Which music era was better in your opinion? 1960-1969 or 2000-2009?
Music Of The 1960's v Music Of The 2000's
1 of 2
You'll get laughed at here by some people for even posing such a question (not that I agree with that of course)
i dont think you can compare tbh... originality, innovation, creativity, diversity the 60's by a mile, but for polished products, better production techniques due to better technology, availability, then the 2000's.
i doubt if many oldies would cite the 2000's, i doubt whether many younger guys would cite the 60's.
personally i do prefer the 60's, but the 2000's have produced some cracking tracks and tbh i listen to newer music ( past ten years or so) more then oldies.
i doubt if many oldies would cite the 2000's, i doubt whether many younger guys would cite the 60's.
personally i do prefer the 60's, but the 2000's have produced some cracking tracks and tbh i listen to newer music ( past ten years or so) more then oldies.
A bit of a no-brainer for me, the 1960's, of course.
I don't even consider what's been produced in the 2000's to be music at all, but then it's been a long time since I was 16, and I'm sure that, 40 to 50 years ago, older people were saying exactly the same thing about sixties music.
I don't even consider what's been produced in the 2000's to be music at all, but then it's been a long time since I was 16, and I'm sure that, 40 to 50 years ago, older people were saying exactly the same thing about sixties music.
I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and say...
they're about the same - some good and some bad, with plenty that will be looked back upon fondly by those who were young and impressionable at the time.
they're about the same - some good and some bad, with plenty that will be looked back upon fondly by those who were young and impressionable at the time.
Originally Posted by Mallaha:
“I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and say...
they're about the same - some good and some bad, with plenty that will be looked back upon fondly by those who were young and impressionable at the time.”
“I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and say...
they're about the same - some good and some bad, with plenty that will be looked back upon fondly by those who were young and impressionable at the time.”
agree. The only decade that was completly flawless was 1985 - 1995
Originally Posted by Mallaha:
“I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and say...
they're about the same - some good and some bad, with plenty that will be looked back upon fondly by those who were young and impressionable at the time.”
“I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and say...
they're about the same - some good and some bad, with plenty that will be looked back upon fondly by those who were young and impressionable at the time.”
Music is more disposable and 'of the moment' these days. Thats not to say it's better or worse, but the nature of how music, listened to on ipods and computers is. It's not about 'the album' anymore.
Wether Lady Gaga for example will be doing her thing 10-15 years from now I have my doubts as well.
I also think record companies have too much power, so artists are constrained unless its commerical. Sex is ok, politics is bad.
Hmm.. Difficult one.. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Pink Floyd versus Lady Gaga. Hmm..
Originally Posted by Mallaha:
“I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and say...
they're about the same - some good and some bad, with plenty that will be looked back upon fondly by those who were young and impressionable at the time.”
“I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and say...
they're about the same - some good and some bad, with plenty that will be looked back upon fondly by those who were young and impressionable at the time.”
Maybe, but it can be quite humbling to look back at a list of number ones from the 1960s or even a random top ten from any given week and realise you have heard of almost every song and most are borderline classics. Of course there are some exceptions, where horrendous songs hit the top spot.
I do wonder how many of the 2000-2009 number ones will be even remembered in 40 years. With digital music becoming increasingly the norm, I think there is a tendency for music to seem more disposable. You can't hold an mp3 in your hand and you don't need to find a place to display/store it. Heck, you can click a button and delete it.
When you bought a sixties record, you were lucky if the song lasted two minutes! Just rembered my old Dansette record player and copying the music off the Radio Luxembourg Top 40 onto my old 4 track reel to reel recorder!
Oh happy days!
Oh happy days!
at the risk of being abused I'm gonna say the 2000's. the reason being that i wasn't around in the 60's. I love 60's music but being in my early 20's I grew up in an era where music is more readily available and have discovered alot of interesting exciting music that appeals to me culturally aswell as musically...
most people my age will say that they love 60's music but can't name anyone past the beatles, stones, the who. whereas there's a million artists that they can say they loved from the 2000's which stem beyond the usual chart rubbish, thats why it annoys me when the "older generation" complain about how rubbish music is nowadays. I think older people look at music nowadays and just judge it by whatever is in the charts.. there is life outside the top 40
I think if I'd grown up in the 60's then I would have said the 60's. I know theres alot of young people that will say that they prefer 60's music but for me personally taking into account growing up with music from the past 10 years I listen more to artist from 2000-2009 more than any other decade.
most people my age will say that they love 60's music but can't name anyone past the beatles, stones, the who. whereas there's a million artists that they can say they loved from the 2000's which stem beyond the usual chart rubbish, thats why it annoys me when the "older generation" complain about how rubbish music is nowadays. I think older people look at music nowadays and just judge it by whatever is in the charts.. there is life outside the top 40
I think if I'd grown up in the 60's then I would have said the 60's. I know theres alot of young people that will say that they prefer 60's music but for me personally taking into account growing up with music from the past 10 years I listen more to artist from 2000-2009 more than any other decade.
Originally Posted by Biko:
“at the risk of being abused I'm gonna say the 2000's. the reason being that i wasn't around in the 60's. I love 60's music but being in my early 20's I grew up in an era where music is more readily available and have discovered alot of interesting exciting music that appeals to me culturally aswell as musically...
most people my age will say that they love 60's music but can't name anyone past the beatles, stones, the who. whereas there's a million artists that they can say they loved from the 2000's which stem beyond the usual chart rubbish, thats why it annoys me when the "older generation" complain about how rubbish music is nowadays. I think older people look at music nowadays and just judge it by whatever is in the charts.. there is life outside the top 40
I think if I'd grown up in the 60's then I would have said the 60's. I know theres alot of young people that will say that they prefer 60's music but for me personally taking into account growing up with music from the past 10 years I listen more to artist from 2000-2009 more than any other decade.”
“at the risk of being abused I'm gonna say the 2000's. the reason being that i wasn't around in the 60's. I love 60's music but being in my early 20's I grew up in an era where music is more readily available and have discovered alot of interesting exciting music that appeals to me culturally aswell as musically...
most people my age will say that they love 60's music but can't name anyone past the beatles, stones, the who. whereas there's a million artists that they can say they loved from the 2000's which stem beyond the usual chart rubbish, thats why it annoys me when the "older generation" complain about how rubbish music is nowadays. I think older people look at music nowadays and just judge it by whatever is in the charts.. there is life outside the top 40
I think if I'd grown up in the 60's then I would have said the 60's. I know theres alot of young people that will say that they prefer 60's music but for me personally taking into account growing up with music from the past 10 years I listen more to artist from 2000-2009 more than any other decade.”
I don;t think theres anything wrong with that opinion at all. You're always going to look most favourably on the period in which music mattered most to you. I'm 30, and for me the 90s was brilliant, Oasis, Blur, Fatboy Slim, Radiohead and so many more. That was 'my' time, but I'm not going to really say new stuff is rubbish becuase it's not for me. It's for young people.
Originally Posted by Charcole911:
“agree. The only decade that was completly flawless was 1985 - 1995”
“agree. The only decade that was completly flawless was 1985 - 1995”
I think you omitted the four letters IMHO.
IMHO any period that gives us Dance Music, House Music, Bros and Stock, Aitken and bloody Waterman is deeply flawed.
Originally Posted by T_J:
“I do wonder how many of the 2000-2009 number ones will be even remembered in 40 years. With digital music becoming increasingly the norm, I think there is a tendency for music to seem more disposable. You can't hold an mp3 in your hand and you don't need to find a place to display/store it. Heck, you can click a button and delete it.”
“I do wonder how many of the 2000-2009 number ones will be even remembered in 40 years. With digital music becoming increasingly the norm, I think there is a tendency for music to seem more disposable. You can't hold an mp3 in your hand and you don't need to find a place to display/store it. Heck, you can click a button and delete it.”
It's pretty easy to snap a 45rpm single in half as well.
I love the way that the internet has meant that you can pick up new music all the time. It's great that it's all out there to find.
Originally Posted by Mallaha:
“It's pretty easy to snap a 45rpm single in half as well.
I love the way that the internet has meant that you can pick up new music all the time. It's great that it's all out there to find.”
“It's pretty easy to snap a 45rpm single in half as well.
I love the way that the internet has meant that you can pick up new music all the time. It's great that it's all out there to find.”
It has it's downside as well though. I remember back in 1997 trapsing all over an area of Southampton looking for a shop which was open, and had a copy of 'Be here now' by Oasis on its day of release, then having to wait to get it home to listen to it, meaning pouring over the music notes and inset.
Clicking a few buttons on itunes isn't the same somehow.
Originally Posted by Charcole911:
“agree. The only decade that was completly flawless was 1985 - 1995”
“agree. The only decade that was completly flawless was 1985 - 1995”
So there wasnt ONE bad record released in those years?
Yeah, right
Originally Posted by starsailor:
“It has it's downside as well though. I remember back in 1997 trapsing all over an area of Southampton looking for a shop which was open, and had a copy of 'Be here now' by Oasis on its day of release, then having to wait to get it home to listen to it, meaning pouring over the music notes and inset.
Clicking a few buttons on itunes isn't the same somehow.”
“It has it's downside as well though. I remember back in 1997 trapsing all over an area of Southampton looking for a shop which was open, and had a copy of 'Be here now' by Oasis on its day of release, then having to wait to get it home to listen to it, meaning pouring over the music notes and inset.
Clicking a few buttons on itunes isn't the same somehow.”
I can see your point. I used to love tracking down obscure singles and harrassing the staff at our local indie record store about when various albums were going to be released.
Having said that, last week I got hold of something on release day for the first time in years. I forced myself to read my work emails first before checking my gmail for my HTDA download link. It was fun.
Originally Posted by Charcole911:
“agree. The only decade that was completly flawless was 1985 - 1995”
“agree. The only decade that was completly flawless was 1985 - 1995”
apart from 1986 which was good, that ten years is possibly the worst ten years in music history! sales slumped as 'cool' (or better) music went alternative and away from the charts. as has been mentioned, stock aitken and waterman had chart hits for a few years... generally thought of as the biggest pile of musical crap ever to grace the charts.... although miles doesnt agree!
just to be awkward, although as decades go id vote 60's, imho theres never been ten consecutive years where music has been consistently good.
i like periods 1964-1969, 1977-1982, 1999-2005. (in that order)
well i think music now is the best because you can pick and mix whatever from wherever. my taste is; pop,Motown,rock,soul,dance,house,electronica,R&B,trip hop,funk and glam rock (and some punk) so i can span many decades, but i love select acts and musicians from particular decades.
be it 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's or 00's
be it 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's or 00's
Originally Posted by mushymanrob:
“apart from 1986 which was good, that ten years is possibly the worst ten years in music history! sales slumped as 'cool' (or better) music went alternative and away from the charts. as has been mentioned, stock aitken and waterman had chart hits for a few years... generally thought of as the biggest pile of musical crap ever to grace the charts.... although miles doesnt agree!
just to be awkward, although as decades go id vote 60's, imho theres never been ten consecutive years where music has been consistently good.
i like periods 1964-1969, 1977-1982, 1999-2005. (in that order)”
“apart from 1986 which was good, that ten years is possibly the worst ten years in music history! sales slumped as 'cool' (or better) music went alternative and away from the charts. as has been mentioned, stock aitken and waterman had chart hits for a few years... generally thought of as the biggest pile of musical crap ever to grace the charts.... although miles doesnt agree!
just to be awkward, although as decades go id vote 60's, imho theres never been ten consecutive years where music has been consistently good.
i like periods 1964-1969, 1977-1982, 1999-2005. (in that order)”
I'm not so sure. 1989, the second 'summer of love' with Madchester music. 1994 the birth of britpop, with 1995 being the year of Oasis vs Blur....
well im not from that generation but the music ive this to, the beatles for example is far overatted.
2000's is an amazing decade for music, 2010 is looking bad however and a couple of 2009 singles are not worth mentionin. PLUS westlife (HEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLP)
but Kylie, GaGa, Christina, loads of artists have contirubted to some of the finest examples of pop music.
Mercy
Can't Get You Out Of my Head
Umbrella
Toxic
Poker Face
I Gotta A Feeling
2000's is an amazing decade for music, 2010 is looking bad however and a couple of 2009 singles are not worth mentionin. PLUS westlife (HEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLP)
but Kylie, GaGa, Christina, loads of artists have contirubted to some of the finest examples of pop music.
Mercy
Can't Get You Out Of my Head
Umbrella
Toxic
Poker Face
I Gotta A Feeling
Originally Posted by Sorry:
“Hmm.. Difficult one.. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Pink Floyd versus Lady Gaga. Hmm..”
“Hmm.. Difficult one.. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Pink Floyd versus Lady Gaga. Hmm..”
Why have you picked one of the most rubbish artists of this decade as a representative ?? You could've picked Radiohead,Muse and any number of great bands instead.
Personally some 60's music is excellent but a lot of it was cack pretty much like every other decade.
Originally Posted by Charcole911:
“agree. The only decade that was completly flawless was 1985 - 1995”
“agree. The only decade that was completly flawless was 1985 - 1995”
Yeah, I'm sure Mr Blobby wil be nodding his head in agreement.
Originally Posted by Tel69:
“Why have you picked one of the most rubbish artists of this decade as a representative ?? You could've picked Radiohead,Muse and any number of great bands instead.
Personally some 60's music is excellent but a lot of it was cack pretty much like every other decade.”
“Why have you picked one of the most rubbish artists of this decade as a representative ?? You could've picked Radiohead,Muse and any number of great bands instead.
Personally some 60's music is excellent but a lot of it was cack pretty much like every other decade.”
Radiohead is much more associated with the 90s with Pablo Honey, the Bends, and of course OK Computer all being in that decade.
Originally Posted by starsailor:
“Radiohead is much more associated with the 90s with Pablo Honey, the Bends, and of course OK Computer all being in that decade.”
“Radiohead is much more associated with the 90s with Pablo Honey, the Bends, and of course OK Computer all being in that decade.”
true but the reason why they are so revered is the fact that they experimented and made drastic changes which still resonated with most of their fanbase, all of this happening in the 00's. Kid A is arguably the most acclaimed album of the 00's so thats gotta count for something
1 of 2
