Music In All Genres Peaked From 1969-1979.

[beherit]

QUOTE (t2s @ May 28 2012, 10:00 PM)

QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ May 28 2012, 07:59 PM) QUOTE (t2s @ May 28 2012, 10:54 PM) ...Genesis' 'Invisible Touch' ... best albums from any era Say what you will, but that album is a perfect mix of the "prog" and pop sensibilities, you can't tell me that a song like Domino isn't prog. Personally, I feel an album like Duke is the best bridge between prog and pop. Invisible Touch just reached a far wider audience.

[t2s]

QUOTE (beherit @ May 28 2012, 08:01 PM)

QUOTE (t2s @ May 28 2012, 10:00 PM) QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ May 28 2012, 07:59 PM) QUOTE (t2s @ May 28 2012, 10:54 PM) ...Genesis' 'Invisible Touch' ... best albums from any era Say what you will, but that album is a perfect mix of the "prog" and pop sensibilities, you can't tell me that a song like Domino isn't prog. Personally, I feel an album like Duke is the best bridge between prog and pop. Invisible Touch just reached a far wider audience. Fair enough, to each his own. I've never really enjoyed Duke, though Genesis, Abacab and IT are all excellent in my books.

[beherit]

Personally, I wouldn't call any Genesis album after A Trick of the Tail "excellent." But hey, opinions.

[presto123]

I don't care what anybody says. REO Speedwagon shows are a rocking good time. The anti-mainstream prog snobbers will disagree of course but REO can bring it. Saw them live just a couple of years ago.

[GUP1771]

QUOTE (Tommy Sawyer @ May 28 2012, 09:44 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 28 2012, 06:10 PM) QUOTE (GUP1771 @ May 28 2012, 02:54 PM) People are always gonna say that music during the time they grew up is great and everything afterwards is crap and can never match up. 20 years from now, my generation will most likely view the 2000/2010's as amazing and view music in the future as "crap." It's a never ending cycle and comes down to nostalgia and what you know. I disagree, or at least I don't fit into your description. I grew up in the 80's, somewhat at the end of the 70's, but I really didn't start paying attention to current music until the beginning of the 80's. My absolute favorite music is from the mid 60's to the mid to late 70's, and it's NOT what I grew up with - I was alive for a good part of that, but not listening to it at the time. In fact, It wasn't until the mid to late 80's that I started really getting into that era   I like some music from the 80's, 90's and today, but mostly I really love that vintage stuff, and it's not because it was the music of my formative years, but because it's the music I truly judge to be the best.   Sure there's great stuff out there all the time, but back then there was a LOT more of it.   I am 15 and do you think I like cookie-cutter pop crap?       I was listening to earlier (a friend recommended it) and I didn't think it was too bad.   Then I realized it was just Peter Gabriel v2.0.   In regards to both your examples, I was talking about the majority. There are always exceptions like in your cases, as well as me (since I prefer music before my time as well), but my statement was about a majority overall. I should have specified that.

[t2s]

1973 was my favorite year for black metal and classical

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (beherit @ May 28 2012, 07:52 PM)

Sure, the 80's had lame shit like Huey Lewis and Whitney Houston and Tiffany. But the 70's had REO Speedwagon and Peter Frampton. Every decade has good and bad.

You actually just disproved your argument. I agree that REO Speedwagon and Peter Frampton are not the best, but they're a hell of a lot better than Huey Lewis and Whitney Houston and Tiffany. Even average 70's crap was better than average 80's crap.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 29 2012, 01:37 AM)

QUOTE (beherit @ May 28 2012, 07:52 PM) Sure, the 80's had lame shit like Huey Lewis and Whitney Houston and Tiffany. But the 70's had REO Speedwagon and Peter Frampton. Every decade has good and bad. You actually just disproved your argument. I agree that REO Speedwagon and Peter Frampton are not the best, but they're a hell of a lot better than Huey Lewis and Whitney Houston and Tiffany. Even average 70's crap was better than average 80's crap. What about the Bay City Rollers?

[Bastille Dave]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 28 2012, 02:31 AM)

I agree somewhat, but I would say it's more like 1966-1978 - 95% of the music I own is from these years.

I would agree with this, even go so far as 1981. Although most of the bands I loved from the 70's were on a down slide by 1981, alot of cool bands were just hitting thier stride by then.

[RUSHHEAD666]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 29 2012, 12:01 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 29 2012, 01:37 AM) QUOTE (beherit @ May 28 2012, 07:52 PM) Sure, the 80's had lame shit like Huey Lewis and Whitney Houston and Tiffany. But the 70's had REO Speedwagon and Peter Frampton. Every decade has good and bad. You actually just disproved your argument. I agree that REO Speedwagon and Peter Frampton are not the best, but they're a hell of a lot better than Huey Lewis and Whitney Houston and Tiffany. Even average 70's crap was better than average 80's crap. What about the Bay City Rollers?   Hey Pat! It's all about "S-A-T-U-R-D-A-Y NIGHT!"   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBn2ux5vRHk   Dude!   Don't forget about THE SWEET!   Signed,   "FOX ON THE RUN!"     I love this thread!!! Everyone's opinion is great whether old or young!!!   Nothing will touch the Seventies!!! But FUCKK! I'm 44 years young!!   I still buy tons of Hard Rock and Metal in 2012. Just check out Frontiers Records. They sign all of the has been Eighties bands. THEY ALL SUCK!!!   The Seventies was where it was at!!!!   "All The Young Dudes" who are sadly addicted to modern Radiodead shite and One Direction, I mean One Erection are brainwashed!!!!! LOL!   There is no hope for modern music! Especially with Porcupine Tree calling it quits!!   We are all brainwashed zombies. Buying up side band projects containing musicians who we totally love and hero worship!   We are all fuckked up in the head.   The quality of music is going downhill!!! I love how all the masses are addicted to their iPods, iPads, iMacs, iSucks, and iFucks!   The digital age has ruined rock and roll!!   Many of you think that compact discs will go out of print and will go obsolete! WELL YOU ARE ALL WRONG!!   Heck even VINYL is very HOT right now!! The record companies are repressing everything in HOT 180 VIRGIN VINYL!!!!!   I certainly hope you young prog snobs who think you know everything about music back your shit up on a hard drive.   Fukk that shit man.   I have everything on aluminum and gold cd.   My house is like that fukking library in "The Twilight Zone" starring Burgess Meredith! Glad I don't need glasses for my ears!   Could you "Imagine" if I suddenly became deaf?   I would die.   Love and Peace Forever,   John Lennon

[CrossedSignals]

QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ May 29 2012, 01:26 AM)

The digital age has ruined rock and roll!!

It must be a miserable time to be a rock-n-roller, but I can tell you that right now is an AMAZING time to be an electronic musician and fan.

[presto123]

The digital age has ruined pop as well. Everything sounds so computerized and vocals are auto-tuned. No talent required now days. And with pro-tools don't worry about making mistakes. We can fix everything and make it perfect.(and stale) Where have the real songwriters with real voices gone? Like I said before you probably have to look at the country side to find the songwriters today.

[Snowman]

I would tend to agree, but I would say that it peaked from around 66-89ish.

 

A lot of the music post 89 are crap.

 

Away are all the good strong melodies, bands tends to go on the Nirvana crap wagon. It has ruined a lot of bands.

 

It may be that I feel this way since that is when I grew up. I love strong melodies, they are somehow lacking from the music today.

[rushgoober]

In an attempt to get some more objective data, I went to rateyourmusic.com, a very popular site where anyone can rate any album from 0.5 to 5 stars (essentially 1-10). I found the top 100 rated albums of all time and made a chart based on groupings of years. Each album had thousands, often tens of thousands of people voting on them.

 

I do understand that this system is somewhat weighted towards albums that get the most amounts of votes (which is fair, as an album with a high rating, but only 8 people voting on it, shouldn't be considered in the same league as an album with the same rating, but 8,000 people voting on it). Still, albums that are older have had the most time to get more exposure, but that said, there are TONS of reviews for more modern music, as a lot of young people use the site, so albums from the past 20 years have a more than fair shot of getting on this list, providing of course they're rated highly enough.

 

Also, this is just the top 100. If I did the top 1,000 (would take too much time), I know the post-70's would make a greater showing. Still, even though it's far from a perfect system, I think it gives a more than adequate view of general trends and opinions of what's considered the best music of all time by the general public:

 

 

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e85/rushgoober6/musicgraph.jpg

 

 

As you can see, the highest rated albums of all time tend to be from 1965-1974, which accounts for about 60% of everything. If you include all the 60's and 70's, that's 70% of everything.

 

1970-1974 got 25 votes, which is the same total of 1985-2012 COMBINED! That's a 5-year span against a 28-year span. 1965-1969 has about as many votes as 1975-2012, or a 5-year span against a 39-year span. Says a lot, doesn't it?

 

The full stats are:

 

1959 - 2

1960-1964 - 3

1965-1969 - 34

1970-1974 - 25

1975-1979 - 8

1980-1984 - 3

1985-1989 - 7

1990-1994 - 7

1995-1999 - 7

2000-2004 - 3

2005-2009 - 1

2010-2012 - 0

Edited May 29, 2012 by rushgoober

[danielmclark]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 29 2012, 07:54 AM)

In an attempt to get some more objective data, I went to rateyourmusic.com, a very popular site where anyone can rate any album from 0.5 to 5 stars (essentially 1-10). I found the top 100 rated albums of all time and made a chart based on groupings of years. Each album had thousands, often tens of thousands of people voting on them. I do understand that this system is somewhat weighted towards albums that get the most amounts of votes (which is fair, as an album with a high rating, but only 8 people voting on it, shouldn't be considered in the same league as an album with the same rating, but 8,000 people voting on it). Still, albums that are older have had the most time to get more exposure, but that said, there are TONS of reviews for more modern music, as a lot of young people use the site, so albums from the past 20 years have a more than fair shot of getting on this list, providing of course they're rated highly enough. Also, this is just the top 100. If I did the top 1,000 (would take too much time), I know the post-70's would make a greater showing. Still, even though it's far from a perfect system, I think it gives a more than adequate view of general trends and opinions of what's considered the best music of all time by the general public: http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e85/rushgoober6/musicgraph.jpg As you can see, the highest rated albums of all time tend to be from 1965-1974, which accounts for about 60% of everything. If you include all the 60's and 70's, that's 70% of everything. 1970-1974 got 25 votes, which is the same total of 1985-2012 COMBINED! That's a 5-year span against a 28-year span. 1965-1969 has about as many votes as 1975-2012, or a 5-year span against a 39-year span. Says a lot, doesn't it? The full stats are: 1959 - 2 1960-1964 - 3 1965-1969 - 34 1970-1974 - 25 1975-1979 - 8 1980-1984 - 3 1985-1989 - 7 1990-1994 - 7 1995-1999 - 7 2000-2004 - 3 2005-2009 - 1 2010-2012 - 0

I sat here for a full two or three minutes trying to rationalize why that data is flawed because I don't want it to be accurate. I want the 80's and 90's to be better represented because I don't want the 60's and 70's to be the "peak" of music.

 

But...

 

What I want is really irrelevant, isn't it? What I want to be true and what actually is true are two different things here. There is a compelling case being made here, and while it may not be 100% accurate (when is opinion ever "accurate"?), it is definitely noteworthy and probably more true than not.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (danielmclark @ May 29 2012, 07:17 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 29 2012, 07:54 AM) In an attempt to get some more objective data, I went to rateyourmusic.com, a very popular site where anyone can rate any album from 0.5 to 5 stars (essentially 1-10).  I found the top 100 rated albums of all time and made a chart based on groupings of years.  Each album had thousands, often tens of thousands of people voting on them. I do understand that this system is somewhat weighted towards albums that get the most amounts of votes (which is fair, as an album with a high rating, but only 8 people voting on it, shouldn't be considered in the same league as an album with the same rating, but 8,000 people voting on it).  Still, albums that are older have had the most time to get more exposure, but that said, there are TONS of reviews for more modern music, as a lot of young people use the site, so albums from the past 20 years have a more than fair shot of getting on this list, providing of course they're rated highly enough.  Also, this is just the top 100.  If I did the top 1,000 (would take too much time), I know the post-70's would make a greater showing.  Still, even though it's far from a perfect system, I think it gives a more than adequate view of general trends and opinions of what's considered the best music of all time by the general public: http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e85/rushgoober6/musicgraph.jpg As you can see, the highest rated albums of all time tend to be from 1965-1974, which accounts for about 60% of everything.  If you include all the 60's and 70's, that's 70% of everything. 1970-1974 got 25 votes, which is the same total of 1985-2012 COMBINED!  That's a 5-year span against a 28-year span.  1965-1969 has about as many votes as 1975-2012, or a 5-year span against a 39-year span.  Says a lot, doesn't it? The full stats are: 1959 - 2 1960-1964 - 3 1965-1969 - 34 1970-1974 - 25 1975-1979 - 8 1980-1984 - 3 1985-1989 - 7 1990-1994 - 7 1995-1999 - 7 2000-2004 - 3 2005-2009 - 1 2010-2012 - 0 I sat here for a full two or three minutes trying to rationalize why that data is flawed because I don't want it to be accurate. I want the 80's and 90's to be better represented because I don't want the 60's and 70's to be the "peak" of music.   But...   What I want is really irrelevant, isn't it? What I want to be true and what actually is true are two different things here. There is a compelling case being made here, and while it may not be 100% accurate (when is opinion ever "accurate"?), it is definitely noteworthy and probably more true than not. All I'm saying is this is consensus opinion. If your opinion differs, that's totally cool. Often my opinions differ from the norm or from consensus, but that doesn't change how I feel.

[beherit]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 29 2012, 01:37 AM)

QUOTE (beherit @ May 28 2012, 07:52 PM) Sure, the 80's had lame shit like Huey Lewis and Whitney Houston and Tiffany. But the 70's had REO Speedwagon and Peter Frampton. Every decade has good and bad. You actually just disproved your argument. I agree that REO Speedwagon and Peter Frampton are not the best, but they're a hell of a lot better than Huey Lewis and Whitney Houston and Tiffany. Even average 70's crap was better than average 80's crap. No, they're just as banal and shitty as Huey Lewis and Whitney Houston.

[beherit]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 29 2012, 08:54 AM)

In an attempt to get some more objective data, I went to rateyourmusic.com, a very popular site where anyone can rate any album from 0.5 to 5 stars (essentially 1-10). I found the top 100 rated albums of all time and made a chart based on groupings of years. Each album had thousands, often tens of thousands of people voting on them. I do understand that this system is somewhat weighted towards albums that get the most amounts of votes (which is fair, as an album with a high rating, but only 8 people voting on it, shouldn't be considered in the same league as an album with the same rating, but 8,000 people voting on it). Still, albums that are older have had the most time to get more exposure, but that said, there are TONS of reviews for more modern music, as a lot of young people use the site, so albums from the past 20 years have a more than fair shot of getting on this list, providing of course they're rated highly enough. Also, this is just the top 100. If I did the top 1,000 (would take too much time), I know the post-70's would make a greater showing. Still, even though it's far from a perfect system, I think it gives a more than adequate view of general trends and opinions of what's considered the best music of all time by the general public: http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e85/rushgoober6/musicgraph.jpg As you can see, the highest rated albums of all time tend to be from 1965-1974, which accounts for about 60% of everything. If you include all the 60's and 70's, that's 70% of everything. 1970-1974 got 25 votes, which is the same total of 1985-2012 COMBINED! That's a 5-year span against a 28-year span. 1965-1969 has about as many votes as 1975-2012, or a 5-year span against a 39-year span. Says a lot, doesn't it? The full stats are: 1959 - 2 1960-1964 - 3 1965-1969 - 34 1970-1974 - 25 1975-1979 - 8 1980-1984 - 3 1985-1989 - 7 1990-1994 - 7 1995-1999 - 7 2000-2004 - 3 2005-2009 - 1 2010-2012 - 0

So if more people rated it....it must be better?

 

This is possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard for why old music beats new music.

 

Obviously, the 60's and 70's will have more ratings. It's no surprise that more music listeners have heard The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, etc.

[beherit]

QUOTE (presto123 @ May 29 2012, 04:53 AM)

The digital age has ruined pop as well. Everything sounds so computerized and vocals are auto-tuned. No talent required now days. And with pro-tools don't worry about making mistakes. We can fix everything and make it perfect.(and stale) Where have the real songwriters with real voices gone? Like I said before you probably have to look at the country side to find the songwriters today.

The "digital age" hasn't ruined shit. If you hate good production so much, write a letter to Rush and tell them to re-record their synth era albums and make them sound more like Grand Funk Railroad.

[beherit]

QUOTE (CrossedSignals @ May 29 2012, 04:34 AM)

QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ May 29 2012, 01:26 AM) The digital age has ruined rock and roll!! It must be a miserable time to be a rock-n-roller, but I can tell you that right now is an AMAZING time to be an electronic musician and fan. If anything, this is the best time to be a rocker. With the internet, bands can get exposure like they never before could.

[beherit]

QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ May 29 2012, 03:26 AM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 29 2012, 12:01 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 29 2012, 01:37 AM) QUOTE (beherit @ May 28 2012, 07:52 PM) Sure, the 80's had lame shit like Huey Lewis and Whitney Houston and Tiffany. But the 70's had REO Speedwagon and Peter Frampton. Every decade has good and bad. You actually just disproved your argument. I agree that REO Speedwagon and Peter Frampton are not the best, but they're a hell of a lot better than Huey Lewis and Whitney Houston and Tiffany. Even average 70's crap was better than average 80's crap. What about the Bay City Rollers?   Hey Pat! It's all about "S-A-T-U-R-D-A-Y NIGHT!"   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBn2ux5vRHk   Dude!   Don't forget about THE SWEET!   Signed,   "FOX ON THE RUN!"     I love this thread!!! Everyone's opinion is great whether old or young!!!   Nothing will touch the Seventies!!! But FUCKK! I'm 44 years young!!   I still buy tons of Hard Rock and Metal in 2012. Just check out Frontiers Records. They sign all of the has been Eighties bands. THEY ALL SUCK!!!   The Seventies was where it was at!!!!   "All The Young Dudes" who are sadly addicted to modern Radiodead shite and One Direction, I mean One Erection are brainwashed!!!!! LOL!   There is no hope for modern music! Especially with Porcupine Tree calling it quits!!   We are all brainwashed zombies. Buying up side band projects containing musicians who we totally love and hero worship!   We are all fuckked up in the head.   The quality of music is going downhill!!! I love how all the masses are addicted to their iPods, iPads, iMacs, iSucks, and iFucks!   The digital age has ruined rock and roll!!   Many of you think that compact discs will go out of print and will go obsolete! WELL YOU ARE ALL WRONG!!   Heck even VINYL is very HOT right now!! The record companies are repressing everything in HOT 180 VIRGIN VINYL!!!!!   I certainly hope you young prog snobs who think you know everything about music back your shit up on a hard drive.   Fukk that shit man.   I have everything on aluminum and gold cd.   My house is like that fukking library in "The Twilight Zone" starring Burgess Meredith! Glad I don't need glasses for my ears!   Could you "Imagine" if I suddenly became deaf?   I would die.   Love and Peace Forever,   John Lennon I have a strong feeling you post while under the influence.

[metaldad]

I love stuff from the 70's , 80's and 90's . My fav period for music is from 1973 to 1984

[Rick N. Backer]

QUOTE (GUP1771 @ May 28 2012, 05:54 PM)

People are always gonna say that music during the time they grew up is great and everything afterwards is crap and can never match up.  . . .  It's a never ending cycle and comes down to nostalgia and what you know.

This.

 

I can remember my mother telling me stuff like Back in Black was "just noise." Now I hear things like King Diamond or Marilyn Manson and say the same thing.

[rushgoober]

Edited May 29, 2012 by rushgoober

[rushgoober]