Good Bands from the Late 60s - 70s?

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2007, 4:17 pm

Sylvus, the stupid kids running off their mouth in this thread simply aren't old enough to have experienced several eras/decades of music and don't recognise the trends.

I helped out at my uncle's recod store in the 70s.
I was exposed to all the popular and underground trends at the time. I thought pop music back then was fucking awful... mostly because of my uncle's musical tastes. He was into a lot of prog rock in the mid 70s and exposed me to punk and art-rock in the late 70s. One of the first LPs I ever purchased was Wire's Pink Flag.
The pop music charts that year were dominated by Leo Sayer, Andy Gibb, The Emotions, Meco, Shaun Cassidy and Hot.

I worked in record shops for my entire teenage years in the 80s.
I saw the emergence and burn-out of punk.. The dawning of goth, new wave, techno and vibrant alternative-pop music scene. That is the music that I know and remember from the 80s. Not the music that topped the pop charts... shit like Mr Mister, Culture Club, Survivor, Klymaxx, Wang Chung and Peter Cetera.

My experience has tought me that pop music is the same in every decade.
Maybe when you (Funk and Nez) reach your late 30s or 40s you'll realise the same thing.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 13, 2007, 4:19 pm

There are talented bands/musicians who have had absurdly insipid lyrics. I know Nine Inch Nails has come under heavy lyrical criticism on this board (I happen to like their lyrics, but hey). Led Zeppelin's lyrics are generally nothing to write home about.

I agree that you can take a talentless hack, put him/her through a promotion/hype machine, and often generate a hit album. However, I also think that talent eventually rises to the top. Britney Spears is a tabloid sensation, Christina Aguilera continues to put out successful music. Justin Timberlake made two enormously successful albums with 'N Sync, and followed that up by releasing two smash albums selling nearly 15 million copies total, generating six top ten singles and four grammys. His bandmates on the other hand, have accomplished a whole lot of jack shit, despite having similar exposure and similarly high-quality hype machines.

This doesn't mean that any artist who enjoys sustained commercial success is necessarily a talented and original artist (I personally think that Madonna is crap, for instance). Hype machines only go so far, though, and at some point an artist has to stand on something else. Unless you have made a serious cultural impact (Madonna), it's hard to stand on anything other than talent.

Also want to say that I'm not arguing that Christina and JT are highly influential, original, envelope pushers-- just that they're talented pop musicians. If you don't like pop music, that's fine, but to argue that because something is pop it is therefore crap is a bit too emo/indy/hipster for my tastes.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2007, 4:26 pm

Speaking of lyrics...

One of the most critically acclaimed bands of all time (the beatles) have some of the most ridiculously inane lyrics to be ever put on papaer.

Here's a lyrical gem... without looking it up, does anyone know who the song is by?

I've got a bike
You can ride it if you like
It's got a basket
A bell that rings
And things to make it look good
I'd give it to you if I could
But I borrowed it

You're the kind of girl that fits in with my world
I'll give you anything
Everything if you want things

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 13, 2007, 4:30 pm

I never really liked Pink Floyd until their stuff after Syd was gone. I can't get into their early stuff at all.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 13, 2007, 4:34 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:The valid point that I made, that has been ignored so far is this: You could put nearly any teenage kid through the dance classes/vocal training these people have gone through and have similar success - that makes them nothing special, innovative, or original, which I think are all necessary to call someone talented.

That is exactly what I was addressing. Plenty of kids have been put through the machine, Justin Timberlake stands alone as someone who is still relevant. He's been in the public eye, selling records/concert tix/etc. for... 10 years? (No idea when N'Sync came out, I'm guessing it's around there somewhere). He sold millions of records with that band, he's sold millions of records by himself. He wasn't put through a special program that other boy band people couldn't get in, he's still here because he's very talented. Compare that to... uh, the guy who was supposed to be tough and edgy in N'Sync, with the dreadlocks or whatever. Who has seen that guy since Justin Timberlake decided he'd rather go solo? Who even knows his name?

Much like Jordan has had plenty of teammates who had the same coaching and practiced as much as he did, he's on a higher level in part because of his coaching, in part because of his supporting cast (in the JT example it could be songwriters or whatever), and in large part because of his talent. While not my cup of tea, I think Dolly Parton originally sang that "I Will Always Love You" song before Whitney Houston turned it into one of the biggest songs of all time, because of her talent. I'll always hold a special place in my heart for Slick Rick and Doug E. Fresh, but when Snoop redid "Lodi Dodi" he blew the doors off of that song, only changing like 3% of the words. People need good writers, and the songwriters deserve credit, but if the record companies could just get anyone off the street to walk out of the karaoke bar and do the same thing with a song that these so-called no-talent hacks can, they would. They could pay them a lot less money and reap the same rewards.

But they can't, because it actually takes talent.

That, and I can seriously sit down and listen to any R&B singer out today (including Justin Timberlake) and if you listen to their lyrics - they all say EXACTLY the same thing, they just change the name of the girl that broke their heart/they are in love with. It's a pretty pathetic and unoriginal genre, and kind of always has been that way. The only other kinds of music I can think of that comes anywhere near this is Country (and 75% of modern rap from the south).

As far as that goes, who are you saying that's different than that? Which genre? All of them have common themes that they use, Blues being about personal woes, Pop often being about love, Rap being about one's status, Death Metal being about whatever it is about.

It's entirely reasonable (and understandable in my opinion) for you to not like pop music. I'm also not a big fan. It's unreasonable to think that because you don't like it, that the people who perform it are not talented, or the genre is unoriginal or anything along those lines. It's particularly unreasonable to call your opinion that those people are not talented or that the genre is unoriginal a "fact". Feel free to like or dislike anything that you choose, but please don't get confused that anything you've posted is anything other than your opinion, and that there are people out there who feel similarly about music that you do like and artists that you do feel are talented.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 13, 2007, 4:38 pm

miir wrote:Sylvus, the stupid kids running off their mouth in this thread simply aren't old enough to have experienced several eras/decades of music and don't recognise the trends.

I helped out at my uncle's recod store in the 70s.
I was exposed to all the popular and underground trends at the time. I thought pop music back then was fucking awful... mostly because of my uncle's musical tastes. He was into a lot of prog rock in the mid 70s and exposed me to punk and art-rock in the late 70s. One of the first LPs I ever purchased was Wire's Pink Flag.
The pop music charts that year were dominated by Leo Sayer, Andy Gibb, The Emotions, Meco, Shaun Cassidy and Hot.

I worked in record shops for my entire teenage years in the 80s.
I saw the emergence and burn-out of punk.. The dawning of goth, new wave, techno and vibrant alternative-pop music scene. That is the music that I know and remember from the 80s. Not the music that topped the pop charts... shit like Mr Mister, Culture Club, Survivor, Klymaxx, Wang Chung and Peter Cetera.

My experience has tought me that pop music is the same in every decade.
Maybe when you (Funk and Nez) reach your late 30s or 40s you'll realise the same thing.

miir,
This particular stupid kid has listened to a large variety of music. I grew up listening to all different kinds of classic rock and 80's music as well from my mom, and my dad listened to the oldies station so I am very familiar with a lot of even older stuff. In no way did I say that pop music is a new thing, I understand you always have it. However, I think that in the current generation of music, there is a whole lot more of it amongst all the different genres. The only other time I feel the overall quality of music was anywhere near as low as it is now was the 80's.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 13, 2007, 4:40 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:The valid point that I made, that has been ignored so far is this: You could put nearly any teenage kid through the dance classes/vocal training these people have gone through and have similar success - that makes them nothing special, innovative, or original, which I think are all necessary to call someone talented.
That is exactly what I was addressing. Plenty of kids have been put through the machine, Justin Timberlake stands alone as someone who is still relevant. He's been in the public eye, selling records/concert tix/etc. for... 10 years? (No idea when N'Sync came out, I'm guessing it's around there somewhere). He sold millions of records with that band, he's sold millions of records by himself. He wasn't put through a special program that other boy band people couldn't get in, he's still here because he's very talented. Compare that to... uh, the guy who was supposed to be tough and edgy in N'Sync, with the dreadlocks or whatever. Who has seen that guy since Justin Timberlake decided he'd rather go solo? Who even knows his name?

Much like Jordan has had plenty of teammates who had the same coaching and practiced as much as he did, he's on a higher level in part because of his coaching, in part because of his supporting cast (in the JT example it could be songwriters or whatever), and in large part because of his talent. While not my cup of tea, I think Dolly Parton originally sang that "I Will Always Love You" song before Whitney Houston turned it into one of the biggest songs of all time, because of her talent. I'll always hold a special place in my heart for Slick Rick and Doug E. Fresh, but when Snoop redid "Lodi Dodi" he blew the doors off of that song, only changing like 3% of the words. People need good writers, and the songwriters deserve credit, but if the record companies could just get anyone off the street to walk out of the karaoke bar and do the same thing with a song that these so-called no-talent hacks can, they would. They could pay them a lot less money and reap the same rewards.

But they can't, because it actually takes talent.

That, and I can seriously sit down and listen to any R&B singer out today (including Justin Timberlake) and if you listen to their lyrics - they all say EXACTLY the same thing, they just change the name of the girl that broke their heart/they are in love with. It's a pretty pathetic and unoriginal genre, and kind of always has been that way. The only other kinds of music I can think of that comes anywhere near this is Country (and 75% of modern rap from the south).
As far as that goes, who are you saying that's different than that? Which genre? All of them have common themes that they use, Blues being about personal woes, Pop often being about love, Rap being about one's status, Death Metal being about whatever it is about.

It's entirely reasonable (and understandable in my opinion) for you to not like pop music. I'm also not a big fan. It's unreasonable to think that because you don't like it, that the people who perform it are not talented, or the genre is unoriginal or anything along those lines. It's particularly unreasonable to call your opinion that those people are not talented or that the genre is unoriginal a "fact". Feel free to like or dislike anything that you choose, but please don't get confused that anything you've posted is anything other than your opinion, and that there are people out there who feel similarly about music that you do like and artists that you do feel are talented.

I think there is a lot more variety in most rap music, most rock music (even though I don't care for most of it), even heavy metal then there is in R&B.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2007, 5:01 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:miir,
This particular stupid kid has listened to a large variety of music. I grew up listening to all different kinds of classic rock and 80's music as well from my mom, and my dad listened to the oldies station so I am very familiar with a lot of even older stuff. In no way did I say that pop music is a new thing, I understand you always have it. However, I think that in the current generation of music, there is a whole lot more of it amongst all the different genres. The only other time I feel the overall quality of music was anywhere near as low as it is now was the 80's.

You're in your early 20s, right?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 13, 2007, 5:11 pm

miir wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:miir,
This particular stupid kid has listened to a large variety of music. I grew up listening to all different kinds of classic rock and 80's music as well from my mom, and my dad listened to the oldies station so I am very familiar with a lot of even older stuff. In no way did I say that pop music is a new thing, I understand you always have it. However, I think that in the current generation of music, there is a whole lot more of it amongst all the different genres. The only other time I feel the overall quality of music was anywhere near as low as it is now was the 80's.
You're in your early 20s, right?

I'm 25, yes. The point I am making is that I have not been confined to music of my generation, and I am fully aware of trends in the music industry.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2007, 5:32 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:I'm 25, yes. The point I am making is that I have not been confined to music of my generation, and I am fully aware of trends in the music industry.

If you say so.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 13, 2007, 6:35 pm

If you were listening to an "oldies" station in the 80's and 90's, they were probably not playing all of the crappy pop songs from the decade they were devoted to. They were probably playing more of the songs that survived through the years and became "classics." That could be a reason for not thinking there were as many crappy artists then as there may be now if this is what your exposure was.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 13, 2007, 6:53 pm

Yes, it was the radio. And tapes, and 8 tracks.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2007, 6:55 pm

Good point Boog.

When it comes to the point where 'oldies' stations are playing 80s tunes, I doubt you'll be hearing hits by The Jets, Expose, The System, Samatha Fox, Boy Meets Girl, Johnny Hates Jazz, Pebbles or Paul Carrack.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2007, 6:59 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:Yes, it was the radio. And tapes, and 8 tracks.

Record companies stopped releasing music on 8-track when you were in diapers.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 13, 2007, 7:03 pm

That's great, but my parents didn't throw them out when they stopped being released. Hell, most of their music is still old cassettes, a lot of which were around before me.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2007, 8:09 pm

I didn't mean anything by it.
I was just curious when they stopped making them.
I looked it up and it happened to be the year after you were born.
I have a lot of (not-so) fond memories of 8 track tapes.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 13, 2007, 9:01 pm

miir wrote:I didn't mean anything by it.
I was just curious when they stopped making them.
I looked it up and it happened to be the year after you were born.
I have a lot of (not-so) fond memories of 8 track tapes.

Me too, Buffalo Springfield is one of the older groups that I like that remind me of my dad, Pink Floyd and Fleetwood Mac of my mom. I do remember some stuff they listened to when I was younger that I hated then and still don't really like IE; Eurythmics, and Madonna.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 13, 2007, 10:39 pm

Sylvus, the stupid kids running off their mouth in this thread simply aren't old enough to have experienced several eras/decades of music and don't recognise the trends.

Miir how about you keep it to a discussion and quit with the "stupid kid" shit.

I'm glad you're a musical pro and that you worked in a record store for your whole teenage life, good for you. You talk about how shitty the pop music was back then...

...and you talk about how OMG TALENTED Justin Timberlake is today. He writes the same songs a highschool pothead jock would write. He can dance, fine, that's a given. I might even go as far as to say he's a talented performer.

He is by no means a talented musician, however. He appeals to the 13 - 17 female crowd (which is smart, he went with what works for him), and there happens to be a lot of those in the country at any given time.

I guess I wasn't clear enough... when I said he had no talent I meant as a musician, which is what this thread pertained to.

And I'm going to stand by my opinion that if you don't write your own music you are not a talented musician. You can still be a talented performer (of other people's work)

And to me, whether an artist is a talented and original musician or not plays a huge role in how much I like them. It's just one of the criteria my mind has decided on when it comes down to whether or not I see it as "good music."

Note that I said you guys had good music in the 70s, and then I listed who I thought was good. I still don't think a lot of music today stands up to Pink Floyd or the Beatles or Hendrix or Led Zeppelin. And I've listened to plenty of today's music.

P.S. yeah "Bike" is a dumb song, I know that comment was directed at me. I don't know the history behind it or why it was written or if it was intended to be serious or not. Hell, I couldn't even tell you what album it was on. But that one dumb song fades pretty quickly when you put it next to Time or Money or Wish You Were Here, or Comfortably Numb or Run Like Hell or Sheep or Eclipse or..... Plenty more good ones.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 13, 2007, 10:45 pm

He appeals to the 13 - 17 female crowd (which is smart, he went with what works for him), and there happens to be a lot of those in the country at any given time.

I don't mean to pick on you Nez, but I HATE it when people use the "only teenage girls like ___" line to validate their disdain for anything they don't like. Man, go to a club in any city and you can watch hundreds of people (all 21+) of all races and genders going nuts for his music.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 13, 2007, 10:47 pm

I don't mean to pick on you Nez, but I HATE it when people use the "only teenage girls like ___" line to validate their disdain for anything they don't like. Man, go to a club in any city and you can watch hundreds of people (all 21+) of all races and genders going nuts for his music.
He appeals to the 13 - 17 female crowd (which is smart, he went with what works for him), and there happens to be a lot of those in the country at any given time.
I don't mean to pick on you Nez, but I HATE it when people use the "only teenage girls like ___" line to validate their disdain for anything they don't like. Man, go to a club in any city and you can watch hundreds of people (all 21+) of all races and genders going nuts for his music.

Maybe true.

Still, I'm willing to bet a lot on the fact that those people are more excited that they get to grind on that person next to them than they are that JT is being played.

I'm also willing to bet that those teenage girls are the biggest customers when it comes to his CDs and concert tickets and radio requests.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 13, 2007, 11:29 pm

First of all, there has been manufactured pop music since at least the 50's (and I'm not even getting into jazz). Don't believe for a minute that this is a recent, or modern development.

When we view a time period of music retrospectively...we're only going to be exposed to the music that had staying power, the 'classics.' You're not going to hear about Lou Christie or ? and the Mysterians from '66. That stuff gets filtered out over time. In the present, it hasn't been filtered out yet, because it's still the present! I'll go out on a limb, and say that proportionately, there were as many people then buying pop records as there are now. I don't have figures to back that up, so if you need to fellate yourself by discrediting everything I say because of that, go ahead. Don't forget to swallow though.

Now, to recommendations.

Nez, your initial request is a little confusing. You talk about wanting to hear more psychedelic music, but then you list a bunch of bands who aren't.

If you're into Floyd, I'll give you a good run down of their work.

You have Syd Barrett with the first two albums The Piper at the Gates and Saucer Full of Secrets. This is a very raw sound, with lots of open space and jams. Not the nice ambient grooves of Wish You Were Here, but brash and loud grooves. Heavy use of panning effects and echo can be found in The Piper at the Gates (I feel like i'm tripping balls just listening to that album on headphones).
After that, the band really started to come into their own. They did two movie scores, which gave them experience in the studio with engineering. The two really notable albums from this period are Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother. You start to hear the use of sampling, and the open jams become much more mellow. You also get the huge solos happening here as well.
With Dark Side, you begin what is largely a Waters driven period. While other band members had writing credits during the beginning of this period...Waters really bloomed creatively, and took the reins. Again, more sampling, orchestration of sound and noise mixed with open jams and huge soloing. Particulary on Wish You Were Here and Animals. Dark Side, The Wall, and The Final Cut have little instrumentals and much more lyrics. Waters is well known for the 'concept' album, aka known as the rock opera. Where the entire album as a whole tells a story, and while some songs may stand on their own, the album itself is simply one big entity, iwth recurring themes and melodies throughout the album. This is very true of Dark Side, The Wall, and The Final Cut. Also, on last two Waters got really kind of OCD with control of projects he was writing. The Wall was the turning point for the band continuing as it did, and The Final Cut is aka Waters' first solo album. Gilmour has a couple small appearances on the album, and Wright wasn't on it at all (he was fired during The Wall).
Insert HUGE legal battle here. (or actually, several)
Then the two albums of the Gilmour period. A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell. Both have a more airy, polished sound than earlier Floyd. Lapse of Reason is actually Gilmour with a slew of session musicians, but the remaining three are all on The Division Bell. Floyd still followed a 'concept' album, but not to anywhere near the degree of Waters led efforts. Mostly you'll find thematic similarities in lyrics, but no real melodic reprisals or anything.

Gilmour had three solo albums. The first one (David Gilmour) is very good, the second one (About Face) is utter shit, and the third one (On An Island, release just last year) is good. All in my opinion.

Waters also had three solo albums (and so the guitar nuts wouldn't be left wanting, Clapton is on the first one, and Beck on the third). All Waters solo projects are heavily thematic, rock operas. The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking (mentioned earlier in this thread) occurs in real time. Radio KAOS returns to the political statements hinted at in The Final Cut. The overall concept being that the entire album is a radio broadcast. IMO, this project was maybe a little too ambitious (like Townshend's 'Lifehouse' project). The story was too big to be told in the album, and was then left to be written in the liner notes to explain. It's still chock full of amazing samples orchestrated in a way to actually make statements all on their own. Next was Amused to Death. I've talked about this album in other threads, but for completeness I'll finish. Waters considers this album to be his greatest (and I can't argue). It's a social and political commentary on the human race, in a nutshell.

So that's the rundown. I went into this detail because you mostly seemed to be interested in exploring more Pink Floyd. I guess you really need to ask what parts you really like the best, and you can explore further in those avenues. If it's all the clever, crazy sounds...you'll want to explore more Waters driven albums. If it's Gilmour's guitar you lust after, you'll want the later efforts (and The Wall). If it's jams you want, you'll want the middle period, with Animals and Atom Heart Mother. And if you want honest to god, raw psychedelia, you want the Barrett albums.

Plenty of people have listed plenty of great bands from the time period. If you're still interested, I'll try and add more later...but I figured this was appropriate as you seemed mostly interested in Floyd.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 13, 2007, 11:30 pm

Neziroth wrote:And to me, whether an artist is a talented and original musician or not plays a huge role in how much I like them. It's just one of the criteria my mind has decided on when it comes down to whether or not I see it as "good music."

So if you happen to hear a song you like... You Goggle it to make sure that the same person singing it is the one who wrote it before you decide for certain?

Also, you do realize in a lot of band situations the singer isn't always the main songwriter?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 13, 2007, 11:34 pm

and after reading the replies you wrote while i was working on that...I wish I hadn't bothered.

You want an example of a modern band that compares to Pink Floyd?
Radiohead, very much a modern Floyd. Waters even said he really enjoyed their work when asked about them being compared.

Now, go back to being a fucking dick about other peoples' music.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 13, 2007, 11:43 pm

So if you happen to hear a song you like... You Goggle it to make sure that the same person singing it is the one who wrote it before you decide for certain?

Also, you do realize in a lot of band situations the singer isn't always the main songwriter?
Neziroth wrote:And to me, whether an artist is a talented and original musician or not plays a huge role in how much I like them. It's just one of the criteria my mind has decided on when it comes down to whether or not I see it as "good music."
So if you happen to hear a song you like... You Goggle it to make sure that the same person singing it is the one who wrote it before you decide for certain?

Also, you do realize in a lot of band situations the singer isn't always the main songwriter?

Sometimes I don't know where you come up with the things you do Aslanna. You love to twist things around and make them say completely different things.

If I like a band and find out that they don't write their own stuff, yeah I'm pretty disappointed and yeah I do lose a lot of my... respect, I guess, for them.

And yes, I do realize that often times the lead singer isn't the lead songwriter. Your point? The band still writes their own stuff, they're a band as a whole and as a band they have talent.

If the lead singer writes the material I don't dislike the guitarist. That was a dumb point and you're just looking for another argument.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 13, 2007, 11:45 pm

and after reading the replies you wrote while i was working on that...I wish I hadn't bothered.

You want an example of a modern band that compares to Pink Floyd?
Radiohead, very much a modern Floyd. Waters even said he really enjoyed their work when asked about them being compared.

Now, go back to being a fucking dick about other peoples' music.

Please realize I don't have to like the same music you guys like. I don't know why people get so pissed off that I don't fucking like Justin Timberlake. I don't even think I was being mean or unfair in my replies.

And way to go man, you threaten to lock the thread and then you turn into an ass yourself. I appreciate the rundown on Floyd, I really do. I don't get why people get so upset when I post my opinion.

I DO NOT LIKE JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE. I DON'T. I'M SORRY.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 13, 2007, 11:59 pm

Neziroth wrote:Sometimes I don't know where you come up with the things you do Aslanna. You love to twist things around and make them say completely different things.

If I like a band and find out that they don't write their own stuff, yeah I'm pretty disappointed and yeah I do lose a lot of my... respect, I guess, for them.

And yes, I do realize that often times the lead singer isn't the lead songwriter. Your point? The band still writes their own stuff, they're a band as a whole and as a band they have talent.

If the lead singer writes the material I don't dislike the guitarist. That was a dumb point and you're just looking for another argument.

Actually it's a very valid point. It's not my fault you are unable to comprehend it.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 14, 2007, 12:19 am

Neziroth wrote:
Please realize I don't have to like the same music you guys like. I don't know why people get so pissed off that I don't fucking like Justin Timberlake. I don't even think I was being mean or unfair in my replies.

And way to go man, you threaten to lock the thread and then you turn into an ass yourself. I appreciate the rundown on Floyd, I really do. I don't get why people get so upset when I post my opinion.

I DO NOT LIKE JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE. I DON'T. I'M SORRY.

Then WHY THE FUCK DO YOU KEEP BRINGING HIM UP?

Look at every fucking other person who regularly posts in this forum.... NOBODY cuts up, criticizes or belittles other music when they are discussing music they like. If you don't want people shitting on you in this forum, just SHUT THE FUCK UP about music you don't like.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 14, 2007, 12:19 am

Neziroth wrote:
and after reading the replies you wrote while i was working on that...I wish I hadn't bothered.

You want an example of a modern band that compares to Pink Floyd?
Radiohead, very much a modern Floyd. Waters even said he really enjoyed their work when asked about them being compared.

Now, go back to being a fucking dick about other peoples' music.
Please realize I don't have to like the same music you guys like. I don't know why people get so pissed off that I don't fucking like Justin Timberlake. I don't even think I was being mean or unfair in my replies.

And way to go man, you threaten to lock the thread and then you turn into an ass yourself. I appreciate the rundown on Floyd, I really do. I don't get why people get so upset when I post my opinion.

I DO NOT LIKE JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE. I DON'T. I'M SORRY.

I don't care what you like or don't like. Stop trying to classify all music by your opinions and tell other people what they should, or shouldn't like. If you don't like something, don't piss all in someone's cheerios who might like it...just STFU and go find something you do like. It's much more constructive to spend your time finding something you like, and enjoying it...than to spend your time bitching about how you don't like something.

You're right thought. I do look like an ass. I decided not to lock the thread because you had calmed down in your replies, and the others had continued the (hijacked) thread of discussion in a civil manner. So I decided to post, meanwhile you come back in with a shit-storm and then call me an ass. Thanks, btw...cause you were the one that made me look like an ass. But hey, at least you're right! That's always the most important thing, always being right.

And just to clarify, people aren't getting upset at you for posting your opinions. I'd be willing to bet noone is actually getting upset about anything, but they're calling you out because you posted your opinions IN A VERY STUPID MANNER. You might as well have bathed in blood and got in a shark tank for some of the stupid statements you made.

Anyways, I'm sorry I wasted my time to help you. Keep being a dick and I will lock the thread, you can go somewhere else for recommendations.

(And Aslanna, I don't really care about any backlash. If Sylvus doesn't like the job I'm doing, he can take my mod rights away at any point. I've tried to keep this forum more discussion and less flame. Because I don't want more casual posters to be too intimidated to ask questions for fear of getting flamed...or having their music labelled stupid)

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 14, 2007, 12:34 am

Truant wrote:
Neziroth wrote:
and after reading the replies you wrote while i was working on that...I wish I hadn't bothered.

You want an example of a modern band that compares to Pink Floyd?
Radiohead, very much a modern Floyd. Waters even said he really enjoyed their work when asked about them being compared.

Now, go back to being a fucking dick about other peoples' music.
Please realize I don't have to like the same music you guys like. I don't know why people get so pissed off that I don't fucking like Justin Timberlake. I don't even think I was being mean or unfair in my replies.

And way to go man, you threaten to lock the thread and then you turn into an ass yourself. I appreciate the rundown on Floyd, I really do. I don't get why people get so upset when I post my opinion.

I DO NOT LIKE JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE. I DON'T. I'M SORRY.
I don't care what you like or don't like. Stop trying to classify all music by your opinions and tell other people what they should, or shouldn't like. If you don't like something, don't piss all in someone's cheerios who might like it...just STFU and go find something you do like. It's much more constructive to spend your time finding something you like, and enjoying it...than to spend your time bitching about how you don't like something.

You're right thought. I do look like an ass. I decided not to lock the thread because you had calmed down in your replies, and the others had continued the (hijacked) thread of discussion in a civil manner. So I decided to post, meanwhile you come back in with a shit-storm and then call me an ass. Thanks, btw...cause you were the one that made me look like an ass. But hey, at least you're right! That's always the most important thing, always being right.

And just to clarify, people aren't getting upset at you for posting your opinions. I'd be willing to bet noone is actually getting upset about anything, but they're calling you out because you posted your opinions IN A VERY STUPID MANNER. You might as well have bathed in blood and got in a shark tank for some of the stupid statements you made.

Anyways, I'm sorry I wasted my time to help you. Keep being a dick and I will lock the thread, you can go somewhere else for recommendations.

(And Aslanna, I don't really care about any backlash. If Sylvus doesn't like the job I'm doing, he can take my mod rights away at any point. I've tried to keep this forum more discussion and less flame. Because I don't want more casual posters to be too intimidated to ask questions for fear of getting flamed...or having their music labelled stupid)

That cross fucking your back up? There is nothing in your main post about the forum that says anything specifically about not flaming. With all of the dick-headed shit I have seen you post, you are going to be a little bitch about your precious music forum because there just might be someone here that is offended by justin timberlake being called a no talent pussy?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 14, 2007, 12:48 am

Nothing about this thread is even close to lock-worthy. Don't let the power go to your head.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 14, 2007, 12:54 am

Ok, look:

I posted a thread asking for music suggestions. I thought the best ways to get those suggestions would be to post what I like and what I don't like.

Then I get told I know fuck-all about music, and obviously I stood by what I said. When somebody attacks me like that I'm not going to take it lying down and I'm not going to change my tone to appease anybody.

I get called a fucking dick by you, Truant, for a reason that I still don't get. Because I stood by what I said when I was questioned about it?

Miir, the conversation WENT to Justin Timberlake for a long period of time, that's why I brought him up. I used him as an example of what I didn't like today. It was nothing personal against JT or any of his fans, besides the fact that him and his type of music were a good example of what I wasn't looking for.

I never EVER told anybody what THEY shouldn't like, Truant. I don't even know where you came up with that. I don't even see where I came back all shit-storming or whatever you called it.

But I'm just going to point out that when somebody is a dick to me I'm going to be a dick back, and I shouldn't be the only one blamed for the way this thread went.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » August 14, 2007, 1:14 am

Funkmasterr wrote:That cross fucking your back up? There is nothing in your main post about the forum that says anything specifically about not flaming. With all of the dick-headed shit I have seen you post, you are going to be a little bitch about your precious music forum because there just might be someone here that is offended by justin timberlake being called a no talent pussy?

I never made it a rule in the main post. But I had always tried to keep things civil in this forum. Two areas of the vault were always considered free for alls, GD and CE. You can consider this one free for all now as well.

Anyways, have fun.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 14, 2007, 4:33 am

Opinions about music seem to bring out the emotional energy in people like politics and religion.

On a side note, has Neziroth ever made a post on VV that hasn't turned into a shit storm? He either is the most tactless person on the planet or does it on purpose. I don't have anything personal against him but I want to knock the ignorance out of the next person I see each time I read his posts.

Nice work if you're trolling on purpose. If not, you need a long lesson in how to write posts that request help or information without pissing people off.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 14, 2007, 10:40 am

Opinions about music seem to bring out the emotional energy in people like politics and religion.

Actually, this forum has been completely civil... aside from a few posts by funkmasterr. But even that's cool because he's pretty fucking knowledgable (and opinionated!) about his prefered music.

Knarlz · Post by **Knarlz** » August 14, 2007, 10:52 am

Back to to Neziroth might like from that era.
I reiterate the recomendation of Yes, particuraly

The Yes Album
Frigile
Close to the edge.

The 2003 re-releases from Rhino records has bonus tracks.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 14, 2007, 10:58 am

Musically Yes are outstanding... in the same vein as Rush.
But like Rush, it's difficult to get beyond the vocals... although I do find Jon Anderson a lot less annoying than Geddy Lee.

Knarlz · Post by **Knarlz** » August 14, 2007, 12:28 pm

miir wrote:Musically Yes are outstanding... in the same vein as Rush.
But like Rush, it's difficult to get beyond the vocals... although I do find Jon Anderson a lot less annoying than Geddy Lee.

Hmm, I never really concidered Yes and Rush in the same vein. Although in retrospect I can see what you mean. For myself, by the time Rush broke out with 2112 (1976), It may have been their relativly low exposeure in So. Cal. or I may have just thought it was a re-hash of what had been going on for the last 5-7 years.

You are absolutely correct that Jon Anderson has unique vocals (high pitched) that if you can't get over/accept/embrace you might not be able to get beyond them. That would be a shame though since ( IMO ) that era of Yes was a world class band. (assuming you like that type of music).

miir · Post by **miir** » August 14, 2007, 1:32 pm

Unique vocals.. hehe yea... ok, that's a nice way of putting it.

Not a big fan of progressive/art rock but if you can't appreciate their musicianship and technical ability, you have no soul.

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » August 15, 2007, 4:32 pm

Dead that isnt bad (though you have to be in the mood for it)
Without a Net
Dead Set
Europe '72 (disc 1 is better than disc 2)

Highlights IMO: Chinacat sunflower/I know you rider
Friend of the Devil
Fire on the Mountain
Jack Straw
One more Saturday Night

They aren't psychodelic, they (and their fans) just did a lot of drugs. I've heard a lot of local bands do 'I know you Rider' and 'Friend of the Devil' and get a lot more bang out of them, which is fun. Folky songs arent all bad. Even Nirvana did a remake of In the Pines.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » August 15, 2007, 11:39 pm

Highlights IMO: Chinacat sunflower/I know you rider
Friend of the Devil
Fire on the Mountain
Jack Straw
One more Saturday Night

I have a few of those songs from the greatest hits CD I have and I'll give them another shot. I don't *hate* the dead or anything, I don't even really dislike them, but it's just not at all what I expected when I bought the CD and played it for the first time having never heard any of their stuff before.

I guess I expected something similar to The Doors, a more rock-oriented style. I've heard so much about Garcia and his guitar but he doesn't really draw much attention to himself in the songs I've heard. I imagine live they did a lot more of a "jam" style?

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » August 16, 2007, 1:01 am

There are a bajillion (give or take a gajillion) recordings of their live shows floating around with varying degrees of quality. There are a some official releases of live shows, but most of what's out there were taped by audience members (something the Dead freely encouraged). Studio albums are fine, but the best way to listen to the dead, short of having been lucky enough to see them live, is to get your hands on live shows, imo. The various Dick's Picks sets are probably the most notable and easiest to get, and are pretty good quality. There are plenty of other resources as well if you get into the taper scene, which I don't.

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » August 16, 2007, 10:46 am

Yeah, live Dead is better, but all three of the ones I listed above are live recordings, not studio albums. And you have to watch out for the audience taped recordings, because they arent selected for quality or sobriety of the band. There are some Dead shows where they are so out of it you can't tell what the fuck they are playing. And there are a lot more long 'jams' on those recordings.
I dug Dead Set out of the CD shelf this morning and listened to it on the way to work today, forgot how much I liked it.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » August 16, 2007, 3:03 pm

Yeah, I was mainly responding to Nez's previous comment. The "Best Of" disc that I think he's talking about is, as far as I know (I don't have it), mostly studio tracks. The thing about the official live albums (live/dead, reckoning, dead set, etc) are that they're mostly songs selected from various live performances, rather than contiguous concert sets (the concert recordings released later are different, of course). More importantly, though, they're mixed like a traditional studio album. To me, they're missing a lot of the live vibe because of these two factors. They're good, and worth listening to, but at the same time, I think the higher quality two-track, not remixed recordings from the tapers are more fun to listen to. All that aside, I listened to two live albums last night, Live/Dead and Grateful Dead, for the first time in a while thanks to this discussion heh.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » August 16, 2007, 10:53 pm

I'm surprised The Band isn't mentioned here. Music From The Big Pink is one of the best albums of that era.

Knarlz · Post by **Knarlz** » August 17, 2007, 11:45 am

Keverian FireCry wrote:I'm surprised The Band isn't mentioned here. Music From The Big Pink is one of the best albums of that era.

In a very obscure reference, The Band was mentioned in "Dylan goes electric"

Since Nec memtions on his list several bands not "psycodelic" per say, He should at least listen to The Big Pink once. The rest of their albums were mehhh. (imo) although a few good tunes were there.

Their live album was ok, and the re-release of their last concert "The Last Waltse" is of some intrest historicaly.

Demags · Post by **Demags** » August 19, 2007, 12:49 pm

Make sure you check out Meddle from pink floyd as well, thats among my favorite albums by them.

Try T-Rex too if you want some trippy music from that era, some of it isn't so good, but they have a few really good tunes.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 19, 2007, 9:02 pm

Marc Bolan/T-Rex is awesome....
I wouldn't call it trippy.
He pretty much invented glam rock.

Wow... I really forgot how many Marc Bolan songs I absolutely LOVE.... Telegram Sam, Children of the Revolution, Jeepster, Hot Love, 20th Century Boy, Metal Guru, Ride a White Swan and of course Get it On...

miir · Post by **miir** » August 19, 2007, 9:31 pm

Search Don Kirshner's Rock Concert on youtube for some pretty interesting live performances from the 70s.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » November 6, 2007, 10:03 pm

First off, a lot of people are acting like douches in this thread, mostly over Justin Timberlake, apparently. Completely pointless.

On topic, there was a lot of bad pop since the 50s, but it basically exploded in the 80s when Video made a lot of shitty bands much more marketable. The reason the 60s and 70s are so fondly remembered is because it came before Music Videos gayed everything up and the artists still had a measure of control over the industry.

Things I can recommend from the 60s and 70s (and early 80s) with varying sounds:
Houses of the Holy- Led Zeplin
Sounds of Future Past- Moody Blues
Sheer Heart Attack- Queen
Low Spark of High-heel Boys- Traffic
Wish you were Here- Pink Floyd
Who's Next- The Who
BTO- Bachman Turner Overdrive
Damn the Torpedos- Tom Petty
Running on Empty- Jackson Brown
The Border- Little River Band
Night Moves- Bob Seger
Grand Illusion- Styxx
Goodbye Yellowbrick Road- Elton John
Ziggy Stardust- David Bowie

miir · Post by **miir** » November 7, 2007, 12:50 pm

The reason that some people from our generation 'fondly remember' the 70s is because they weren't actually listening to music in the late 60s and 70s.

Because of my family, I was heavily into music from a very early age. There was a fuckton of shitty music in the 60s and 70s... Music videos had nothing to do with your percieved deluge of shitty music in the 80s. There was just as much (if not more) shit in the 70s as there was in the 80s.

Ten years from now, there's gonna be kids waxing nostalgic about the music in the 80s and 90s, before "rap and R&B dominated the charts". Like back in the 90s when groups like Pearl Jam, Nirvana and Soundgarden were topping the charts with real music.

For every single album from the late 60s and early 70s that you think is brilliant, I could probably name 2 or 3 albums from the late 70s and early 80s that I think are even more brilliant.