Music Poll

1960 and before (music wise) of 1961 and after?

  • 1960 and before

    Votes: 5 8.9%
  • 1961 and after

    Votes: 51 91.1%

  • Total voters
    56
My answer: ALL PERIODS SINCE EARLIEST RECORDINGS AVAILABLE. Seriusly, there's something interesting from just about every period of recordings (or, for lack of recordings, extant sheet music from which we can interpret musical composition of the ancients) up through and including 2017. Still too early (IMO) to say re: 2018.
 
I've been going through a phase of 1920/30's music, but don't ignore the 40/50's.
Rock and pop in the classic decades (60/70/80's).
Nothing very much has excited me from this century.

Classical
- Early music - Renaissance (and some earlier), baroque
- 20th century, more on the experimental side.
 
If they'd said since 1978 and before, or 1979 and after, this would've been easy. Each successive decade after 1970 was less great than the one before it. One problem with the poll is the issue with when it was written vs. when it was first recorded, or when the BEST (relatively speaking) recording was made. Most of my collecting resources have gone to Classical/Jazz with Rock that actually required effort to write, arrange and perform included. Dates aren't as important. But as another poster has already pointed out, about 90-ish percent of what's been done in popular music since the turn of the Century is singularly uninspiring to me. Music was my chosen career, btw...
 
This poll did have some hesitations for me because I love big band era and swing...that being said most of the recordings I listen too were recorded post 1961
 
No, it means you don't appreciate the parameters I prefer (and yes, literacy matters on the topic) of what comprises "input" effort x "final aggregate result quality" equaling something far greater than the sum of its parts. And by that metric a lot (not all though) post-modern popular Music fails and does so spectacularly. There's data that lends that assessment credibility, btw. (https://www.mandatory.com/culture/1062828-11-reasons-music-sucks-now-more-than-ever and https://qz.com/767812/millennial-whoop/) It's okay to like whatever strikes one's fancy. But lowest common denominator marketing over the first part of this Century or so has yielded some pretty spectacularly uninspiring Music, irrespective of the idiom. Dumbed down isn't bad because it's popular, it's bad because it takes very little in the way of artistry to construct (and usually to perform) it. Zappa put it best:
"Gimme the tune. Do I like this tune? Does it sound like another tune that I like? The more familiar it is, the better I like it. Hear those three notes there? Those are the three notes I can sing along with. I like those notes very, very much. Give me a beat. Not a fancy one. Give me a GOOD BEAT -- something I can dance to. It has to go boom-bap, boom-boom-BAP. If it doesn't, I will hate it very, very much. Also, I want it right away -- and then, write me some more songs like that -- over and over and over again, because I'm really into music.”
 
We don't have to agree, but I have good reasons for my opinion (and again, I made my living at it, which means it wasn't a casual relationship) and I don't begrudge anyone else theirs. But "lowest common denominator" is not an infallible calculus for tangible excellence in anything and never has been. (It's certainly not in terms of quality audio, otherwise, this site wouldn't exist.) Depending on what's being discussed, sometimes there can be an inverse relationship.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom