Well, if that’s your comparison, sure… Music changes, and musical tastes vary, so I’ll avoid trying to give examples or make comparisons, I just don’t think music of that era was particularly better than music since then. It’s a weird fluke of history that we developed decent recording and playback technology right as the 60s bands were coming up. That probably explains why it holds such a grip on culture. But personally I think there have been some incredible musicians since the 60s.
Actually I said sort of the opposite: what’s been done since then is just as good as what was done back then, which therefore is overblown by people who claim it’s somehow better. No contradiction.
Nobody claimed it was better. You said it was overblown, to which I countered that some of the best music ever recorded is from that era, therefore not overblown. Some of the best music ever recorded is newer too. But for rock and roll, that was the era in which a lot of magic happened, a lot of progress was made, and it changed the face of music for everything that came after. So it’s not overblown. That doesn’t mean it’s better than whatever music you think I’m comparing it to. It means that it stands on its own as worthy of the praise it receives.
Yeah, I guess that’s fair enough. I’ve just run into way too many people who seem to think it’s the only music worth listening to or something. I can agree with what you said pretty much.
I expanded my statement in a reply to one of your other comments, but I never said it was “better”. I said it’s not overblown. Better is almost entirely subjective and would require a comparison, which was never given.
Overblown music? What in tarnation are you talking about? Some of the greatest songs ever written were recorded in that decade.
Okay Boomer.
It’s true that Jimi Hendrix can’t match up with the incredible music of Ed Sheeran, but he tried.
Well, if that’s your comparison, sure… Music changes, and musical tastes vary, so I’ll avoid trying to give examples or make comparisons, I just don’t think music of that era was particularly better than music since then. It’s a weird fluke of history that we developed decent recording and playback technology right as the 60s bands were coming up. That probably explains why it holds such a grip on culture. But personally I think there have been some incredible musicians since the 60s.
You called it overblown. Now you’re saying it’s just as good as what happened later. I think you need to make up your mind.
Actually I said sort of the opposite: what’s been done since then is just as good as what was done back then, which therefore is overblown by people who claim it’s somehow better. No contradiction.
Nobody claimed it was better. You said it was overblown, to which I countered that some of the best music ever recorded is from that era, therefore not overblown. Some of the best music ever recorded is newer too. But for rock and roll, that was the era in which a lot of magic happened, a lot of progress was made, and it changed the face of music for everything that came after. So it’s not overblown. That doesn’t mean it’s better than whatever music you think I’m comparing it to. It means that it stands on its own as worthy of the praise it receives.
Yeah, I guess that’s fair enough. I’ve just run into way too many people who seem to think it’s the only music worth listening to or something. I can agree with what you said pretty much.
I’m not a boomer, but nice try I guess.
Sorry, I’m just used to hearing how much better music used to be in the 60s from people my parents’ age.
I expanded my statement in a reply to one of your other comments, but I never said it was “better”. I said it’s not overblown. Better is almost entirely subjective and would require a comparison, which was never given.