what would have happened. But we'd still be left with a scarce few artists who maintained everything great about 50s rock AND incorporated it into amazing records. And that to me would be worth infinitely more than a decade of singles.

 

[Harkat]

I see quite a few people say the 2000's are the least musically talented and to a degree I agree but I really think that during the 60's, 70's and 80's, the standard, originality and consistency of the music being developed has set such a high standard that now bands are incredibly hard pressed to achieve such a high and consistent standard of music.

In short, human ingenuity and originality has reached a plateau which is not helped by big brand companies who have an incredible amount of say into how and what music bands write

 

[LG]

^^It is a little unfair in a way as you said Harkat, but most of the bands I like that put out music in the 2000's were from the 90's, a few exceptions of course as is the case in every decade bar none.(There are some excellent hard rock and metal bands from Europe that stand out from the 2,000's they have kept it from being a complete loss for me anyway.)

The mechanical prepackaged drivel disguised as "Pop" music right here right now is the worst in the history of that genre and does nothing to help the 2000's at all. It seems to me that Disney corp among others has been responsible for this glut of eminently forgettable pablum and schlock that is dominating the music scene, mostly for younger people.

Reading up a bit, I agree with AAG's comment about AOR being alpha and omega in rock music evolution. For one thing manufacturers had finally started making really good stereo equipment that could get the best sound possible for your home listening pleasure. A far cry from the AM dominated 50's and 60's when Hi-Fi was more like a mystical concept than something people had in their homes.

Stereo > Mono recordings...I will not play a mono recording myself they are lacking in what I want from a listening experience.(Unless it's the clock radio that plays my FM station when I wake up in the mornings...that is the only mono I listen to.)

 

[Magic]

Rock n roll doesn't belong on the charts anyway. It deserves to roam free.

I second that notion~

 

[Džedaj]

80s! I absolutely hate that period, and in my opinion it's the crappiest period of rock so far (although '00s would come close too). Most of big rock stars in 60s died, disbanded of lose popularity, disco and metal start rolling, psychedelic rock faded. Although 00's are crappy too. Indie rock start gaining popularity and big MTV sell out began.

 

[Groovy Man]

Rock n roll doesn't belong on the charts anyway. It deserves to roam free.

that may sound cool....but, that's about it.

I don't judge music by it sales....but, sometimes you do.

Dark Side Of The Moon.....how many years did that album stay on the charts?

now, that's cool.

I think rock and roll should roam free, but if it ends up on the chart, and it's good....that's great. I don't agree that it doesn't belong on the charts.

 

[Magic]

I dont judge any song/band/aritst by "the charts". If a song/band/aritist makes it to the charts due to sales, then that is fine, but that to me isn't an automatic label of "POP". Hell I even like some artists that everyone labels as pop musicians.

If I like the music, I dont give a rats ass if the artist is pop or not, and nothing anyone says can change what I like!

 

[Groovy Man]

I even like some artists that everyone labels as pop musicians.

If I like the music, I dont give a rats ass if the artist is pop or not, and nothing anyone says can change what I like!

I like 60's and 70's pop....when ''pop'' wasn't a dirty word.

Today's pop is poop.