Best decade for music

[kaosmark2]

Perhaps I'm not being clear.

I am not arguing that debuts are the 'best' albums. This is completely subjective.

I am arguing that they are the most pure work of the band. Whether the band stick with the same style for the rest of their career, or at some time begin to shift there's nothing like the intensity of a debut album. Even if musically one finds it unlikeable.

[worm]

While I think this can be true, this would imply that a band's evolution is in some way a deviation from their initial 'purity'. That their later work is somehow less reflective of who they are as people and musicians. Something I would heavily dispute.

Edited May 19, 2009 by worm

[kaosmark2]

Good point.

I like Astbury's notion (probably taken from Warhol or the likes) that 'the more you change, the more you stay the same', referring to the essential relationship between one's identity and one's culture. If you keep playing the same thing because you feel integral to a certain identity laid down at a certain point in your life, you will be denying the changes in culture and the impact that has had on your identity throughout your life. The original meaning will be lost and you will change from 'vital and new' to 'tired and old'. Hence, bands producing the same album over and over again losing all ressonance.

Sounds all very modernistic and evolutionary, the danger being that as a band you will keep trying to live up to the 'vital and new' placement, losing all sense of who or what you actually are in the process. But if you take the post-modern stance in that there is no definitive article and each album is simply the waste produce rather than result of a certain period in a band's life, it becomes quite something else. Reznor and his art is a perfect example of this. It just rolls on without any distinction; looking back, looking foward and never looking to be placed.

[JakusMaximus]

I've read this entire thread, it's awesome, i love the discussion... But am I the only person sensing an underlying futility in becoming so engrossed in what could effectively be interpreted as a discussion about hyperbolic terminology which means nothing in any practical sitaution? What practical progress has actually been made?

(In short: What are you actually talking about?)

Or will that lead on to a discussion about the true meaning of progress in the context of this discussion? Or whether progress has been made indirectly through us choosing to exercise our minds into this discussion? Is progress even essential at all!?!? FUUUUU

[TarannauSaurus]

60's is the best decade in my opinion. By a long way. Why? well I think you just need to go and look at Rolling stones top 10 albums of all time to answer that question.

The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, The Kinks, The Zombies, Love... the 60's had some of the greatet bands ever, and in comparison other decades were lacking.

In terms of albums, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Blonde on Blonde, Pet Sounds, Odessy and Oracle, Forever Changes, Exile on main street, The Velvet underground and nico, The White Album...do other decades really have the sheer number of groundbreaking quality albums that the 60's had?

It was also by far the most innovative decade. Pretty much every genre around today from metal, to even drum n bass, had its begining in the 60's. It was the decade in which everything changed, when the LP became more important than the single, when popular music met art, when recording tecnology progressed to modern standards, when cover art became inportant to so much more! Yes rock and roll actually began in the 50's, but that was just 1 strand of music. the 60's gave birth to many different strands of music.

Innovation alone doesnt make it the best decade, but this combined with the quality and quantity of artists does.

[JakusMaximus]

I see your point about the 60's, but on the other hand... Look at the transformation from bands in the 60's to bands like Tool, Brand new... Radiohead, and then pretty much all of dance music. It's ridicolous to say that bands like The Kinks or The Stones, as much as i love them, could have ever possibly thought that music would evolve in such a way. In that sense i'd say that the argument of "Current decade owes it's influence to previous decade and that decade the previous decade etc" isn't as strong as it seems.

[worm]

Quite. Of course, as a musician becomes self-conscious of their image, they may go the other way, and refuse to conform to expectations in such an extreme manner than they then produce something that is defiant of their own talents. Chris Cornell's recent turd seems to be such a case.

[kaosmark2]

That's what I listed as the danger.

[worm]

I interpreted your comment as suggesting repetitiveness was the danger, and thus suggested a further risk.

[thomasowen]

Yes, but you missed the original line 'the more you change, the more you stay the same', which it was all related to. So, the reptitiveness is in changing all the time. Thus, you are staying the same.

You see, according to the line, culture keeps the 'new and vital' tag alive meaning you must keep changing to stay the same 'new and vital' artist. But in doing this, as in the case of Cornell, the danger is that you lose all sense of who you are. Post-modernism defeats this process because it rejects the new and the seminal. All of the art is just waste produce.

[kaosmark2]

But who are we to say who Cornell really is. For all we know R&B could be his true calling, he could have been pretending until now (unlikely but possible).

[worm]

But who are we to say who Cornell really is.

Edited May 23, 2009 by worm

[thomasowen]

His consumers, his critics and his implied audience. Speaking as one of his implied audience, I feel that he got me wrong just lately.

When we say Cornell, we of course mean his art.

I don't believe in destiny. Just art with and without a point.

[worm]

But my point is we do not know if he has lost sense of who he 'truely is' because we can only judge him by his art, we don't know the man. judge his music by all means but don't presume to know his motives or headspace, it's impossible to say if he's changed so much as to forget his true identity.

Edited May 23, 2009 by worm

[thomasowen]

That's why I said when we say Cornell we mean his art.

The man is one of the most astute artists and has the relationship between subject matter, himself, his artistic expression and the listener conveyed throughout his lyrics.

'Change the words that I utter into balls of clay' - From Hands all Over

A song he is singing about Earth, yet has the insight to see that his words may be interpreted into each listener's own individual world reducing the subject matter from 'mother earth' to 'balls of clay'. Neverthless, you can fit a ball of clay within your hands.

That insightful mastery of the artistic medium is not evident in his new triteful shite I'm afraid.

[worm]

If by Cornell you mean his art, how could his art have lost sense of 'who he truely is'?