Best musical decade - and why that's such a lame question

[Jim of Seattle]

There is a big debate going on in my group at work about which decade was the best musically (I'm going out on a limb and guessing they mean in the rock era, or the 20th century at least). Anyway, everyone sat there arguing this or that decade, and I sat silent until I finally had the chance to pipe in that matters of musical taste are utterly subjective and pointless, BUT, that a decade like the 1980's saw the rise in influence of large corporations, MTV and visual imagery to pop music, whereas the period from 1965-1975 was controlled creatively much more by the artists themselves, so regardless of one's taste, a case could be made that the period 1965-1975 was more about the quality of the music as music than it was any other non-musical criteria so the music itself was therefore of a higher quality generally speaking.

Also, it would be important to look at the age of the person making the claim for a particular decade. Since pop music is generally geared toward ages 15-25 or so, it's likely that whatever decade found you at that age would be more likely to bed your favorite.

And what's "best", anyway?

[erik]

BUT

You cannot judge a decade's music awesomeness by the fossils imprints left by people who topped the charts. That will never, ever give you a real understanding of what forces were in effect that were changing the landscape of music forever. The 80s, on the surface, were ruled by Big Record Companies and MTV, but there was so much more operating beneath the surface. The concept of the "indie" label as we know it, really exploded during the 80s, with people starting up labels to get the music of their friends or their town out to the rest of the world. The decade is exemplified by artists making a name for themselves without being blasted on the radio and on MTV. Incessant touring and truly independant records were the unseen backbone that held up the musical genres of punk, modern metal and rap. The fact that these genres were operating underneath the cultural radar of the majority of folks means that they didn't have to be beholden to anyone, and could do whatever they wanted, from a musical standpoint. If Metallica wanted to make 9-minute-long epic speed metal anthems (without standard chorus-verse structure), they got to make those songs. If Big Black wanted to make scary-ass industrial screamfests about raping and killing, they could. If Run DMC wanted to cut up old metal licks and funk beats and rap about how they were better than everyone else, then cool. The system of big record companies controlling the flow of music to consumers only made listeners hungry for something that was different, exciting, and unseen, and bands were able to produce that music in spades.

I think you may have a point about people having a soft spot for the music of their youth, but the 80s can arguably more than hold their own against 1965-1975.

[roymond]

I'm thinking the 1890s.
Come on...Debussy, Ravel, Satie, Dvorak, Strauss.
Those guys ROCKED the 90s!

[Jim of Seattle]

Very true that the mainstream doesn't necessarily reflect what's really going on in music at any particular time, but I'd argue that it's too early to tell, long-term, what's REALLY going to end up being important musically for times as recent as we're talking about, other than the short period of time we have to observe that influence.

You're saying that the omnipresence of a mainstream corporate-controlled popular music industry gave rise to all this underground music, but there was underground music in the 60's and 70's too. It just would have been deeper underground had it been in the 80's.

Now, if you're arguing that in the 80's the underground music scene was a rebellion against all the corporate music out there and therefore was more expressive in its oppression, whereas music from the 60's and 70's didn't have as Big of a Brother to push against and therefore wasn't as powerful, I'd take that into consideration. But I don't think that's what you're saying.

[fodroy]

i like whatever you smart people like.

[roymond]

Now, if you're arguing that in the 80's the underground music scene was a rebellion against all the corporate music out there and therefore was more expressive in its oppression, whereas music from the 60's and 70's didn't have as Big of a Brother to push against and therefore wasn't as powerful, I'd take that into consideration. But I don't think that's what you're saying.

So corporate strong-arming is a bigger inspiration to underground musical rebellion than Viet Nam, Watergate and the debut of Hair on Broadway?

[erik]

Very true that the mainstream doesn't necessarily reflect what's really going on in music at any particular time, but I'd argue that it's too early to tell, long-term, what's REALLY going to end up being important musically for times as recent as we're talking about, other than the short period of time we have to observe that influence.

You're saying that the omnipresence of a mainstream corporate-controlled popular music industry gave rise to all this underground music, but there was underground music in the 60's and 70's too. It just would have been deeper underground had it been in the 80's.

Now, if you're arguing that in the 80's the underground music scene was a rebellion against all the corporate music out there and therefore was more expressive in its oppression, whereas music from the 60's and 70's didn't have as Big of a Brother to push against and therefore wasn't as powerful, I'd take that into consideration. But I don't think that's what you're saying.

Oh c'mon Jim. Don't play the "it's too early to tell" card, especially since you started the topic. I'm not opining about who will be the best bands of 2005, I'm talking about music from 20+ years ago. If that's not enough time, then there really can't be any discussion and the whole point of starting a topic about it seems strange.

My point about underground music in the 80s was in direct response to this:

the period from 1965-1975 was controlled creatively much more by the artists themselves

Having a viable underground scene gives the artists themselves more creative control to do what they want. This makes for more expressive music. Who were the artists in the 60s and 70s making records on independant labels? People were trading Metallica demo tapes around the world before they even got a record deal. Black Flag toured the the United States three times in a nine-month span without being on a major label. It's not that they were rebelling against something or not or anything like that. It's that they weren't on a major label, weren't required to adhere to any sort of sound (except the sound they themselves wanted) and yet, people still knew about them, and liked their music.

[Bjam]

'95-'05 has meant a lot of 'normal' people can do music. Way back when it was "get on this show and you're made" whereas now it's a "get $500 of equipment and bam bam, musac."

Whether that's a good or bad thing I don't know.

[john m]

I do not offer an opinion on best musical decade.

I do, however, opine that we are in the midst of the worst. Yes, it is incredibly easy for you and me to make music and maybe even get to major indie labels, but look at the state of popular music. All perfectly processed, all more of exactly the same. Yes, "more of exactly the same" can be said to some degree of all decades (hair bands, 80s synthpop, 90s grunge), but I'm referring less to cheap knockoffs and more to the Nickelback "same fucking song" meme that has been floating throughout the internet for some time. There are very few bands today who are popular/have "made it" who are also creative beyond which compressor plugin to use to make all their guitar tracks sound exactly the same, or which drum machine to use to replace the drummer on the second album because variety is unhealthy.

The local music scene is dying, too. Kids don't go to shows with unsigned bands. I see countless local bands work their asses off to promote shows and get a 15-20 person turnout at venues that hold 150. (And I know many of you are quick to shoot down any general remarks I make about "how things are" because of where I live; I say this not just from my own perspective, which actually does include larger cities such as Columbus, but also from that of touring musicians I know.)

<font size="1">Fucking Clear Channel.</a>

[Adam!]

I'm not sure what the definition of "best" being used here is, but the definition of "decade" seems to be "19X5 - 19Y5", so I'd say 1925 to 1935. A few weeks ago I listened to most of the pre-WWII songs here, which tries to authentically represent historical popular culture. I noticed the starkest contrast between popular music immediately before and immediately after the great depression. It seems that show-tunes and similar orchestra pieces made up the majority of popular American music until the late 1920's, which (if the website I'm basing this off of is even remotely worth it's salt) was surpassed in popularity by blues and jazz in the late 20's and on into the depression. I'd call 1925-1935 the decade that laid the foundation for the current era of popular music.

[Warning: I don't know crap about the history of music, so feel free to correct me angrily]

[fodroy]

The local music scene is dying, too. Kids don't go to shows with unsigned bands. I see countless local bands work their asses off to promote shows and get a 15-20 person turnout at venues that hold 150. (And I know many of you are quick to shoot down any general remarks I make about "how things are" because of where I live; I say this not just from my own perspective, which actually does include larger cities such as Columbus, but also from that of touring musicians I know.)

i don't know what your scene is like, but ours has a lot of support from the community (just not me because i don't like the bands). now if only the bands would stop sounding like "more of exactly the same."

i do agree with pretty much everything else you said.

[stueym]

I'm not sure what the definition of "best" being used here is, but the definition of "decade" seems to be "19X5 - 19Y5", so I'd say 1925 to 1935. A few weeks ago I listened to most of the pre-WWII songs here, which tries to authentically represent historical popular culture. I noticed the starkest contrast between popular music immediately before and immediately after the great depression. It seems that show-tunes and similar orchestra pieces made up the majority of popular American music until the late 1920's, which (if the website I'm basing this off of is even remotely worth it's salt) was surpassed in popularity by blues and jazz in the late 20's and on into the depression. I'd call 1925-1935 the decade that laid the foundation for the current era of popular music.

[Warning: I don't know crap about the history of music, so feel free to correct me angrily]

You bring up an interesting point about the cycles of musical production and I will apply the lesson learned during the history of modern healthcare class taught when I was nursing. The incredibly wise and credible lecturer when talking about technology progress and sociological progress made the following analogy.

Technological development is more or less linear with spurts of innovation over years. Perception takes hold as we get older. As boring 40-50 yr olds we all think that technological development is going faster than when we were young.

Sociological development is cyclical. Accordingly you get innovations every now and again in 5-20 year cycles across most facets of society. Certain tecnhologies propel or initiate this change but there are very few new ideas sociologically. His example was Mental health where we decided that community care sucked in the 30's so we built asylums. Then in the 80's we decided asylums sucked so we moved the patients out into the community. His prediction? 2020 we will see a resurgence of building mental health communities to support the mentally ill that was in 1982.

With regard to music we go through periods of fallow, dull, highly produced stuff, then a technology or sociological change transforms things. An example of technology driving something...mass production techniques allowed the flooding of the market with passable mandolins made more affordable and accessible than previous handmade artisan craftsman luthier items previously produced. Hence the phenomenon of community Mandolin Orchestras...why that's crazy I hear you say, who would have thought of such a thing. Well a lot of Americans apparently in those same years leading to and through the depression. Musical cultural phenomenon driven by a technology that then sparks a sociological phenomenon.

Another example is that you young un's seem to think that the grunge boys of Seattle invented teenage rebellion and back to roots rock music pushing back against the then heavily produced pop-rock of the 80's. Hmm well actually in the mid 70's to counter another period of pompous/plastic pop-rock, the punk music movement shook things up and had a huge influence in pop/rock music for the following 15 years.

Now we find ourselves in another period of formulaic pop and lack of imagination from the music industry. We also have a huge technological change with the iPod and podcasting generations (just like pirate radio stations of the 60's!!!). This technology is now chnaging and driving the way people consume music...Over The Air radio is declining with losses to iPoditis and even Satellite Radio. Clear Channel and the studios and everyone else will try to adjust and overcome. (e.g. BBC Radio 1 hired all the favourite pirate radio DJ's to create a radio channel that appealed to younger people who hated their 'light programme' and went on to rule the airwaves in the UK for 10 years before spoiling it by becoming conservative and formulaic. Then as we all got older those same familiar DJ's and our music suddenly appeared on Radio 2 (succesor to the 'light programme')..maybe something similar will happen this time around with podcasts getting hijacked by the insitutionalized organizations.

Point is all kind of music from all generations is great and terrible at the same time. The younger you are the more likely you are to rebel against the 'formulaic packaged' music that your parents grew up with. In the 20's people were worried about this Jazz stuff corupting our young people and leading them into drugs....then the same for the spivs, the teddie boys, the rockers, the mods...need I go on? Same cultural issues in North America....watch a Harvey Girls movie and see how Mickey Rooney portays the boring old peopls music as squares who don't get our music...really?!?!.

So my fave decade....can't say...just love too much music...love the pop music of my youth....yes I did sing along to Donnie Osmond when I was 11. Love the late 70's when I would pogo to SLF, thenI got into my roots and was all traditional and contemporary folk music, love the 80's with their wild videos and complex layered sounds and the fact that I started going out with girls and drinking....hmmm Spandau Ballet!

Point is its always changing for me what I love. When De-Lovely was released I fell back in love with Cole Porter. If you checked out my iPod you would be amazed at the variety on there. Ask Bjam she constantly complains at what pops up on shuffle:-)

[Jim of Seattle]

I agree with everything you said pretty much, stueuyhv. But the sheer dgree of commericalism in mainstream music dwarfs what was considered corporate and mainstream decades ago. For example, when you hear a new song on Top-40 radio, you should try to remember that some corporation spent an average of 1.25 million dollars just to get that song played on the radio. That's not counting the cost of actually producing the song.

On the other hand, technological changes in music production have simultaneously upped the ante for independent music. Songfight is as good an example as any. All it will take is for one genius to emerge here and suddenly Songfight is like BBC Radio 1, or mp3.com, or any other formerly-cool-now-ruined thing.

Not to knock anyone or anything. It's the natural progression of things. Stuff is relatively unknown by a small group of folks who "get it", and lo and behold, everyone else starts to "get it", and it becomes huge. Jazz, hip-hop, grunge, punk, the peace sign, Star Trek, CB Radio, happens over and over.

Music history has always been about big names becoming well-known and influential and changing the direction of musical development. We can all point to the Bachs and the Armstrongs and the Beatles blah blah blah, but it seems to me that for the time being, at least, that trend is dying out. With the ease of production and sheer volume of music being disseminated, perhaps our musical legacy will be more democratic than it has been, with trends shifting imperceptibly by a large number of independent musicians (independent in the sense that they are not associated with one another). It seems that digital music production and the internet are the Bach of our time. Surely they've done more to advance music than any individual artists have.

And I wonder if there's really been a single majorly influential single musician or group since the Beatles (or maybe not even them). Maybe Nirvana, but I don't think so. Early hip-hop artists as a group, perhaps. But except for some electronic instrumentation, very few if any songs on Songfight would sound very out of place in 1968. But what WOULD be wholly remarkable to them would be the fact that we can produce them in our bedrooms all by ourselves and get people to hear them for free by moving our finger around on a little mouse device.

I don't know, it's as if music history has been this river flowing down the hill, and all of a sudden we've hit a big wide savannah and the water has flattened out into innumerable tiny rivulets all going their own way yet also all heading in vaguely the same direction. Or maybe not.