Has there been a more abysmal excursion into music than this?

debate over!!!

 

 

 

 

That last point seems unnecessary to point out, as it makes perfect sense.

What about...

Michael Jackson? Sure there's probably people here who love him, but he's in the Rock and Roll hall of fame and RUSH isn't. He's probably released a total of 1.3 rock songs in his career. WTF!?

Flawless lol

 

-gated drums

-the choice of synth sounds which sounded state-of-the-art at the time but now sound cheesy and dated

-MTV (or more specifically the importance given to image over the music)

-going from 24-track recording to 48-track recording

-sampling became more and more acceptable

 

Nonetheless, there was a lot of good music in that decade, especially in Metal, Avant-Prog, "College Rock/Alternative," and Industrial. There was a lot of one-hit wonders in the '80s, but most of those songs were great compared to the one-hit wonders today.

 

 

How credible!!

 

 

 

 

 

I actually didn't mind (even liked) both styles still in 79, but largely by 83, I didn't like either...>>> I used to love early Priest and sabbath, etc... I welcomed Iron maiden, but by Piece of mind, I didn't care.... and never got into MWOBHMB, and even worse, the spped-thrash schools or the glam-hair metal scenes bnever did a thing for me.... Even if nowadays I can find some of those bands listenable.>> Ditto for punk... despite Violent Femmes and The jam still making the odd good album in 83, the movement had become irrelevant by 79.

 

Despite my dislike of the 80's (I was 17 in 1980, soooo it should've been MY decade), there was indeed a lot of things still possible.... unfortunately, it all took a turn for the worst

 

the reason why I don't like the 80's is that unfortunately, is that it's place in the chronology of music is that it simply bend the rules for pop & rock one way and made a return impossible... thus shaping the following decades in an almost un-salvageable manner (il you'll except the retro-movements)

 

What I'm getting at is that the music insdustry was always dictating whatever was being distributed and whatever was forcefed to the public (it's amazing to see that Abbey Road studios in 65 were filled with old men whilte lab coats), but in the late 60's and early 70's, they sort of lost control of things.... and it sort of did so willingly too... because the public followed adventurous artistes, thus making money for the industry....

 

But the music industry executives saw a mean to get back in control and this time made sure that it would never be tossed aside anymore... the first thing they did was rationalize the costs , but also getting rid of the old wave wityh strong demands by installing kids that were all too glad to bask in the quarter hour of sunshine

 

------------------- 

 

It's not limited to music alone, though...  this was in almost all areas of life that firms became bigger than countries and going global and become multi-national affairs ... of course in the 90's and 00's things got worse and the conglomerates grew even bigger, making their 80's ancestors looking like feeble start-ups... But it all took birth in the 80's (yeah, I know McDonald's and General Foods existed well before the 80's)... and I can't help but wonder how much better (or worse, who knows) the planet would be  if the 80's never happened the way it did, but say had just remained clamer or just a logical continuation of the 70's... Maybe it wouldn't be better at all and the world would still be bi-polar with the Cold War and such things that we tend to forget but made the 70's anything but an easy decade for almost everyone as well.

 

 

anyway, that's all for my two-penny philosophico-historical ramblings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More or less. I don't know if I agree with the tracking concern (being I know next to nothing about the technical side of things, and that I like alot of sound, so more tracks is favorable in my mind, at least in theory) but the rest certainly are the crux of the problem.

 

Of course, saying the 80s suck doesn't mean everything that was produced was crap, some good stuff did exist. Even the pop still was somewhat interesting, especially compared to today, and anyone who knows my musical tastes knows that's quite a statement.

 

Nope, sorry, 80s is THE metal decade irrespective of that two of the best metal bands made their best work in the 70s - Sabbath and Priest.  There's no two ways about it, 80s radically changed metal and defined what it is for good. When I say "metal fan", I mean an obsessive metal listener who likes something from a good many of its genres and not just a few bands or one scene like the NWOBHM.  And I don't think anybody who likes extreme metal or even heavy/power metal would say the 80s was not a better decade for metal than the 70s, it absolutely was.  I am a metal fan and that is my view too but I like prog, fusion, funk/R&B (the better artists like Wonder) too much to like 80s more than the 70s!

Sean Trane wrote: of course in the 90's and 00's things got worse and the conglomerates grew even bigger, making their 80's ancestors looking like feeble start-ups... But it all took birth in the 80's (yeah, I know McDonald's and General Foods existed well before the 80's)... and I can't help but wonder how much better (or worse, who knows) the planet would be  if the 80's never happened the way it did, but say had just remained clamer or just a logical continuation of the 70's... Maybe it wouldn't be better at all and the world would still be bi-polar with the Cold War and such things that we tend to forget but made the 70's anything but an easy decade for almost everyone as well.

I understand where this line of argument comes from and can relate to it but since I was not an 80s kid, I am only looking at the albums that were made at the end of the day and on that basis cannot find any clinching reason to say the 80s were so much worse than the 90s and 00s. There were still talented musicians in the 80s and in spite of them either being past their best (because their prime era was the 70s) or being constrained by the peculiar sonic values of the time, they still made interesting music within a mode that made it easier for large audiences to enjoy it. That is what rock music lost with the 90s...the moment audiences are expected to persevere too much to get to the better stuff, the genre stagnates and gets boring.  The only band I have heard to really buck this trend was Dave Matthews Band.  To an extent, Radiohead too (but I am not sure their more interesting stuff is that accessible and we are speaking of mainly two albums here). Also, a good many of the genres and trends that people like from 90s and 00s were, ironically enough, defined in the 80s.  Dean had made quite an authoritative post on this but it's a long time back and I doubt I'd be able to reproduce it now.

Lastly, I am not a big believer in hypothetical scenarios so if it was meant to be that Beatles, Dylan and other 60s bands briefly made rock/pop a very interesting and cutting edge kind of music,  then it was also inevitable that things would eventually go wrong. In other words, there's probably no way the 80s would have turned out differently, it was meant to be.

 

I have 2 albums by the Carpenters, 'Horizon' and 'A song for you' and I love them  

 

It is a good song

 

Exactly.

 

The pompous, lame, cheezy synth sound that sounded exactly to me during the 80's as you state sounds to you now, especiallyin the first half of the 80's. Synth pop, new romantic, art pop, dance pop and some of the new wave artists. AWFUL! Being 18 in the 1983 I went back in time to search and I found what I was looking for. A lot of the music in the 10 year period from 1965-1975. The Culture Club, The Eurythmics, Wang Chung, A Flock Of Seagulls, Wham, etc. I can't go on the memories hurt too much.

 

MTV. Mainstream TV. Music became more about video than audio. I admit it, I watched Much Music(MM), Canada's equivilent to MTV and what seemed like hours waiting for an artists I actually liked to be be shown thier video. After utter disappointment and frustration within a short time the only times I watched MM was for the Power Hour for metal and the retro segment hoping to glimpses of artists from the 60's and the 70's. MM has now become a "reality" TV show network. What a joke as it was a joke back in the 80's. Regressive.

 

Sampling started in the late 70's but in unison with that "synth sound" of the 80's. Agony.

 

Gated reverb on the snare drum. Ahhh man. Now this coupled with sampling and the "synth sound." I used to beg for mercy back in the clubs in the 80's, sometimes even leaving as the music was so unbearable for me. Wasn't Phil Collins that popularised the gated drum. Thanx Bongohead. Then some of the "classic" and even some metal bands incorporated in thier music. What next? Just brutal.

 

For me, metal was the only music that kept things real generally in the 80's. NWoBHM and the emergence of thrash.

 

BTW, where in the hell was prog? In the AOR/pop section of the record store.

 

Yes, I'd agree that the 80's were definitely the decade where metal did become all-important, and it even became a refuge for non-specific metal/hard rock fans as the anti-pop current. The number of metal bands exploded, a few subge,nres were created and their visibility increased drastically, mainly due to the same artificial tricks (MTV, make-up, spandex, puffed-up hairdo, etc..) as for the rest of the pop-rock domain..

 

But AFAIAC, if there were loads of metal sales, there were few albums that had the importance or quality such as

 

Paranoid, Sad Wings, Van Halen's debut, Secret Treaties, Iron Maiden's debut (79), Zoso,  In Rock (not that metal, I know), etc... Motorhead was also a 70's band, btw

 

rogerthat wrote: Sean Trane wrote: of course in the 90's and 00's things got worse and the conglomerates grew even bigger, making their 80's ancestors looking like feeble start-ups... But it all took birth in the 80's (yeah, I know McDonald's and General Foods existed well before the 80's)... and I can't help but wonder how much better (or worse, who knows) the planet would be  if the 80's never happened the way it did, but say had just remained clamer or just a logical continuation of the 70's... Maybe it wouldn't be better at all and the world would still be bi-polar with the Cold War and such things that we tend to forget but made the 70's anything but an easy decade for almost everyone as well.   I understand where this line of argument comes from and can relate to it but since I was not an 80s kid, I am only looking at the albums that were made at the end of the day and on that basis cannot find any clinching reason to say the 80s were so much worse than the 90s and 00s. There were still talented musicians in the 80s and in spite of them either being past their best (because their prime era was the 70s) or being constrained by the peculiar sonic values of the time, they still made interesting music within a mode that made it easier for large audiences to enjoy it. That is what rock music lost with the 90s...the moment audiences are expected to persevere too much to get to the better stuff, the genre stagnates and gets boring.  The only band I have heard to really buck this trend was Dave Matthews Band.  To an extent, Radiohead too (but I am not sure their more interesting stuff is that accessible and we are speaking of mainly two albums here). Also, a good many of the genres and trends that people like from 90s and 00s were, ironically enough, defined in the 80s.  Dean had made quite an authoritative post on this but it's a long time back and I doubt I'd be able to reproduce it now. Lastly, I am not a big believer in hypothetical scenarios so if it was meant to be that Beatles, Dylan and other 60s bands briefly made rock/pop a very interesting and cutting edge kind of music,  then it was also inevitable that things would eventually go wrong. In other words, there's probably no way the 80s would have turned out differently, it was meant to be. >>> Of course, it wasn't meant to be that way.... It just happened ... that's the magic of that era.... FTM, the 70's just were the natural consequence of the 60's, a bit more than an afterthought, though.... Whereas there was a real jump or leap made when the 80's happened.... The 80's rejected the 70's heritage (well the punks did in fall of 76).... something that cannot be said of the 70's towards the 60's.   I've got a buddy that considers the 70's starting in spring 67 until spring 77, and the 80's starting from that date onwards and the 60's being from the surf music until the summer of love... Can't really disagree as well.

 

well in my own lists (don't really make any) and shelves , I don't think the number of albums I own from the 90's or the 00's would be superior to the ones I have from the 80's, so I'll allow your point.

But from the 80's album I have, I'd say that more than 50% of them I have are from 60's - 70's artistes, rather than 80's group proper (the ones releasing their debut in the 80's that is).

 

I can't say that about the 90's, despite owning a fair bit of 91-93 US albums (grunge or RHCP). Morseso, I'd say that retro-prog and trip-hop and early post-rock save the day (I know) for that 90's decade... there was even a return to form from RIO bands as well.  This despite the 90's being a consequence or continuation of the 80's. (whereas, I repeat, the 80's were not the artistic continuation of the 70's, if you'll except the horrible AOR groups).

 

 

Now the 00's, I can't really compare yet (even summerize) until i have a sufficient overall view of the decade, which won't be for a few years yet. But I've not seen a real artistical break between the 90's and 00's, soooo I'd say that they (the 00's) were the continuation of the previous decade. Even in terms of my sheves, if I was to count the numbers of album I own (or wish) for that decade, I'd say that it wouldn't be complete for another three or four years, because I usually dioscover things (well some anyway) with a few years' gap in reg&ards to their release dates

 

 

Actually, it's fairly interesting to see that even nowadays, when looking at the albums I buy in the last years, there is still more than 60% that come from the 60's & 70's (not counting reissues), and that I'd estimate that less than 5% are from the 80's (and often RIO albums).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPicard wrote: The 70's were atrocious: ABBA, Rubettes, Bee Gees, disco music, country, French singers (go to hell, Michel Sardou!), the Carpenters... And some dare to say the 80's sucked?

 

Well, if you're going to compare from the bottomside, I can easily quintuple amount of suckish album of the 80's to the 70's, despite the names yopu mentuion.... (milli Vanilli, Wham, Culture Club, etc... need I add more?)

 

 

 

 

Blacksword wrote: There was just a lot of over produced cheese around in the 80's. Artists wanted to sound big and bright; a sound that went with their big hair, and their big shoulder pads. It was, for the most part, a sh*t time for music. That said, terrible music could always be avoided quite easily, by simply not buying it.

 

Well i didn't, but the industry made it almost imposible not to get over-exposed to the crap they were trying to forcefeed you.

 

Sean Trane wrote: Of course, it wasn't meant to be that way.... It just happened ... that's the magic of that era.... FTM, the 70's just were the natural consequence of the 60's, a bit more than an afterthought, though.... Whereas there was a real jump or leap made when the 80's happened.... The 80's rejected the 70's heritage (well the punks did in fall of 76).... something that cannot be said of the 70's towards the 60's.   I've got a buddy that considers the 70's starting in spring 67 until spring 77, and the 80's starting from that date onwards and the 60's being from the surf music until the summer of love... Can't really disagree as well.

The 70s were a natural consequence but also an expansion on the 60s. And metal/hard rock, which had a presence towards the end of the 60s, became a much bigger force in the 70s.  Another important development was that Motown was set free and went through that in the 70s that rock did in the 60s (though not as seminal of course).  Anyway, I am just adding to your points, not much of a disagreement here.  I didn't intend "meant to be" in that sense. I really meant if that the cultural accident of the 60s could happen, then it is not so surprising that it didn't last.  It was bound to happen.  The bigger problem is in fact the marginalization of academic music and rock bands can't seem to find hot new techniques to borrow from jazz/classical as much as they used to. Pop music was boring before the Beatles and a few decades after them became boring again.  What has changed is the place academic music once held in society.

Sean Trane wrote:  But from the 80's album I have, I'd say that more than 50% of them I have are from 60's - 70's artistes, rather than 80's group proper (the ones releasing their debut in the 80's that is).

I think I did mention this myself in my earlier post as well.  In the 80s, some 70s artists still had the vitality to adapt to going trends in music and succeed. By the 90s, they were winded for good.  On the other hand, in the 80s, the trend of artists burning out after a couple or more of good albums had already begun so not as many cashed in on the 90s so one usually tends to like albums of artists that began to release albums in that very decade.

 

Biz Markie's "Just A Friend" comes to mind.

 

I use to think....why wipe Prog completely clean of promotion? Why couldn't it be placed in rotation with everything else? Clearly there was still an audience for it. The industry could have if they wanted to ...kept Prog going and still made a decent profit, however  we were forced to not give up our on going profit by playing Blondie and The Police. So I was about 23 years old witnessing Progressive artists 10 years older than me getting burnt by the business. During that time it was more and more difficult to find underground prog albums or even the more established prog band's albums in most record shops. You either found a specialty shop or? I can see most of the costumes that Gabriel, Wakeman, Emerson, and Anderson wore looking a bit ridiculous to people , but the industry could have taken steps to assemble festivals and hall concerts to promote bands like Conventum, Harmonium, and others just as they did when they signed Jazz/Fusion bands to huge labels like Columbia. For some reason the 80's "New Wave" became the main source for the record industry's profit and also "Heavy Metal" and disregard for Prog seemed a law then.

 
That's what sucked about the 80's. That mentality! Either dress like us and play the simplistic moronic hits or forget your between 500 to a thousand a week.There were many times when a working band would hire a professional schooled guitarist in their 30's to play 80's Van Halen because they knew for them it was easy. It was easy and he was like a cartoon character but what else did they have to offer? Anything truly interesting enough to captivate the musician as they made their money? The answer was no. The 80's was a decade where you had to play crap to make money. You needed to make good money so you could afford the recording studio. It was the best way to make contacts then and playing out every week helped as well. But the music was like....blah! yuk!   So they wanted people with less talent. So by being talented and schooled with diversity you became a less desirable choice and the musician who knew no more than 8 chords was made senior vice president.. Not so much with the "Metal" bands , but the "New Wave". For a musician.....that is what sucked about the 80's.

 

 

I guess if you were around at the time and you only listened to the stuff in the charts then you would think it was all rubbish? 

 

In any case, I enjoyed LOTS of music made at that time. The 80s (my 20s) were very rich for me, musically. I found music to be quite diverse then: Cure, Smiths, Clash, The Damned, Fripp, Belew, Bowie, Crimson, Simple Minds, Steel Pulse, U2, Echo & The Bunnymen, XTC, REM, Devo, Stranglers, Jane Siberry, Talk Talk, Talking Heads, Madness, The Specials, English Beat, Ian Dury, The Jam, Psychedelic Furs, Chameleons UK, Police, Ultravox, Japan, Dire Straits, UB40, Cramps, The The, Joe Jackson, Los Lobos, Mental As Anything, Midnight Oil, Shriekback, Lloyd Cole, Robyn Hitchcock, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Elvis Costello, etc, etc, etc.

 

I vastly preferred all of that to the vacuous disco which predated it. The late 70s to early 80s saw an explosion of original new bands on the airwaves, and on record labels. We danced, partied, had fun, sang along, and grinned a lot.

 

No, as at any time, it wasn't all good -- but there was PLENTY of good to be found. Commercial radio or one person's mainstream collection does not even scratch the surface.

rogerthat wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: I really meant that the entire mainstream entertainment industry during the 80's appeared to be particularly obsessed with appearance/surface at the expense of content. This manifest itself in cinema,TV and videos - a golden age of the poseur if you will While it is true for the 80s, it is also true for the 90s and 00s.  Nothing much has changed. We target the 80s because that was the big change but 90s being an amazing revival which dispensed of all the flaws of the 80s is a big myth.  The obsession with looks remains to date.

 

Yeah, I agreed previously that the 90's and 00's not being sensibly or notably much better than the 80(s, precisely because the 80's modified the industry (and life) in an irrepairable way (no going-back).

 

Looks were already mega important in the 50's rock'nroll bands when they chose to fress up the same... (even big band jazz of the 30's did that as well) >>> but that was about uniformity in a band >>> like putting on a suiit & tie to work at Wall street.

 

The 70's didn't seem to give a hoot (well the black funk group still dressed the same), but the 80's blew that to shreds.... it was important to look in certain  fashion, but not too much like your comrades... In a way it was fine.... but then painting your left pinkie in black nailpolish was important (the videoclips emphasized it)...

 

Sooo it's not that much the fashion that ruined things more that the video over-exposure that did it.

 

In some weird kind of way, the music scene is still in the 80's !!! the pop realm never really left that decade >> let's face it: those boys-band and girls-band are somewhat linked to the 80's and Wham!.

 

 

Peter wrote:  You can't classify music styles via decades. When people say "80s music," they are likely thinking of stuff from around 77-78 to 86-87. (Much like "70s music" could be taken to mean stuff from 67-68 to about 76 and the advent of disco, punk and new wave. Musicians don't all just suddenly change as decades change: "Oh, it's January 1st, 1980. Let's abandon everything we've done up until now, and totally reinvent our music." It doesn't work that way.   I vastly preferred all of that to the vacuous disco which predated it. The late 70s to early 80s saw an explosion of original new bands on the airwaves, and on record labels. We danced, partied, had fun, sang along, and grinned a lot.   No, as at any time, it wasn't all good -- but there was PLENTY of good to be found. Commercial radio or one person's mainstream collection does not even scratch the surface.

-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

 

...and yes, the "decade" ran from 1977 to 1992

 

I'd say early 91, because the Grunge/Seattle movement and Neil Young's Ragged Glory came just after that time... the Rageous Rock  Revival (I just made that up) can't be counted as the 80's 

 

 

--------------

 

actually the same friend who sees (as I do) the 67-76 and 77-onwards boundaries also sees the XiXth Century as running from 1789 (French revolution) until 1914 (1st WW) and the XXth running from 1918 until 1989 (fall of Berlin wall)... I also havea hard time disagreeing.with him 

 

 

Good 80s music...

 

 

 

"Are You Walter In disguise?"

 

do you listen to other genres than prog rock ? If no, your answer is not objective.

I might have to stab you in the throat with a pencil 

Innovation in prog rock during the 80's wasn't limited to KC, mind you.

I'm not trolling, I'm just pissed at the kingcrimsonfan saying creativity ceased in the 80's. We don't need another Walter, do we?

He wins this round. 

Well played KCFan

If anything, the 80s were great for music *precisely because* you had a market for alternative music developing where small independent labels were more and more able to compete with the big boys. And as much as some here might hate to admit it, we have punk rock to thank for that. Sure, eventually the alternative/indie scene got co-opted by the big record companies... but then the Internet came along and suddenly any band can self-release their own album and sell it to people *all over the world* - or give it away for free, simply for the love of the music.

If you only pay attention to super-commercialised stuff optimised for mass appeal, of course the 80s and later eras sucked and had less diversity and range of talent than previous eras. But if you were still paying attention to the commercial mainstream by that point in time you were a complete rube. The good sh*t had long since moved to other platforms.

 

I don't really know that it is such a good thing if searching for good music is like looking for a needle in a haystack.  I do get your point that the 'independent' market gave listeners a choice not to have to listen to commercial music they didn't like, but, idealistic as it may sound, the healthy situation would always be for good music to make it to the mainstream.  There is then easy availability of albums and there are more concerts of bands at various locations.  And, unfortunately, indie/independent has only given rise to the "I am so awesome because I have music you've never heard of" snobbery.

 

I am not totally convinced anyway that commercial music per se in the 80s was so much worse than the 70s.  I think the decline truly set in with artists like Celine Dion becoming commercial prime movers. Instead of merely tapping the vocal muzak niche, these were now the superstars of pop with not much excitement to offer.

 

Really, if the reigning commercial music of the era happened to be the Beatles, I would take it every day of the week and not be much bothered about other successful but mediocre artists of the time (because it would not be very difficult for me to learn about and follow the Beatles's music) but to see mostly names like Rihanna at the top of the charts is not going to get me much enthused about commercial music. 

 

Exactly!

 

harmonium.ro wrote: Accessible pop and sophisticated experimentalism coexisted. IMO it's all down to the change in paradigm that happened in the industry, not to the creative changes.

 

To an extent, it is also what the musicians were doing.  At a certain point, the sophisticated stuff became too obtuse for mass appeal while those who used to balance the two well slanted more heavily towards accessible fluff.  Still, I'd cite Purple Rain as an example of an album balancing intrigue with appeal (and matters of taste should not confuse the issue here because it understandably was made in keeping with the 80s epoch) so it took longer than the 80s for the model to change completely.  Circa the present day, my cousin, who learnt a few grades of piano, will not listen to any rock/pop music with more than a few bars of instrumental sections because she wants them to get to the point, ie the vocals.  And that is how a lot of people who I know like mainstream music relate to it.

I think that may be true, but I think that was a change in paradigm at the managing and marketing level rather than at the artistic level. Had the music industry developed the approaches and models they used in the 1980s earlier, they'd have used them earlier.

In other words, (to use a punk analogy) don't blame the Sex Pistols, blame Malcolm McLaren. :)

It's just a decade - and not worth either hating or loving.