The Worst Musical Decade?

[Soot and Stars]

The 60's and 70's Tied

The 60's had my five favorite classic rock artist CCR, The Doors, Queen, Aerosmith and Simon and Garfunkel while the 70's also had something special. It was the greatest era in Soul/R&B and that's the one genre I agree has been tainted over time. The 70's had great work from favorites such as Marvin Gaye, Bill Withers, Stevie Wonder, etc. To me these are all equally important in my classic rock history!

The 80's

I dug the 80's metal, whatever you want to call it glam or whatever but it was mostly singles for me rather than albums. Music was fun but not overly memorable in my experience.

The 50's

I can do without almost faceless DooWop groups with singles but that's just me!

 

[troggy]

Perhaps most albums are full of filler. But I have about 500 records in my collection that aren't. The album format can elevate everything to such heights. If all we had was individual songs, I'd barely even listen to music. *shrug*

Yeah, I remember discussing this with you before. I'm not really saying that I dislike albums because I don't. I have hundreds of them myself, on both vinyl and CD. But your approach to listening and mine are certainly different.

Maybe I just have a short attention span. Even when I put on an album, I often won't listen all the way through. If it's a CD, I'll skip around to different songs or play the same one multiple times, if it's a song that I want to hear again.

 

[annie]

Yeah, I remember discussing this with you before. I'm not really saying that I dislike albums because I don't. I have hundreds of them myself, on both vinyl and CD. But your approach to listening and mine are certainly different.

Maybe I just have a short attention span. Even when I put on an album, I often won't listen all the way through. If it's a CD, I'll skip around to different songs or play the same one multiple times, if it's a song that I want to hear again.

Spot on. Sometimes I wish I had a greatest hits instead of an album when all I really want to hear is one or two songs.

 

[Magic]

Perhaps most albums are full of filler. But I have about 500 records in my collection that aren't. The album format can elevate everything to such heights. If all we had was individual songs, I'd barely even listen to music. *shrug*

Depends on the Album. I do love concept albums, and those are intended to be listened to from start to finish.

I am also guilty of skipping through an album to hear a certain song. I can remember when I was a teen buying an entire album for just the one or two songs it contained, but now that I am older and have a different perspective on the music, I most generally listen to all albums/CD's from start to finish.

 

[The Beatles]

Don't like Beach Boys in the least. I like The Stones and he Beatles a lot but for me personally it'd take a million of each to compare to Neil and Floyd.



No thanks. I'd rather listen to Avril Lavigne.



I'll give you those two. Although much of my favorite Dylan work is from the 70s.



Not even close. All their albums are good but LA Woman would be in my top 5 of all-time and the next Doors album you're going to see on that list would be about 50 albums down the line...



Meh, they a'ght. I'll take Skynyrd, NON, Yes, Sabbath, Bowie, Ten Years After, Petty.

To be sure, 68-72 would be my peak Classic Rock years. The 90s are my all-time favorite decade, though. Everything was at its best, from classic rock to metal to pop to indie to alt-rock to rap even...

Im talking about bands that are critically acclaimed. Of course your'e not going to like a majority of my choices. Its common fact that the 60s were a more critically acclaimed decade than the 70s.

 

[Cosmic Harmony]

Its common fact that the 60s were a more critically acclaimed decade than the 70s.

Ummm....I've never heard this ever so clearly it can't be that common.

 

[LG]

Im talking about bands that are critically acclaimed. Of course your'e not going to like a majority of my choices. Its common fact that the 60s were a more critically acclaimed decade than the 70s.

I have to agree with Cosmic, I have never heard that the 60's were more critically acclaimed than the 70's.

Many bands that started in the 60's blossomed in the 70's and recorded their best material.

70's will always be the best decade for me, the amount of different rock music being made, the quality of the records themselves, the stereo equipment finally being able to reproduce bands music the way it was intended. All around by far the best era of rock music bar none.

 

[AboutAGirl]

I'm not into that indie rock stuff. Animal Collective, Arcard Fire, Decemberists, Deerhunter, nothing diverse or interesting about them if you ask me. They're all right, but indie rock isn't anything new. The good indie rock happened in the 90s, the 00s stuff is just a softer, inoffensive, 'lite' version of that. It's like if Elton John thought he was a hardcore punk rawker. Such an eyes-roll for me. Gimme a band with some edge, thx. Indie rock is so played out, the stuff today is the Nickelbacks and Puddle of Mudds of the genre. By the time the 00s rolled around, the artists who were interested in doing something relatively new were getting into post-rock, noise, black metal, and electronica.

It's just not my cup of tea I guess. *shrug* They have a good idea here or there but I can't stomach the way they go about it.

Im talking about bands that are critically acclaimed. Of course your'e not going to like a majority of my choices. Its common fact that the 60s were a more critically acclaimed decade than the 70s.

Now yer just makin' stuff up. I'm not going to like your choices because those are bands that you like, not bands that I like. It has nothing to do with critical acclaim. The Beatles are the most acclaimed band of all-time, but it'd take a million Hollies or Byrds to touch the acclaim of Pink Floyd, Neil Young, Led Zeppelin.

 

[CREAM'd]

I voted for the 80s. I believe the 2010's will be an abysmal decade for music,of a biblical scale.

 

[The Beatles]

I'm not into that indie rock stuff. Animal Collective, Arcard Fire, Decemberists, Deerhunter, nothing diverse or interesting about them if you ask me. They're all right, but indie rock isn't anything new. The good indie rock happened in the 90s, the 00s stuff is just a softer, inoffensive, 'lite' version of that. It's like if Elton John thought he was a hardcore punk rawker. Such an eyes-roll for me. Gimme a band with some edge, thx. Indie rock is so played out, the stuff today is the Nickelbacks and Puddle of Mudds of the genre. By the time the 00s rolled around, the artists who were interested in doing something relatively new were getting into post-rock, noise, black metal, and electronica.

It's just not my cup of tea I guess. *shrug* They have a good idea here or there but I can't stomach the way they go about it.



Now yer just makin' stuff up. I'm not going to like your choices because those are bands that you like, not bands that I like. It has nothing to do with critical acclaim. The Beatles are the most acclaimed band of all-time, but it'd take a million Hollies or Byrds to touch the acclaim of Pink Floyd, Neil Young, Led Zeppelin.

Yeah but it would take a million of each of those bands to touch the acclaim of The Beatles.