bands of the 60's and 70's really innovative?

Things like that go in cycles. Just a minute ago I was reading Steinar Gregertsen's comment about how 3-4 years ago old Valco lap steels and similar were selling for $150 or so on eBay all the time (I remember a lot of old lap steels selling for well under $100 when I didn't really want one), but now you don't see them at such prices anymore. Back in the '60s and '70s, old National guitars were just about giveaway items in pawn shops. Son House reportedly crushed cones in several that were just thrown away and replaced. (The guitar, that is.) Now you need at least $2000 to be looking at those things. Even nice old accordions are going back up.

To answer the original question, I'll ask another one - do you really think we'll ever see another decade again like the 60's where music exploded in so many different directions?

The Beatles, love them or loathe them or anywhere in-between, were probably the single biggest influence on rock music as we know it, with a little help from their friend, Sir George Martin.

There was so much going on - from pop to rock to folk to blues, everything underwent a change in the 60's. The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, The Yardbirds - all similar bands in some ways, but all heading in different directions. Dylan took folk music to another level, the Byrds electrified it, The Beach Boys created a sound all of their own. Creedence pioneered swamp rock - other bands were jazz or classically influenced. Then there was the psychedelic era, headed by Hendrix - I'm not a big fan, but he was a huge influence.

And the music reflected the times - the times they WERE a-changin' and music was changing along with them. Bands were getting better deals from the record companies, they had more artistic freedom than ever before - license to experiment, if you like.

Drugs were a big influence on music too, back then. Would the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan, Morrison, Hendrix and all the other innovative artists of the period have written what they did without the drugs?

The sixties were a time of revolution, musically and culturally - and for me, the 60's were a hothouse of musical creativity. Never before had so much new, diverse music come out in one decade. It's impossible to sum that decade up in one short post, but I don't think we'll ever see another time like it.

There will always be good music around, there will doubtless be fresh talent arriving on the scene - but the foundations of modern rock music were laid in the 60's and even before that in the 50's. Those foundations have been built on since and added to - but I don't think we'll ever see so much change in one decade again.

Ask yourselves who of today's bands/artists will still be played regularly in 40 years time......

(Oh yeah - I probably enjoyed the 70's more than the 60's- well I was a teenager by then, and better equipped to enjoy it!)

:D :D :D

Vic

Ask yourselves who of today's bands/artists will still be played regularly in 40 years time......

You'd have to ask that question in 2040 to get a definite answer. I think one reason 60's bands were so big, The Beatles especially was because 1/4 of the population were teenagers due to the baby boom.

I believe music, and people in general are changing faster. Back in the 50's, when someone said 'my generation' they refered to a 210 year age span of people. So people 20-30 would have more or less the same values. When you say that today, it refers to 2 year span. So you have people that are 2 years younger, or older, who have completely different values, different tastes in music. So now, you have groups of people each with a genre (or sub-genre) of music to represent them.

Maybe I'm wrong about how it was way way back in the day. But that's how I feel the world is today. With so many social groups and sub genres of music, music is splitting off in way more directions and changing faster than ever.

In my opinion, bands like the Beatles and the Stones have been able to transcend all those generation gaps that you're talking about OWA. Yeah, people 20-30 liked them, but even still, people born in the 60's, 70's, 80's love them too. And people continue to love them, even with the 2 year generation gaps, different tastes and values.

You look at pop musicians like Billy Joel, and try to compare him to the Backstreet boys, todays pop musicians, and its like, Joel has been hitting it big for 40 years now, the backstreet boys lasted what, 5 years?

And people continue to love them, even with the 2 year generation gaps, different tastes and values.

The generation gaps was in reference to music changing, not people liking the Beatles.
You look at pop musicians like Billy Joel, and try to compare him to the Backstreet boys, todays pop musicians, and its like, Joel has been hitting it big for 40 years now, the backstreet boys lasted what, 5 years?

That kind of makes sense and it doesn't. It makes sense if you refer to music groups that have already faded away. I've had people tell me these bands are good because people have been playing them for a long time. Of course people haven't been listening to Kittie as long as Hendrix........Kittie formed in 1997. All decades have bands that have lasted and those that haven't.

I would believe that people tend to focus on the hits of the decade rather than the rejects. There are lots of bands that are around today that have been around for a good 10 years or so. The Offspring formed in 1987 and are still around. The Foo Fighters formed in 1995 and still play. Collective Soul, 1993, still around. Pearl Jam released a new album. I could go on but you get the idea. I don't know why when people go to the 60's they zero in on the bands that made it. As we go more modern, we forget the bands that are still around and focus on the burn outs.

I meant in regards to the generation gaps being 2 years apart, and having different tastes in music, yes that is true, but you have bands like the Beatles, the Stones, Hendrix, etc, that have fans with ages spanning 50 years apart. My point is, the generation gaps have no impact here, all ages like them, they're music is timeless.

"I've had people tell me these bands are good because people have been playing them for a long time."

Err, it'd probably be the reverse of that statement. People listen to the bands for a long time because they are good...

"Of course people haven't been listening to Kittie as long as Hendrix........Kittie formed in 1997."

Of course, that's true. And who knows, maybe in 20-30 years you'll have people our age (we'll be around 50 then) saying how great Kittie was, and people who are 20 saying "you think that's great? Listen to some of the stuff being made today, it isn't bad either" . All the other bands you mentioned, the same may apply, it may not, but it may. That is the mark of a classic: to withstand the test of time, or in other words, to be timeless.

And emo music wouldn't be very populer if a bunch of emo kids didn't keep buying those albums, lol:

Read my signature line. That's all I have to say on the subject :twisted:

To answer the original question, I'll ask another one - do you really think we'll ever see another decade again like the 60's where music exploded in so many different directions?

Yes. Like right now. If you mean 'another decade where guitar-music exploded in so many directions' then I don't know. I don't even really know in what directions it exploded. You already had loads of jazz and blues music, metal and all kinds of 'cores' came much later. I think the 60s are only the 'massive explosive decade' if you like the pop/rock music of that time.

As for guitar music dying out, nonsense. The problem is that the guitarworld only wants 'new innovative music with the same gear and the same harmonies and progressions and pentatonic solos', which basically means that we don't really want innovation at all. And as soon as you move away from the 'strat+tube amp playing 12-bar blues' people won't get it anyway. I've had it happen time after time that people didn't even manage to seperate the synths from the guitars, on guitar forums. Which are the same people that then continue to talk about the influence of different cables ofcourse, but that's a different matter. :roll:
You look at pop musicians like Billy Joel, and try to compare him to the Backstreet boys, todays pop musicians, and its like, Joel has been hitting it big for 40 years now, the backstreet boys lasted what, 5 years?

Yeah. I know no less then one full song of Billy Joel (New York State of Mind, thanks to my piano teacher), which is one more then all my friends know. I thoroughly dislike the backstreet boys but I know more of their tunes. Besides, it's a lame comparison. If you want to make it fair take Robbie Williams, he's been going for over a decade as well and is outselling BJ many, many times.

Err, you mean "no more than one full song" right? No less than one full song leaves a pretty wide range of songs you might know.

Robbie Williams, never heard of him...But, pretty sure he hasn't out sold Billy Joel?

That wasn't really the point though either way. The point wasn't that Billy Joel is better than modern musicians, it was that his music, like the other bands that have been mentioned, has stood the test of time. This Robbie Williams, while I've never heard of him, seems to be on the same path. Maybe he will be cherished enough to last another 30 years, who knows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Williams
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sQxZztI7264
In the United Kingdom alone he has sold nearly 6 million singles and about 17 million albums. He appears in the list of the all-time Top 100 biggest selling albums in the United Kingdom six times, more than any other person or group, and has been the recipient of many awards — including more BRIT and ECHO Awards than any other artist in history. It is also estimated he is currently the best selling non-Latino artist in Latin America at the moment, as well as the best selling international artist outside North America this century.[8]

He is currently the best selling male artist in the world, for the period 1998-2007, according to the United World Chart, and the third artist overall behind Madonna and Britney Spears.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_music_artists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_certification

I mean, Joel hasn't released an original rock album since, like, 1992, lol. Err, again, this isn't really the point...

Damn man, what are we talking about, I don't even really dig either one too much. :D

darn man, what are we talking about, I don't even really dig either one too much. :D

:lol:

I'm trying to remember if I was even making a point. Something about music being "classic" just like literary works and movies. Uhh, I don't know. A one armed man killed my wife.

Billy Joel:

79.5 million albums sold.

18 Gold Albums.
17 Platinum Albums.
12 Multi-Platnum Albums.

Scott

^^If only there was a way to calculate the amount of times his albums were downloaded...imagine the # we'd be looking at.