Best Decade for Music

[bhsup]

Country: 60s, with 70s being a close 2nd
Rock: 70s and 80s tie. Really different styles, but both are awesome (sans disco)
Rap: Haha, this is a thread about music!
Motown: 60s
Light adult contempory: 70s (Karen Carpenter just absolutely ruled)

 

[puglover]

Puglover-

What about Aerosmith?

(I'll also throw Springsteen and Boston into the 70's mix.)

I haven't listened to much Aerosmith.

I have listened to Boston though. I can't believe I forgot to put it on the list.

 

[mrt144]

damnit, i'd say the period of 1974-1984. disco, funk, the emergence of electronic music as a popular form of music, etc etc.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Here's a list of the music I like, and their decades:

Earlier than the 60's:
-John Philip Sousa
-Sun Ra

60's:
-Symarip

70's:
-Black Sabbath
-The Sex Pistols
-Boyd Rice
-Bad Manners
-Madness
-The Specials
-Cockney Rejects
-Judas Priest
-Motorhead
-AC/DC
-Alice Cooper
-Skrwedriver

The 80's:
-Combat 84
-Crowbar
-Pentagram
-GWAR
-Faith No More
-Oi Polloi
-Peter and the Test Tube Babies
-Blitz
-Cock Sparrer
-Infa Riot
-The Business
-The Exploited
-The 4-skins
-The Last Resort
-Living Colour
-The Cows
-Brutal Attack (I think)
-Skullhead
-Sonic Youth
-Soundgarden

The 90's:
-Pearl Jam
-Alice in Chains
-The Prodigy
-Mayhem
-Burzum
-Devourment
-Earth
-Electric Wizard
-Goatsnake
-Iron Monkey
-Kyuss
-Orange Goblin
-Sun O)))
-Pig Destroyer
-Rudra
-OOIOO
-Landser

After the 90's:
-Psycroptic
-Khanate
-Jesu
-Tay Zonday
-BassHunter
-Heroine Sheiks
-Tomahawk
-Amoebic Dysentery

In the end, I went with the 80's.

 

[sourboy]

70's, but the 80's deserve more recognition than they get. There was a wide array of genre's in that decade. The 70's was just too overwhelming though.

 

[lovett]

Late seventies. The Ramones, The Sex Pistols, The Clash. Punk rock, need I go on? Not to mention Joy Division, and all the classic stadium rock bands.

Might go for the nineties as the second best decade. Grunge and Britpop all pretty good really

 

[ComradeDavo]

All decades have their merits and their downfalls. Just lok at the 80's....lots of terriable pop but also some awesome thrash metal!

Personally, the 90's gave us grunge and alot of good metal bands so I go for that.

 

[Leonel]

80's hands down. All those awesome synthesizers and the golden age of Van Halen and Winger. It was an era where mass produced music was actually good!

 

[LucyDuke]

I still love the grunge I grew up with. (I was born in '86, and the nineties made my favorite music.)

 

[On Yer Flour]

Music today stinks worse than a dead camel. Rap? Emo? Indie?

BOO!

Well, yeah. Mainstream music does stink.


That's why I don't listen to mainstream music.

 

[On Yer Flour]

The 1980s:

-Hardcore punk
-Post-punk
-New wave
-Synth/electro
-The flowering of industrial
-EBM
-Deathrock/positive punk/early goth
-No-wave
-Death metal
-Black metal
-Crust punk
-Grindcore
-Flowering of Japanese noize scene
-Japanese Visual Kei
etc.

 

[downtown]

The Sex Pistols,

Why do people like this band? They could not play their instruments, they were loud, crass, and gross. I've cut better musicians from high school percussion sections.

 

[On Yer Flour]

Why do people like this band? They could not play their instruments, they were loud, crass, and gross. I've cut better musicians from high school percussion sections.

That's precisely why people like the Pistols. They suck, yet they're great, yet they suck, yet...

 

[.Shane.]

Why do people like this band? They could not play their instruments, they were loud, crass, and gross. I've cut better musicians from high school percussion sections.

Have we had this conversation before? Technical proficiency in rock n' roll is a very secondary consideration. Its nice, but its not a pre-requisite for success. Don't worry, I'm not gonna argue musical taste online, I'm simply saying that its not a relevant criteria for rock n' roll.

As to the question in the OP, I thought it was painfully clear that the best decade ever in music was 1524-1533. AM I RITE?

 

[soul_warrior]

voted 70's

it had all the classic rock stuff, aswell as some serious funk action, disco was born, and punk.
not to mention raggae's golden age.

but there is always great stuff about.
even today
maybe im just getting too old to keep up?

 

[downtown]

That's precisely why people like the Pistols. They suck, yet they're great, yet they suck, yet...

Have we had this conversation before? Technical proficiency in rock n' roll is a very secondary consideration. Its nice, but its not a pre-requisite for success. Don't worry, I'm not gonna argue musical taste online, I'm simply saying that its not a relevant criteria for rock n' roll.

As to the question in the OP, I thought it was painfully clear that the best decade ever in music was 1524-1533. AM I RITE?

Right, right, I know...but often musicians who are lacking in the technical skill area make up for it in other areas.

Take Bob Dylan for example. He's actually a pretty poor harmonica player, and his guitar work is nothing special, and we all know about his voice. either (Walk into a blues bar in your city, you'll find better players), but he wrote damn good SONGS.

What did the Sex Pistols contribute that others didn't? Was it because they "stuck it" to the establishment, who was moving towards very complicated art rock? If thats the case, why would somebody like them above say, the Ramones, or the New York Dolls, who could actually play?

 

[On Yer Flour]

Have we had this conversation before? Technical proficiency in rock n' roll is a very secondary consideration. Its nice, but its not a pre-requisite for success. Don't worry, I'm not gonna argue musical taste online, I'm simply saying that its not a relevant criteria for rock n' roll.

As to the question in the OP, I thought it was painfully clear that the best decade ever in music was 1524-1533. AM I RITE?

Well, it depends - that is true for most rock 'n' roll, yes. However, it is quite possible to be very technically proficient at rock 'n' roll, and it often makes for some great music - the Stray Cats are a good example of that.

As someone who enjoys both hardcore punk and technical metal, I am happy to say that I find value in both the sheer emotion and attitude of a band and their ability with their instruments. I like both Gustave Dore and Jackson Pollock. Both types of artistry have their place.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

1950s-now

only jazz from the 50s for me, don't like the rock from then...besides maybe link wray.

 

[On Yer Flour]

Right, right, I know...but often musicians who are lacking in the technical skill area make up for it in other areas.

Take Bob Dylan for example. He's actually a pretty poor harmonica player, and his guitar work is nothing special, and we all know about his voice. either (Walk into a blues bar in your city, you'll find better players), but he wrote damn good SONGS.

What did the Sex Pistols contribute that others didn't? Was it because they "stuck it" to the establishment, who was moving towards very complicated art rock? If thats the case, why would somebody like them above say, the Ramones, or the New York Dolls, who could actually play?

They created extremely raw, catchy and maddeningly angry music in a way that none of the other punk pioneers did, and they were at the center of the emerging British punk culture, whereas the others were not. Their little circle of friends and groupies alone produced Billy Idol, who both fronted Generation X and had a very successful solo career, Siouxsie Sioux and Steven Severin, who founded Siouxsie And The Banshees, and avant-garde fashion designer Vivienne Westwood. They also had Soo Catwoman, who came up with what was arguably the first punk hairstyle that involved shaving your hair into unusual shapes. Add to that their addition of bondage gear to the punk repertoire, and the Sex Pistols, with a lot of help from their friends, made a huge impact on the formation of punk.

 

[.Shane.]

Right, right, I know...but often musicians who are lacking in the technical skill area make up for it in other areas.

Take Bob Dylan for example. He's actually a pretty poor harmonica player, and his guitar work is nothing special, and we all know about his voice. either (Walk into a blues bar in your city, you'll find better players), but he wrote damn good SONGS.

What did the Sex Pistols contribute that others didn't? Was it because they "stuck it" to the establishment, who was moving towards very complicated art rock? If thats the case, why would somebody like them above say, the Ramones, or the New York Dolls, who could actually play?

Well, it depends - that is true for most rock 'n' roll, yes. However, it is quite possible to be very technically proficient at rock 'n' roll, and it often makes for some great music - the Stray Cats are a good example of that.

@Flour, I'm not saying it bad, just that its not necessary. Look at the Who. You can argue each musician in that band was the best or among the best on their respective instrument (is there a better classic rock vocalist than Daltrey?) so, obviously, it didn't hurt them. But for every Pete Townshend there's a 1000 guys who may be just as good, technically, but lack the charisma, the energy, the whatever-it-is that takes you to the top.

So, its helpful to be good at your instrument, better yet to have magnetism, better yet to be able to write songs.

As for the Pistols, I could go on and on, I think Flour got the gist of what I might add, so I'll say that I essentially agree w/ him.