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

JA

Guest
the 80s was the best decade in music, 90s second

why did many bands already established prior to the 80s see a drop in success during the 80s? i blame synthesizers and the rise of new wave. a lot of these bands changed up their sound to include synth and other new wave elements and the end result wasn't usually that great. especially when compared to the band's older stuff
There was a major improvement in digital to analog conversion technology in the 1970s, which made synthesizers much more accessible and logistically-reasonable.

A lot of the folksy, melodic, progressive music groups ran into a wall as the music industry shifted towards the much more simplistic arrangements of punk and the layered, extravagant, rhythm-based disco in the mid-to-late 1970s. Artists and groups that were doing R&B and funk transitioned much more seamlessly into disco, and there tended to be more adaptability due to the rhythm and dance qualities of those genres.

Bands whose styles are genre-specific or era-specific tend to alienate old fans by trying to adapt to change, and also face the dilemma of falling outside of the mainstream by deciding not to remain current.

The kind of sounds that are synonymous with bands like Ambrosia, Orleans, The Doobie Brothers, and Bread evolved parallel to new wave, but remained very distinct; those bands were succeeded by bands and artists like REO Speedwagon, Toto, and Christopher Cross; the remnants of those types of bands were the foundation for jazz-influenced AOR. Progressive rock, 70s folk pop, and melancholy piano and orchestral ballads with very acoustic instrumentation were all impacted heavily by the changing music landscape; a lot of the earlier, AM radio-type of pop from bands like The Raspberries, King Harvest, and Paper Lace were no longer in fashion, while the ballads of such artists as Olivia Newton-John and The Carpenters weren't topping the charts anymore. These genres went under before the turn of the decade.



[collapse=70spop]



[/collapse]
Disco, which was at the forefront of music in the latter half of the 1970s, simply gave way to a somewhat more basic, upfront sound, albeit with layered, nuanced, little effects made possible by new digital technology. New wave was really an extension of disco. The style and accessibility of digital synthesizers, however, also had a profound effect on rock bands. Synths were incorporated into everything.

Hall & Oates is an example of a group that adapted and carried on.

[collapse=hallandoates]

[/collapse]
A good example of a band that lost its way for a little while is Chicago. They tried disco when they had been known for a slightly edgier jazz fusion sound. Fans did not like what they heard. They eventually adopted the David Foster sound in 1982, only two albums later.



You sometimes heard disco rock in the late 1970s, which itself is a precursor to new wave.



If you strip down the strings and more funk-based elements, and replace them with synths, you get something very similar to new wave.



Between 1979 and 1981, ELO basically just dialed down the string flourishes, simplified the bass lines, and implemented a vast array of synth sounds for Time (1981).



https://www.quora.com/What-influenced-new-wave-music
Disco was influence to new wave in terms of rhythm, new wave needed a rhythm that could be danced to, disco had it. Italo disco and Krautrock are both electronic styles, most Italo disco singers, like Baltimora and Giorgie Moroder, are classified as new wave singers, since it's basically disco rhythm and lyrics with synth, the same happens to Krautrock, which is a German pop rock genre that was made to compete with British pop rock and new wave.

Dance music didn't change too much at its core. The instruments and sounds changed. What died was a lot of the folksy music, as well as the tendency for prog groups to record elongated, melodic tracks. Music became more concise.

Punk and digital synthesizers had a lot to do with changing the sound of music at the turn of the decade. There was an injection of a serious "back to basics" element; within a few years, however, we started to see bombastic, highly-polished, nuanced arrangements of a different kind.

I would target punk and the proliferation of digital synthesizers as the reasons for the transition to new wave from disco.

Rock and roll bands were not necessarily required to be caught up in the new wave scene; ACDC proved this with "Hell's Bells" and "You Shook Me All Night Long" in 1980. Pat Benatar released "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" that year. Rock was very much alive, albeit not progressive rock.

I think age and a lack of recent mainstream success had a lot to do with some of the older bands fading away. There was already a very high turnover rate among new artists in the 1970s. Too much competition, and perhaps some failed attempts to adapt to change resulted in the end of quite a few groups from the previous decade.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Acadmus

pastured mod
Jul 22, 2003
16,963
180
Vermont
Again, I'm not really sure why people feel inclined to factor in how bad the bad stuff is. All I care about is how much great stuff I'm able to draw from the decade.

For me, there's a very steady progression and regression, like this:
40s < 50s < 60s > 70s > 80s > 90s >00s > 10s

ok, let me simplify it for you: I wasn't able to draw much good from the periods where I talk about bad stuff. I didn't think I'd have to spell that out for you...after all, there was also a lot of terrible music in those periods I call "good".
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,914
3,605
Vancouver, BC
ok, let me simplify it for you: I wasn't able to draw much good from the periods where I talk about bad stuff. I didn't think I'd have to spell that out for you...after all, there was also a lot of terrible music in those periods I call "good".
I see, that makes more sense to me. I think you did have to spell it out, though, considering that many people seem to rate eras by taking an average of the good and bad stuff, which is what it seemed like you were doing.

Afterall, the first response to that comment by MoreOrr was along those lines:
I like that. You focus on the quantity and quality of what you like. But still, if the quantity of what you don't like overwhelms that of what you do like, well then I think you can rightfully say that for you it was a bad period of music. And again, that's how I look at the mid to late 90s (starting about 94),... and extend that to about 2001 or perhaps even to 2004 (though 2002 was a good year)

It's not a given.
 

Nalens Oga

Registered User
Jan 5, 2010
16,780
1,053
Canada
The record business is run by consumers. They're the ones who determine what's popular, what sells and what the "corporations" produce more of. That's how the system works. Blame the consumers for wanting and paying for particular sounds. It's not the record companies' fault if your tastes aren't mainstream. You can't expect them to produce music that loses them money.

I disagree with this strongly. People will listen to whatever is marketed to them. If teen girls were marketed Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys in 1998 then that's what they'd go after. The average person isn't looking into the depths of last.fm or RYM or wherever. Here's an example of what I mean, it's a bit messed up to see this labelled as rock but it is and it's what's marketed to people: http://imgur.com/7m1eAxK

Also that video Goldenshark posted about that Paul Joseph Watson guy on Youtube is idiotic even if it has a few good points. It comes across as one of those 'hey I'm a free thinker trying to red pill you' videos but that's the type of guy he is judging by his other videos on how 'deep state' is out to get Trump' and such lol.
 

Unhealthy Scratch

Auston 4:16
Mar 15, 2016
1,452
0
I disagree with this strongly. People will listen to whatever is marketed to them. If teen girls were marketed Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys in 1998 then that's what they'd go after.
It's hard to believe some people can still actually believe that the ad industry exists only to inform consumers about products and not in any way to mould and manipulate their behaviour.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,914
3,605
Vancouver, BC
It's hard to believe some people can still actually believe that the ad industry exists only to inform consumers about products and not in any way to mould and manipulate their behaviour.
I think it's something in between, personally. The record industry doesn't force people to listen to things that they otherwise wouldn't like, they exploit the natural inclinations that people already do have and discourage people from educating themselves further by getting them addicted/dependent on the ground floor, and the two things just feed each other in a vicious and endless cycle that gets worse and worse.
 

Birko19

Registered User
Aug 13, 2002
11,189
3
Hamilton, Ont
Visit site
Why did music drop in quality during the 1980s? It didn't, the 80's is by far the best era for music imo, I think it's definitely the most diverse and colorful, when I think of the 80's, I think of the following:

- Golden age for pop music.

- Emergence of Hip Hop music, not quite as good as the 90's but definitely brought this genre to the mainstream.

- The best era for Metal music, I know Black Sabbath started it in the 70's, but the 80's is the golden age for Metal.

- Pretty much the origin of most major electronic music, I know Disco was a major influence from the 70's, but the major 3 genres of Electronic music were all born in the 80's. House music was born in Chicago, Techno music was born in Detroit, and Trance music was born in Europe (Germany and Holland).

- Adding to the point above, there was other Electro music that was very big in the 80's such as Synthpop, New Wave, etc, this seemed like the golden age for such sounds.

- The rock music from the 80's was very solid, definitely not as good as the 70's or 60's, but still very good.

If I try to compare this with other eras, only the 90's come close to the diversity, and I think the 90's were definitely a step back in most areas with the exception of Hip Hop and possibly Trance/House near the late 90's.
 

Xelebes

Registered User
Jun 10, 2007
9,014
596
Edmonton, Alberta
Trance has its beginnings in the 1990s. The first track identified as trance is Jam & Spoon's "The Age of Love" which came out in 1990. The works of the Berlin School, which had most of the the underpinning ideas of trance, date from the 1970s.

 
Last edited:

Birko19

Registered User
Aug 13, 2002
11,189
3
Hamilton, Ont
Visit site
Trance has its beginnings in the 1990s. The first track identified as trance is Jam & Spoon's "The Age of Love" which came out in 1992. The works of the Berlin School, which had most of the the underpinning ideas of trance, date from the 1970s.



I would say the Trance in Europe was already in development during the late 80's but started to show up in the 90's. Also I forgot to mention that Goa Trance also started in the 80's in India.

Here's an example of early Trance from the late 80's:
 
Last edited:

jw2

Registered User
Jun 13, 2012
7,081
430
Boston
Cocaine.
Big in the 80s. Music suffered.
Not so popular in the 90s and music improved.
 

Xelebes

Registered User
Jun 10, 2007
9,014
596
Edmonton, Alberta
I would say the Trance in Europe was already in development during the late 80's but started to show up in the 90's. Also I forgot to mention that Goa Trance also started in the 80's in India.

Here's an example of early Trance from the late 80's:


I wouldn't call that trance though. That is definitely New Beat. It doesn't have the bassline, drum pattern or the structure that defines trance. It does have some Berlin School sounds but that's it. The rhythm and the bassline are definitely New Beat along the likes of MNO and such.
 

Birko19

Registered User
Aug 13, 2002
11,189
3
Hamilton, Ont
Visit site
I wouldn't call that trance though. That is definitely New Beat. It doesn't have the bassline, drum pattern or the structure that defines trance. It does have some Berlin School sounds but that's it. The rhythm and the bassline are definitely New Beat along the likes of MNO and such.

Don't call it trance if you want, but this was where trance started, and I'm not even including Goa Trance which was already around during the 80's.
 

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,402
11,081
Mojo Dojo Casa House
I would say the Trance in Europe was already in development during the late 80's but started to show up in the 90's. Also I forgot to mention that Goa Trance also started in the 80's in India.

Here's an example of early Trance from the late 80's:


I wouldn't call that trance though. That is definitely New Beat. It doesn't have the bassline, drum pattern or the structure that defines trance. It does have some Berlin School sounds but that's it. The rhythm and the bassline are definitely New Beat along the likes of MNO and such.

Aah, KLF. Those mad people... :laugh:

This did come out in 1988 though:



You could recognize some of the sounds and effects that they milked in their early 90's hits as well.

Hell, they even managed to turn the Doctor Who theme into a hit song:

 

Incubajerks

Registered User
Feb 9, 2010
2,668
4,387
Roma
Definitely KFL is not trance, J&S obvioulsy is, but i think we should speak about where techno ends and trance begin.
 

Nalens Oga

Registered User
Jan 5, 2010
16,780
1,053
Canada
Can I just say that it was an awful time for pop rock? I know pop is always annoying to me but the stuff from the 80s really doesn't hold up. At the core of course you have good songs by groups like Felt, Simple Minds, Talk Talk when they were a pop band, Orange Juice, etc but it just sounds so friggin cheesy.

Stuff from the 70s is less dated then the 80s because the 70s didn't have those cheesy synths and guitars with awful pedals and ****** drum beats.
 

cupcrazyman

Stupid Sexy Flanders
Aug 14, 2006
16,404
1,469
Leafland
Whoops, I missed that bit. Yeah, the way that you tested that theory makes no sense. Why would you expect the artists that were good in the 60s/70s to represent how good the 80s were?

Virtually no artists stay brilliant decade after decade, IMO.

But I would still argue that the artists that replaced them in the 80s, while many were absolutely brilliant, still fall short of the guys in the 60s and 70s.

U2 says hi

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_U2
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->