Page 1 of 3
#1
(Warning: Rant Thread)

Well, it is in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, that period of time holds some of my favourite bands, but I honestly feel that a lot of bands and artists from 60's 70's are immensely overrated.

For example, take Led Zeppelin and search for them on, for example, Allmusic.com and look at their discography. Six out of nine albums have gotten 5 stars. Or take The Beatles, 12/19 studio album, 5 stars. Or even The Velvet Underground, my favourite band ever whom I love intensely. 4/4 of the albums got 5 stars (excluding the huge flop, Squeeze, where none of the original members contributed). Isn't that a bit excessive?

Another example, take Rolling Stone magazine who are, according to me, the biggest bluffers in the entire music industry. When they made their 500 Greatest Albums ever list, 63% of the albums were from the 60's or the 70's. Why would the 70s' and 60s' music be so much better than the other three decades of rock music? Use your logic. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

All I'm saying is that I'm seriously tired of hearing and reading about how all the oldies are soooo good, and how they "zchanged moozik 4evor". Saying that is belittleing all the good and refreshing bands that we actually have out there today. Am I the only one feeling like this or am I completely speaking out of my hat?
#3
I completely agree with you. Old music is always considered better than new music. Even if you just look at one band, people will almost always say, "I like their old stuff better"
#6
The 60's and 70's are highly regarded because they were in fact the best decades of rock music. Of course the 80's and 90's had a bunch of great bands but the 60's and 70's were simply the best. I mean just think of the scene then as opposed to now; Fall Out Boy and AFI and **** like that did not exist back then. It's all gone down hill.
#7
Quote by CousticStrangla
The 60's and 70's are highly regarded because they were in fact the best decades of rock music. Of course the 80's and 90's had a bunch of great bands but the 60's and 70's were simply the best. I mean just think of the scene then as opposed to now; Fall Out Boy and AFI and **** like that did not exist back then. It's all gone down hill.


see, your the exact kind of person we're talking about. I guarantee that if AFI and Fall Out Boy were 60's and 70's bands, you would think differently about them. And if Led Zeppelin was a new band on MTV right now, you wouldn't like them.
#8
But if you disregard all the "bad" bands today, and only look at quality bands' albums, then old bands's albums that are, in my opinion, equal to some bands' albums today, given a lot more praise than new bands' albums.

And no, I don't like AFI and Fall Out Boy either, but other bands that break new ground today or that broke new ground ten years ago are hardly as critically praised as bands from the 70's and 60's.
Last edited by trackmind at Dec 8, 2007,
#9
As far as rock music goes, I'd have to say my favourite decade is the 90's or 00's. For rap it's definitely the 90's and for jazz the late 50's early 60's.
Ain't Nuthin' But a UG Thang: Generic member of the UG Hip Hop/Guitar Music Equality Illuminati

Quote by mydarkesthour

It seems like UG is full of those Caveman Metalheads

Quote by mydarkesthour
I meant caveman as in long haired....


#10
Quote by moo210
see, your the exact kind of person we're talking about. I guarantee that if AFI and Fall Out Boy were 60's and 70's bands, you would think differently about them. And if Led Zeppelin was a new band on MTV right now, you wouldn't like them.



Umm no, I know good music when I hear it and I have good taste, and it just so happens that the best music has already been made (so far). It isn't even really debatable, bands take from their influences and rehash it.

AFI and Fall Out Boy and all that pussy **** just simply could never exist in the 60's or 70's because the times were too different and the industry as a whole was completely different. I really don't even know what you are arguing about now that I think about it, are you basically saying Zeppelin and bands of that era suck and the bands today are better?
#11
Quote by CousticStrangla
Umm no, I know good music when I hear it and I have good taste, and it just so happens that the best music has already been made (so far). It isn't even really debatable, bands take from their influences and rehash it.



Self-righteousness alert.
Ain't Nuthin' But a UG Thang: Generic member of the UG Hip Hop/Guitar Music Equality Illuminati

Quote by mydarkesthour

It seems like UG is full of those Caveman Metalheads

Quote by mydarkesthour
I meant caveman as in long haired....


#12
Congratulations, CousticStrangla. You chose the least sensible post in this entire thread to argue against. Proves of your "good taste".
#13
I completely disagree. Around here, my friends and I'd say, 95% of the people I know toss old music aside, without even glancing at it, because its old. Old music is underrated, at least here(in real life), on the internet, not really.
#14
Quote by trackmind
Congratulations, CousticStrangla. You chose the least sensible post in this entire thread to argue against. Proves of your "good taste".



Well seeing as it was addressed directly to me I felt the burning urge to respond.

I only aim to please.
#15
Quote by moo210
see, your the exact kind of person we're talking about. I guarantee that if AFI and Fall Out Boy were 60's and 70's bands, you would think differently about them. And if Led Zeppelin was a new band on MTV right now, you wouldn't like them.


No. Just no.
#17
Quote by moo210
what was insensible about my post?



The entire thing, as a matter of fact just leave this thread and never come back.
#18
Quote by moo210
what was insensible about my post?

You didn't give any reasoning to you opinions.
#19
No comments. You seriously need to rethink what you said here, because it's all crap, TC.
#20
Quote by BlackArmor
No comments. You seriously need to rethink what you said here, because it's all crap, TC.

Says the none-of-my-favourite-bands-are-post-70's-bands-genius. Great getting feedback from an unbiased poster.
Last edited by trackmind at Dec 8, 2007,
#21
60's, 70's music over-rated? Well I guess that depends on perspective. I guess it's because stuff in the 60's and 70's was new y'know, whereas there's nothing really going on today that seems really different.

Aw, hell. Who cares, why with all the musical politics? If you like it you like it if you don't just don't listen to it.
Quote by aaron13
well i get on the net and chat with hot chicks alot.
most of them want to see me naked.. and they are over 18..
#22
No.

60's and 70's music is just the same as todays music, there are some 'overrated' bands, there are some that aren't.

The thing is, nobody remembers the 'bad' albums from those times because it was so long ago and they didn't stand the test of time.
Bands like Cream, Zeppelin etc did, so they are highly regarded today.
In 40 years time I can guarantee that modern bands today that have longevity will be remembered in the same way.
#23
Quote by buckethead_jr
No.

60's and 70's music is just the same as todays music, there are some 'overrated' bands, there are some that aren't.

The thing is, nobody remembers the 'bad' albums from those times because it was so long ago and they didn't stand the test of time.
Bands like Cream, Zeppelin etc did, so they are highly regarded today.
In 40 years time I can guarantee that modern bands today that have longevity will be remembered in the same way.

I think you kinda missed the point. I'm not saying that there aren't good bands from 60's and 70's, I'm just saying that overall, bands from the 60's and 70's are overrated. There are bands from the 60's and 70's that are overrated, and there's some who aren't and then there's even the bunch that is underrated. But I can't find any band that gets almost all their albums as praised as for example, Led Zeppelin or The Beatles, post 70's.
#24
it probably is , but it was certainly important in shaping what music is today.

it was pioneering music ,you've got to imagine being there at the time ,and how amazing it would sound the first time you listen to it , completely different , something no one had even touched on before.

and compared to today when you can simply click a few buttons and get millions of songs , music was probably more appreciated by the fact ,you were limited to what you heard on the radio or what you could buy at your local record store.

there was alot less varietys of music so this exciting new music that became avalable was liked by huge amounts of people , which is why the music of the 60s is still remembered as being so influencial,most music today developed from what happened in the 60s.

as subgenes formed peoples tastes widened, and the importance of music was spread out . music split off in to seperate paths each influences the next generation.

however i dislike it when people say music these days is terrible compared to the 60s and 70s. back then it was probably incredible , but times have changed , and a band playing classic rock is nothing special. just because it was so amzing back then does'nt mean it lives up to the standards of 2007

if theytook a step back they would see that compared to some music today, music of the 60s is nowhere near as good.the ego of the 60s is much bigger that what it actually was. there has been a lot worse and alot better music since the 60s.


this can be said for other genres too. there are metalheads that are like "metal has gone down hill,this hardcore s**t has ruined it, it was better in the 80s ,metallica rule!!!"
but this is just narrowminded.with out change metal would'nt exist in the first place,as it has its ruits in the heavy rock of the 70s .

in my opinion music has to continue evolveing , but we should still appreiate the bands of the past. if a is band good then who cares what decade they are from.

music should be taken at face value, not with all the steriotypes that come along with it.
Quote by freedoms_stain

I think it's sick to force kids to take part in hate mongering and sick for spoonman to think its right for any adult to throw anything at a child.
Last edited by *Spoonman* at Dec 8, 2007,
#25
Quote by *Spoonman*
it was pioneering music ,you've got to imagine being there at the time ,and how amazing it would sound the first time you listen to it , completely different , something no one had even touched on before.

This is the only part of your post where I can't see your reasoning. "Something no one had even touched on before". I disagree. It's not like, let's take Led Zeppelin as an example again, pulled out their music from their own asses. They had influences as well. For the most part, all Led Zeppelin is, is country, folk and eastern folk music influenced bluesrock. I'm not trying to belittle their importance or exellence or anything, I'm just saying that everybody has influences and nothing is ever "completely different", although it can be very refreshing and groundbreaking.
#26
I agree. Most of my favorite bands are from the 70's, but a lot of it is over-rated. A lot of people think "classic rock" is the only "real music" and refuse to listen to anything else.
#27
You do make a pretty good point. While there are some fantastic bands from that decade that are close to my heart there are others that I don't think were as legendary as they were made out to be. I mean, I know I'm going to get lynched for this, but I think that the Beatles are over-rated. OK as songwriters, lennon and McCartney are prolific but as musicians? Good, but not ground-breaking. However, you have to remember that what bands such as The Who and Led Zepplin were doing at the time was revolutionary. There was, literary, nothing like that before them. I also agree with your opinion of Rolling Stone. The 60's and 70's were the hey-days of Rolling Stone and a lot of their writers were teenagers in that decade so it was their music essentially. Personally i think Rolling Stone as a publication is getting a bit out of touch
#28
Quote by trackmind
This is the only part of your post where I can't see your reasoning. "Something no one had even touched on before". I disagree. It's not like, let's take Led Zeppelin as an example again, pulled out their music from their own asses. They had influences as well. For the most part, all Led Zeppelin is, is country, folk and eastern folk music influenced bluesrock. I'm not trying to belittle their importance or exellence or anything, I'm just saying that everybody has influences and nothing is ever "completely different", although it can be very refreshing and groundbreaking.

No i'm sorry but that is a load of ****. Yes you can see the influence from the blues and folk, but listen to Dazed and Confused and tell me thats a standard blues song and ill tell you to get your head out of your arse. All genres come from using influences and you can see that when you look at them but thats like seeing some of Picassos more abstract paintings and saying i could do that. The point is you didn't did you. It's easy to look at it now 40 years on saying oh all they did is combine genres when in reality it is a lot harder than that. In terms of your original point i think record sales speak for themselves, although i think that there are decent bands out there who will be remembered in years to come.
#29
Shit. Congratu-fucking-lations. You missed the point.
Last edited by trackmind at Dec 8, 2007,
#31
Quote by trackmind
Shit. Congratu-fucking-lations. You missed the point.

Look dude i'm not disagreeing with your point at all. I kind of agree with you but you made it sound in your point like these bands like Zep, the stones, the beatles, sabbath etc weren't anything special. That is not the case. No one has come close to causing the sensation the beatles did when they came out. No one. Not in 40-50 years. Don't you think that says something about the specialty of the music? If the music of the 60s and the 70s is overrated it is ownly because the public love it so much.
#32
unfortunately there is this myth and mystery that surrounds the 60's and 70's which makes people think everything from then was great, there certainly was some amazing music and definately groundbreaking music but poeple go "no we have fall out boy" well "THERE WERE **** BANDS BACK THEN TOO" go look at the charts from back then, most of the stuff in the charts are ****, lots of old influential bands like King Crimson and the velvet underground were not all that popular.

This myth of the 60's and 70's is ofcourse spurred on by rolling stone who are obsessed with the period, yes it was good, yes it was influential but there was **** music and there has been music just as good since then
#33
Quote by JimmyStradlin33
Look dude i'm not disagreeing with your point at all. I kind of agree with you but you made it sound in your point like these bands like Zep, the stones, the beatles, sabbath etc weren't anything special. That is not the case. No one has come close to causing the sensation the beatles did when they came out. No one. Not in 40-50 years. Don't you think that says something about the specialty of the music? If the music of the 60s and the 70s is overrated it is ownly because the public love it so much.
Of course they're special, but not as special as people paint them out to be. People act as if everything that was made during 70's and 60's was good. It wasn't. I assure, that if people were to look at Led Zeppelin in a more objective way, they wouldn't praise them as much. And the thing is, people accept anything that people say about bands in the 60's.

Now let's take the Beatles as an example. I know a lot of people who don't really listen to their music but who accept that they are the best band ever anyway, and that's where it all starts. People just accept that bands from the 60's and 70's were great, with barely having looked at them from an objecive perspective. Bands from the 60's and 70's just get praised to the skies without any objectivity whatsoever. And it's terribly laughable.
#34
Quote by trackmind
Of course they're special, but not as special as people paint them out to be. People act as if everything that was made during 70's and 60's was good. It wasn't. I assure, that if people were to look at Led Zeppelin in a more objective way, they wouldn't praise them as much. And the thing is, people accept anything that people say about bands in the 60's.

Now let's take the Beatles as an example. I know a lot of people who don't really listen to their music but who accept that they are the best band ever anyway, and that's where it all starts. People just accept that bands from the 60's and 70's were great, with barely having looked at them from an objecive perspective. Bands from the 60's and 70's just get praised to the skies without any objectivity whatsoever. And it's terribly laughable.

Well in that case i guess we're agreed. I don't claim that every band from the 60s was good which it obviously wasn't and there probably will be bands big enough to rival maybe not the beatles but other bands around that time. But i also think that music back then was more experimental at least compared to todays standards. Yes their have been revolutionary bands since then and always will, i don't like Nirvana at all but i have to admit he changed music quite considerably. The thing i think is many of these revolutions happened in the 60s and 70s as it was the first time music was really being brought to the masses by radio and television etc.
#35
This is the biggest load of **** I've ever heard. The 60's and 70's were the epitome of Rock & Roll. The reason why it's considered better than the **** today, is because IT IS better than the poor excuse for music today. First off, the songwriting in the 60's and 70's was immensely better than what we have today. All you hear today is the same EMO **** and all that nonsense. Secondly, all the crap today sounds the same, honestly, when I listen to the radio these days I think to myslef, "didn't I just hear that song?"

I'm not knocking everything current though. I think the 90's were pretty good in terms of music...miles and miles ahead of what's out there now. Bands like Oasis, Radiohead, Pearl Jam, etc. were all pretty decent bands. Still, nothing compares to the 60's and 70's. Those were the glory days of music.
#36
Quote by rust weld
This is the biggest load of **** I've ever heard. The 60's and 70's were the epitome of Rock & Roll. The reason why it's considered better than the **** today, is because IT IS better than the poor excuse for music today. First off, the songwriting in the 60's and 70's was immensely better than what we have today. All you hear today is the same EMO **** and all that nonsense. Secondly, all the crap today sounds the same, honestly, when I listen to the radio these days I think to myslef, "didn't I just hear that song?"
Seriously, don't listen to the radio to aquire new music. That's like fishing in a terrarium.

Quote by JimmyStradlin33
But i also think that music back then was more experimental at least compared to todays standards
Not really. You just have to look for it more. Beck, Queens Of The Stone Age, Arcade Fire, Radiohead, The Mars Volta and Muse are just a few bands and artists (even though I'm not particularly fond of all of those bands) that are breaking new ground in this decade, and there are tons more.
#37
Quote by trackmind
(Warning: Rant Thread)

Well, it is in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, that period of time holds some of my favourite bands, but I honestly feel that a lot of bands and artists from 60's 70's are immensely overrated.

For example, take Led Zeppelin and search for them on, for example, Allmusic.com and look at their discography. Six out of nine albums have gotten 5 stars. Or take The Beatles, 12/19 studio album, 5 stars. ...

If it were up to me, Led Zep and the Beatles can have 5 stars for *all* their albums.
Last edited by ColdGin at Dec 8, 2007,
#38
Quote by JimmyStradlin33
Don't you think that says something about the specialty of the music?


Not really. The Beatles wrote some pretty mediocre pop songs in their early days.
Last.fm

WE ARE THE MUSIC MAKERS
AND WE ARE THE DREAMERS OF THE DREAMS
#39
Yes but they also wrote music that inspired a musical revolution, something no one else has done to the same extent since
#40
I like my fair share of modern music, but the way i see it is... from '66 to about oh '77 maybe was the most fertile period in the history of rock music. It was starting to come into it's own as an art form. It was during those times you had bands like King Crimson, The Mothers of Invention, Yes, and Deep Purple.... bands were beginning to show that rock musicians were capable of more than just rehashing the tired old I-IV-V, I-IV-III, and I-vi-IV-V chord progressions and tired old pentatonic licks. Progressive rock musicians were pushing the envelope in terms of arrangements, composition, and musical prowess in rock. Groups like Rainbow and Judas Priest were sowing the seeds of what would become modern metal. You also can't forget about people like Miles Davis and Tony Williams who helped bridge the gap between Jazz and Rock music. The jam band scene also saw its beginnings in this era. Let's also not forget the huge advancements in recording technology that were happening during that time period (things like multi track recording and stereo mixes were pioneered on recordings from this era). Music today just seems rather tired and formulaic by comparison. Even some of the so called "progressive" bands coming up today fall into a box and rarely venture outside of that comfort zone.... just look at Dream Theater or Opeth. Commercial radio today is so constrained by the two major conglomerates that control it and most bands nowadays seem to try so hard to fit into that mold that no real new ground is broken (at least not on a highly visible level). I think that is the reason why that era is remembered so much more fondly than the say the early '90s. Artistic expression hadn't yet fallen victim to commercialism.
Page 1 of 3