Why were the 80's so bad for a lot of these bands and acts in the 60's? Was it that they couldn't change with the times? When they did change, was it that fans weren't accepting of the changes? A lot of the output of these bands was subpar (Dirty Work, The Who's it's Hard and Face Dances, most of Dylan's music, even Floyd's Momentary Lapse of Reason (while popular at the time, is still not that great in retrospect)). Why was this, its not as if these bands lost their talent overnight and couldn't still play or write good music. It seems that few bands from the previous decade and a half still had success in the 80's (Queen, Aerosmith, even Bowie to an extant). So why were the 80's so dismal?

Music sucked between Jan 1st 1980 through Dec 31st 1989 I understand what you are saying. I think the fad of drum machines had a lot to do with it.

Record company influence had a lot to do with it as well as the explosion of music technology, imo. Production techniques and synth and keyboard driven instrumentation and "sell out for the money" mentality. There were 60's artists like Stevie Winwood and Peter Gabriel who achieved their greatest success in the 80's.

You make it sound like they all improved again in the 90's, (OK Dylan did), the creative peak for these 60s/70s acts was long over

I blame MTV. Music wasn't about music anymore, it was about fashion. Took 10years to get over that and back to music!

Simple, music itself had basically peaked. This is all personal very subjective taste, but I say the peak of music started slowly in the late forties to early fifties, was there by 1955-6, and lasted through the early seventies-say 1971-72. I think the seventies had a lot good to great music but things slowly got more and more indulgent and "marketed" with disco and artists now taking themselves too seriously messing up a lot of things. By the eighties, music, again this is to my ears, was past it's prime.

The last records I could put in my top 500 let alone 100 came out 1980-81.For example, the last Stones record I really return to is Tattoo You, I dislike the tour of 1981-82, but the album is good...maybe because most of it is older. Though I saw them once so I could say I saw them, I "just say no" to the Vegas Stones live. However on vinyl I am a little more open. For example I think a few things on Wondering Spirit or Keith's solo records are OK. A couple scattered group recordings are too, but I can't get "into" them deeply like I can the best 1963-78 stuff. I just never play more then a few times because I would rather track down boots of old music or footage I still don't have. None of this is to piss of anybody, just I have roughly twenty artists I am pretty hard core about so I only focus on the periods I really enjoy.

To sum me up listening wise, I am now 39 and just enjoy so much of what went on during roughly the first 25 years of rock and roll. Years I missed, but have studied avidly since the age of 5. There's a handful of things that are OK since then, but nothing I "love".

The eighties simply marks when what I consider the best artists began to run out of ideas, or had already died. Even more strongly, the basic quality of sound just began to go backwards through the lie that is digital. All of this is subjective as hell, but it's just like rock and roll electric blues, country, folk, even gospel, were evolving, evolving, evolving, then suddenly took a right turn and got stupid. No offense to any new music lovers, I can dig that people have done solid roots music since then that is sincere, but it isn't new or fresh. I just happen to dig a certain era and time.

Quote
kovach
I blame MTV. Music wasn't about music anymore, it was about fashion. Took 10years to get over that and back to music!

Your right Video was more important than the music in 80's although I have to give The Police some credits music wise...

__________________________

Quote
kovach
I blame MTV. Music wasn't about music anymore, it was about fashion. Took 10years to get over that and back to music!

I agree with that, presentation became more important than content.

But today its even worse. In the 80s the charts were dominated by Duran Duran, A-Ha and other Synthie-poppers. Today its Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, Selena Gomez, Justin Bieber, One Direction. Its not about fashion anymore, its more about wearing lesser and lesser clothes...

Thats not really an improvement, imo.

Quote
Naturalust
Record company influence had a lot to do with it as well as the explosion of music technology, imo. Production techniques and synth and keyboard driven instrumentation and "sell out for the money" mentality. There were 60's artists like Stevie Winwood and Peter Gabriel who achieved their greatest success in the 80's.

I definitely agree with this assessment. The heavy use of synths, keyboards, drum machines, etc. made a lot of bands from the '60s and '70s feel the need to adapt to modern production, and for most, it was simply NOT a good fit. They sounded forced and silly trying on the latest flavor of the month.

When the '80s fever broke in '91 and Nirvana and the Seattle scene made it cool to sound retro, raw and stripped down, most of the artists from the '60s and '70s were intantly given a new lease on life.

Compare the huge difference between the Stones '89 and the Stones '94...during Steel Wheels, they were still tinkering with synths and a bright, reverb-heavy drum sound. By '94, it was COOL to sound like a raw, sloppy bar band again.

Quote
kovach
I blame MTV. Music wasn't about music anymore, it was about fashion. Took 10years to get over that and back to music!

However, for some years MTV in contrast also supplied "120 Minutes", which covered the alternative scenes. So the complicated situation for a band like the Rolling Stones was a split between a commercialized "overground" and a more or less "underground" of (also more and less) separate independent scenes.

However, before DIRTY WORK, the Rolling Stones delivered UNDERCOVER. Blame the customers for the reception that album received. Negative incentives for the band.

Well. In addition to all good causes listed above, one must note that the material from which bands are made of - i.e. "The people" - were growing up as well. These people lived an extensive life together - sleepless nights, living in tour buses and planes. Making a lot of money but at the end being left with very little. Nights at the studio, sharing girlfriends, getting drunk together and all the rest of what we get to see the 1970s to represent. There were now in their late 30s or into their 40s - how many of us still want to hang out with our hoard of old friends at this age? Many were now married for the 2nd time - this time properly. Kids, aging parents, getting out of drug and alcohol addictions that left quite a few old mates dead of completely broken. John Lennon murdered in a scenario that seemed impossible to happen back then. It is not a coincidence that so many "Dinosaur" bands stopped being creative at this time: either getting into the freezer, or completely breaking up. The 80s were THE time to enjoy your money. Everything became cleaner and smoother. They just did not have the energy to continue.

The bigger question is what happened in 1989/90 that brought back to life so many of those artists and bands?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-19 18:23 by Wroclaw.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Naturalust
Record company influence had a lot to do with it as well as the explosion of music technology, imo. Production techniques and synth and keyboard driven instrumentation and "sell out for the money" mentality. There were 60's artists like Stevie Winwood and Peter Gabriel who achieved their greatest success in the 80's.

I definitely agree with this assessment. The heavy use of synths, keyboards, drum machines, etc. made a lot of bands from the '60s and '70s feel the need to adapt to modern production, and for most, it was simply NOT a good fit. They sounded forced and silly trying on the latest flavor of the month.

When the '80s fever broke in '91 and Nirvana and the Seattle scene made it cool to sound retro, raw and stripped down, most of the artists from the '60s and '70s were intantly given a new lease on life.

Compare the huge difference between the Stones '89 and the Stones '94...during Steel Wheels, they were still tinkering with synths and a bright, reverb-heavy drum sound. By '94, it was COOL to sound like a raw, sloppy bar band again.

And then there was the MTV 'Unplugged' series which began in '89 and brought out great sets from Clapton, Dylan, Neil Young, Rod Stewart (w/Ronnie), and even Nirvana, along with many others.
There was also the Page/Plant project 'Un-Ledded' that was very successful. While not all of these were literally 100% 'unplugged' acoustic performances, it was definitely a backlash against all the slick '80's production crap. As a by-product of the series, The Rolling Stones' came out with Stripped in 1995. So while we can blame MTV for alot of crappy bands, video's, fashion, etc., we should also give them a little credit for reversing some of the trends in which they started.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

The Stones released 5 LPs in the 1980s, 3 of which were actually recorded in the 1980s. So when you look at it that way, UNDERCOVER is genius and STEEL WHEELS is somewhat decent. The other one, not worth talking about.

UNDERCOVER encompassed all that was going on with new things in the studio tech wise. Alright, fine. DIRTY WORK was a perfection of that in a reserved way. At least the songs on U were good. On DW they're awful, for the most part. And the production (and mix) ruined the some of the decent songs. SW was a return to the studio without the tech trickery.

Perhaps that's why SW is heralded as it is - or was.

Quote
Wroclaw
Well. In addition to all good causes listed above, one must note that the material from which bands are made of - i.e. "The people" - were growing up as well. These people lived an extensive life together - sleepless nights, living in tour buses and planes. Making a lot of money but at the end being left with very little. Nights at the studio, sharing girlfriends, getting drunk together and all the rest of what we get to see the 1970s to represent. There were now in their late 30s or into their 40s - how many of us still want to hang out with our hoard of old friends at this age? Many were now married for the 2nd time - this time properly. Kids, aging parents, getting out of drug and alcohol addictions that left quite a few old mates dead of completely broken. John Lennon murdered in a scenario that seemed impossible to happen back then. It is not a coincidence that so many "Dinosaur" bands stopped being creative at this time: either getting into the freezer, or completely breaking up. The 80s were THE time to enjoy your money. Everything became cleaner and smoother. They just did not have the energy to continue.

The bigger question is what happened in 1989/90 that brought back to life so many of those artists and bands?

Well, like I and other said...Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and other bands from the alternative and grunge scenes were paying direct homage to bands of the '60s and '70s, and brought back a renewed appreciation for a classic rock'n'roll sound that was raw and real.

It's amazing how quickly the popular mood changed when Nirvana broke big. It seemed like we went from the polished glam rock of Poison and Warrant to the flannel and stringy hair of Kurt Cobain in the blink of an eye.1

The '80s were really a backlash to the classic rock period, while the '90s embraced and celebrated it. Of course fads are cyclical, so there was enough distance between the '90s and the '60s/'70s for younger kids to be curious about it, while in the '80s it was still a recent enough period that it was decidedly uncool.

Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones released 5 LPs in the 1980s, 3 of which were actually recorded in the 1980s. So when you look at it that way, UNDERCOVER is genius and STEEL WHEELS is somewhat decent. The other one, not worth talking about.

UNDERCOVER encompassed all that was going on with new things in the studio tech wise. Alright, fine. DIRTY WORK was a perfection of that in a reserved way. At least the songs on U were good. On DW they're awful, for the most part. And the production (and mix) ruined the some of the decent songs. SW was a return to the studio without the tech trickery.

Perhaps that's why SW is heralded as it is - or was.

I agree, but SW still very much feels like a product of the '80s. Hallmarks of '80s production are all over it. It's obviously not as dated sounding as Undercover or Dirty Work, but when I listen to SW, I instantly get an '80s vibe from it.

Quote
keefriff99

It's amazing how quickly the popular mood changed when Nirvana broke big. It seemed like we went from the polished glam rock of Poison and Warrant to the flannel and stringy hair of Kurt Cobain in the blink of an eye

I got the feeling Nirvana attracted fans from the mainstream : poeple who were listening to utter crap and who suddenly found "legitimization" by jumping on the Nirvana wagon.
To me Nirvana always was utter crap. I prefered Jane's Addiction, AIChains or the Pixies.

Quote
mikeeder
Simple, music itself had basically peaked. This is all personal very subjective taste, but I say the peak of music started slowly in the late forties to early fifties, was there by 1955-6, and lasted through the early seventies-say 1971-72. I think the seventies had a lot good to great music but things slowly got more and more indulgent and "marketed" with disco and artists now taking themselves too seriously messing up a lot of things. By the eighties, music, again this is to my ears, was past it's prime.

The last records I could put in my top 500 let alone 100 came out 1980-81.For example, the last Stones record I really return to is Tattoo You, I dislike the tour of 1981-82, but the album is good...maybe because most of it is older. Though I saw them once so I could say I saw them, I "just say no" to the Vegas Stones live. However on vinyl I am a little more open. For example I think a few things on Wondering Spirit or Keith's solo records are OK. A couple scattered group recordings are too, but I can't get "into" them deeply like I can the best 1963-78 stuff. I just never play more then a few times because I would rather track down boots of old music or footage I still don't have. None of this is to piss of anybody, just I have roughly twenty artists I am pretty hard core about so I only focus on the periods I really enjoy.

To sum me up listening wise, I am now 39 and just enjoy so much of what went on during roughly the first 25 years of rock and roll. Years I missed, but have studied avidly since the age of 5. There's a handful of things that are OK since then, but nothing I "love".

The eighties simply marks when what I consider the best artists began to run out of ideas, or had already died. Even more strongly, the basic quality of sound just began to go backwards through the lie that is digital. All of this is subjective as hell, but it's just like rock and roll electric blues, country, folk, even gospel, were evolving, evolving, evolving, then suddenly took a right turn and got stupid. No offense to any new music lovers, I can dig that people have done solid roots music since then that is sincere, but it isn't new or fresh. I just happen to dig a certain era and time.

I feel exactly the same - everything you wrote could be about me. We're roughly the same age and I remember the 80s music just passing me by when I was in my teenage years. Luckily my parents had some great records by the 60s Stones, Hendrix, Joplin etc, so I listened to that and I was hooked. The Beatles followed. Totally not my era and yet this is what I gravitated towards.

Quote
WeLoveYou

Quote
mikeeder
Simple, music itself had basically peaked. This is all personal very subjective taste, but I say the peak of music started slowly in the late forties to early fifties, was there by 1955-6, and lasted through the early seventies-say 1971-72. I think the seventies had a lot good to great music but things slowly got more and more indulgent and "marketed" with disco and artists now taking themselves too seriously messing up a lot of things. By the eighties, music, again this is to my ears, was past it's prime.

The last records I could put in my top 500 let alone 100 came out 1980-81.For example, the last Stones record I really return to is Tattoo You, I dislike the tour of 1981-82, but the album is good...maybe because most of it is older. Though I saw them once so I could say I saw them, I "just say no" to the Vegas Stones live. However on vinyl I am a little more open. For example I think a few things on Wondering Spirit or Keith's solo records are OK. A couple scattered group recordings are too, but I can't get "into" them deeply like I can the best 1963-78 stuff. I just never play more then a few times because I would rather track down boots of old music or footage I still don't have. None of this is to piss of anybody, just I have roughly twenty artists I am pretty hard core about so I only focus on the periods I really enjoy.

To sum me up listening wise, I am now 39 and just enjoy so much of what went on during roughly the first 25 years of rock and roll. Years I missed, but have studied avidly since the age of 5. There's a handful of things that are OK since then, but nothing I "love".

The eighties simply marks when what I consider the best artists began to run out of ideas, or had already died. Even more strongly, the basic quality of sound just began to go backwards through the lie that is digital. All of this is subjective as hell, but it's just like rock and roll electric blues, country, folk, even gospel, were evolving, evolving, evolving, then suddenly took a right turn and got stupid. No offense to any new music lovers, I can dig that people have done solid roots music since then that is sincere, but it isn't new or fresh. I just happen to dig a certain era and time.

I feel exactly the same - everything you wrote could be about me. We're roughly the same age and I remember the 80s music just passing me by when I was in my teenage years. Luckily my parents had some great records by the 60s Stones, Hendrix, Joplin etc, so I listened to that and I was hooked. The Beatles followed. Totally not my era and yet this is what I gravitated towards.

I am old enough to remember a time when the Beatles had not released Love Me Do. Still I disagree about those peak dates. They seem to neglect the treasures, which are to be found among post-punk bands. And my impression is that the quoted posts do not acknowledge "the third wave" of rock, that punk signalled. Recently, there was a thread that brought attention to all times great albums, which a site apparently registered votes for. Among the first 100 albums, I saw albums, that I myself have bought and loved, of a newer date than 1980, from the Pixies (DOOLITTLE) and Slowdive (SOUVLAKI) or immensely liked My Bloody Valentine (LOVELESS). Apart from those lists, there are careers of Joy Division/ New Order, Birthday Party / Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Sonic Youth that are central to me (even if I far from have completed my listening to all of their product earlier, but which is my most promising aim to do). Besides, I don't feel opposition as such to synth bands, although it is not my prime music; why mention Duran Duran and not instead Human League, which I accidentally listen to something from tonight?

[But then I am also one to consider the two last ( maybe, latest) albums of the Rolling Stones to border on the semi-great, while I see the more forward-looking UNDERCOVER, not TATTOO YOU, as the last GREAT Stones album (so far?).]

Much later edit: "date" instead of misprint "fate".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-20 11:44 by Witness.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Wroclaw
Well. In addition to all good causes listed above, one must note that the material from which bands are made of - i.e. "The people" - were growing up as well. These people lived an extensive life together - sleepless nights, living in tour buses and planes. Making a lot of money but at the end being left with very little. Nights at the studio, sharing girlfriends, getting drunk together and all the rest of what we get to see the 1970s to represent. There were now in their late 30s or into their 40s - how many of us still want to hang out with our hoard of old friends at this age? Many were now married for the 2nd time - this time properly. Kids, aging parents, getting out of drug and alcohol addictions that left quite a few old mates dead of completely broken. John Lennon murdered in a scenario that seemed impossible to happen back then. It is not a coincidence that so many "Dinosaur" bands stopped being creative at this time: either getting into the freezer, or completely breaking up. The 80s were THE time to enjoy your money. Everything became cleaner and smoother. They just did not have the energy to continue.

The bigger question is what happened in 1989/90 that brought back to life so many of those artists and bands?

Well, like I and other said...Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and other bands from the alternative and grunge scenes were paying direct homage to bands of the '60s and '70s, and brought back a renewed appreciation for a classic rock'n'roll sound that was raw and real.

It's amazing how quickly the popular mood changed when Nirvana broke big. It seemed like we went from the polished glam rock of Poison and Warrant to the flannel and stringy hair of Kurt Cobain in the blink of an eye.1

The '80s were really a backlash to the classic rock period, while the '90s embraced and celebrated it. Of course fads are cyclical, so there was enough distance between the '90s and the '60s/'70s for younger kids to be curious about it, while in the '80s it was still a recent enough period that it was decidedly uncool.

Thank you - thats a good explanation as for the question "what connected the younger generation back to classic rock", BUT the RS, Macca, The Who and YES mega tours of 1988-91 did not come as an aftershock of the Nirvana breakout. I remeber those years well as for me, personally, if was the first time when classic rock , touring and me met togather. There was some sort of, at least in the aspect of LIVE rock, a certain renaissance feeling.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones released 5 LPs in the 1980s, 3 of which were actually recorded in the 1980s. So when you look at it that way, UNDERCOVER is genius and STEEL WHEELS is somewhat decent. The other one, not worth talking about.

UNDERCOVER encompassed all that was going on with new things in the studio tech wise. Alright, fine. DIRTY WORK was a perfection of that in a reserved way. At least the songs on U were good. On DW they're awful, for the most part. And the production (and mix) ruined the some of the decent songs. SW was a return to the studio without the tech trickery.

Perhaps that's why SW is heralded as it is - or was.

I agree, but SW still very much feels like a product of the '80s. Hallmarks of '80s production are all over it. It's obviously not as dated sounding as Undercover or Dirty Work, but when I listen to SW, I instantly get an '80s vibe from it.

What are the "80s vibes" on songs like Sad Sad Sad, Mixed Emotions, Hold On To Your Hat, Blinded By Love, Almost Hear You Sigh, Break The Spell and Slipping Away? Those make a pretty integral and important part of the vibes from that album?

SW has the least amount of 80s sound to it of the three 80s albums. U sounds the best though.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Music sucked between Jan 1st 1980 through Dec 31st 1989

You were obviously listening to the wrong music

Quote
Koen

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Music sucked between Jan 1st 1980 through Dec 31st 1989

You were obviously listening to the wrong music

It was a difficult decade for lovers of raw rock and roll but there were certainly some gems that shone through it all. Those dates are a bit off when you consider Back In Black was released in the summer of 1980 and records like Bonnie Raitt's Nick of Time came in in 1989. There was also the rise of some Indie labels and bands to ease the pain somewhat.

Quote
dcba

Quote
keefriff99

It's amazing how quickly the popular mood changed when Nirvana broke big. It seemed like we went from the polished glam rock of Poison and Warrant to the flannel and stringy hair of Kurt Cobain in the blink of an eye

I got the feeling Nirvana attracted fans from the mainstream : poeple who were listening to utter crap and who suddenly found "legitimization" by jumping on the Nirvana wagon.
To me Nirvana always was utter crap. I prefered Jane's Addiction, AIChains or the Pixies.

I was never a huge Nirvana fan either, but I appreciate and respect the fact that they amd their cohorts gave the music industry a massive enema and ushered in an era of creativity where the alternative scene became mainstream for a time.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones released 5 LPs in the 1980s, 3 of which were actually recorded in the 1980s. So when you look at it that way, UNDERCOVER is genius and STEEL WHEELS is somewhat decent. The other one, not worth talking about.

UNDERCOVER encompassed all that was going on with new things in the studio tech wise. Alright, fine. DIRTY WORK was a perfection of that in a reserved way. At least the songs on U were good. On DW they're awful, for the most part. And the production (and mix) ruined the some of the decent songs. SW was a return to the studio without the tech trickery.

Perhaps that's why SW is heralded as it is - or was.

I agree, but SW still very much feels like a product of the '80s. Hallmarks of '80s production are all over it. It's obviously not as dated sounding as Undercover or Dirty Work, but when I listen to SW, I instantly get an '80s vibe from it.

What are the "80s vibes" on songs like Sad Sad Sad, Mixed Emotions, Hold On To Your Hat, Blinded By Love, Almost Hear You Sigh, Break The Spell and Slipping Away? Those make a pretty integral and important part of the vibes from that album?

There's just something about the sound of Steel Wheels that screams "80s" to me. Maybe it's the level of reverb on the vocals and the brightness of the snare, and the use of synths...much more subtle than on Undercover and Dirty Work, but still prominent enough to peg the album to a certain era.

True rockers were not well served in the 80's. Rock went from 75% of the market in the 70's to maybe 25% in the 80's. Even the popular rock of the time had a very indie rock sound. Jenny 8675309, My Sherona, Shattered etc. the other 80's rockers where commercial hard rockers.

Almost every chord progression and rock sound had been over explored and people wanted change and not listen to their parents music.

Rock has never recovered its market share nor will it ever. But it the only music that speaks to my 48 year old soul.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-20 17:14 by Markdog.

Quote
Wroclaw

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Wroclaw
Well. In addition to all good causes listed above, one must note that the material from which bands are made of - i.e. "The people" - were growing up as well. These people lived an extensive life together - sleepless nights, living in tour buses and planes. Making a lot of money but at the end being left with very little. Nights at the studio, sharing girlfriends, getting drunk together and all the rest of what we get to see the 1970s to represent. There were now in their late 30s or into their 40s - how many of us still want to hang out with our hoard of old friends at this age? Many were now married for the 2nd time - this time properly. Kids, aging parents, getting out of drug and alcohol addictions that left quite a few old mates dead of completely broken. John Lennon murdered in a scenario that seemed impossible to happen back then. It is not a coincidence that so many "Dinosaur" bands stopped being creative at this time: either getting into the freezer, or completely breaking up. The 80s were THE time to enjoy your money. Everything became cleaner and smoother. They just did not have the energy to continue.

The bigger question is what happened in 1989/90 that brought back to life so many of those artists and bands?

Well, like I and other said...Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and other bands from the alternative and grunge scenes were paying direct homage to bands of the '60s and '70s, and brought back a renewed appreciation for a classic rock'n'roll sound that was raw and real.

It's amazing how quickly the popular mood changed when Nirvana broke big. It seemed like we went from the polished glam rock of Poison and Warrant to the flannel and stringy hair of Kurt Cobain in the blink of an eye.1

The '80s were really a backlash to the classic rock period, while the '90s embraced and celebrated it. Of course fads are cyclical, so there was enough distance between the '90s and the '60s/'70s for younger kids to be curious about it, while in the '80s it was still a recent enough period that it was decidedly uncool.

Thank you - thats a good explanation as for the question "what connected the younger generation back to classic rock", BUT the RS, Macca, The Who and YES mega tours of 1988-91 did not come as an aftershock of the Nirvana breakout. I remeber those years well as for me, personally, if was the first time when classic rock , touring and me met togather. There was some sort of, at least in the aspect of LIVE rock, a certain renaissance feeling.

Why are you including Yes here? They were a dime a dozen band.

Quote
2000man
You make it sound like they all improved again in the 90's, (OK Dylan did), the creative peak for these 60s/70s acts was long over

It was a combo of the general 80s sound that was everywhere, MTV which destroyed music, and the artists from the 60s were out of Gas anyway.

I read where a reporter was trying to answer why great artists like the Stones,Beatle members and Dylan could write great songs when they are young but lose the ability when they get older. I saw him ask Jagger why that is. Jagger denied it and said they are still writing songs just as good but the audiences changes and the songs are not as well known..

I don't think so.

Quote
stanlove

Quote
Wroclaw

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Wroclaw
Well. In addition to all good causes listed above, one must note that the material from which bands are made of - i.e. "The people" - were growing up as well. These people lived an extensive life together - sleepless nights, living in tour buses and planes. Making a lot of money but at the end being left with very little. Nights at the studio, sharing girlfriends, getting drunk together and all the rest of what we get to see the 1970s to represent. There were now in their late 30s or into their 40s - how many of us still want to hang out with our hoard of old friends at this age? Many were now married for the 2nd time - this time properly. Kids, aging parents, getting out of drug and alcohol addictions that left quite a few old mates dead of completely broken. John Lennon murdered in a scenario that seemed impossible to happen back then. It is not a coincidence that so many "Dinosaur" bands stopped being creative at this time: either getting into the freezer, or completely breaking up. The 80s were THE time to enjoy your money. Everything became cleaner and smoother. They just did not have the energy to continue.

The bigger question is what happened in 1989/90 that brought back to life so many of those artists and bands?

Well, like I and other said...Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and other bands from the alternative and grunge scenes were paying direct homage to bands of the '60s and '70s, and brought back a renewed appreciation for a classic rock'n'roll sound that was raw and real.

It's amazing how quickly the popular mood changed when Nirvana broke big. It seemed like we went from the polished glam rock of Poison and Warrant to the flannel and stringy hair of Kurt Cobain in the blink of an eye.1

The '80s were really a backlash to the classic rock period, while the '90s embraced and celebrated it. Of course fads are cyclical, so there was enough distance between the '90s and the '60s/'70s for younger kids to be curious about it, while in the '80s it was still a recent enough period that it was decidedly uncool.

Thank you - thats a good explanation as for the question "what connected the younger generation back to classic rock", BUT the RS, Macca, The Who and YES mega tours of 1988-91 did not come as an aftershock of the Nirvana breakout. I remeber those years well as for me, personally, if was the first time when classic rock , touring and me met togather. There was some sort of, at least in the aspect of LIVE rock, a certain renaissance feeling.

Why are you including Yes here? They were a dime a dozen band.

Their "Union/Reunion" world tour was a success and quite paralel to the Macca, RS, The Who etc. mega tours of the time. Since I was just at the right age back then to celebrate that sudden live rock wakup, I remeber that all those names, touring the world during a couple of busy years, made one feel that something changed.

Quote
Witness

Quote
WeLoveYou

Quote
mikeeder
Simple, music itself had basically peaked. This is all personal very subjective taste, but I say the peak of music started slowly in the late forties to early fifties, was there by 1955-6, and lasted through the early seventies-say 1971-72. I think the seventies had a lot good to great music but things slowly got more and more indulgent and "marketed" with disco and artists now taking themselves too seriously messing up a lot of things. By the eighties, music, again this is to my ears, was past it's prime.

The last records I could put in my top 500 let alone 100 came out 1980-81.For example, the last Stones record I really return to is Tattoo You, I dislike the tour of 1981-82, but the album is good...maybe because most of it is older. Though I saw them once so I could say I saw them, I "just say no" to the Vegas Stones live. However on vinyl I am a little more open. For example I think a few things on Wondering Spirit or Keith's solo records are OK. A couple scattered group recordings are too, but I can't get "into" them deeply like I can the best 1963-78 stuff. I just never play more then a few times because I would rather track down boots of old music or footage I still don't have. None of this is to piss of anybody, just I have roughly twenty artists I am pretty hard core about so I only focus on the periods I really enjoy.

To sum me up listening wise, I am now 39 and just enjoy so much of what went on during roughly the first 25 years of rock and roll. Years I missed, but have studied avidly since the age of 5. There's a handful of things that are OK since then, but nothing I "love".

The eighties simply marks when what I consider the best artists began to run out of ideas, or had already died. Even more strongly, the basic quality of sound just began to go backwards through the lie that is digital. All of this is subjective as hell, but it's just like rock and roll electric blues, country, folk, even gospel, were evolving, evolving, evolving, then suddenly took a right turn and got stupid. No offense to any new music lovers, I can dig that people have done solid roots music since then that is sincere, but it isn't new or fresh. I just happen to dig a certain era and time.

I feel exactly the same - everything you wrote could be about me. We're roughly the same age and I remember the 80s music just passing me by when I was in my teenage years. Luckily my parents had some great records by the 60s Stones, Hendrix, Joplin etc, so I listened to that and I was hooked. The Beatles followed. Totally not my era and yet this is what I gravitated towards.

I am old enough to remember a time when the Beatles had not released Love Me Do. Still I disagree about those peak dates. They seem to neglect the treasures, which are to be found among post-punk bands. And my impression is that the quoted posts do not acknowledge "the third wave" of rock, that punk signalled. Recently, there was a thread that brought attention to all times great albums, which a site apparently registered votes for. Among the first 100 albums, I saw albums, that I myself have bought and loved, of a newer date than 1980, from the Pixies (DOOLITTLE) and Slowdive (SOUVLAKI) or immensely liked My Bloody Valentine (LOVELESS). Apart from those lists, there are careers of Joy Division/ New Order, Birthday Party / Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Sonic Youth that are central to me (even if I far from have completed my listening to all of their product earlier, but which is my most promising aim to do). Besides, I don't feel opposition as such to synth bands, although it is not my prime music; why mention Duran Duran and not instead Human League, which I accidentally listen to something from tonight?

[But then I am also one to consider the two last ( maybe, latest) albums of the Rolling Stones to border on the semi-great, while I see the more forward-looking UNDERCOVER, not TATTOO YOU, as the last GREAT Stones album (so far?).]

Much later edit: "date" instead of misprint "fate".

Well we simply have different tastes, I dig deep into the Sun Records catalog or the sixties mod bands,