The Golden Era of Music?

[d8g3jdh]

Well, when do you think the best time for music was? Could be any reason you like, whether it was responsible for progressing music more than any other or whether you just like the bands from that era. I go for the 60's, I don't care how great Mozart and Bach were, Hendrix and The Beatles were just so awesome.

Edit: ATTENTION! THIS IS A POLL/THREAD ABOUT YOUR OPINION. YOU ARE NEITHER RIGHT NOR WRONG IN EXPRESSING IT. SPEAK FREELY.

[flatwoundfender]

I wish there was late 60's - 70's that's when funk and classic rock was in it's prime. You had The Meters, Booker T., James Brown, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Cream, The Allman Brothers, The Funk Brothers, and a whole host of other bands that rocked.

[Peter McFerrin]

There's no such thing as a "golden era" of music. What's popular at a given time doesn't necessarily reflect what's being done that has artistic value.

Moreover, people everywhere tend to value what they were listening to in their youth (~15-25) as the ne plus ultra of music. Old Boomers today sound as obnoxious when talking about the '60s and '70s as their parents did talking about the '30s and '40s. There was a whole lot of great music being made in both eras, but there was an awful lot of crap as well.

I think Frank Zappa said it best:
...I've also talked about the End of the World being a question of whether it's going to be by fire, ice, paperwork, or nostalgia. And there's a good chance that it's going to be nostalgia because the distance between the event and the nostalgia for the even has gotten shorter and shorter and shorter with each nostalgia cycle. So, projecting into the future, you could get to a point where you would take a step and be so nostalgic for that point where you would take a step and be so nostalgic for that step you just took that you would literally freeze in your tracks to experience the nostalgize of the last step, or the last word, or your last whatever. The world just comes to a halt - remembering.

[The Golden Boy]

Originally Posted by Peter McFerrin

There's no such thing as a "golden era" of music. What's popular at a given time doesn't necessarily reflect what's being done that has artistic value.

Moreover, people everywhere tend to value what they were listening to in their youth (~15-25) as the ne plus ultra of music. Old Boomers today sound as obnoxious when talking about the '60s and '70s as their parents did talking about the '30s and '40s. There was a whole lot of great music being made in both eras, but there was an awful lot of crap as well.

I think Frank Zappa said it best:
... nostalgia...

No, there's a definate difference in the music from the period of time of the late 60s and early 70s. Take a look at that music (I'm referring to the rock/pop genre) and tell me any sort of time period that is still as influential and emulated to this day. This has nothing to do with nostalgia- it's just that music is still considered that good. If this were nostalgia, I'd be raving about how kickass Twisted Sister is or how Billy Squier is planning a world domination comeback, not how kickass of an album Revolver is. My sort of step-son is 14, he digs out my Zeppelin CDs and my Ozzy stuff moreso than his Jet or Sum 41 stuff.

[VRT_RONBO]

Originally Posted by flatwoundfender

I wish there was late 60's - 70's that's when funk and classic rock was in it's prime. You had The Meters, Booker T., James Brown, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Cream, The Allman Brothers, The Funk Brothers, and a whole host of other bands that rocked.

+1 I picked 70's though.

[Woodchuck]

The 70's, hands down. God himself couldn't argue with that!

[Turock]

Originally Posted by flatwoundfender

I wish there was late 60's - 70's that's when funk and classic rock was in it's prime. You had The Meters, Booker T., James Brown, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Cream, The Allman Brothers, The Funk Brothers, and a whole host of other bands that rocked.

Couldn't agree more.

[Peter McFerrin]

You know why people consider music of the late '60s and early '70s to be so damn good? Because the people who dominate politics and the media--that is to say, Baby Boomers--keep telling everyone that it is! You can't be intellectually honest without acknowledging the role of cultural construction, shaped by demographics and incomes, in determining aesthetic preferences.

There's also a great deal of editing and selective memory associated with this era. A lot of Boomers would like to think that they were listening to Abbey Road and classic funk in 1972. No: they were listening to Bread, the Osmonds, and (God help us all) overproduced Nashville country-pop; the only "funk" in their musical diet was Grand Funk Railroad.

In any case, an era should not be deemed "golden" because what was "good" and what was popular happened to be in alignment (which is rarely the case). Incredible music is made in all eras, and so is a lot of crap.

BTW, Golden Boy, it's not surprising that your son would want to listen to Revolver or Sticky Fingers instead of Jet--why listen to a third-rate retread when you can hear the originals?

[flatwoundfender]

I think the main thing about the 60's and 70's was that the pop music wasn't as easy to play. With people like Jamerson playing bass on some of the top hits you couldn't just pick up and instrument and start a band i.e. punk. Much of the pop music today that's done by bands (not by studio musicians backing a powertools enabled vocalist) doesn't have much to it.

[Turock]

Originally Posted by Peter McFerrin

You know why people consider music of the late '60s and early '70s to be so damn good? Because the people who dominate politics and the media--that is to say, Baby Boomers--keep telling everyone that it is! You can't be intellectually honest without acknowledging the role of cultural construction, shaped by demographics and incomes, in determining aesthetic preferences.

There's also a great deal of editing and selective memory associated with this era. A lot of Boomers would like to think that they were listening to Abbey Road and classic funk in 1972. No: they were listening to Bread, the Osmonds, and (God help us all) overproduced Nashville country-pop; the only "funk" in their musical diet was Grand Funk Railroad.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

[Peter McFerrin]

Let's not fall into the common musician's trap of assuming that complexity = artistic merit. It takes a lot of technical ability to play like Oscar Peterson, but I would trade Peterson's entire musical output for one of the tracks on Bill Evans' Waltz for Debby or Sunday at the Village Vanguard.

Being able to play well and being able to write well are two completely separate things. They are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually dependent. If you can do both, hot damn!

[Peter McFerrin]

Still getting in bar fights, Turock?

You know, I have this mental image of you, and it's Walter Sobchak (John Goodman's character) from The Big Lebowski.

"YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT, DONNY!"

[d8g3jdh]

Originally Posted by Peter McFerrin

You know why people consider music of the late '60s and early '70s to be so damn good? Because the people who dominate politics and the media--that is to say, Baby Boomers--keep telling everyone that it is! You can't be intellectually honest without acknowledging the role of cultural construction, shaped by demographics and incomes, in determining aesthetic preferences.

There's also a great deal of editing and selective memory associated with this era. A lot of Boomers would like to think that they were listening to Abbey Road and classic funk in 1972. No: they were listening to Bread, the Osmonds, and (God help us all) overproduced Nashville country-pop; the only "funk" in their musical diet was Grand Funk Railroad.

In any case, an era should not be deemed "golden" because what was "good" and what was popular happened to be in alignment (which is rarely the case). Incredible music is made in all eras, and so is a lot of crap.

BTW, Golden Boy, it's not surprising that your son would want to listen to Revolver or Sticky Fingers instead of Jet--why listen to a third-rate retread when you can hear the originals?

Whatever, I like the beatles and Hendrix, so I voted 60's. Please don't kill my thread.

[flatwoundfender]

Originally Posted by Peter McFerrin

Let's not fall into the common musician's trap of assuming that complexity = artistic merit. It takes a lot of technical ability to play like Oscar Peterson, but I would trade Peterson's entire musical output for one of the tracks on Bill Evans' Waltz for Debby or Sunday at the Village Vanguard.

Being able to play well and being able to write well are two completely separate things. They are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually dependent. If you can do both, hot damn!

Well both Bill Evans and Oscar Peterson didn't just pick up an instrument and start playing, in fact they didn't pick on up they were pianist. The pop music now a days is generally poorly written and played, unless it's studio produced pop in which case it's probably played well.

[Turock]

Originally Posted by Peter McFerrin

Still getting in bar fights, Turock?

You know, I have this mental image of you, and it's Walter Sobchak (John Goodman's character) from The Big Lebowski.

"YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT, DONNY!"

You're wrong about that too.

[Peter McFerrin]

Originally Posted by flatwoundfender

The pop music now a days is generally poorly written and played

Do you have some reasonably objective criterion by which to measure this? Moreover, is this criterion at all relevant?Consider the question of process vs. product: do I care how the sausage was made as long as it tastes good and won't give me trichinosis?

[Peter McFerrin]

Originally Posted by Scott Zoltok

Whatever, I like the beatles and Hendrix, so I voted 60's. Please don't kill my thread.

"I like it" != "it's the best ever"

A lot of people say that the "golden age" of Los Angeles was the '20s. Some say it was the '50s. Others, the '70s. And then some might say it's today, unless they're middle-aged and white. Who's correct? Whose view is privileged?

[Herman]

Originally Posted by Peter McFerrin

"I like it" != "it's the best ever"

A lot of people say that the "golden age" of Los Angeles was the '20s. Some say it was the '50s. Others, the '70s. And then some might say it's today, unless they're middle-aged and white. Who's correct? Whose view is privileged?

Ummm, apparently, only yours? Did I get it right?

[flatwoundfender]

Originally Posted by Peter McFerrin

Do you have some reasonably objective criterion by which to measure this? Moreover, is this criterion at all relevant?Consider the question of process vs. product: do I care how the sausage was made as long as it tastes good and won't give me trichinosis?

Actually I don't like that the pop music today ie it's doesn't taste good. And I'm not a middle aged white person. I'm a colleged aged white person. If you look at a lot of the popular bands these days, that are actually bands, they're not very talented and there songs all sound the same. Of course that's my opinion.

[Phil Mastro]

Originally Posted by flatwoundfender

I wish there was late 60's - 70's that's when funk and classic rock was in it's prime. You had The Meters, Booker T., James Brown, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Cream, The Allman Brothers, The Funk Brothers, and a whole host of other bands that rocked.

Exactly what I was thinking. You can add Zappa to that list, and probably the Stones' 3 best albums (Beggar's Banquet, Let it Bleed, and Sticky Fingers).

Edit: I posted before posting, and after reading much of this thread, I kinda realized I was thinking about rock mainly. Still, I just gotta say this about my vote:
I dare anyone to pull out a decade or "era" or whatever containing more generally accepted rock greats than in between 1965 and 1975.