Best decade for music

[thomasowen]

cos none of us can remember the 60s

[kaosmark2]

I don't see why that should matter at all, I wasn't around then but its still my favourite decade, the best albums ever made were released in that decade and the first of their type. I wasn't around in Shakespeares day either but I still like his plays

[thomasowen]

Which are?

And please don't just copy-paste the discography of the Beatles and the Stones.

[rivalschools.price]

I don't see why that should matter at all, I wasn't around then but its still my favourite decade, the best albums ever made were released in that decade and the first of their type. I wasn't around in Shakespeares day either but I still like his plays

[worm]

I don't see why that should matter at all, I wasn't around then but its still my favourite decade, the best albums ever made were released in that decade and the first of their type. I wasn't around in Shakespeares day either but I still like his plays

[worm]

Anyone who claims the 00's has produced better music than the sixtees is surely kidding themselves.

[worm]

The correct order is 90s, 80s, 70s, 50s, 00s, 60s.

The order of the last two isn't really that important.

[thomasowen]

Ah, but then you like Shakespeare as he is re/presented in this decade, not his original decade. Same as the 60s. I'd suggest that the original Shakespeare is more akin to, puh, wouldn't like to say actually. I don't think we have a Shakespeare in contemporary western culture.

[thomasowen]

The correct order is 90s, 80s, 70s, 50s, 00s, 60s.

The order of the last two isn't really that important.

[worm]

The sixtees was directly responsable for everything that has happened in pop music since, the 90s was just a retelling of the same story with some slightly new chapters.

Edited May 12, 2009 by worm

[worm]

Why is that relevant?

[hearing_aid]

No it wasn't. The tradition of the counter had died. The 90s were correctly deemed a new tradition: the alternative.

[rivalschools.price]

i dont doubt that there was good albums released in the 60s,but i personally have got enough albums released in 2008/2009 to be getting on with without having to dig up albums from 40 odd years ago

[thomasowen]

No it wasn't. The tradition of the counter had died. The 90s were correctly deemed a new tradition: the alternative.

Otherwise, you can trace the influence in the tradition of modernisation to the birth of music itself. You'd have to then praise the 50s as infuencers of the 60s and so on and so forth. It's a stupid idea. Everyone is influenced by whatever is available at whatever point in time and space that something is created.

[thomasowen]

i dont doubt that there was good albums released in the 60s,but i personally have got enough albums released in 2008/2009 to be getting on with without having to dig up albums from 40 odd years ago

[worm]

It was more the 80's really, not the 90's. It just crossed over into the mainstream in the 90's, hence it died a death some what.

Edited May 12, 2009 by worm

[worm]

The 90s were not alternative in any sense, that was a word created by giant corporations to sell a product (just like new wave before it). As to your second paragraph I dont think its a stupid idea at all, everything is related to whats gone before it.

Edited May 12, 2009 by worm

[worm]

I dont think its a stupid idea at all, everything is related to whats gone before it.

Edited May 12, 2009 by worm

[thomasowen]

Absolute rubbish. Read some proper books.

The 90s were the birth of the alternative. The mainstream took ages to assimilate it so that it became a category of the mainstream. It was alive and flourishing in the early to mid 90s. It's dead now. Just as the counter was before its time.

The alternative was a real tradition. It's well defined.

[rivalschools.price]

Thats a very limiting viewpoint to have, and you are missing out on so much. I realize it can be very daunting to get into older music, esspecialy as there is so much of it. I have been discovering sixtees music for years and there is still so much I dont know. What I do know is that compared to albums being released this year there is a lot better stuff.

[thomasowen]

Even an original recording changes as it is listened in a different context to its original presentation.

It doesn't change, it remains exactly the same, only how people regard it changes.

It's a stupid argument. I assure you. Or are we to state that the first banging of a bone on a stone is the greatest most influential song of all time?

[worm]

I disagree. Who were they alternative to? I know that there was a whole movement of bands that called themselves or were refered to as alternative, but there was no tradition, there couldn't have been if it was started in the 90s (which is partly untrue as it had its roots years before) as a tradition is something that is handed down from generation to genreation.

Edited May 12, 2009 by worm

[worm]

I'm not say the further back you go the more influential something is, I am say that it is intresting and worthwhile to go back and trace the influences

Edited May 12, 2009 by worm

[thomasowen]

been playing new albums by 'and you will know us by the trail of dead','supersuckers' and 'therapy?',just got the new album by 'in case of fire' and new albums by clutch and green day on the way.do i really need to ask my mum if i can get her 60s vinyl down from the attic???

Edited May 12, 2009 by thomasowen

[worm]

I originaly said the 90s in general were basicly a rehash (though I did not use such a strog word) with a few changes.