Johnny-Too-Good
Senior Member
I'd say the 60's was equally important in the grand scheme of things when you consider who the 60's gave birth to musically and influentially (Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Hendrix, Zeppelin, The Who, the Doors, Cream, Simon and Garfunkel, Beach Boys, Neil Young, Van Morrison)...but like a lot of that generation of rock fans on here who were born in the 60's, I only became aware of rock music in the 70's, and it did seem at the time as if that music from that period could never be surpassed, which is how it has turned out. Music changes and evolves, and so it should, so it's no good us complaining about 'modern' music and trying to tell kids these days that Grateful Dead and Wishbone Ash was real music, and Lady Gaga and hip hop and One Direction is crap, it's a generational thing, I'd be seriously worried about the state of the human race if my kids in 2012 were listening to and liking the same stuff I was into in 1978. So yes, the 70's was the best decade from where I am sitting, but I'm now something of a dinosaur culturally, so it's a pretty meaningless preference I am expressing!!
(He replies 7 months later ) Only just seen this thread.
You are right of course. The '60s was a time when bands were experimenting. They were all young people who thought it would last 5 minutes, and had no idea what was ahead of them. If you think about it, most of the 'monster bands' of the '70s actually got it together in the ''60s - The Stones, The Who, Led Zep, Pink Floyd etc. Also a 'template' had emerged from the '60s which was recognised and taken up by bands like Queen, Aerosmith and Van Halen. I was at an age when I could watch the whole thing unroll and it was fascinating and exciting.
Re the generational thing - music just isn't as important to today's young people as it was to us. It has become disposable. Though I would add that I brainwashed my kids and two of my boys came with me to see The Floyd's Division Bell gig in '94