| rkzenrage |
05-14-2006 10:51 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
I did not either! And that is my actual point.
In 1983 I was a complete prog freak and listened to nothing but Genesis Yes ELP and such.
In 1984 I started running the radio station, and my tastes changed dramatically after actively listening.
Musical taste changes. You are a little hard-wired to like specific forms because you are familiar with them. When you are actively listening, you become familiar with slightly different forms and the type of music that is acceptable to you expands.
I like music that is not simple. I was a prog freak because I believed that music had to be difficult in a certain direction. I did not know that much music is difficult in other directions. For example, when I was a prog freak, I didn't like Squeeze. After my tastes changed, they became my favorite act for a while. It turns out that much Squeeze is tremendously difficult to play live.* It's a, you can achieve the notes, but you won't achieve the feel, sort of thing.
At no time, during no particular years, are they "not making good music". What is "good" is more up to you than you think. It is not up to Bowie to put out a "good" record every single year, or for the music industry to not try selling you crap during a particular time. Every year thousands of albums are recorded... and now, with cheap home recording and techniques, the number is into the hundreds of thousands. They do not all suck just because the calendar year changes.
Proof B: the list of stuff I made varies tremendously in style, from the hard-ass Killing Joke, to the high artsy Kate Bush. The killer guitar riff is there, and so is the cheaper dancey stuff. It is all roughly "post rock" but if you think it all sucked, you are wrong. And if you think you can't enjoy it because it is not to your taste, you are also wrong.
*I would not have thought that Squeeze music is harder to accomplish than Yes or Rush or all those sorts, but it absolutely is. Paul Shaffer called their "853-5937" one of the hardest songs they ever had to do, and this is with one of the most accomplished "cover" bands in the world. And "853-5937" is a ridiculous little pop ditty. In a cover act I once tried to master "Hourglass" and ...oboy, forget about it. We had the advantage of a Berklee-trained musicologist and could do 80% of the song with MIDI. But forget about it, it was un-coverable because its basic feel could not be duplicated.
|
Ok, art is subjective and my post is too... true. We are going to have to leave that there. This thread is about how I do not like most of the music of that time with VERY few exceptions, hell even Queen put out their worst albums during those years.
If your above point is true, why has that music not stood the test of time like the rest, why do you not hear Tears for Fears on the radio all the time like the whole Back in Black album or most of jazz from the seventies and nineties? Because, though Spiro Jyra (sp) were amazingly talented, they had no heart & Herbie Hancock just embarrassed himself... along with the rest of the industry during those years. Alternative music was, for the most part just SAD, Mission UK was on top, good lord. Alternative music did not get a soul, a real voice until 88/89ish, IMO.
REM's golden age?... Sorry not for me... that started when they grew-up. Again, subjective... but what is standing the test of time and air-play?
I'm not saying the bands of that period had not talent, I'm saying they did not use it. |
