Started By
Message
60's music: Better musicianship?
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:01 pm
Growing up in the 60's I naturally have a bias toward the music of that era. I believe one thing that distinguishes the rock music of that time was a (generally) higher level of musicianship–-and not just the Claptons and Becks, but many other less famous musicians as well.
What do you think? Were the 60's rock's golden era of musicianship, or have other time periods equalled or exceeded that decade for quality of play?
What do you think? Were the 60's rock's golden era of musicianship, or have other time periods equalled or exceeded that decade for quality of play?
13
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:02 pm to TigerPanzer
quote:
Growing up in the 60's I naturally have a bias toward the music of that era. I believe one thing that distinguishes the rock music of that time was a (generally) higher level of musicianship–-and not just the Claptons and Becks, but many other less famous musicians as well.
What do you think? Were the 60's rock's golden era of musicianship, or have other time periods equalled or exceeded that decade for quality of play?
Every generation says their music is better than younger generations.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:06 pm to TigerPanzer
quote:
What do you think? Were the 60's rock's golden era of musicianship, or have other time periods equalled or exceeded that decade for quality of play?
Today has better music thanks to the Internet and satellite radio. The current batch of music doesn't have the cultural significance of the 60s music, however.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:15 pm to BloodSweat&Beers
quote:
very generation says their music is better than younger generations.
True, although in my case I have no cause to disparage the music of subsequent generations. Plenty of great music has come out since 1969.
I do believe, however, that the musicianship was, overall, better in the 60's. I'm interested in others' opinions on this subject.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:17 pm to TigerPanzer
Okay, wrong board. Does an admin move this thing over to the music board?
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:17 pm to TigerPanzer
RA to move the topic. An admin may see it by tomorrow. I'd probably just start the same topic over there.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:18 pm to Duke
Yes.
It was more original back then because no one had ever done it before. Pioneers is the word you're looking for. They had the imagination and creativity to bring about a new type of music completely and it's been on the rise ever since. However, yesterday's rock is today's pop, and yesterday's metal is today's rock.
I personally hate the music from back then. It's just boring and the lyrics are garbage outside of a few bands in that era. But I can come to respect the musicians that paved the way for more and more bands to be what they are today..
It was more original back then because no one had ever done it before. Pioneers is the word you're looking for. They had the imagination and creativity to bring about a new type of music completely and it's been on the rise ever since. However, yesterday's rock is today's pop, and yesterday's metal is today's rock.
I personally hate the music from back then. It's just boring and the lyrics are garbage outside of a few bands in that era. But I can come to respect the musicians that paved the way for more and more bands to be what they are today..
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:19 pm to BloodSweat&Beers
quote:
Every generation says their music is better than younger generations.
Not true.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:22 pm to Cockopotamus
Agreed. Music sucks hard right now
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:26 pm to FourThreeForty
quote:
It was more original back then because no one had ever done it before. Pioneers is the word you're looking for.
Yes.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:27 pm to TigerPanzer
No.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 12:39 pm to FourThreeForty
quote:most of those guys were none of those things. They just ripped black musicians from the 50s.
Posted by FourThreeForty
Yes.
It was more original back then because no one had ever done it before. Pioneers is the word you're looking for. They had the imagination and creativity to bring about a new type of music completely and it's been on the rise ever since.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 1:48 pm to CCTider
Posted on 3/27/15 at 2:05 pm to TigerPanzer
quote:
Growing up in the 60's I naturally have a bias toward the music of that era. I believe one thing that distinguishes the rock music of that time was a (generally) higher level of musicianship–-and not just the Claptons and Becks, but many other less famous musicians as well.
What do you think? Were the 60's rock's golden era of musicianship, or have other time periods equalled or exceeded that decade for quality of play?
Sheeesh ... Clapton and Beck, you cannot get any better than that. I've still got all of Beck's albums on vinyl.
But the "musicianship" continued well into the 70s with Frampton, Page, Santana, Billy Gibbons, etc., and it had been going-on for some time prior to the 60s with Chuck Berry, Roy Orbison and Carl Perkins for instance, among others.
With the advent of the techno-sound and the fake music revolution that began with disco in the late 70s and carried over into music of the 80s and eventually led to this crap rap we have today ... like everything else, the bar was lowered. Less was required for greatness.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 2:25 pm to FourThreeForty
You can roll your eyes, but it's true.
It's like when a couple weeks ago, someone made a led zepplin thread, and with the way the title was worded, half the posters thought it was the best songs that they stole. And they stole a lot. They didn't put an awesome twist on most of those songs, but to call them and other 60s rockers pioneers is a joke.
It's like when a couple weeks ago, someone made a led zepplin thread, and with the way the title was worded, half the posters thought it was the best songs that they stole. And they stole a lot. They didn't put an awesome twist on most of those songs, but to call them and other 60s rockers pioneers is a joke.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 2:27 pm to CCTider
Nostalgia and/or the desire to be "down" with vintage music (in a effort to appear "cultured" ) greatly affects people's responses in these discussions, I've noticed.
it's fascinating.
it's fascinating.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 2:29 pm to CCTider
Posted on 3/27/15 at 2:34 pm to Rebelgator
Posted on 3/27/15 at 2:34 pm to Duke
quote:
Today has better music thanks to the Internet and satellite radio. The current batch of music doesn't have the cultural significance of the 60s music, however.
Today certainly does not have better music than any past decade.
With regard to the so-called "cultural significance of the 60s music," ummmm no. That's liberal revisionist history where everything associated with the 60s was supposed to be better and more (sic) enlightened and transformational than anything before or since. Oh, and everyone attended Woodstock ... everyone. Just ask the liberals my age ... they were all there ... dropping acid ... and having sex with Janis and Hendrix (although I did send a roller skate key to Melanie asking if I could hit that ... she sent me an autographed picture back, she was a nice lady).
Which does make me reflect on the fact that, by far, the best ballad singers/writers existed between '62-'74. It's not even close.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 2:40 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News