Music: Did the best popular music come out before the 90s?

[Elvis P]

The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, Rolling Stones, Chuck Berry, Jimi Hendrix, James Brown, Little Richard, Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, Bob Marley, Beach Boys, Buddy Holly, Led Zeppelin, Stevie Wonder, Sam Cooke, Muddy Waters, Marvin Gaye, Velvet Underground, Bo Diddley, Otis Redding

Did the best popular music come out before the 90s? This is a very knowledgeable forum and I'm just curious what you guys will say. I'll give a few examples of the old stuff above in no order, but I'm not making any claims as to the quality or comprehensiveness of my list.

Click to read more...

 

[Xelebes]

Sure. That is, if you include the 20s, 30s and 40s. But not if you don't and are simply saying the sixties, seventies and eighties.

The latter was a great period for the guitar. But not for other instruments. The piano had its best years from 1870 to 1950. The accordion had its best years from 1880 to 1950. The violin had its best years from 1770 to 1960. So if we are going to restrict it to the guitar, yeah it was a very good time.

But now we in the zenith for the computer and the synthesiser. So for those who like the synth and the computer, it's a great time for pop music.

 

[Teemu]

VU is pop music now?

 

[Jumptheshark]

Being old I will point out that we have this thread a few times in my 20 plus years on this site. In 10 years time we will have a thread asking if music from 2000 is the best of all time

 

[Acadmus]

But now we in the zenith for the computer and the synthesiser. So for those who like the synth and the computer, it's a great time for pop music.

I'd disagree. The synthesizer, sampler, and electronic drum kit started being used in the late 70s/early 80s, and musicians back then were more in touch with classical styles and, to be honest, had better honed natural talents. They were capable of composing great music and performing it very well too. Pop musicians in the 60s - 80s had much better developed singing talent, whereas after the beginning of the 90s they'd become "Mariah Careyized" doing range dynamics instead of singing, then came the Spice Girls and N'Sync/Backstreet Boys days by the end of the decade, followed up closely by Brittany Spears and suddenly all pop music had to have one particular "sound" to be popular. The singers - largely thanks to the business strategy of the record companies - started to become interchangeable. Producers (following a trend started in Motown in the 50s but suddenly becoming widespread in the '90s and '00s) became far more important than the talent they were producing. And they were producing music to make money, not art.

We are in an era now where Adele is considered a great singer, when she really is fairly mediocre...more talented than me, yeah, but wouldn't stack up well to the singers of the 80s, and even less well to those of the 60s and 70s, and her songs are generic and bland. From what I hear, Lady Gaga would be more comparable, but the music she records rarely demonstrates this talent.

Simply put, a LOT more artistry was going into even the popular music of the pre-90s period of the rock-and-roll era, which makes me answer yes to the question. Now if you want to broaden this to "all generally rock-genred music" then no, those making their own music are still capable of producing high quality music, though it's undeniable a lot more bands and solo artists were getting signed to recording contracts and able to reach a broader audience prior to 1997.

 

[kihei]

Yup.

 

[MoreOrr]

I think popular music has everything to do with access. Today people can access such a variety of artists that no particular artist gets as much attention as artists used to get in the past. In addition to that, I think our tastes have become more individualistic, although as teenagers it's still the norm that most feel the need to be part of some group and adhere to the same interests as their peers. But beyond this wider access to variety and this greater individualism in tastes, there is also the huge variety of entertainment avenues that people have to explore and give their attention to today, as compared to 30, 40, 50 years ago.

I think to take the idea of "popularity", in the context suggested by the OP, back beyond the 50s or 60s is to jump outside of a time when anything had the chance to become popular in any way as exists today or since the 50s. Popular media has allowed things to become popular in a way that simply didn't exist before then. So the comparison here has to be with, as the OP says, music since the 90s, or at least mid-90s, and music prior to the mid-90s but since the 50s.

 

[irunthepeg]

"Best" popular music is such a weird term. It's called popular music because it's just that. Popular. Certain artists were more popular like nobody can deny the fandom of Beatles fans. Music is subjective anyways... the only artist/band I like from those listed is Led Zeppelin. Couldn't name one song from any of those others (including the Beatles and I understand their significance) and hope that rustles a few jimmies, to be honest

Lots seem to play that "born in the wrong generation" with things popular these days because it's cooler to pretend you don't like something the majority of the population likes than admit it's popular for a reason.

Also, if like Xelebes mentioned, you're saying synthesized music made on computers or not on a guitar/bass/piano isn't as talented filled or credible well then... Just because something is more readily available these days doesn't mean it takes any less talent to create. The fact it's easier to make music today is better for the long term. It will reach more people and allow more people to create that might not be able to afford or access tools to do so.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Music is way too subjective to make a distinction like that.

That said pop music appeals to a very different audience today than it did before the internet became mainstream, so...I almost have to agree as someone who isn't a sorority sister at Tennessee, but I don't really have any issue with somebody arguing that the 90s could be included in this as well (I mean, I wouldn't make that argument, but I also view the 80s with contempt).

VU is pop music now?

That's the general issue I have with debates like this...time weeds out the forgettable acts and remembers greatness (or at least memorable music). Velvet Underground was in no way, shape, or form 'pop' music...they're absolutely my favorite act from before I was born, but facts are the facts. When White Light/White Heat was released in the US the Billboard charts were topped by John Fred & His Playboy Band. That doesn't mean they didn't have any radio playtime...but their highest charting album hit 129th.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Curious, why is the 90s the cutoff?

As to the actual question, I tend to think the music of the 60s and 70s was the best IMO but that's like "just your opinion man". I was a teenager in the 90s so that will always have a special place in my heart for grunge and alt rock of the era. I find most popular music today pretty unbearable. But again, that's just my opinion.

 

[Osprey]

The 90s could be considered the cutoff because that's when a lot of different musical styles emerged and popular tastes got fragmented. For example, the early 90s introduced grunge and alternative rock and effectively split rock listeners into those who liked that new stuff and those preferred "classic rock." Also, rap and hip hop in the 80s and early 90s were more in line with popular tastes and started to veer away from that in the mid-90s toward being more niche tastes.

Starting in the mid-90s, no longer did your musical style necessarily have to conform to the "popular taste" that got airtime on radio stations and MTV in order for you to sell albums. People started to find music other ways, particularly via the internet, and that encouraged artists to venture further from "popular" sounds to sounds that would appeal to more specific audiences rather than the general public.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Sure. That is, if you include the 20s, 30s and 40s. But not if you don't and are simply saying the sixties, seventies and eighties.

The latter was a great period for the guitar. But not for other instruments. The piano had its best years from 1870 to 1950. The accordion had its best years from 1880 to 1950. The violin had its best years from 1770 to 1960. So if we are going to restrict it to the guitar, yeah it was a very good time.

But now we in the zenith for the computer and the synthesiser. So for those who like the synth and the computer, it's a great time for pop music.

I'm not overly familiar with 80's music, so other than Eddie Van Halen, who would be the most important guitar players who made a name for themselves in that decade?

 

[Shareefruck]

I'm not going to bother factoring in popular music because I don't think that matters if something is popular or not.

I keep hearing people suggest that music is as good as it's ever been, you just need to dig between the cracks to find it, or give it more time for the cream to rise to the top, or these perceptions are normally due to age/bias, but personally, that has not been my experience. I think it's legitimately gotten worse, regardless of the benefit of time or exposure. That's not to say it's a complete lost cause or that great music doesn't exist anymore, I just simply cannot agree that the quality is in the same stratosphere as in that peak 1961-1981 period, for me.

That era had Bob Dylan, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Captain Beefheart, The Velvet Underground, and The Beatles, all in their absolute peak, in addition to dozens of other artists who could compete with these guys. I simply refuse believe that bands like Arcade Fire, Bon Iver, or Kendrick Lamar are supposed to be their equal (or even a fraction of their equal, really), personally. Even if there are things hidden beneath the cracks, I have a hard time imagining that there would be enough to close the gap, or that they could go THAT unnoticed in this day and age. I've been actively looking/interested/open minded, and I haven't found anything that gives me that kind of inclination.

I think there's a big dropoff from the 70s to the 80s, then another big dropoff from the 80s to the 90s, another big dropoff from the 90s to the 2000s and another big dropoff from 2000s to the 2010s.

 

[NyQuil]

I think there's a big dropoff from the 70s to the 80s, then another big dropoff from the 80s to the 90s, another big dropoff from the 90s to the 2000s and another big dropoff from 2000s to the 2010s.

What's interesting is that people have said similar things about the movie industry.

TV seems to be the exception to the rule.

 

[Stealth JD]

Being old I will point out that we have this thread a few times in my 20 plus years on this site. In 10 years time we will have a thread asking if music from 2000 is the best of all time

Haha...I was just thinking that. I remember a thread from probably 6-8 years ago where we were discussing "music's best decade"...with poll options ranging from the decades of the 50's through the 2000's. It's an interesting discussion that's been done many, many times and will continue to garner debate until the end of time.

 

[Shareefruck]

What's interesting is that people have said similar things about the movie industry.

TV seems to be the exception to the rule.

I would argue that the "if you dig beneath the cracks, things are as good as they've ever been" thing actually sort of applies to movies. At least, I can see the argument, and personally see evidence of it in the modern foreign movies that are still excellent (And I think it's actually feasible to argue that someone like The Coens are as good as anybody from the past.). But comparing whoever the best artists arguably are now to not just one of Bob Dylan, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, The Beatles, or The Velvet Underground, but ALL of them, and then some, and expecting some current artist hidden beneath the cracks to come out of that favorably just sounds completely ridiculous to me.

But yeah, TV seems to be the exception because it's flourishing right now, and was pretty creatively limited back then.

 

[crump]

Did Beethoven turn over in his grave when the Beatles played? Maybe, but one thing is for sure, everyone turned over in their grave when Justin Beiber sang.

Seriously though, as someone who grew up in the 60/70's and became a young adult in the 80's. I am probably biased. I would say yes. I wish I had a young persons perspective sometimes. I often wonder if I am overrating my generations music. I think it had immense social significance beyond the realm of entertainment and that makes it important to me.

 

[Xelebes]

I'm not overly familiar with 80's music, so other than Eddie Van Halen, who would be the most important guitar players who made a name for themselves in that decade?

The 80s saw the rise of the virtuoso guitarists like Steve Vai, Yngwie Malmsteen and the sort. This was the heyday for metal guitarists who were partly inspired by the legend of Paganini.

 

[Shareefruck]

Did Beethoven turn over in his grave when the Beatles played? Maybe, but one thing is for sure, everyone turned over in their grave when Justin Beiber sang.

Seriously though, as someone who grew up in the 60/70's and became a young adult in the 80's. I am probably biased. I would say yes. I wish I had a young persons perspective sometimes. I often wonder if I am overrating my generations music. I think it had immense social significance beyond the realm of entertainment and that makes it important to me.

For what it's worth, I was born in late eighties, was a kid in the nineties, was a teenager in the 2000s, and in my 20s in the 2010s, and I still have that opinion.

Any nostalgic bias I would have would be for the late 90s/2000s, but it just flat out isn't anywhere near as good (socially, or entertainment-wise), IMO.

 

[Oscar Acosta]

I would say up until the mid to later half of the 90s. Then it's all downhill.

 

[Shareefruck]

There's still a ton of excellent, ground-breaking stuff in the 90s, but I don't think the peak is nearly as strong as the peak of the 60s-70s. My favorite 90s artist is probably Aphex Twin and Public Enemy, and I would not be able to consider putting either on the same level as John Coltrane.

 

[MoreOrr]

There's still a ton of excellent, ground-breaking stuff in the 90s, but I don't think the peak is nearly as strong as the peak of the 60s-70s. My favorite 90s artist is probably Aphex Twin and Public Enemy, and I would not be able to consider putting either on the same level as John Coltrane.

I don't think that's the point of the OP. I mean, my interpretation is that the thread is about the period of time when the best groups and artist held strong popularity. At first I pretty much agreed with the OP, but after a bit further consideration I do think that the range of music considered in the OP is too limited and thus creates a flaw with the idea that the best popular music doesn't extend into the 90s. I'm trying to look at this from a perspective of the best popular music not just being music that I liked, because certainly much of the popular music in the 90s I did not like.

I think we can break it down into a core period and then also into a longer extended period. The core period I believe could be from 1971 - 1982, made up principally of the following artists: Michael Jackson, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Eagles, Meat Loaf, Fleetwood Mac, AC/DC, and Simon & Garfunkel. Prior to that period it was primarily The Beatles, from 1967 and onward well after the band split up.

But there's a much longer stretch of time that extends well beyond the 80s, all through the 90s and even into the early 2000s.

Looking from 1967 - 2002, you have:
The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Simon & Garfunkel, Pink Floyd, The Eagles, Meat Loaf, Fleetwood Mac, Michael Jackson, AC/DC, Queen, Madonna, Phil Collins, Whitney Houston, Bon Jovi, U2, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, The Backstreet Boys, Eminem, and Britney Spears.

Now many of those I just do not personally like at all, but if we allow huge "popularity" to be the determiner of what music is the best, then certainly all of those artists were hugely popular at points during that span of time. At least one of those artists produced a hugely popular album during that stretch of time in every year accept: 1974, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1992, 1998, and 2001. That's 29 years out of a 36-year period in which hugely popular musicians were presenting new music for public consumption.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't think that's the point of the OP. I mean, my interpretation is that the thread is about the period of time when the best groups and artist held strong popularity. At first I pretty much agreed with the OP, but after a bit further consideration I do think that the range of music considered in the OP is too limited and thus creates a flaw with the idea that the best popular music doesn't extend into the 90s. I'm trying to look at this from a perspective of the best popular music not just being music that I liked, because certainly much of the popular music in the 90s I did not like.

I think we can break it down into a core period and then also into a longer extended period. The core period I believe could be from 1971 - 1982, made up principally of the following artists: Michael Jackson, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Eagles, Meat Loaf, Fleetwood Mac, AC/DC, and Simon & Garfunkel. Prior to that period it was primarily The Beatles, from 1967 and onward well after the band split up.

But there's a much longer stretch of time that extends well beyond the 80s, all through the 90s and even into the early 2000s.

Looking from 1967 - 2002, you have:
The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Simon & Garfunkel, Pink Floyd, The Eagles, Meat Loaf, Fleetwood Mac, Michael Jackson, AC/DC, Queen, Madonna, Phil Collins, Whitney Houston, Bon Jovi, U2, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, The Backstreet Boys, Eminem, and Britney Spears.

Now many of those I just do not personally like at all, but if we allow huge "popularity" to be the determiner of what music is the best, then certainly all of those artists were hugely popular at points during that span of time. At least one of those artists produced a hugely popular album during that stretch of time in every year accept: 1974, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1992, 1998, and 2001. That's 29 years out of a 36-year period in which hugely popular musicians were presenting new music for public consumption.

You've confused me.

If we let "popularity" to be the determiner of what music is best, then what is the question "Did the best popular music come out before the 90s?" asking? Did the most popular popular music come out before the 90s?

Are you suggesting that he's asking if the heights of musical fame were bigger before the 90s? Isn't that just a definitive yes because of things like Elvis and the British Invasion and Michael Jackson? What is there to discuss, if that's the case? I don't think anyone will argue that Celine Dion was more popular than Elvis.

He also mentioned Velvet Underground, so I doubt he was using popularity as the barometer. Whatever it is, these types of discussions lose me when subjective value isn't the barometer used. Who cares what the most popular thing is? I care about what I think is actually good.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Were the 80s really that good? Outside of michael jackson when I think of 80s I think of cheesy rock music

Hearts on fire, we fight for love, We built this city

Those first two songs I like, we built this city might be the worst song ever made though

Then theres a lot of crappy disco in the 70s

The beatles have some good stuff but I'm not crazy about them I'll be honest. Im more of a john lennon guy.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I will say that music is definitely getting worse.

There were these two songs by britney spears that would come on the radio that had made me want to blow my brains out

Finally got an aux cable so I would never have to listen to radio again.

It was scream and shout and work b*****