Dad bands

[jimiv]

 

And when I listen to it just for the MUSIC, it's no more special than the music from any other era.

 

 

Can't agree with that.....at all. As a musician, I had to learn a lot of songs that I wasn't getting "laid to" or that I wasn't having a personal connection with while I was playing them. So if you take out the "personal connection" years for me (70s, 80s), hands down this decade and what I am hearing from the coming one just aren't cutting it when compared to at least the last four, if not five decades of music. Like I said, I don't necessarily know why I don't like it. I just don't. Again, as a guitar player maybe I am disinterested because of the lesser role guitar plays these days, but nevertheless, it just doesn't interest me,...musically.

[bigboy78]

Yeah, but who really cares about that except the people who lived through it or history buffs? There's always a bit of fascination some younger people have with older eras---but that doesn't really change either. I remember in the 80s a LOT of kids thought the 60s was cool. (20 years earlier....go figure). I remember the first time, in the late 80s I met a young (about 15) girl who was just fascinated that I had lived through the 70s. She thought the 70s were just the coolest time EVER. I remember being aghast because, up until then, we all pretty much thought the 70s, with all the bad hair and fashion and gas lines and Vietnam, was like the biggest joke and WORST time period we could possibly think of. It was about two years later that disco became cool again and there started to be big money for bands willing to put on 70s clothes and wigs and play KC and the Sunshine Band songs. But had any band tried to that around '87 or earlier? They'd have been laughed out of town.

 

 

I support the theory of a 20 year buffer before music/fashion becoms "cool" again. Now I am old enough to remember the first time it was cool. In my late teens (and still today) I was all about 70's and Disco. This was the late 90s. It started as a joke, safari suits, flares, tight shirts and daggy dancing and it slowly just became the fashion.

 

I can see the same thing happeing with the 80s vibe around now. I'm sure the people who experience Disco first hand couldn't beleive it made a comeback. I can't beleive the 80s could ever be considerd worth a repeat.........until you start remembering the great pop music that came out in the 80s - Police, Duran Duran, Wham, U2 (when they were good).

 

The 90s will be next. People are already being "funny" with Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer etc

 

In 1975 a '65 impala was just an old car. It takes a while for something to be appreciated as being something more than an OLD song.

[gspointer]

With out the beatles hitting these shores in 1964 and the garage band revolution ,, this msg board would not exist. I cut off the golden era at 1970 with the death of hendrix. Lots of good music followed and preceeded this , but guy just because you were too young for it ,,, those were the golden years of rock. woodstock was the peak.

 

 

I would go a few years past 1970, but I agree with this.

[SeniorBlues]

 

I further I suspect that most of whoever was 15-25 during each decade would prefer THAT decade to the other.

 

 

Yes, but I thought the whole point was that we are making an attempt to try to evaluate music of an era more objectively than on nostalgia. The classics you refer to are not necessarily intrinsically better songs.

[Vito Corleone]

Yes, but I thought the whole point was that we are making an attempt to try to evaluate music of an era more objectively than on nostalgia. The classics you refer to are not necessarily intrinsically better songs.

 

 

They aren't. That's my point. There are as many classics from the 40s as from the 50s. Neither era is objectively better from any measure I can think of.

[jimiv]

You know, now the more I am thinking about this there is some newer stuff that I really like..... Muse, Kings of Leon, Killers...etc., so maybe its the dance top 40 that I'm being asked to play at the venues we are playing at that I don't like. So just disregard my rant on the last decade. hahahaha.

[Vito Corleone]

I'll take this on. MY JHS/HS period was from '59-65. I played in bands starting in '63. I listened to a lot of music on the radio, records, etc. Pop rock during that era was fun, but had little staying power. I was listening to classical, jazz (on a limited basis), musicals, and, of course, rock and soul, but pop/rock music didn't get interesting for me until the late sixties/early seventies. So while I'm nostalgic about 1964 when I was in HS, no way would I hold up that year as a pinnacle of R&R. Fast forward through the decades . . . I cherry pick the music I like and it comes from many eras, but it's rarely the pop culture stuff produced for the 14-yr-olds. Show me a song that you think will be covered my multiple artists and multiple genres and I'll show you a song that has meat on its bones.

 

 

I don't think that just because you stretch out your personal "classic" period a few years beyond HS really disproves my point. I would suspect MOST musicians have a bit "later-than-HS" definition because most of us don't really get our groove on musically until we're a bit more refined in our playing abilities and culturally-speaking most musicians don't peak with the Big Touchdown at the Homecoming Game like so many non-musicians do. And as musicians, a lot of what we define as the "classic" period will have a lot to do with what we like to play stylisitically as well.

 

My personal "classic" period is the early 80s when I was in my early/mid 20s. As a keyboardist, the technology was changing so rapidly it was mind-boggling. Every trip to record store was a revelation for me because all of the new sounds coming from the keyboard and recording technology was nearly impossible to keep up with. As a budding songwriter and working in recording studios it was just a crazy time. New records coming out during that time from the likes of Howard Jones, Tears for Fears and Yes were just jaw-dropping for me.

 

But does the fact that there haven't been a ton covers of songs like "Things Can Only Get Better", "Everybody Wants To Rule The World" or "Owner of A Lonely Heart" mean those songs don't have meat on their bones? Heck, I'd go so far as to say that those original versions are so nearly-perfect that there's no POINT in covering those songs.

[SeniorBlues]

 

They aren't. That's my point. There are as many classics from the 40s as from the 50s. Neither era is objectively better from any measure I can think of.

 

 

You were trying to elevate the 50s to the 40s as classics. That's the decade I was referring to. . . . and I'm not limiting my comparison to the most popular selections of the decade.

[SeniorBlues]

I don't think that just because you stretch out your personal "classic" period a few years beyond HS really disproves my point. I would suspect MOST musicians have a bit "later-than-HS" definition because most of us don't really get our groove on musically until we're a bit more refined in our playing abilities and culturally-speaking most musicians don't peak with the Big Touchdown at the Homecoming Game like so many non-musicians do. And as musicians, a lot of what we define as the "classic" period will have a lot to do with what we like to play stylisitically as well. My personal "classic" period is the early 80s when I was in my early/mid 20s. As a keyboardist, the technology was changing so rapidly it was mind-boggling. Every trip to record store was a revelation for me because all of the new sounds coming from the keyboard and recording technology was nearly impossible to keep up with. As a budding songwriter and working in recording studios it was just a crazy time. New records coming out during that time from the likes of Howard Jones, Tears for Fears and Yes were just jaw-dropping for me. But does the fact that there haven't been a ton covers of songs like "Things Can Only Get Better", "Everybody Wants To Rule The World" or "Owner of A Lonely Heart" mean those songs don't have meat on their bones? Heck, I'd go so far as to say that those original versions are so nearly-perfect that there's no POINT in covering those songs.

 

 

I think is it significant that you switched the playing field from sentimental attachment during HS to a later period focused on musical growth.

 

I'm not as familiar with your musical growth era, but don't you think it compares favorably to other eras - such as the current one - for the reasons you mentioned? Just because it's your era, doesn't mean it is disqualified from being a cut above many other eras.

[jimiv]

 

"Owner of A Lonely Heart" mean those songs don't have meat on their bones? Heck, I'd go so far as to say that those original versions are so nearly-perfect that there's no POINT in covering those songs.

 

 

Yeah, I think that whole album was about as perfect of a studio production as you could get.

[twostone]

Who cares how old the songs are? Why is everyone so hung up on setlist???? Play freaking great, have a focus to what you do, remember it is a visual medium to some degree too, lay it down hard and solid... and you'll get people coming to your shows. Don't and you won't. A couple years ago when I was leaving the NAMM show for the day, I heard Deep Purple's Space Truckin' bouncing of the outside walls of all the buildings. I followed the sound and... ...there was a band. Playing 70's classic rock. They were made up of 35 year olds, obviously professional musicians. Hip. Together. These were the guys you might see in Beck's touring band or behind Colbie Caillat. LA locals. THEY KICKED ASS. Feelin' Alright by Joe Cocker. On and on. Boring old fart music. Right? No way. B3 and Wurly. Two guitars of the era. Fender, Marshall, Gibson. A guy playing a P-Bass into an SVT. Tight, 5 peice vintage Gretch kit tuned and finessed by a talented pro. Drummer and bassist tighter than a gnat's ass. Boring right? I don't care, nor does any crowd care, if the songs are 40 years old or from yesterday. If they are played with real skill and passion, like the Tedeschi Trucks Band I saw last night playing some Sly Stone for fun, that's going to pack floors and sell booze just as much as a Lady Gaga cover. The distinction is whether you suck or not. Whether you're paying attention to your audience. Whether you're using your considerable skill to turn them on or jack off. Setlist? Whatever. Just be great and be able to get them dancing. Don't be passable, get off your ass and get great. You telling me Space Truckin' isn't a dance song? It sure as hell was for this band and their appreciative audience. You telling me those dads would've been better if they busted into Nickleback? Who cares? If they weren't great, they weren't great. No amount of My Chemical Romance or the latest Adele is going to fix that. Why do people think so?

Excellent post bro I seen a dad band that kick major butt. Played stuff like Styx, Rush, Head East, Yes, Deep Purple which the old white hair KB player blew me away because he nailed KB solo on Highway Star. They might not have jump around like fish out of water but you definitely could tell they had the energy and put their heart in soul into what they were covering.

[Vito Corleone]

You were trying to elevate the 50s to the 40s as classics. That's the decade I was referring to. . . . and I'm not limiting my comparison to the most popular selections of the decade.

 

 

Well, that's why I asked "on what terms". If you want to talk about how many songs from each decade are still around and in use today? I'd have to see something to show me one decade surpasses another. I would suspect the 50s would win out slightly on those terms simply because there are more people still alive from that era than from the 40s who WANT to hear that stuff.

 

If you want to talk about which has more songs that are somehow "better'? Well, that's a subjective term, at best. The 40s was certainly a better era for sophisticated jazz/pop tunes (although there were a lot of great songs in that genre from the 50s as well) because the advent of rock n roll pretty much killed the jazz/pop era. There are a lot of people (most of whom are dead now probably) who think Elvis killed music and there hasn't been a damned thing written worth listening to since 1954. As far as pop-radio type songs go, I think the 50s win out because that early rock n roll stuff is superior to a lot of the scmaltzly pop of the late 40s/early 50s (one of the reasons for the rise of rock n roll in the first place. One thing interesting about those two lists I posted is notice how much the 40s list is dominated by early 40s stuff and how much the 50s list is dominated by late 50s stuff. The post war years up until rock n roll were pretty drecky.) As far as county music goes, I prefer the 50s to the 40s by far. But a lot of that is just personal opinion. I don't really know how one would apply an objective measure to any of that.

[Vito Corleone]

Yeah, I think that whole album was about as perfect of a studio production as you could get.

 

 

That whole album was so good it scared me. First of all, it was from Yes who I had written off as a boring prog-rock-hippie band years ago. And here they were with the most up-to-date and modern sounding album at the time. The production was just on another level. The horn stabs and drum break in "Owner" was the first time I had ever heard samples used in that way. Those horn stabs are cliche now, but back then? I had NO idea what the {censored} it was or how they did that. The guy who was our sound man at the time came the closest in calling it when he said "it sounds to me like they took horn punches off an old James Brown record." I hadn't a clue how they would even DO something like that. Let alone use it musicially in a song.

 

GREAT record.

[TIMKEYS]

I would go a few years past 1970, but I agree with this.

 

 

I can see that, but I tend to consider that music as another era. You had crossover country,southern rock, and then things evolved into the hair band arena rock. After that , things kind of blend together and become un remarkable musically. country music has been stealing the show in my opinion since the hair bands.

[jimiv]

 

That whole album was so good it scared me. First of all, it was from Yes who I had written off as a boring prog-rock-hippie band years ago. And here they were with the most up-to-date and modern sounding album at the time. The production was just on another level. The horn stabs and drum break in "Owner" was the first time I had ever heard samples used in that way. Those horn stabs are cliche now, but back then? I had NO idea what the {censored} it was or how they did that. The guy who was our sound man at the time came the closest in calling it when he said "it sounds to me like they took horn punches off an old James Brown record." I hadn't a clue how they would even DO something like that. Let alone use it musicially in a song. GREAT record.

 

 

Yeah, I listened to that record over and over again when it came out. I still stop whatever I'm doing now and turn the radio up when I hear it come on (which is like, never these days).

[TIMKEYS]

LOL. I wasn't too young for the music. Unlike you, I listen to a lot of music beyond what was hip during my youth. I probably know most 60s music and bands as well as you do. In case you didn't notice, pretty much every hit song recorded during the last 100 years is available on CD these days. What I AM too young for is to have any sort of personal "growing up" experiences with music from that era. I was getting laid to different songs from a different era. So I probably have a more objective view of the music from that era than you do. Because when I hear it, I hear it just for the MUSIC, not because it has any special cultural or personal meaning in my life. Note that you mentioned as the "peak" a cultural event and rock concert. No new music was written during Woodstock. No new bands were formed. In fact, most of the music performed during it sucked because most of the musicians were too {censored}ed up to play well. Maybe YOU can't separate the music from the cultural events of the era, but I can. And when I listen to it just for the MUSIC, it's no more special than the music from any other era.

 

 

dude there wasnt much in the way of rock and roll before my youth. As a little kid i was riding around in a 55 T bird , and it was a new one lol. As for woodstock ,,, after that concert things started to change musically. It was a turning point for alot of reasons. Its one of those things that you really had to be old enough to have had a draft card in your pocket to understand.

[troyguitar]

I should probably note that I think tons of great stuff has been made since 1990, but basically none of it has ever been on the radio.

 

What popular rock band today can compare to Queen or Journey? What pop star rivals Michael Jackson?

 

Hell, what radio station would have the guts to play Bohemian Rhapsody if it came out tomorrow?

[tlbonehead]

I should probably note that I think tons of great stuff has been made since 1990, but basically none of it has ever been on the radio. What popular rock band today can compare to Queen or Journey? What pop star rivals Michael Jackson? Hell, what radio station would have the guts to play Bohemian Rhapsody if it came out tomorrow?

Journey???

[jimiv]

 

Journey???

 

 

I dunno man, Steve Perry was a hell of a singer.

[Vito Corleone]

I think is it significant that you switched the playing field from sentimental attachment during HS to a later period focused on musical growth.

 

 

Because it's significant whether we're talking about musicians or people in general. But it's a mistake, of course, to apply broad generalizations. People will always go out of their way to point out exceptions. But to say people prefer music from significant personal periods of their youth to other eras really isn't some big revelation that just hit me. It's pretty much common sense. They don't about music being the "soundtrack to our lives" for nothing.

 

 

I'm not as familiar with your musical growth era, but don't you think it compares favorably to other eras - such as the current one - for the reasons you mentioned? Just because it's your era, doesn't mean it is disqualified from being a cut above many other eras.

 

 

Absolutely. My point is ALL these eras are probably objective equal on balance. Even if some of their strengths may lie in areas that are of personal preference to some of us. I love the 80s for the reasons I mentioned---well those factors are likely never to come back again so if I insist on measuring great music on the types of technological advances that took place during that era, obviously that era will never be duplicated. Some mentioned they dislike modern music because there isn't a lot of guitar in it. Well, yeah--if guitar is how you define great music, modern stuff sucks eggs. If you need a big cultural event like a war to be the backdrop for the effectiveness of great music, it's going to be hard to beat the 40s or the 60s.

 

My point is simply that we need to be careful when singling out some era or style of music as "superior" to others that we be careful to try and separate our personal biases. Not all of our audiences grew up in the same eras that we did. So it MIGHT just be possible that they won't agree with me that Yes' 90125 album kicks ass.

[Vito Corleone]

I should probably note that I think tons of great stuff has been made since 1990, but basically none of it has ever been on the radio.

 

 

A lot of great stuff wasn't really on the radio back in the day either. One of the cool things about bands like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd was you probably first heard it in your friends' parents' basement or blasting out of some dudes El Camino on 8-track at a kegger. You'll note that that Top Hits of 1971 list posted earlier did NOT include "Stairway to Heaven".

[tlbonehead]

I dunno man, Steve Perry was a hell of a singer.

yeah, so is Michael Bolton.

[SeniorBlues]

My point is ALL these eras are probably objective equal on balance. Even if some of their strengths may lie in areas that are of personal preference to some of us. I love the 80s for the reasons I mentioned---well those factors are likely never to come back again so if I insist on measuring great music on the types of technological advances that took place during that era, obviously that era will never be duplicated.

 

 

Well it's probably true that all of us - musicians and non - aren't using the same yardsticks. Technological developments made a difference to us as performing keyboard players, but it doesn't really effect the quality of a chart that can be interpreted many ways. I can appreciate a great production, but if it suffers when you try to break it down and put it back together, then I don't think the song itself has the same value.

 

And I'm not sure you really meant to imply that early fifties pop music should be elevated to the same "objective" standards - by any measure that I can think of - to that of most other eras.

[jimiv]

yeah, so is Michael Bolton.

 

I've heard Bolton sing acapella, and it wasn't pretty (IMHO of course).

[Vito Corleone]

Well it's probably true that all of us - musicians and non - aren't using the same yardsticks. Technological developments made a difference to us as performing keyboard players, but it doesn't really effect the quality of a chart that can be interpreted many ways. I can appreciate a great production, but if it suffers when you try to break it down and put it back together, then I don't think the song itself has the same value.

 

 

Technology has been intertwined with music since the invention of the first instrument. Do some Bach pieces suffer as compostitions because they only really shine on the harpsichord? Amplification and record technology changed everything. A good singer used to be defined, in large part, by how well they could project. The loudspeaker was invented and suddenly Bing Crosby--a guy who probably couldn't be heard 10 feet away using his natural voice--was the biggest singing star on the planet. The Marshall amp is invented and suddenly Jimi Hendrix--a guy making his mark using feedback and distortion--is considered a "groundbreaking" guitarist.

 

I get what you're saying about how a 'great' song is one that can be played in a multitude of ways, but that's only one measure. Simply because a song might be defined by the particular technology that was used to compose/record it doesn't necessarily make it inferior to some 3 chord charlie that has been covered a gazillion times in different genres.