this current era of music isnt anything special, will any of the recent songs be remembered in 40-50 years? maybe adele and emele sande but knowone else
On balance I'd say 1993 was completely awful. There was the tail end of the rave scene, a load of cod reggae around and the **** end of grunge. There was nothing happening.
1973 has to be a vintage year, as the greatest album ever made, Dark Side of the Moon, was released.
Totally subjective. A great album by any comparisons, but some PF fans might argue that DSOTM wasn't PF's best. I prefer Meddle myself It didn't even make the top 100 all time album lists of the British music papers Melody Maker or NME. And it wasn't included in Time Magazine's 'All Time 100 albums' either. MJ fans will tell you that 'Thriller' was the greatest album ever made. Likewise Adele fans will probably say '21' was the best album of all time.:D
1993 awful? Maybe, but there was plenty happening, particularly on the female front with new artists like Bjork and my personal favourite, PJ Harvey who started to make a big impact on the alternative rock scene with her second album 'Rid Of Me'. REM's great album 'Automatic For The People' was 1993, I think
1988 is easily the worst pop music year of the 20th century, going 1955 to 2000.
Just compare for example the UK charts for this week in that year with say 1979, or even just 5 years earlier in the 80's. Pop music fell off a cliff very rapidly at this point in time.
Considering your above post #11 Glenn A, I hope you are watching the weekly (in real time) re-runs of Top Of The Pops from the same week in 1978, and even being shown at the same time and night, Thursday at 7.30pm, on BBC4 because they should be right up your street, and the variety of music, from fantastic to utterly grim is quite remarkable. Not sure if you have posted about that subject before on the dedicated thread.
I do, 1978 was a fantastic year for music. We had the intelligent end of the punk scene like The Boomtown Rats and Blondie, Kate Bush came on to the scene, excellent disco music, Queen and the ELO were at their peak and a fifties revival came along. Also developing then were the mod and 2 Tone scenes, though these didn;t really take off until the autumn of 1979.
Of course, among the dross we still had to endure bands like Racey and The Dooleys, but there was so much good stuff around.
I didn't really enjoy the 80's on the whole, but if you dig beyond the charts, there is something to enjoy in most decades.
Plus a lot of metal bands were thriving in the 70's and 80's.
Despite new romantics and poodle rock.
Although from roughly 2005 onwards music has been rank.
It was a fair bit longer than that actually, they were active from 1984 to 1993, having their first number 1 single with Dead Or Alive in early 1985. So their presence spanned over a decade!
I was thinking mainly about the malign influence years but why not extend it, maybe it hasn't gone away even now?
I didn't really enjoy the 80's on the whole, but if you dig beyond the charts, there is something to enjoy in most decades.
Plus a lot of metal bands were thriving in the 70's and 80's.
Despite new romantics and poodle rock.
Although from roughly 2005 onwards music has been rank.
Maybe late 60's to mid 70's were my favourite.
Metal was massive where I lived in the eighties. There were some fantastic bands around like AC/DC, Van Halen, Metallica and G n R. It's just a shame that after NWOBHM, most of the new bands were Americans. The British music industry seemed keener on angsty bands like The Cure and keeping seventies bands going.
I'd say the first five years of the eighties was very innovative as metal revived and reinvented itself in the post punk era, you had the 2 Tone revival and the new mods, synthesiser music, stadium rock and the beginnings of rap.
BUT, if there is one malign influence in modern pop it has to be SAW. And they operated from about 1988-91. Yet even as Waterman and co were creating the truly awful manufactured pop we still partly live with, you had the Madchester scene with The Mondays and The Roses.....
indeed, ive argued against saw fans on many occasions that they didnt 'dominate the charts' , and that indie and rock tracks outnumbered saw style pop throughout 87-91. however the few saw tracks there were in the chart often were around the top...
It was a fair bit longer than that actually, they were active from 1984 to 1993, having their first number 1 single with Dead Or Alive in early 1985. So their presence spanned over a decade!
but its pretty much agreed amongst us that dont like saw, that their early material was ok, it was new and fresh, its when watertwit boasted "i can make a pop star out of anyone" and the (s)hit factory was in full swing that enough was enough.
I do, 1978 was a fantastic year for music. We had the intelligent end of the punk scene like The Boomtown Rats and Blondie, Kate Bush came on to the scene, excellent disco music, Queen and the ELO were at their peak and a fifties revival came along. Also developing then were the mod and 2 Tone scenes, though these didn;t really take off until the autumn of 1979.
Of course, among the dross we still had to endure bands like Racey and The Dooleys, but there was so much good stuff around.
sorry glenn, im not trying to pick an argument here but yet again you have posted something that actually is incorrect old chap... the 50's revival started in '72 when the move released 'california man', woody left the move and formed wizzard and continued with his heavily 50's style material, see my baby jive, angel fingers (73), then you had showaddywaddy, mud, the rubettes even the bay city rollers had a 50's feel to some of their songs. punk did revive a 50's style, (darts, rocky sharpe) but in truth it had never left.
I was thinking mainly about the malign influence years but why not extend it, maybe it hasn't gone away even now?
...imho it hasnt, saw started it (there was very little blatantly manufactured music before), it sold to the kids (id suggest a younger demograph then earlier), and its has been with us ever since. boybands, girlbands, mixed sex bands, all manufactured, all a commercial enterprise to fill the pockets of waterman, cowell, fuller, walsh etc.
I didn't really enjoy the 80's on the whole, but if you dig beyond the charts, there is something to enjoy in most decades.
Plus a lot of metal bands were thriving in the 70's and 80's. Despite new romantics and poodle rock.
Although from roughly 2005 onwards music has been rank.
Maybe late 60's to mid 70's were my favourite.
i loved the new romantics! a quintessentially british youth culture movement borne out of punks 'do it yourself' ethos. the thing about nr fashion is that anything went, there was no uniform or dress standard to adhere to as with all others musical movements. you had permission to experiment, to be different and unique.... trouble is the high street stores got hold of it and tried to turn it into a uniform. by then the real new romantics, the blitz kids had moved on.
Metal was massive where I lived in the eighties. There were some fantastic bands around like AC/DC, Van Halen, Metallica and G n R. It's just a shame that after NWOBHM, most of the new bands were Americans.
OK hard rock then, but they still make a lot of noise and were bands I loved when I was 17.
I do think the early eighties saw a massive flowering of youth cults and trends. In 1981 you could take your pick between mod, skinhead, punk( a few were still around), new romantics, rockers and teds.
OK hard rock then, but they still make a lot of noise and were bands I loved when I was 17.
I do think the early eighties saw a massive flowering of youth cults and trends. In 1981 you could take your pick between mod, skinhead, punk( a few were still around), new romantics, rockers and teds.
... you were 17 in the 80's?... that would explain the discrepancies in some of your posts..
ps...you missed off clubbers who had disco, funk, jazz funk. and 81 saw the second wave of punk, the anarchist/more political style. punk was alive and well into the mid 80's although had moved away from courting the singles chart. remember 'mary the punk' off eastenders? that was 86 or 7.
1993 is getting a kicking here, but I remember that as being quite an interesting year, possibly because of my age at the time (13) and the fact I started to get really curious about music then.
The alternative scene was healthy and varied - you had the back end of grunge, with Siamese Dream by Smashing Pumpkins a highlight which was not universally recognised by the Brit-centric music press. You had the Breeders, Belly, Throwing Muses, Juliana Hatfield all active - it was a good year for female musicians. Their male counterparts were Pavement, Guided By Voices and quite a few British imitators of their type of sound, who are now sadly mostly forgotten (Shriek? Long Fin Killie? Adorable?). They were also the link with the whole shoegazing thing, which had just gone out of fashion.
At the same time, the first stirrings of Britpop happened, with Suede's first album and its attendant silly shocking stuff, and their little war with Blur, who were getting ready to release Girls&Boys. These were accompanied by short-lived but listenable and likeable bands like These Animal Men, who were influenced by New Wave and contributed to the Britpop sound, and especially, early aesthetics.
Manic Street Preachers were also still in their original line-up and in the ascendant. The British arm of Riot Grrl, with Huggy Bear and Voodoo Queens, produced little listenable music, but inspired many.
In the pop charts, there was a brief fad for ragga, which wasn't my thing but was interesting anyway.
1993 is getting a kicking here, but I remember that as being quite an interesting year, possibly because of my age at the time (13) and the fact I started to get really curious about music then.
The alternative scene was healthy and varied - you had the back end of grunge, with Siamese Dream by Smashing Pumpkins a highlight which was not universally recognised by the Brit-centric music press. You had the Breeders, Belly, Throwing Muses, Juliana Hatfield all active - it was a good year for female musicians. Their male counterparts were Pavement, Guided By Voices and quite a few British imitators of their type of sound, who are now sadly mostly forgotten (Shriek? Long Fin Killie? Adorable?). They were also the link with the whole shoegazing thing, which had just gone out of fashion.
At the same time, the first stirrings of Britpop happened, with Suede's first album and its attendant silly shocking stuff, and their little war with Blur, who were getting ready to release Girls&Boys. These were accompanied by short-lived but listenable and likeable bands like These Animal Men, who were influenced by New Wave and contributed to the Britpop sound, and especially, early aesthetics.
Manic Street Preachers were also still in their original line-up and in the ascendant. The British arm of Riot Grrl, with Huggy Bear and Voodoo Queens, produced little listenable music, but inspired many.
In the pop charts, there was a brief fad for ragga, which wasn't my thing but was interesting anyway.
That restores some balance but it doesn't really make 1993 an era. Apart from The Preachers and The Pumpkins not bands with a lasting influence but the indie scene was good. I think Therapy? had their breakthrough in 1993.
... you were 17 in the 80's?... that would explain the discrepancies in some of your posts..
ps...you missed off clubbers who had disco, funk, jazz funk. and 81 saw the second wave of punk, the anarchist/more political style. punk was alive and well into the mid 80's although had moved away from courting the singles chart. remember 'mary the punk' off eastenders? that was 86 or 7.
Surely 81 would have been the third wave of punk as the second wave would have been bands like Sham 69 in 1978. I do recall that for all punk wasn't the big deal it was in 1977, the early eighties generation of bands had a small but loyal following. In Cumbria, OK fair enough we were a bit remote and slightly behind the times, there was a small local punk scene with bands like Psycho Faction and The Dead producing politicised punk music.I think these bands died out by about 1984.
i loved the new romantics! a quintessentially british youth culture movement borne out of punks 'do it yourself' ethos. the thing about nr fashion is that anything went, there was no uniform or dress standard to adhere to as with all others musical movements. you had permission to experiment, to be different and unique.... trouble is the high street stores got hold of it and tried to turn it into a uniform. by then the real new romantics, the blitz kids had moved on.
To use a cliché, horses for courses I hated everything about New Romantics.
My favourite type of music is classic British heavy rock/ metal and Power Pop.
Late 60's early 70's with brief revivals in the early 80's for rock, and early 90's for powerpop. That failed due to grunge music, which I don't mind.
Surely 81 would have been the third wave of punk as the second wave would have been bands like Sham 69 in 1978. I do recall that for all punk wasn't the big deal it was in 1977,.
nope... sham 69 was part of the original sceen and actually werent punk but new wave.
indeed, punk in 81 when the more politicised anarchaic version 'second wave' became popular wasnt as big as in 77.... but in (late 76) 77 there was nothing else to rival it. all twee soppy pop songs, country and western, prog, soul, (there were a few exception...abba, queen, thin lizzy). punk was totally different and inspired a new generation to 'do it ourselves'. punk music per se was never going to be popular, its job wasnt to be a huge genre, its job was to inspire people to go out and create something yourselves. and thats why the post punk era 78-83 was the most diverse in british chart history.
so the second politicised version was never going to have the impact the first wave did, in fact the second wave was borne directly out of the original. as a backlash against thatcher angry lefties embraced the angry sound of punk, did it themselves and gave punk a second airing. of course punk never went away (post 77), it was always there, and still is.
1993 was still grunge heavy - even though it was released in 1991 'Nevermind' wasn't really big till 1992 along with 'Ten' and both those bands released massive follow up albums in 1993 with 'In Utero' and 'vs'.
REM we're also at the peak of their popularity in 1993 following 'automatic' and it's string of successful singles.
I think it was actually a pretty decent time.
I've always listened to non-mainstream music so for me there are no "dud" eras, because there is always some great music being produced if you are prepared to broaden your horizons and spend some time to look for it.
Totally subjective. A great album by any comparisons, but some PF fans might argue that DSOTM wasn't PF's best. I prefer Meddle myself It didn't even make the top 100 all time album lists of the British music papers Melody Maker or NME. And it wasn't included in Time Magazine's 'All Time 100 albums' either. MJ fans will tell you that 'Thriller' was the greatest album ever made. Likewise Adele fans will probably say '21' was the best album of all time.:D
1993 awful? Maybe, but there was plenty happening, particularly on the female front with new artists like Bjork and my personal favourite, PJ Harvey who started to make a big impact on the alternative rock scene with her second album 'Rid Of Me'. REM's great album 'Automatic For The People' was 1993, I think
I would say Wish You Were Here is a better album, but that is purely personal preference..
I've always listened to non-mainstream music so for me there are no "dud" eras, because there is always some great music being produced if you are prepared to broaden your horizons and spend some time to look for it.
...that old chestnut...
the point is though that when music is going through a revolution, when theres great original material around, its there in mainstream, its there in the charts, you shouldnt have to go and look for it. so yes, there are golden eras and there are dud ones, and by that i mean that golden eras have alot to offer, dud eras are the ones that are lacking in new, original, exciting, material.
youre old enough, youve seen as have i the excitement surrounding a new style/fashion/genre/movement, we dont have to like it, but objectively we can recognise these times.
ive often voiced my dislike for 89-93, but thats only a personal choice, i simply didnt like that material that was popular in those times, i can though see why others did think those years were great.
the point is though that when music is going through a revolution, when theres great original material around, its there in mainstream, its there in the charts, you shouldnt have to go and look for it. so yes, there are golden eras and there are dud ones, and by that i mean that golden eras have alot to offer, dud eras are the ones that are lacking in new, original, exciting, material.
youre old enough, youve seen as have i the excitement surrounding a new style/fashion/genre/movement, we dont have to like it, but objectively we can recognise these times.
ive often voiced my dislike for 89-93, but thats only a personal choice, i simply didnt like that material that was popular in those times, i can though see why others did think those years were great.
This depends on what you consider 'great material' though, and it just isn't true that every single exciting and original style of music gets into the mainstream.
Rock-in-opposition, zeuhl, extreme metal, noise, darkwave, coldwave, 1st wave industrial and post-rock are just a few of many genres that have sprung up over the years, producing tons of great, original music that spawned their own fanbases and underground movements. Yet where are all these in the mainstream charts? If you want those sounds, then actually, yes you do have to go and look for them. And what about musical revolutions going on abroad, such as afrobeat? Are they not relevant because they weren't in the mainstream here? If you're looking at a broader spectrum of music than just what is in the mainstream, then Glawster2002 is right - there is stuff going on all the time.
Also, by the time a new style hits the mainstream, it's not always at its best anyway. To pick a recent example - dubstep has exploded into the charts over the last few years, but it's not the pioneers of the sound like Burial who are getting the mainstream attention and chart success, for the most part, it's the poppier, watered-down stuff.
Underground genres and movements may not get as much recognition and attention, but in my opinion, they belong in a discussion of music eras just as much as the most popular artists.
This depends on what you consider 'great material' though, and it just isn't true that every single exciting and original style of music gets into the mainstream.
Rock-in-opposition, zeuhl, extreme metal, noise, darkwave, coldwave, 1st wave industrial and post-rock are just a few of many genres that have sprung up over the years, producing tons of great, original music that spawned their own fanbases and underground movements. Yet where are all these in the mainstream charts? If you want those sounds, then actually, yes you do have to go and look for them. And what about musical revolutions going on abroad, such as afrobeat? Are they not relevant because they weren't in the mainstream here? If you're looking at a broader spectrum of music than just what is in the mainstream, then Glawster2002 is right - there is stuff going on all the time.
Also, by the time a new style hits the mainstream, it's not always at its best anyway. To pick a recent example - dubstep has exploded into the charts over the last few years, but it's not the pioneers of the sound like Burial who are getting the mainstream attention and chart success, for the most part, it's the poppier, watered-down stuff.
Underground genres and movements may not get as much recognition and attention, but in my opinion, they belong in a discussion of music eras just as much as the most popular artists.
... but if it doesnt make mainstream, or is popular enough to get a decent following, tv appearances, radio airplay etc then is it really that great? appealling to a niche market doesnt equate to a 'golden era' which is what the op asked.
personally i dont give a fig whats going on abroad... why should i if i cant hear it here or have to go to great lengths to do so?... im a brit, im interested in what music speaks to me, what i can identify with, what i hear on the radio.
youre quite right about new styles hitting mainstream often being past their best though, or at least a commercialised version of a purer style is often what mainstream caters for... thats been the case since at least merseybeat (and probably before). however, that doesnt matter, because the commercial singles chart has always been a shop window for the greater sceen. the most commercial track/s off an album were the teasers, the advert, for the album. so historically the much maligned singles chart was actually a pretty good guide as to what was happening in the bigger picture.
I've always listened to non-mainstream music so for me there are no "dud" eras, because there is always some great music being produced if you are prepared to broaden your horizons and spend some time to look for it.
To even attempt to 'identify' a dud era in music one would need to have an excellent working knowledge of pretty much all musical genres and releases worldwide over half a century or more, otherwise it's nothing more that partially informed opinion at best.
Sometimes people like to think they have the handle on music but we all have our own musical affinities and prejudices and vast gaps in our knowledge.
You are correct; there are no dud eras in music. There have been times when certain musical movements and specific artists, due to huge exposure, have captured the imagination of millions and some (especial enthusiasts of these events or musicians) will use them as reference points to attempt to show that some other period was inferior because (in their minds) 'nothing was going on'.
There would be a very rich musical tapestry even if much of what gets cited as important or ground-breaking in our musical history had never happened.
The hugely rock-biased music press tells us what to think and daytime radio/ MTV tells us what to listen to. A lot more people will be aware that which is than that which one has to search for. There are a few genres and particular artists within them which get all the attention and you could be forgiven for thinking that other music simply isn't out there.
Comments
1993 awful? Maybe, but there was plenty happening, particularly on the female front with new artists like Bjork and my personal favourite, PJ Harvey who started to make a big impact on the alternative rock scene with her second album 'Rid Of Me'. REM's great album 'Automatic For The People' was 1993, I think
Rock/metal really stamped its authority in this time. Iron Maiden, Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth, Guns N' Roses, Skid Row and so many others.
Of course, among the dross we still had to endure bands like Racey and The Dooleys, but there was so much good stuff around.
Plus a lot of metal bands were thriving in the 70's and 80's.
Despite new romantics and poodle rock.
Although from roughly 2005 onwards music has been rank.
Maybe late 60's to mid 70's were my favourite.
I was thinking mainly about the malign influence years but why not extend it, maybe it hasn't gone away even now?
Metal was massive where I lived in the eighties. There were some fantastic bands around like AC/DC, Van Halen, Metallica and G n R. It's just a shame that after NWOBHM, most of the new bands were Americans. The British music industry seemed keener on angsty bands like The Cure and keeping seventies bands going.
I'd say the first five years of the eighties was very innovative as metal revived and reinvented itself in the post punk era, you had the 2 Tone revival and the new mods, synthesiser music, stadium rock and the beginnings of rap.
indeed, ive argued against saw fans on many occasions that they didnt 'dominate the charts' , and that indie and rock tracks outnumbered saw style pop throughout 87-91. however the few saw tracks there were in the chart often were around the top...
but its pretty much agreed amongst us that dont like saw, that their early material was ok, it was new and fresh, its when watertwit boasted "i can make a pop star out of anyone" and the (s)hit factory was in full swing that enough was enough.
sorry glenn, im not trying to pick an argument here but yet again you have posted something that actually is incorrect old chap... the 50's revival started in '72 when the move released 'california man', woody left the move and formed wizzard and continued with his heavily 50's style material, see my baby jive, angel fingers (73), then you had showaddywaddy, mud, the rubettes even the bay city rollers had a 50's feel to some of their songs. punk did revive a 50's style, (darts, rocky sharpe) but in truth it had never left.
...imho it hasnt, saw started it (there was very little blatantly manufactured music before), it sold to the kids (id suggest a younger demograph then earlier), and its has been with us ever since. boybands, girlbands, mixed sex bands, all manufactured, all a commercial enterprise to fill the pockets of waterman, cowell, fuller, walsh etc.
i loved the new romantics! a quintessentially british youth culture movement borne out of punks 'do it yourself' ethos. the thing about nr fashion is that anything went, there was no uniform or dress standard to adhere to as with all others musical movements. you had permission to experiment, to be different and unique.... trouble is the high street stores got hold of it and tried to turn it into a uniform. by then the real new romantics, the blitz kids had moved on.
But they're not metal
OK hard rock then, but they still make a lot of noise and were bands I loved when I was 17.
I do think the early eighties saw a massive flowering of youth cults and trends. In 1981 you could take your pick between mod, skinhead, punk( a few were still around), new romantics, rockers and teds.
... you were 17 in the 80's?... that would explain the discrepancies in some of your posts..
ps...you missed off clubbers who had disco, funk, jazz funk. and 81 saw the second wave of punk, the anarchist/more political style. punk was alive and well into the mid 80's although had moved away from courting the singles chart. remember 'mary the punk' off eastenders? that was 86 or 7.
The alternative scene was healthy and varied - you had the back end of grunge, with Siamese Dream by Smashing Pumpkins a highlight which was not universally recognised by the Brit-centric music press. You had the Breeders, Belly, Throwing Muses, Juliana Hatfield all active - it was a good year for female musicians. Their male counterparts were Pavement, Guided By Voices and quite a few British imitators of their type of sound, who are now sadly mostly forgotten (Shriek? Long Fin Killie? Adorable?). They were also the link with the whole shoegazing thing, which had just gone out of fashion.
At the same time, the first stirrings of Britpop happened, with Suede's first album and its attendant silly shocking stuff, and their little war with Blur, who were getting ready to release Girls&Boys. These were accompanied by short-lived but listenable and likeable bands like These Animal Men, who were influenced by New Wave and contributed to the Britpop sound, and especially, early aesthetics.
Manic Street Preachers were also still in their original line-up and in the ascendant. The British arm of Riot Grrl, with Huggy Bear and Voodoo Queens, produced little listenable music, but inspired many.
In the pop charts, there was a brief fad for ragga, which wasn't my thing but was interesting anyway.
That restores some balance but it doesn't really make 1993 an era. Apart from The Preachers and The Pumpkins not bands with a lasting influence but the indie scene was good. I think Therapy? had their breakthrough in 1993.
Surely 81 would have been the third wave of punk as the second wave would have been bands like Sham 69 in 1978. I do recall that for all punk wasn't the big deal it was in 1977, the early eighties generation of bands had a small but loyal following. In Cumbria, OK fair enough we were a bit remote and slightly behind the times, there was a small local punk scene with bands like Psycho Faction and The Dead producing politicised punk music.I think these bands died out by about 1984.
To use a cliché, horses for courses I hated everything about New Romantics.
My favourite type of music is classic British heavy rock/ metal and Power Pop.
Late 60's early 70's with brief revivals in the early 80's for rock, and early 90's for powerpop. That failed due to grunge music, which I don't mind.
nope... sham 69 was part of the original sceen and actually werent punk but new wave.
indeed, punk in 81 when the more politicised anarchaic version 'second wave' became popular wasnt as big as in 77.... but in (late 76) 77 there was nothing else to rival it. all twee soppy pop songs, country and western, prog, soul, (there were a few exception...abba, queen, thin lizzy). punk was totally different and inspired a new generation to 'do it ourselves'. punk music per se was never going to be popular, its job wasnt to be a huge genre, its job was to inspire people to go out and create something yourselves. and thats why the post punk era 78-83 was the most diverse in british chart history.
so the second politicised version was never going to have the impact the first wave did, in fact the second wave was borne directly out of the original. as a backlash against thatcher angry lefties embraced the angry sound of punk, did it themselves and gave punk a second airing. of course punk never went away (post 77), it was always there, and still is.
REM we're also at the peak of their popularity in 1993 following 'automatic' and it's string of successful singles.
I think it was actually a pretty decent time.
I would say Wish You Were Here is a better album, but that is purely personal preference..
...that old chestnut...
the point is though that when music is going through a revolution, when theres great original material around, its there in mainstream, its there in the charts, you shouldnt have to go and look for it. so yes, there are golden eras and there are dud ones, and by that i mean that golden eras have alot to offer, dud eras are the ones that are lacking in new, original, exciting, material.
youre old enough, youve seen as have i the excitement surrounding a new style/fashion/genre/movement, we dont have to like it, but objectively we can recognise these times.
ive often voiced my dislike for 89-93, but thats only a personal choice, i simply didnt like that material that was popular in those times, i can though see why others did think those years were great.
This depends on what you consider 'great material' though, and it just isn't true that every single exciting and original style of music gets into the mainstream.
Rock-in-opposition, zeuhl, extreme metal, noise, darkwave, coldwave, 1st wave industrial and post-rock are just a few of many genres that have sprung up over the years, producing tons of great, original music that spawned their own fanbases and underground movements. Yet where are all these in the mainstream charts? If you want those sounds, then actually, yes you do have to go and look for them. And what about musical revolutions going on abroad, such as afrobeat? Are they not relevant because they weren't in the mainstream here? If you're looking at a broader spectrum of music than just what is in the mainstream, then Glawster2002 is right - there is stuff going on all the time.
Also, by the time a new style hits the mainstream, it's not always at its best anyway. To pick a recent example - dubstep has exploded into the charts over the last few years, but it's not the pioneers of the sound like Burial who are getting the mainstream attention and chart success, for the most part, it's the poppier, watered-down stuff.
Underground genres and movements may not get as much recognition and attention, but in my opinion, they belong in a discussion of music eras just as much as the most popular artists.
... but if it doesnt make mainstream, or is popular enough to get a decent following, tv appearances, radio airplay etc then is it really that great? appealling to a niche market doesnt equate to a 'golden era' which is what the op asked.
personally i dont give a fig whats going on abroad... why should i if i cant hear it here or have to go to great lengths to do so?... im a brit, im interested in what music speaks to me, what i can identify with, what i hear on the radio.
youre quite right about new styles hitting mainstream often being past their best though, or at least a commercialised version of a purer style is often what mainstream caters for... thats been the case since at least merseybeat (and probably before). however, that doesnt matter, because the commercial singles chart has always been a shop window for the greater sceen. the most commercial track/s off an album were the teasers, the advert, for the album. so historically the much maligned singles chart was actually a pretty good guide as to what was happening in the bigger picture.
Sometimes people like to think they have the handle on music but we all have our own musical affinities and prejudices and vast gaps in our knowledge.
You are correct; there are no dud eras in music. There have been times when certain musical movements and specific artists, due to huge exposure, have captured the imagination of millions and some (especial enthusiasts of these events or musicians) will use them as reference points to attempt to show that some other period was inferior because (in their minds) 'nothing was going on'.
There would be a very rich musical tapestry even if much of what gets cited as important or ground-breaking in our musical history had never happened.
The hugely rock-biased music press tells us what to think and daytime radio/ MTV tells us what to listen to. A lot more people will be aware that which is than that which one has to search for. There are a few genres and particular artists within them which get all the attention and you could be forgiven for thinking that other music simply isn't out there.