# Will there ever be music as good as or better than music from the late 1960's and early 1970's? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 25, 2015, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529 "2015-04-25T20:55:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/141 "2015-05-06T12:14:45Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > If you ask people to name the top ten greatest guitarist of all time, for many at least three lived within a very few miles of each other in south west London and all were born within 15 months of each other (Beck, Clapton, Paige). In the whole world? Really? > > How does your explanation also explain the exceptional talent pool? I think you overestimate the rarity of raw talent. Who do think is the best bass player between McCartney, Entwistle, Flea, Geddy Lee, Cliff Burton, John Paul Jones, or an 80 year old women? For my money, I’ll pick the 80 year old women…if her name is Carol Kaye. Typically, the most gifted musicians aren’t members of the bands you all know and listen too, they’re the session musicians hired to cut the tracks on your favorite band’s albums. They are the grunts whose names you don’t know who do the heavy lifting. Sure, the band musicians play on tour, in the stadiums where sound quality isn’t essential, but when the studio wants to cut a million dollar album they hire the most technically gifted musicians—and that does not usually include the band members. If you want a good view of what goes on behind the scenes, look at Carols [list of credits](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Kaye) (its mind boggling), [read her words](http://www.laweekly.com/music/carol-kaye-is-the-greatest-bass-player-you-probably-never-heard-of-5499694), and [see her in action](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMznvEgOPhU&hd=1). She was pretty hot, back in the day, too. And she’s just one example of many behind the scenes studio musicians who can mop the floor with the musicians they replace on albums. And for irony: many studio musicians write fantastic music that the studio then hires well known bands to play on tour, then have the studio musicians play again on the albums. That’s a close cousin to lip synching, if you ask me. I agree that Beck, Clapton and Paige are great and talented musicians, but I’m confident you could find 3 equally gifted session musicians in any major city. They just won’t be the ones who trash hotel rooms and have their faces plastered all over People Magazine (not that Beck, Clapton are Paige are hotel trashers…I’m just making a point). ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/142 "2015-05-06T12:21:52Z")
> [@Tibby or Not Tibby](#): > > I agree that Beck, Clapton and Paige are great and talented musicians, but I’m confident you could find 3 equally gifted session musicians in any major city. I admire your confidence. You may even be right. ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/143 "2015-05-06T12:55:51Z")
> [@Tibby or Not Tibby](#): > > For my money, I’ll pick the 80 year old women…if her name is Carol Kaye. > > Typically, the most gifted musicians aren’t members of the bands you all know and listen too, they’re the session musicians hired to cut the tracks on your favorite band’s albums. They are the grunts whose names you don’t know who do the heavy lifting. > > Sure, the band musicians play on tour, in the stadiums where sound quality isn’t essential, but when the studio wants to cut a million dollar album they hire the most technically gifted musicians—and that does not usually include the band members. > > If you want a good view of what goes on behind the scenes, look at Carols [list of credits](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Kaye) (its mind boggling), [read her words](http://www.laweekly.com/music/carol-kaye-is-the-greatest-bass-player-you-probably-never-heard-of-5499694), and [see her in action](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMznvEgOPhU&hd=1). She was pretty hot, back in the day, too. > > And she’s just one example of many behind the scenes studio musicians who can mop the floor with the musicians they replace on albums. On a side note, there was a thread here recently on Carol Kaye; part of the discussion was her tendency to self-aggrandize or invent credits for parts that she didn’t actually play. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/144 "2015-05-06T13:20:24Z")
At her age, large body of quality work and solid professional work ethic, I’ll forgive her some self-aggrandizing and forgetfulness. Considering she’s received a fraction of the fame and fortune of the people she’s played for or replaced, a little bragging is the least we should allow her. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/145 "2015-05-06T13:45:32Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > As soon as people unplug everything, destroy auto-tune and all the rest of the “corrective” software being relied upon, there will again be garage bands and someone will try a new chord sequence, maybe alter tempo. > When somebody learns what a “suite” is, there will be more experimentation. > > But basically, it’s money. > > We now have a generation which thinks music is something that is free or maybe cost a dollar. > > With that pay grade, expect a bunch of flat singing of maybe half an octave with yet another copy of “Video concept 132”. > > When the average teen has to save for 2 weeks and then decide which of the 5 albums she really wants will be the one she rides her bike to the record store and puts her money down, then music will again be valued. > > Popping a box out of your pocket, spending 4 minutes to download a bootleg MP3 puts a very low price on music. > > Maybe force NetFlix (Google) to pay scale for the music it plays, just as bars and dance halls will restore some value. This is ridiculous. First, Netflix doesn’t play music. Second, why _shouldn’t_ music cost a dollar? There was nothing about the music industry more irritating than buying a $10-$15 CD (or cassette, for that matter) only to find out that the song I liked was the only good song on the whole fucking thing (it was always track nine.) It’s certainly true that music sales are way, way down, but it’s hard to see how that ties in to what you assert is a lack of new ideas. Nobody dreaming of being in a band and making it big looks at RIAA press releases and decides to go to med school instead. At least at the outset, musicians are in it for the music (or the nookie), not the money. > [@Steophan](#): > > The idea that some of the great rock musicians didn’t start playing at a young age, or didn’t practice for hours a day, is a bit silly. I’d add [Yngwie Malmsteen](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5r-q8Kz9CI) and Dream Theater to your list (the members of the latter having met at Berklee College of Music.) ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/146 "2015-05-06T15:22:24Z")
Just to drive home a point I was trying to make upthread, in a somewhat humorous manner: I’m confident that if Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Liszt and Chopin were to have magically grown up together and formed a band, they could have been the greatest rock and roll band of all time. I’m confident to say that because: we know they were all genius composers and instrumental virtuosos. And starting as young as they did and practicing as much as they did, I believe they could have mastered any musical genre and instrument. Mozart and Beethoven would have been the Lennon/McCartney songwriters and rhythm and bass guitarists. Bach would be the B-3 Hammond/Leslie organist. Chopin would be drummer (just because we need someone who can groove and keep the beat). And Liszt would be lead guitarist. Not sure who would be lead singer—maybe they could take turns and sing harmony like the Beach Boys. Liszt’s blazing fingering would give Yngwie Malmsteen a run for his money. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/147 "2015-05-06T15:44:19Z")
It illustrates an interesting question: are prodigies born musical geniuses, or are they born genre-specific musical geniuses. I think it’s the former. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/148 "2015-05-06T17:05:05Z")
> [@Tibby or Not Tibby](#): > > Not so much the English PR machine as the American market’s unquenchable thirst for something new and exciting. > > Thats my point too. > > I was a guy who lived and breathed British bands, but I don’t believe the British Invasion was anything extraordinary with regard to an abundance of creativity and talent. It was more a case of being in the right place at the right time, good marketing and only a handful of real music geniuses and innovators. IOW, it wasn’t a case of having an extraordinary supply of extraordinary musicians; it was a case of having an extraordinary demand for a new craze and having a few musicians with enough talent to fill the demand and creating the wave other bands with less talent could ride. > A handful of geniuses and innovators. That’s what I said. It made the time a golden era to me. Marketing wasn’t going to sell DC5 records forever. The beatles, stones, kinks who, Bowie, Rod, Floyd etc. (The ones who are being heard today) is a huge number of innovators to come out of what you seem to be calling a fad. > > The craze was a UK revival of American born s[kiffle music](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skiffle) in the 50’s and early 60’s. Skiffle caught on fire in the UK because there were a lot of British youth playing it (skiffle music is easy to learn and the instruments are affordable for working class youth), and it became a fad with Brits for the same reason other things become fads (i.e. who knows why?). Recall the huge fad that Elvis Presley created a few years earlier with his gifted voice and scandalous gyrating hips. Elvis did have talent; a lot of Elvis imitators made it big afterward by riding his coattails, having much less talent. > > I think that now you’re just repeating things from history books. > > Many of you may not remember (or are too young to have learned) that the Beatles had stiff competition in the early stages of the British Invasion. The competition wasn’t from bands like the Who or the Rolling Stones, it was from the [Dave Clark 5](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dave_Clark_Five) (DC5). There were plenty of other British Bands topping the charts, too, with even less talent, like the Herman’s Hermits. DC5 put out a string of very catchy tunes, but they were not particularly giants of musical ability. > > This is not germane to the discussion. > Dave Clark himself and his keyboardist had raw musical talent but most of the groups talent was in the area of Dave’s excellent business sense. They rode the wave created by the Beatles. DC5’s flame dimmed as soon as the Beatles (real musical giants) were able to change the genre forever with Sgt. Pepper. The demand changed to that of the new sound and most of the skiffle type British Bands who didn’t have enough talent to change their sound faded from the charts. The demand for British Bands continued, but not for skiffle. Most bands that followed the Beatles could play the new sound (but probably couldn’t play skiffle very well). > > This is half history book and half “skiffle-centric” view of the world. Genres were changing forever I agree. > > The British bands that started the British Invasion were popular in Europe, but they didn’t really catch on global fire until the huge American Market took a shine to them and put them into the musical meat grinder. It could have been the Motown sound or even the [Philly](http://www.thatphillysound.com/artists/artists.html) [sound](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_soul) that caught fire, but it wasn’t—it was British skiffle bands followed by the new sound created by the Beatles. > > This is not the case. British bands were recruited to perform (Rock and Roll, not skiffle) around Europe but the scene as we know it did not exist. The beatles ripped it open, and the thing happened. The industry changed and the music changed, a lot of times, and not just from the beatles. They were listening to others too. The beatles etc had a huge influence on Motown and then later Philly, because the industry had grown around them. The influences don’t only go one way, from black to white. Would you go to a desert island with a motown LP? I’ll take the Beatles. They gave you 12 songs for your money and precious time. That’s why you hear all those songs today, not just the 45s. > > All those acts weren’t just lucky. They had passion and vision, and there were a LOT of them. > > Remarkable?, yes; extraordinary?, no. Is this a distinction without a difference or the opposite? ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/149 "2015-05-06T18:05:38Z")
To me, the question isn’t whether or not music was “better” or not, but rather that we’ve hit a wall as far as the ability to come up with new and innovative music. Thanks to the fact that the millions upon millions of songs written and recorded each year are all available in perpetuity, it’s vanishingly unlikely that anything that [insert current band here] will do is something that hasn’t been done at least 100 times before, both in terms of composition and emotional mood. Every single release is at this point a retread of ground trod upon by thousands of other musicians. Originality at this moment in musical history is an illusion\*\*\*\*\*. So, what does it even mean that a song is “better” or “worse” than another? How is it anything but a 100% subjective opinion? To me, there is something magically evocative about “Helplessly Hoping” (to pick a song referenced upthread). Are there songs “better” than it? Sure. Worse? Of course! But, Helplessly Hoping is the only song just like itself, and I have no reason to replace it in my catalog. (\*\*\*\*\*The exception to this are songs with lyrics that are about current events, or that manage to capture the unique zeitgeist of their time.) ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/150 "2015-05-06T18:40:36Z")
The problem is that to create great music you have to absorb a lot of what came before. If not it’s gonna suck. We have lots of proof of that. Otherwise you won’t know if you’re rehashing something else. If you’re gonna write Gloria again you’ve got to add something unique. Whenever a song is written that does remove something available to the palate of other songwriters. And we are many hundreds of thousands of songs down the line from the 70s. But if you’re a musician you cannot be told that what you do is not going to be original before you even do it. Nobody can say that. Originality can come any time now. If I have a unique progression and I play with passion and verve, it will be just as valid as 60/70s music. But when you’re writing you have to step around the giant songs that came before. That makes the job harder. Not impossible at all. Yes you cannot place numeric values on songs, and there is personal taste, but you just undermined your next assertion: Isn’t it your taste that tells you that there cant be originality any more? ---
**Author:** ![stillownedbysetters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/41988e/32.png) [@stillownedbysetters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stillownedbysetters)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/151 "2015-05-06T18:52:42Z")
I think the music of the '60s and some of the '70s (disco, leave the room) was pretty fabulous. But I can also say that completely truthfully about the music of the '90s, for example. It would be inexpressibly sad to me, a musician, to think that music had reached its peak 50 years ago and was never going to surpass it. It would make me hang up my instruments, for certain. I think that the reason the music stood out so much then is at least partially because it was such a 180 change from the music that came before it. There wasn’t nearly the divide in musical tastes between myself and my sons as there was between myself and my parents. My sons and I like a lot of the same music, and always have. I stay current, not just because I have to, but because I love to. And never forget, back in Mozart’s day, his music was ‘popular’ music and if they’d had radios, Mozart would have been in their top 40. Tastes change, and I’m sure we haven’t yet seen everything that music has to offer. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/152 "2015-05-06T18:56:01Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > No specific genre, no subcategories, no qualifications. **The best music in history, period.** Oh yes, I know. I just think that is a silly statement to make and I don’t agree. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/153 "2015-05-06T21:53:56Z")
I don’t know if anyone mentioned this yet, but in a brief 10 year period…we went from brilliant music by The Beatles to Elvis Costello. Simon and Garfunkel to Talking Heads. Jimi Hendrix to The B-52s. I probably couldn’t tell you the difference between music today and in 2005. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/154 "2015-05-06T22:36:33Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > I don’t know if anyone mentioned this yet, but in a brief 10 year period…we went from brilliant music by The Beatles to Elvis Costello. Simon and Garfunkel to Talking Heads. Jimi Hendrix to The B-52s. > > I probably couldn’t tell you the difference between music today and in 2005. I’m digging that. Can someone who said theres as much 80s 90s or oughts good stuff please give examples. I already know there were at least a half dozen great/or good bands per decade, but anything run deeper than that? If not then it’s not true. BTW On Wzbc Newton MA, 5-6 garage rock, 6-7 psych influenced period music every Wed. Today 5-6 they played Cambodian rock for the whole hour. Basically every band they played got murdered by pol Pot from 75-79. The influence is worldwide for 60s and 70s rock. All the sources of other musics, africa, south america, cuba, ESPECIALLY behind the iron curtain (and all authoritarian regimes.) !! all were beatles fans too. ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/155 "2015-05-06T23:28:10Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > I’m digging that. Can someone who said theres as much 80s 90s or oughts good stuff please give examples. I already know there were at least a half dozen great/or good bands per decade, but anything run deeper than that? If not then it’s not true. > > BTW > On Wzbc Newton MA, 5-6 garage rock, 6-7 psych influenced period music every Wed. Today 5-6 they played Cambodian rock for the whole hour. Basically every band they played got murdered by pol Pot from 75-79. The influence is worldwide for 60s and 70s rock. All the sources of other musics, africa, south america, cuba, ESPECIALLY behind the iron curtain (and all authoritarian regimes.) !! all were beatles fans too. I could name a ton of good “80’s” acts…problem is a lot of them got their start in the very late 70’s. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/156 "2015-05-07T00:32:01Z")
Well I don’t see you listing any. If you mean Van Halen, we probably are not going to agree on things. U2, saw them when they recorded that b side in Boston early on. Don’t see them as great. I saw the 80s as a HUGE disappointment. The Replacements, AC-DC, and the Wipers: there’s three I go with. There was this great book recently which listed one offs and new wavey bands from the 80s. Every one of the English bands thought they were really gods gift. Even after one lame hit and 30 years of rumination. It was hilarious. I have another theory about English rock and that is that it ended with the Sex Pistols. Can’t think of much that happened after. I’m not a fan of the punk followers, just the one band. Anyone out there: Who are the great British contributors after 1976? ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/157 "2015-05-07T01:09:11Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Well I don’t see you listing any. If you mean Van Halen, we probably are not going to agree on things. U2, saw them when they recorded that b side in Boston early on. Don’t see them as great. I saw the 80s as a HUGE disappointment. The Replacements, AC-DC, and the Wipers: there’s three I go with. > > There was this great book recently which listed one offs and new wavey bands from the 80s. Every one of the English bands thought they were really gods gift. Even after one lame hit and 30 years of rumination. It was hilarious. I have another theory about English rock and that is that it ended with the Sex Pistols. Can’t think of much that happened after. I’m not a fan of the punk followers, just the one band. Anyone out there: Who are the great British contributors after 1976? If you can’t recognize the genius of Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel then the convo is over. And of course there’s the aforementioned Elvis Costello. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/158 "2015-05-07T01:59:15Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Anyone out there: Who are the great British contributors after 1976? Well, looking at my top twenty-five favorite rock albums of all time, I see a number of post-1976 British acts represented: Wire, Gang of Four, Television, the Pretenders (first two albums particularly), the Clash, Joy Division, XTC, My Bloody Valentine (my second favorite album is _Loveless_, just behind the Beach Boys _Pet Sounds_. I know, pedestrian picks, but I happen to go with the crowd on those.) Maybe not quite top twenty-five for me, but sticking to the late 70s and 80s, I’d add Roxy Music, the Jam, the Soft Boys, Jesus & Mary Chain, The Smiths, Elvis Costello, Kate Bush, etc. I could go on for awhile. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/159 "2015-05-07T02:31:23Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Who are the great British contributors after 1976? The Clash, The Cure, The Pogues (original line-up all born in England), Joy Division, Ian Dury (perhaps the greatest English lyricist), Suede, the Manic Street Preachers (before Richie vanished), Radiohead, Porcupine Tree, No-man and anything else Steven Wilson has been involved in. Plus loads of less well known punk and post-punk bands. Plus all the great metal bands from the UK, some of the the most influential. From Iron Maiden and Saxon to Napalm Death to Paradise Lost and My Dying Bride. Not to mention the ridiculously underrated Sabbat and Skyclad. The difference between that period (roughly 80 to 95) is that the best bands were often not the most successful, instead you had rubbish like Oasis selling out stadiums whilst the best bands struggled to fill clubs. Oh, and trip-hop. Massive Attack, Portishead and Tricky belong on anyone’s list of all time greats. ---
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529/160 "2015-05-07T03:01:25Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Is this a distinction without a difference or the opposite? If I try to quote quotes my head will explode, so let me just try to distill my view into a more concentrated sludge. Yes, when I wrote, _“Remarkable?, yes; extraordinary?, no.”_ , I meant it as a distinction with a difference—a gradation difference. The British Invasion was big, good, and unique but not extraordinarily so. I didn’t mean to imply that the British Invasion of America was fought by English Skiffle bands. But most of the British Invasion bands did cut their teeth on American-style Skiffle (including John Lennon) and Blues music, and then they made the music their own. Many musical fads, crazes and movements swept across nations and sometimes continents for centuries. But, it was hard to sweep the world before radio came along in the early 20th century and TV came along mid-century. Elvis exploded on the scene when TV was in its infancy and radio was approaching middle age and “records” meant 45 singles; the Beatles exploded when TV was a toddler and radio was getting grey around the temples and records meant 45’s and albums. Today, music can reach around the world immediately in a large variety of media formats. So today’s music penetrates much deeper than any music beforehand, but that doesn’t make it better or more extraordinary. I can post a video of my cat doing something idiotic and if it goes viral it could probably garner 10’s of millions of views in mere hours. What if Beethoven could have gone viral on YouTube when he debuted his 9th? Music from days gone by simply had no way to extend around the globe. Sad, but true. [Lizstomania](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisztomania_%28phenomenon%29) swept Europe in the mid-19th century, without TV or radio or records—just sheet music, scantily read press, and live performances. I think Liszt’s popularity penetration is actually more impressive than the level of fame the Beatles achieved. How world-famous would the mop-headed Liverpudlians & company be today if not for radio and TV and records? Girls fainted when the Beatles played on Sullivan and in stadiums; but, girls and women and even some longshoremen fainted when Liszt played. Women used to throw their panties on stage when Tom Jones sang, but husbands used to throw their wive’s panties and keys to the bedroom onstage when Beethoven conducted his 9th (ok, I just made that up…but, who knows??). Getting back to the OP question _“Will there ever be music as good as or better than music from the late 1960’s and early 1970’s?”_. As others have alluded to: by what metric are you measuring? Global domination? Then the answer is _“yes”_. As media penetration continues to grow, my cat could become more famous than the Beatles, and in less time. The metric of Rock & Roll being better than other genres of music? No. It’s not. Being more popular doesn’t make it better. Then, how do you compare R&R to other genres of music? Well, you can either say, “you can’t accurately compare them”, or you have to use some criteria that everyone can agree on. For simplicity sake, let me just discuss R&R (and all its sub genres), Jazz (and all its flavors) and Classical (including baroque and romantic). Which one evokes a more emotional response from the average listener? Rock and roll can’t compete against classical music on an emotional level. An hour+ long, 4-movement symphony can twist your heart in many more directions than a 4 minute top 40 pop hit. Compare Ludwig’s 9th symphony, or Rachmaninoff’s 2nd (or 3rd, , 4th, or 5th) piano concerto, or even Chopin’s top forty, 4+ minute hit, [_Nocturne in C minor_](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=walwdY8ssrE), to one of the Beatles most emotional songs, Day in the Life. I love the Beatles, but the depth of emotion just doesn’t compare. Frédéric’s tune didn’t even require lyrics. In fact, I’ve banned myself from listening to it because I don’t like my daughters to see their dad cry. Here’s another [Chopin tear jerker](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y6r1nHnLVo)… I like [Jimmy’s electric version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJYYCQAq-jM), too. But, I warn you, don’t even try to click [this link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ), it’ll wipe you out! Ok, maybe comparing R&R to Long Hair music isn’t fair; should we instead compare it to other modern musical genres? Jazz, blues, Boogie Woogie, etc., etc.? For every R&R masterpiece you can cite, I bet I or someone else can come up with a comparable Jazz, Blues, or other genre masterpiece that is just as good, or better than the R&R tune. Want to stay entirely in the R&R universe? Ok. Who are the best modern R&R artists? The late 60’s to early 70’s British Invasion contingent, or the studio musicians who cut their albums quickly and easily for chump change, and who felt like they sold out because they’d really rather be playing something more challenging, like jazz? Don’t get me wrong, I still love classic R&R, but I don’t try to make it more than it is: fun, and sometimes somewhat emotional. The Beatles and Simon & Garfunkel can make me tear up, but Chopin and Beethoven can make me a mess. I’m as proud of my English ancestry (mother: British WWII war bride)as my American ancestry (father: American WWII GI) and nothing would make me happier than to declare British influenced R&R from the [early] 60’s through early 70’s the greatest music of all, because it’s the music I grew up with and have the fondest memories of. The first album I owned was Meet the Beatles. My mom was so proud: _“those lads are from where I grew up!”_ And, my second album was Sgt. Pepper. Mom was a little taken aback: \*“those boys have gone a bit too far, now. Don’t play that so loud in front of your father; he thinks they’re communist.” \* But, I can’t honestly make that declaration, because it’s not true by any valid criteria other than, _“it’s the music I like best, so it must be the greatest.”_ What criteria can we list? Global appeal? Yes, it had that, but so what?..all music from now on will circle the globe—even the crap. Complexity? Sure, it was the most sophisticated type of R&R up to that point. But, so what?..it’s not nearly as complex as classical, jazz or other genres. Emotional depth? Again, it was the best R&R could muster up to that point. But, so what? It doesn’t come close to reaching the emotional depth classical music can attain. Dance-ability? Well, it’s got classical beat there, but it doesn’t come close to boogie woogie that came before, or disco that came after. The London (and burbs) musicians were the most technically advanced musicians in the world? Not when you compare them to the LA session musicians. I don’t like being on this side of the argument. My bubble started to burst when I started seeing my favorite musicians in studio photo shots being replaced with session musician’s years ago. \*What, Ringo Star and Carl and Dennis Wilson didn’t actually play on this or that track? \*That sucks. Enjoy the music you like, but don’t try to claim supremacy. Music shouldn’t be a competition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-there-ever-be-music-as-good-as-or-better-than-music-from-the-late-1960s-and-early-1970s/718529.md?page=9)