1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

The Golden Era of Music?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by d8g3jdh, Mar 5, 2006.

  1. The period of time of the greats (Mozart, Bach, etc)

    5 vote(s)
  2. After that but before the 60's

    1 vote(s)
  3. The 60's

    20 vote(s)
  4. The 70's

    25 vote(s)
  5. The 80's

    1 vote(s)
  6. The 90's

    2 vote(s)
  7. We're living in it baby!

    7 vote(s)
  8. Carrot fondu

    20 vote(s)
  1. d8g3jdh

    d8g3jdh Guest

    Aug 9, 2005
    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.

  2. flatwoundfender


    Feb 24, 2005
    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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. +1 I picked 70's though.
  6. Woodchuck


    Apr 21, 2000
    Atlanta (Grant Park!)
    Gallien Krueger for the last 12 years!
    The 70's, hands down. God himself couldn't argue with that! :bag:
  7. Turock


    Apr 30, 2000
    Couldn't agree more.
  8. 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. :rolleyes:

    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?
  9. flatwoundfender


    Feb 24, 2005
    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.
  10. Turock


    Apr 30, 2000
    You really have no idea what you're talking about.
  11. 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!
  12. 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.

  13. d8g3jdh

    d8g3jdh Guest

    Aug 9, 2005
    Whatever, I like the beatles and Hendrix, so I voted 60's. Please don't kill my thread.
  14. flatwoundfender


    Feb 24, 2005
    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.
  15. Turock


    Apr 30, 2000
    You're wrong about that too.
  16. 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?
  17. "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?
  18. Herman


    Dec 25, 2005
    Lynchburg, VA
    Ummm, apparently, only yours? Did I get it right? :D
  19. flatwoundfender


    Feb 24, 2005
    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.
  20. Phil Mastro

    Phil Mastro

    Nov 18, 2004
    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.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.