Music: Why did music drop in quality during the 1980s?

[iamjs]

No, because that's ********

I'll try the quote again:

Which artists were amazing in the 70s ↑
awful in the 80s ↓
and then great again the 90s ↑

which means.... (fill in the blank)

 

[Osprey]

I just think they've been flat out better with greater regularity, personally, and I don't understand where this need to dismiss that comes from. I've never been able to bring up this preference without someone assuming this bias that has not at all been my experience.

I'm not dismissing your preference, but your preference doesn't dismiss the point, either. You may not have historical bias for that era, but that doesn't mean that it's untrue that a great many do. You preferring it despite not really listening to it until 2005 definitely makes you an exception to the rule, but that doesn't invalidate the rule. It's possible to like something (music, movies, games, etc.) without nostalgia or bias having anything to do with it while it still has a lot to do with why others like it.

BTW, Shareefruck, every time that I refresh, you've majorly edited one of your posts, sometimes making it twice as long as it was before. I thought that I was the only one that bad, but you're as bad as I am!

 

[Shareefruck]

There are two biases I would concede to, though.

It's entirely possible that all of the modern stuff that's praised right now isn't among the best stuff at all, and the best stuff have gone largely unnoticed/been underexposed.

The other possibility is that truckloads of the awful stuff is still currently being praised by critics (and won't be in 20 years), which makes finding good modern stuff more of a nightmare.

These other assumptions I think are nonsense, though. And again, even acknowledging these biases, I think there are biases in favor of modern music that probably balances them out. It feels disingenuous to assume one over the other.

 

[Shareefruck]

I'm not dismissing your preference, but your preference doesn't dismiss the point, either. You may not have historical bias for that era, but that doesn't mean that it's untrue that a great many do. You preferring it despite not really listening to it until 2005 definitely makes you an exception to the rule, but that doesn't invalidate the rule. It's possible to like something (music, movies, games, etc.) without nostalgia or bias having anything to do with it while it still has a lot to do with why others like it.

BTW, Shareefruck, every time that I refresh, you've majorly edited one of your posts, sometimes making it twice as long as it was before. I thought that I was the only one that bad, but you're as bad as I am!

I fully admit to this. It must be some OCD thing. I can't formulate all of my thoughts in a concise manner, click submit and leave it alone.

But don't you see the danger and frustration in arguing in the manner that you're arguing though? I suggest that I think music actually has gotten worse. You suggest that it only seems that way because of apparent sociological biases. I explain why I don't think that's how I arrived at that conclusion. You say "then you would be in the minority." Somehow, I've provided a satisfactory answer for every bit of skepticism/concern and yet my opinion is still ultimately called into question. It's very unreasonable, and becomes like you've created a circular argument where one impression is incapable of being correct regardless of circumstance, simply because biases could possibly exist. Biases can exist for any opinion.

And again, there's no reason to believe that biases in that direction have any stronger impact on perception than equally possible biases going in the opposite direction. You're just assuming bias at the sight of imbalance, leaving the only reasonable option left available thinking that everything's always equal. Seems crazy to me.

 

[crump]

 

[Roo Returns]

We all look at music differently. Some of us have played instruments and expect music to have cool melodies or technical licks or odd time signatures in tunes. Others are all about production and arrangements.

Personally, I'm interested in what's going on with the instruments and also the substance of the lyrics, and arrangements. But it's hard to compare Stairway To Heaven or 70s Stevie Wonder to let's say Mr. Bungle or Chance The Rapper.

Some publications are really biased an end up influencing people. Pitchfork for instance loved Adelle while that record did nothing for me personally. Also look at their ratings for Radiohead and Modest Mouse whom they love unconditionally (Radiohead for the last 15 years has been only ok to decent if you ask me) compared to Red Hot Chili Peppers and Metallica who for about fifteen years, would take many cheap shots at no matter what.

 

[Bjorn Le]

90s had grunge and alternative, but also had nu-metal and boy bands.

There's been "boy band" type bands since the 1950s. Still is today, still will be a decade from now. It's an enduring style that adapts to whatever the prevailing "pop" sound is. Let's not punish the 1990s for it. Nu Metal also really isn't any worse than hair metal. It got a bad reputation because for several justified reasons, but also a few just plain stupid reasons. There's plenty of artists who have songs with a nu metal sound, which begs the question, what even is nu metal? The bands most associated with the label hate it, and people like to pick and choose who gets it. If you exclude certain bands (like RATM), but include others (like Limp Bizkit or Kid Rock), are you criticizing the genre or the bands? I'd rather criticize the bands.

 

[Mrb1p]

^ You can still acknowledge that music in general has gotten progressively worse since the 2000s while agreeing that there's some quality music being made, though--that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Masterpieces used to be a regularity during the boom of the 60s-70s. Then it became an occasional thing, with great albums being a regularity. Then that became an occasional thing, with good albums being a regularity. Now we're down to "there's some quality stuff being made still".

I would agree with that. I actually think it's been a steady climb down since the 70s, personally.

Especially the 2010s. The 2000s I sort of get, but after 2010, it's been a wasteland for me.

Are we gonna go back to the question of masterpiece? I thought we somewhat agreed that it wasnt really an argument.

 

[KesselBuiltMyHotrod]

Reagan.

 

[Shareefruck]

Are we gonna go back to the question of masterpiece? I thought we somewhat agreed that it wasnt really an argument.

Hey, it would be your prerogative to pick at that. I'm just giving my impression of how good and how frequent I think the music from respective decades has been. Am I not allowed to use the word masterpiece to describe my peak experiences without being challenged about the validity of the word?

I think the only thing we agreed on was that we weren't going to agree on it.

 

[Know Your Enemy]

a dog chasing its own tail

 

[ProstheticConscience]

The 80's gave the world the Big 4 Thrash bands, Ministry got their start, Skinny Puppy did too, Trent Reznor got his foot in the door just at the end, Jane's Addiction released Nothing's Shocking, The Cult released Love and Electric, 60% of Van Halen's first six albums were released in the 80's, Soundgarden released Louder Than Love in 1989, Mother Love Bone hadn't disbanded yet...

Clearly fallacious thread title.

 

[Bee Sheriff]

This is under the assumption that the best of music was all of the Dad Rock bands who grew old and drunk. The 80s were a magnificent renaissance for music. New Wave and rap broke out and changed melodic themes in music that are still present to this day.

 

[Osprey]

But don't you see the danger and frustration in arguing in the manner that you're arguing though? I suggest that I think music actually has gotten worse. You suggest that it only seems that way because of apparent sociological biases. I explain why I don't think that's how I arrived at that conclusion. You say "then you would be in the minority." Somehow, I've provided a satisfactory answer for every bit of skepticism/concern and yet my opinion is still ultimately called into question. It's very unreasonable, and becomes like you've created a circular argument where one impression is incapable of being correct regardless of circumstance, simply because biases could possibly exist. Biases can exist for any opinion.

You appear to feel that your opinion is being dismissed because people continue to argue even after you've provided what you believe are satisfactory answers for everything. You can't expect people to agree with all of your reasoning, though, no matter how solid you think that it is, especially on the very subjective topic of music appreciation. People will always disagree. You're not wild about my reasonings, either, which is why you gave your answers for them, but I'm not reacting as though you called my opinions into question. I don't know about you, but I'm not trying to convince anyone or win any arguments here. It's simply an interesting topic that's fun to debate and we shouldn't take it personally if others don't subscribe to our opinions or tastes.

 

[Shareefruck]

You appear to feel that your opinion is being dismissed because people continue to argue even after you've provided what you believe are satisfactory answers for everything. You can't expect people to agree with all of your reasoning, though, no matter how solid you think that it is, especially on the very subjective topic of music appreciation. People will always disagree. You're not wild about my reasonings, either, which is why you gave your answers for them, but I'm not reacting as though you called my opinions into question. I don't know about you, but I'm not trying to convince anyone or win any arguments here. It's simply an interesting topic that's fun to debate and we shouldn't take it personally if others don't subscribe to our opinions or tastes.

You misunderstand my intentions/objections, though. I'm perfectly fine with people disagreeing with me that they don't think music has gotten worse since the 80s. In fact, unlike others, I won't even try to use objective facts to argue something like that, because I do think it's entirely subjective. I certainly don't care if anyone subscribes to my tastes.

However, when that disagreement becomes a broad generalization about why an entire population of people who think a certain thing are probably broadly biased or misguided about something (even if nobody individually is being called out), that's something that will always rub me the wrong way-- I think it sucks the life right out of fun conversations when we start making such assumptions/generalizations, and I do think it gets ugly whenever someone does that.

It actually bothers me less when someone is rudely and individually trashed, because at least a direct argument is being made that can be addressed and defended/dismantled. In this case, it's something that's vague enough (and slightly passive aggressive enough) that no defense appears to be able to address it, which I find to be a frustrating premise to setup and discuss. Nothing against you, either, a lot of people do it and I think you'll find that that's consistently the thing on these boards that sets me off.

I just think we're better off engaging actual points, cases, individuals, and sentiments rather than pointing at un-provable generalizations to explain away things that we disagree with (for an OT example, that kind of environment is what's currently turning the Canucks board into an abysmal ****-show right now, with constant assertions about how the other side are just rooting for every Benning transaction to fail, rather than engaging the actual opinions). And it cuts both ways. If someone talked about how they think music has only gotten better since the 80s, I think it would be equally questionable behavior if I started to talk about how alot of that is just the tendency to get caught up by the shiny gloss of new things and how they get elevated higher than deserved due to currentness. I don't think that's fair play.

Get what I mean?

 

[CycloneLaunch]

To my ears, there were multiple albums every year from that era that were really masterpieces . There were also alot of stuff that are viewed as masterpieces that I find completely overrated. I don't think Pet Sounds or Led Zeppelin IV are masterpieces, for example, and even Dark Side of The Moon comes up a little short for me. But the evidence is so overwhelming and abundant to me that even excluding the mountain of praised stuff that I disagree with, the pattern still shows up for me, personally.

And you're saying that like we all grew up in the 60s and 70s or something, and can't help but look back fondly at our memories of it

OT: I keep hearing people suggest that Dark Side of the Moon is bizarre stoner/acid/drugged out music, and I've never really understood that. It's not that out there. It just sounds like normal/accessible melodic music to me. The thing that holds it back for me are the transitional experiments that they used in the first side. They sound dated/unrewarding/intrusive to me (Speak to Me/On The Run/The coins in Money/the clock in Time, for example), especially considering that everything else goes together so well.

Hands down one of their most accessible albums as well, I guess it's just the stereotypical 'lets take drugs and listen to music' album people think of. But i've never got people who think you need to be high as a kite to appreciate it. Although I disagree about the transitional experiements, the opening riff of Breathe cutting through Speak to Me is one of my favourite parts of the album.

 

[Acadmus]

How about they got old and just ran out of steam? There wasn't any shortage of great music in the '80s, it was just being made by new (or fairly new) faces (U2, The Clash, Talk Talk, REM, The Pretenders, New Order, The Cure, Tom Petty, Eurythmics, The Smiths, and so on).

Just going with comparing apples to apples as the OP seems to suggest, there's a lot of merit to your argument. There's a lot of evidence to say that most musicians burn out their creativity in the early part of their careers. Most bands don't even survive this...they put out a disappointing album or two that doesn't generate sales and they hang it up.

If I had to guess, I'd say that in the first few years a lot of these musicians have something to say, the angst of youth, the emotional states of their struggle to succeed in music or maybe even life. The difficulties of their lives. But a lot of that goes away when they become rich and famous, and it gets much harder to find something to say that's relevant to the audience they've built up. Then the band dips back down in popularity and struggles to stay relevant. Most bands give up at this point, but for those that don't, the struggle to remain relevant becomes their inspiration and they often come up with another burst of creative energy that may last another few years, but then they once again settle down into being mediocre, and no further bursts of creativity come as they've reached acceptance with their declining fame and stagnant audience at that point. At this point they either do their perpetual greatest hits tours or they crank out dull, meaningless songs for new albums knowing those albums will have a built-in guaranteed audience of loyal fans.

Of the OP's list, from what I know:
Rolling Stones - best years were the 60s (I've listened to Exile On Main Street and don't see what's all that great about it, I find it dull, but their stuff in the 60s was really good - their last decent new music came in the early 80s).

Black Sabbath - they were something new when they started out, but having to stick to a certain sound and losing their erratic and eccentric original frontman has to have taken a toll on their creativity)

Cheap Trick - never found them all that great anyway, I think they were limited by their own limitations

Fleetwood Mac - they actually stayed good all along, but were split 4 ways creatively and at times it just didn't gel.

The Ramones - c'mon, every one of their songs sounds the same, why are they even in this list?

AC DC - see Sabbath...with an element of Cheap Trick.

Paul McCartney/Wings - There's just so many directions to go with a purely pop sound. McCartney was at his best doing a harder rock sound (Live and Let Die, for instance), but it clearly wasn't the direction he preferred to head himself so he ended up with a few standout pop songs and then a lot of crap that was popular because - hey! It's Paul McCartney. He also wasn't a great lyricist, which made him produce a lot of silly songs.

Ringo Starr - never had much to say musically, sorry. Photograph's a good song, and the No No Song is amusing, but aside from that? C'mon, he's the drummer and nothing more.

Bob Dylan - Dylan does as Dylan does - you may like it or not, but that won't matter to him.

KISS - I don't think they ever had much gas in the tank. Popular for a gimmick, some good, maybe even great songs, but burned out fast.

Rush - really can't say with them. They're such an "acquired taste" sort of artist to begin with...I like some of their songs, but many just go on and on and on far too long.

Pink Floyd - classic case of running out of meaningful things to say.

David Bowie - See Dylan. Bowie did his own thing, I don't think he ever lost his creativity and he always found something to say and was always looking for new ways to express it.

Aerosmith - extremely limited...initial fame with some great songs in the 70s, rebirth in the late 80s and managed to kind of bring back their classics and put out a handful of decent new songs, but then settled into boring again by the 90s. They were just a rock band without much to say to begin with (probably same with Cheap Trick), so flatlining was destined. Really don't know how they managed to keep going so long.

 

[Acadmus]

To test this theory, I went to www.rateyourmusic.com and took a look at the average ratings of all albums by the following artists between 1964 and 2005:

Taking the 3-year average rankings of all albums released by these artists, I found this:

1964-66: 3.79
1967-69: 3.64
1970-72: 3.65
1973-75: 3.69
1976-78: 3.53
1979-81: 3.44
1982-84: 3.13
1985-87: 2.92
1988-90: 3.14
1991-93: 3.30
1994-96: 3.01
1997-99: 3.28
2000-02: 3.20
2003-05: 3.28

I guess you could also postulate, taking these numbers as meaning people make no real intelligent choices in music at all and are just mice following the piper, that the 80s represented a major shift to electronic instruments in music and that bands that did well in the 60s and 70s on analog instruments weren't keeping up in the 80s or weren't well versed in the use of those instruments in that decade, and then both the technology (which remember, was new through the 80s - we didn't even hear the slogan "Intel inside" until the early 90s) and skill using it improved by the 90s.

Think about it...the first sampler became available only in the early 80s - and cost around $25,000 if I recall. I read in a Depeche Mode bio that the owner of their record company let them use his at a time when there were only 3 in existence, the result being Some Great Reward. That's how new this stuff was in that decade.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

I listen to a lot of post punk / cold wave/ dark wave / goth style music so I am likely to disagree with this assessment of 80s music. I would say I listen to mostly 80s bands and 2000s bands (punk, emo, screamo, post hardcore) so the 90s is probably my least favorite decade of music for the most part. (Born in 83)

 

[beowulf]

You also have to look at how music changed and evolved with new styles of heavier rock like thrash metal coming into its own in the 80s. Black Sabbath had the loss of Ozzy, look at the ratings of his solo works from the 80s.

I do think the 80s sound influenced some bands, the use of synthesizers which produced a number of hits like Europe's The final Coundown.

 

[Shareefruck]

Hands down one of their most accessible albums as well, I guess it's just the stereotypical 'lets take drugs and listen to music' album people think of. But i've never got people who think you need to be high as a kite to appreciate it. Although I disagree about the transitional experiements, the opening riff of Breathe cutting through Speak to Me is one of my favourite parts of the album.

Actually, yeah you're right... I was mistaking it for On the Run. For some reason, I remembered there being a longer On-the-Run-like intro before Breath.

Still, I think Dark Side of the Moon is incredible but doesn't quite break the sound barrier for me. I prefer Animals.

But yeah, I don't understand the perception at all. Sure, there's that context to it when it was released, but if you actually listen to the album, there's very little spacey psychedelics going on, to my ears. It's just a normal, accessible album that seems more like a gateway album than anything challenging or "out there".

 

[Roo Returns]

.

Rolling Stones - best years were the 60s (I've listened to Exile On Main Street and don't see what's all that great about it, I find it dull, but their stuff in the 60s was really good - their last decent new music came in the early 80s).

Black Sabbath - they were something new when they started out, but having to stick to a certain sound and losing their erratic and eccentric original frontman has to have taken a toll on their creativity)

Fleetwood Mac - they actually stayed good all along, but were split 4 ways creatively and at times it just didn't gel.

AC DC - see Sabbath...with an element of Cheap Trick.

KISS - I don't think they ever had much gas in the tank. Popular for a gimmick, some good, maybe even great songs, but burned out fast.

Rush - really can't say with them. They're such an "acquired taste" sort of artist to begin with...I like some of their songs, but many just go on and on and on far too long.

Pink Floyd - classic case of running out of meaningful things to say.

Aerosmith - extremely limited...initial fame with some great songs in the 70s, rebirth in the late 80s and managed to kind of bring back their classics and put out a handful of decent new songs, but then settled into boring again by the 90s. They were just a rock band without much to say to begin with (probably same with Cheap Trick), so flatlining was destined. Really don't know how they managed to keep going so long.

Wanted to comment on these groups per 80s/90s output.

Rolling Stones-Late 70s/early 80s was more polished but pretty decent. The release of albums started to grow in distance. But pretty much everyone says Voodoo Lounge>80s Stones

Black Sabbath -They were running out of steam with Ozzy in the late 70s and the separation actually helped both for a bit. Dio injected new life into them and the two early 80s albums he did with them were great and very good. Ozzy's early solo stuff thanks to Randy Rhoads was very good.

Fleetwood Mac -The remind me a bit of The Who in quality of output and how different they sounded. I think Tusk was kind of the end of their peak but the album with Gypsy had a few hits and that was like 1983. Mid-late 80s Fleetwood Mac people don't like to talk about.

AC DC - They kinda had the Metallica/Allman Brothers thing where they got really popular after an original member died. The went slightly more commercial in the 80s and even though the albums were much better with Bon Scott, Who Made Who, Thunderstruck, and the 90s stuff was pretty good.

KISS - Kiss before taking off the makeup and Lick It Up/Put The Z In Sexx was a pretty good pop rock band, after...not so great but they had their moments here and there.

Rush - Grace Under Pressure is a fine album. That's their 80s peak. They'd get really good again once Roll The Bones came out in 1991.

Pink Floyd - The tension between Waters/Gilmour post Wall killed them.

Aerosmith - 80s weren't very kind to them besides the Run DMC crossover although Pump has some really good album cuts. Get A Grip is a fine record, and Nine Lives had its moments. Afterwards it became the pure cartoon and Tyler/Perry show.

 

[Smelling Salt]

80s >>>>>>> 90s, IMO. I've always found the 90s a bit overrated.

Well **** this is the first thing we have ever agreed on.

EDIT: Haha just saw Jussi's post

 

[Lost Horizons]

Kiss went down hill in the mid to late 80's because Gene all but checked out and let Paul do everything. Gene was basically too busy trying to be an actor and producer. They are closer to being Paul solo albums then they are Kiss albums and Gene admits that

 

[Smelling Salt]

I think this is bang on. Just for fun I used my Eric Clapton example and picked Cocaine (1978) and Forever Man (1985) and listened to them back to back. I think everyone should try it. Very interesting how different one artist can sound based on the trends in music at the time.

[/MEDIA]pJyQpAiMXkg[/MEDIA]

[/MEDIA]0gDvR1sZ6I4[/MEDIA]

Heh I'm not a Clapton fan at all but I kinda dig his 80s stuff like Forever Man and It's In the Way That You Use It .

On a related note, ZZ Top was bad for that huge change too. Consider their 70s output, then in the 80s they had Sharp Dressed Man and Legs which were criticised for being too synthy. Then on the album after that they release Stages which sounds like Rick Springfield.

Kiss went down hill in the mid to late 80's because Gene all but checked out and let Paul do everything. Gene was basically too busy trying to be an actor and producer. They are closer to being Paul solo albums then they are Kiss albums and Gene admits that

I think 70s KISS is extremely cringey though do like Detroit Rock City. But strangely enough, I love their output like Crazy Nights and Hot In The Shade which is basically butt-rock but I have a huge soft spot for. Listened to it in my early teens and it kind of stuck with me.