The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, The Kinks, The Byrds, The Velvets, The Monks, The Sonics, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, CCR, Buffalo Springfield, Pink Floyd, The Yardbirds, The Beach Boys, The Dead, The Zombies, Love, Traffic, Simon & Garfunkel, Moody Blues, etc, etc etc etc.
Why are the 60s so GOAT for rock music and why has it gone downhill ever since?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
Oh boy is this a decades ranking thread?
60s > 90s > 70s > 00s >>>> shite >>>> 80s >>>> utter shite >>>> 10s
>90s above the 70s
>80s that low
Fuck off, pleb.
s that low
Post discarded.
Not just rock. Folk, jazz, country, r&b (Motown baby). Even 60s pop as defined by Spector and Bacharach was amazing. Such a fertile decade creatively. Everything since owes itself to this period
>he doesn't like the 80s
Kill yourself, mate. You probably think all the 80s had to offer was pop garbage like Wham and Van Halen. The 80s had post-punk, goth, darkwave, first wave black metal, early shoegaze, noise rock, alternative/indie rock when it was actually good, and so much more.
the 80s were objectively the best period of music
feel free to delete this post and yourself anytime
>goth, darkwave, first wave black metal, noise rock
all trash
...
>Bathroy
>Hellhammer
>Jesus & Mary Chain
>My Bloody Valentine's early work
>Sonic Youth
>Pixies
>The Cure
>Siouxsie & The Banshees
>New Order
>Depeche Mode
>underground cassette culture
>not good
Please stop dick measuring decades. All decades are good. Every year has good music. Just stop... this is about as fruitless as console wars
>lists everything from the second half of the sixties
Epic
aren’t they forgetting about something?
ignore this post I can’t read
80s=90s=60s>70s>00s>10s
I almost said move 90s behind 80sand 60s but then I started to remember all the great stuff from then. You are 100% correct.
user, you neglected to mention Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart, Bob Dylan, Red Krayola, and Jefferson Airplane
The 1970s was the best decade for Rock music.
also
Beatles > Who > Velvets > Beach Boys > Kinks > Zombies > Moody Blues > Simon & Garfunkel > Pink Floyd (60s stuff. 70s stuff would bump them up considerably higher) > Sonics > Traffic > CCR > Byrds > Buffalo Springfield > Monks > Dead > Hendrix > Yardbirds > Love > Doors > Stones
Even Led Zeppelin had 2 amazing albums in the late 60s
In my experience, the most soy decades would be the 60s and 90s.
I know I missed a lot. That's why I did etc. :)
True. Neil Young as well. I thought they were considered more as "70s acts" though so I left them off. But naturally many incredible 70s acts have their roots in the late 60s. 60s keeps winning baby.
You experienced the 60s?
>Doesnt mention King Crimson
>Doesnt mention The Nice
>Doesnt mention Captain Beefheart
Holy shit nigger thats some surface level 60s there.
Yeah he didn't list every single 60's artist in the post.
Also
>Beefheart, King Crimson
>not surface level
Si. I was a wee lad in Chicago. I remember my dad coming home with his windshield broken by hippies throwing rocks and garbage off an overpass onto the expressway. That was in 1968. I was 7 years old.
I still think the flower power thing was cringy as all hell.
70s for the following reasons:
>David Bowie
>Stevie Wonder
>Herbie Hancock
>Elton John
>Amazing era/peak in popularity for Funk-music
>Good ass soul music
>Prog/Symphonic rock everywhere
But don't get me wrong the 60s are a close second.
70s > 60s > 90s > 00s > 10s >>>> 80s
I found one good band.
70s > 80s > 00s > 60s = 90s > 50s > 40s > 10s
70s mostly for Glam rock, Punk rock, Post-punk, New Wave, and Power Pop. Plus some of the Arena rock, Progressive, and Disco bands were pretty cool too.
I looked at your list at first assumed it was your list of the best musical artists of that era. then I realized you made it into a "why has rock never seemed as relevant as during this time?" thread
so here's my answer: who's missing from your list? James Brown - literally the most influential musical artist of the decade. all subsequent dance music from funk and disco on down to the present owes something to his breakthroughs in the 60s
the problem is that almost nobody at the time realized how critical his musical contributions truly were, because there were still so many truly interesting avenues to pursue from the most popular rock bands and artists that it felt unnecessary to look outside the genre for inspiration. notice however that Miles Davis was incapable of ignoring the funk influence, and during his early-70s electric period he tried to explore different ways of integrating this new, vital beat into his music as much as possible.
ignoring anything that did not seem to come from itself has led to a progressive, inexorable narrowing of rock music until it suffered from reiteration and creative stagnation. this is a tragedy not least because funk and rock share the very same roots - one only has to compare James Brown to one of his contemporaries and early influences Little Richard to see how similar they were:
>[1957] Little Richard - Keep on Knockin'
youtube.com
>[1959] James Brown - Good Good Lovin'
youtube.com
there was even an artificial enmity struck up between the "Disco Sucks!" rock audience and those who wanted to enjoy a dance music that was essentially just a popularization of funk music. it took almost a decade for that wave to finally hit the shore, but it deservedly became a craze - because of what had been ignored and was still lacking in rock music!
I love Mr Dynamite dude but if you think he's more influential than the Beatles you're fucking high. Don't bother.
>The Who just beneath The Beatles
Fucking A.
what has hamstrung rock since the '60s is its inability to rewrite its own history to accommodate funk as a province of rock 'n' roll - or for them both to be part of some larger thing that would include both. instead the cultural tastemakers have been stuck in a weird stasis where Elvis can still be called the King of Rock 'n' Roll with a straight face. Rolling Stone thinks Bob Dylan is the greatest artist from the 60s, and for what it's worth, they're right in the sense of being the best songwriter. but musically he wasn't the innovator that James Brown had been (and whose music is still working changes on the popular music landscape)
until the rock audience can claim James Brown, Sly & The Family Stone, the Meters, Parliament-Funkadelic, and all the other great bands that were instrumental in producing and progressing this beat, they'll forever be stuck in a cultural netherworld where the greatest and most relevant music is locked away in the increasingly distant, unreachable '60s.
Acknowledging funk as part of rock would probably have issues in trying to figure out where to go, really.
one of the facts you're ignoring is just what genre is the most vital and popular today, and how it got there.
hip hop literally sprang from rapping over your favourite disco and funk beats just for fun, but today it's globally the most popular genre of music today. think of how many hundreds of times James Brown's "Funky Drummer" was sampled for use as the spine of yet another hip hop track. nearly all the samples used in hip hop come from the late-60s to late-70s funk, soul, and disco beats.
the use of this beat continues to this day in ways that the musical contributions of the Beatles just aren't. how are they influential today - the way that people still talk about "albums" as a way of conceiving an artistic statement that has some sense of stylistic unity? do you know how many times the past decade I've encountered an album that was well-constructed, but which had nothing musically original or interesting about it at all?
there are many ways that the Beatles were highly influential, but you'd have to be blind to think that 100% of the effects were positive. just like how Bob Dylan killed Tin Pan Alley, and made everyone feel like hacks for not being a singer-songwriter, making singers feel like frauds for singing songs someone else wrote. he gravely wounded the art of vocal interpretation, which has Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra, and Ray Charles among its great exponents.
there are still some good jumping off points to follow. my candidate for a band that could be called rock is Minutemen. their music generates as much rhythmic interest for me as James Brown's greatest songs. and while their music can make you want to get up and move to the beat, it has no whiff of "rock-funk fusion" that nearly all bands that attempt this end up having.
Yeah, Minutemen is probably the best one for that sort of starting point. Maybe early Fugazi, but that's more dub, or possibly Stone Roses - but that's more baggy. Still, I do think that funk could have a much greater influence on rock, you just kinda need to figure out how to do so.
As for your ocmment on The Beatles - eh, there's always been something of a thing for a cohesive artistic statement, it's been known all the way back to classical with sonatas and symphonies. Still, I do think that most people miss the big thing about The Beatles.
that's a problem I'm not sure there's a solution to. maybe in the late-60s to mid-70s it would have been possible to bridge the gap in a way that felt like a natural progression, but by the time disco took off, that ended up being most peoples' first experience with this dance-based form of music, and first impressions count. unfortunately it was played to death and it did have a few irritating stylistic tics (string sections on lots of disco tracks), as well as being less musically-interesting than funk (in my opinion). it was simplified for mass consumption and the gambit worked, but it paid the price by not leading with the tougher stuff, which turned off people who would have been more receptive to it had it been less compromised musically.
there were good reasons to hate the excesses of both disco AND mainstream rock by '76. thankfully by that time punk was getting revved up to go, and even became a popular form in Britain. British post-punk contains most of the other best syntheses of dance with their stripped-down "rock" template - so much so I describe that period as the era where the Brits finally discovered how to make proper use the bass guitar.
the thing about albums as a continuation of an older form of musical organization isn't really who invented it - it's who had the most impact with it in the genre. in many ways Sgt. Pepper's has become a symbol for the idea of "the rock album as cohesive artistic unit."
my problem with this impact isn't what they did with it - which was among the best of its era - but how this tactic has shored up a great many lesser artists and collections of music, but just arranging the tracks in a cunning way. even if the music is uninspired, the "flow" of the album can be. for me OK Computer and Kid A both suffer from this, in that certain tracks may stand out to me as being undeniably great, on a track-by-track basis the albums as a whole fall flat for me.