gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
608275 Posts in 24598 Topics by 3508 Members - Latest Member: quad73 May 29, 2017, 10:28:00 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: 1986 in Music  (Read 3425 times)
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7004


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: December 29, 2016, 09:12:07 AM »

My favorite Queen live release is probably their Rainbow concert from 1974, which was finally officially released a couple years ago.

Oh, I've been meaning to get that.

Well worth it. 

Speaking of over the top music that's often called pompous, Yngwie Malmsteen released his excellent Trilogy album in 1986.
The first Yngwie album I ever bought (on cassette)!
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius, Patronizing Twaddler, Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick, and Sensationalist Dullard who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Ovi
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 904


They know I'm rock 'n' roll through and through.


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: December 29, 2016, 09:14:46 AM »

And a friend of mine HATED Queen for being too pompous and serious before I converted him with Cool Cat.
Too pompous, I can see, but too serious!?

Yeah, that's kind of a common complaint against them these days. I guess judging just from the hits people don't realize how fun and genre-bending their albums actually are.

Even the hits, I can't think of them as "serious."  I mean, they had a massive hit about girls with big a$$es.  Other than the harmonies, that could've easily been a KISS song. 

Well, they're seen as that big classic rock group that wrote anthems such as Bohemian Rhapsody, I Want to Break Free or We Are the Champions. Your father's favorite songs, the ones he gives as arguments as to why music was better back then. I can tell you from experience that in a lot of groups with people my age they are very hated. I often have to defend myself through. Which is fun. When compared to artists such as Frank Zappa or Beefheart or King Crimson they're not "hip" at all.
Logged

A band called The Beach Boys are mostly going to be a fun in the sun-themed group. And that has, is, and will always be just as it should. There needs to be ONE classic band that isn't a pack of endless "artistic" moan. All people wanna do is make The Beach Boys into another Beatles they are less tired of.
And, for anyone who has actually experienced them, surfing and cars carry PLENTY of emotion and life experience. They can carry as much metaphor as any Van Dyke Parks clever epistle.
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: December 29, 2016, 09:15:04 AM »

My favorite Queen live release is probably their Rainbow concert from 1974, which was finally officially released a couple years ago.

Oh, I've been meaning to get that.

Well worth it. 

Speaking of over the top music that's often called pompous, Yngwie Malmsteen released his excellent Trilogy album in 1986.
The first Yngwie album I ever bought (on cassette)!

It might be my favorite Yngwie album.  Mark Boals was quite the singer.

Keyboardist Jens Johansson was borrowed by one of Yngwie's idols this past summer, Ritchie Blackmore, for his limited return with rock with Rainbow.......which released Finyl Vinyl in 1986.
Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7004


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: December 29, 2016, 09:24:23 AM »

I have to ask, and it's not personal but I am genuinely curious: If the Hagar era VH was more successful and reached more people than the original DLH run, why is there little or no demand for those supposedly more successful songs and albums?

Seriously, are there people out there jazzed up to hear "Poundcake", or 13-year old budding guitarists trying to learn what Ed played on "When It's Love"? It's just not there, compared to how many covers of Hot For Teacher, Eruption, and even beginning keyboard players trying to cover Jump can be found online, and that says a lot about the longevity and vibe that the Hagar years simply lack...even though Hagar is now known as the Cabo Wabo beach party and fast cars laid-back party dude.

For me, the songs and vibe just weren't there after 1984.

First I'd ask, was the Hagar era more successful? They were both quite successful, commercially. I just checked Wikipedia and they don't list album sales specifically, but they do show top chart position and status (gold, platinum, etc.) In terms of chart position, no doubt those first three Hagar albums were higher rated on the charts, as they all reached #1. But the older ones weren't slacking: 19, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, respectively (in chronological order up through 1984. And they are all multiplatinum, both Roth and Hagar.

But if we accept that the Hagar albums as more successful anyway, just for the point of the discussion, I think the answer is that the Roth band had the excitement and energy of youth, and the novelty of the Van Halen brothers' (and DLR's) talents. It's almost inevitable that these guys' early bursts of creativity unto the world would be what contained their greatest energies, their best inspirations, as is very often the case with pop musicians. (It seems to me very rare that a band's second decade is better than its first.)

Once the band was fully established as a behemoth, it's hard to expect real energy or creativity because they're shackled by commercialism, habit, band politics, and even just middle age. Van Hagar sounds like a very rich band playing music designed to be commercial that appeals maybe not quite to that young, crazy, enthusiastic kids at some mid-70s L.A. house party, but to the adult versions of those kids. It's still "dangerous" from a job-holding grown-up's point of view, but otherwise? Meh. They know too well the value of the power ballad, the value of MTV, the routine of the business. In some ways it reminds me of late '70s Beach Boys. It's not that it's incompetent, it's that it's exclusively competent.

Kids since 1978 have felt the thrill of "Eruption" and they always will. Conversely, even the cool guitar parts from the late '80s are just cool guitar parts: a dime a dozen.

I do really enjoy plenty of the Van Hagar stuff, but no question it's not the dynamic, charismatic band of the first six or seven years of the band's recording career.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius, Patronizing Twaddler, Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick, and Sensationalist Dullard who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: December 29, 2016, 09:27:26 AM »

I have to ask, and it's not personal but I am genuinely curious: If the Hagar era VH was more successful and reached more people than the original DLH run, why is there little or no demand for those supposedly more successful songs and albums?

Seriously, are there people out there jazzed up to hear "Poundcake", or 13-year old budding guitarists trying to learn what Ed played on "When It's Love"? It's just not there, compared to how many covers of Hot For Teacher, Eruption, and even beginning keyboard players trying to cover Jump can be found online, and that says a lot about the longevity and vibe that the Hagar years simply lack...even though Hagar is now known as the Cabo Wabo beach party and fast cars laid-back party dude.

For me, the songs and vibe just weren't there after 1984.

First I'd ask, was the Hagar era more successful? They were both quite successful, commercially. I just checked Wikipedia and they don't list album sales specifically, but they do show top chart position and status (gold, platinum, etc.) In terms of chart position, no doubt those first three Hagar albums were higher rated on the charts, as they all reached #1. But the older ones weren't slacking: 19, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, respectively (in chronological order up through 1984. And they are all multiplatinum, both Roth and Hagar.

But if we accept that the Hagar albums as more successful anyway, just for the point of the discussion, I think the answer is that the Roth band had the excitement and energy of youth, and the novelty of the Van Halen brothers' (and DLR's) talents. It's almost inevitable that these guys' early bursts of creativity unto the world would be what contained their greatest energies, their best inspirations, as is very often the case with pop musicians. (It seems to me very rare that a band's second decade is better than its first.)

Once the band was fully established as a behemoth, it's hard to expect real energy or creativity because they're shackled by commercialism, habit, band politics, and even just middle age. Van Hagar sounds like a very rich band playing music designed to be commercial that appeals maybe not quite to that young, crazy, enthusiastic kids at some mid-70s L.A. house party, but to the adult versions of those kids. It's still "dangerous" from a job-holding grown-up's point of view, but otherwise? Meh. They know too well the value of the power ballad, the value of MTV, the routine of the business. In some ways it reminds me of late '70s Beach Boys. It's not that it's incompetent, it's that it's exclusively competent.

Kids since 1978 have felt the thrill of "Eruption" and they always will. Conversely, even the cool guitar parts from the late '80s are just cool guitar parts: a dime a dozen.

I do really enjoy plenty of the Van Hagar stuff, but no question it's not the dynamic, charismatic band of the first six or seven years of the band's recording career.

I think I recently read that the band sold more overall LPs with Roth (though that's a tad unfair as DLR fronted 7 to Sammy's 4).  But their only #1 LPs are Sammy fronted. 
Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: December 29, 2016, 09:29:31 AM »

And a friend of mine HATED Queen for being too pompous and serious before I converted him with Cool Cat.
Too pompous, I can see, but too serious!?

Yeah, that's kind of a common complaint against them these days. I guess judging just from the hits people don't realize how fun and genre-bending their albums actually are.

Even the hits, I can't think of them as "serious."  I mean, they had a massive hit about girls with big a$$es.  Other than the harmonies, that could've easily been a KISS song. 

Well, they're seen as that big classic rock group that wrote anthems such as Bohemian Rhapsody, I Want to Break Free or We Are the Champions. Your father's favorite songs, the ones he gives as arguments as to why music was better back then. I can tell you from experience that in a lot of groups with people my age they are very hated. I often have to defend myself through. Which is fun. When compared to artists such as Frank Zappa or Beefheart or King Crimson they're not "hip" at all.

I guess I could see that to a degree.  I'm guess you're a little younger than me.   I'm 36, so Queen was still around during my elementary school years, and experienced quite the spike in popularity when Bohemian Rhapsody was included in Wayne's World when I was in middle school.

Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7004


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: December 29, 2016, 09:39:43 AM »

And a friend of mine HATED Queen for being too pompous and serious before I converted him with Cool Cat.
Too pompous, I can see, but too serious!?

Yeah, that's kind of a common complaint against them these days. I guess judging just from the hits people don't realize how fun and genre-bending their albums actually are.

Even the hits, I can't think of them as "serious."  I mean, they had a massive hit about girls with big a$$es.  Other than the harmonies, that could've easily been a KISS song. 

Well, they're seen as that big classic rock group that wrote anthems such as Bohemian Rhapsody, I Want to Break Free or We Are the Champions. Your father's favorite songs, the ones he gives as arguments as to why music was better back then. I can tell you from experience that in a lot of groups with people my age they are very hated. I often have to defend myself through. Which is fun. When compared to artists such as Frank Zappa or Beefheart or King Crimson they're not "hip" at all.

I guess I could see that to a degree.  I'm guess you're a little younger than me.   I'm 36, so Queen was still around during my elementary school years, and experienced quite the spike in popularity when Bohemian Rhapsody was included in Wayne's World when I was in middle school.



And you're a little younger than me--I'm 40--and so my recollection as a Midwesterner in America is that Queen was a total non-entity in the current music scene. Some of those hits, obviously, were still well regarded and played on classic rock radio sometimes, but despite being a follower of new releases from roughly '86 on, the only new music from Queen I recall being put out was Innuendo ... and that just barely. It wasn't until "Wayne's World" that anybody cared again, that and the re-release of the catalogue on CD in '91, I think it was, which made it easier to see and buy the music.

So interestingly, I think my experience is almost closer to Ovi's, except the part about them being seen as serious. But they were totally an uncool, "classic rock" band that nobody I knew cared about at the time. Especially since they weren't the macho kind of classic rock band people tended to gravitate toward, but rather, well, ... not that. (I think the band's--OK, Freddie's--camp style and assumed gayness probably did hurt them in middle America at the time.)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius, Patronizing Twaddler, Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick, and Sensationalist Dullard who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: December 29, 2016, 09:42:31 AM »

And a friend of mine HATED Queen for being too pompous and serious before I converted him with Cool Cat.
Too pompous, I can see, but too serious!?

Yeah, that's kind of a common complaint against them these days. I guess judging just from the hits people don't realize how fun and genre-bending their albums actually are.

Even the hits, I can't think of them as "serious."  I mean, they had a massive hit about girls with big a$$es.  Other than the harmonies, that could've easily been a KISS song. 

Well, they're seen as that big classic rock group that wrote anthems such as Bohemian Rhapsody, I Want to Break Free or We Are the Champions. Your father's favorite songs, the ones he gives as arguments as to why music was better back then. I can tell you from experience that in a lot of groups with people my age they are very hated. I often have to defend myself through. Which is fun. When compared to artists such as Frank Zappa or Beefheart or King Crimson they're not "hip" at all.

I guess I could see that to a degree.  I'm guess you're a little younger than me.   I'm 36, so Queen was still around during my elementary school years, and experienced quite the spike in popularity when Bohemian Rhapsody was included in Wayne's World when I was in middle school.



And you're a little younger than me--I'm 40--and so my recollection as a Midwesterner in America is that Queen was a total non-entity in the current music scene. Some of those hits, obviously, were still well regarded and played on classic rock radio sometimes, but despite being a follower of new releases from roughly '86 on, the only new music from Queen I recall being put out was Innuendo ... and that just barely. It wasn't until "Wayne's World" that anybody cared again, that and the re-release of the catalogue on CD in '91, I think it was, which made it easier to see and buy the music.

So interestingly, I think my experience is almost closer to Ovi's, except the part about them being seen as serious. But they were totally an uncool, "classic rock" band that nobody I knew cared about at the time. Especially since they weren't the macho kind of classic rock band people tended to gravitate toward, but rather, well, ... not that. (I think the band's--OK, Freddie's--camp style and assumed gayness probably did hurt them in middle America at the time.)

I could see that, and that's why they were filling stadiums in South America and Europe, but not even touring in the US in the mid 1980s. 

These days, I almost take "uncool" as a badge of honor when it comes to the music I like. 

Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7004


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: December 29, 2016, 09:51:20 AM »


These days, I almost take "uncool" as a badge of honor when it comes to the music I like. 


LOL, I know what you mean. While being part of something big, some of-the-moment trend is very exciting, especially when you're young, I think with age you start feeling a little detached from it all. You see other trends you're not part of, maybe you're too old for or the wrong demographic or whatever, and you see the silliness of it all. Again, not knocking them, they're great to be part of. But the in-crowd/out-crowd aspects are really dumb, as is the sometimes mindlessness of being a joiner.

Strangely, I've only started respecting or seeing value in the "cool" after becoming too old to be part of it, anyway. I was almost always more an outsider in terms of taste, except for when I was so young it didn't matter (like '84-90, maybe, when I was 8-14 and nobody gave a f*** what I liked!). And now, here I am this 40-year-old guy whose playlist, when on shuffle, may turn up Queen, Rihanna, Zeppelin, Kacey Musgraves, Loretta Lynn, Earl Sweatshirt, Beach Boys, Run-DMC, Frank Ocean. And I think that sort of thing is true of a lot of people here--diverse tastes not necessarily restricted to what they "should" listen to based on their demographics, but rather experienced with open minds and then judged--which is cool. Or uncool. I forget which I want to be!
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius, Patronizing Twaddler, Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick, and Sensationalist Dullard who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: December 29, 2016, 10:01:18 AM »


These days, I almost take "uncool" as a badge of honor when it comes to the music I like. 


LOL, I know what you mean. While being part of something big, some of-the-moment trend is very exciting, especially when you're young, I think with age you start feeling a little detached from it all. You see other trends you're not part of, maybe you're too old for or the wrong demographic or whatever, and you see the silliness of it all. Again, not knocking them, they're great to be part of. But the in-crowd/out-crowd aspects are really dumb, as is the sometimes mindlessness of being a joiner.

Strangely, I've only started respecting or seeing value in the "cool" after becoming too old to be part of it, anyway. I was almost always more an outsider in terms of taste, except for when I was so young it didn't matter (like '84-90, maybe, when I was 8-14 and nobody gave a f*** what I liked!). And now, here I am this 40-year-old guy whose playlist, when on shuffle, may turn up Queen, Rihanna, Zeppelin, Kacey Musgraves, Loretta Lynn, Earl Sweatshirt, Beach Boys, Run-DMC, Frank Ocean. And I think that sort of thing is true of a lot of people here--diverse tastes not necessarily restricted to what they "should" listen to based on their demographics, but rather experienced with open minds and then judged--which is cool. Or uncool. I forget which I want to be!

I think current music trends started passing me by when I was around 12, when Nirvana became huge.  Suddenly, rock and roll just wasn't fun anymore.  My local rock station went grunge almost overnight.  So, I had to look backwards.   

In high school, when my classmates were talking about new groups they were getting into like Green Day, Oasis, and Weezer, I was discovering the back catalogs of Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Queen, Van Halen etc. 

When I started college in the late 90s, modern music got even worse with Limp Bizkit, Smashmouth, Sugar Ray, etc all over the place.  I was going to the record store to buy old Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Iron Maiden albums. 

Granted, I guess I can't say my tastes are as diverse, as I stick to rock.  But, if I liked other genres, I'd go broke.
Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7004


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: December 29, 2016, 10:06:05 AM »

Nirvana and grunge did the exact same thing to me. I went to older music, including classic rock/pop, blues, and jazz. That's when I dug into Zeppelin, Hendrix, Zappa, Beefheart, as well as Ellington, Monk, Coltrane, etc. I didn't actually dive back into modern music until around 2000, and then I was still really a snob about it. (Had to be indie this or that, ideally of the wannabe Beach Boys or Beatles styles.)

I know what you mean about the potential for going broke. One of my greatest achievements was suppressing my old completist tendencies. I always felt like if I liked a few songs by some band, I had to buy the whole collection and really know it all. As time went on, that got ridiculous: to this day I have a ton of Stones albums I don't ever, ever listen to. So why own them? I have wasted so much money on crap I don't want or like...
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius, Patronizing Twaddler, Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick, and Sensationalist Dullard who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: December 29, 2016, 10:13:43 AM »

Nirvana and grunge did the exact same thing to me. I went to older music, including classic rock/pop, blues, and jazz. That's when I dug into Zeppelin, Hendrix, Zappa, Beefheart, as well as Ellington, Monk, Coltrane, etc. I didn't actually dive back into modern music until around 2000, and then I was still really a snob about it. (Had to be indie this or that, ideally of the wannabe Beach Boys or Beatles styles.)

I know what you mean about the potential for going broke. One of my greatest achievements was suppressing my old completist tendencies. I always felt like if I liked a few songs by some band, I had to buy the whole collection and really know it all. As time went on, that got ridiculous: to this day I have a ton of Stones albums I don't ever, ever listen to. So why own them? I have wasted so much money on crap I don't want or like...

I suppose, in a way, I should almost be thankful for Nirvana for helping me turn to classic rock.  But, then again, I probably would've found those bands eventually anyway.

It's funny when you talk of the Indie movement.  From 2002-2006, I worked for a guy who was really heavy into that stuff.  When he found out I liked The Beatles and the 60s British Invasion, he played me a bunch of that indie stuff, but I just couldn't get into it.  I think they kinda had the sound, with not the songs IMO. 

I kinda feel the same way about some modern bands with classic / retro sounds like Airbourne or Rival Sons.  I like the sounds, but not the songs. 

Funnily enough, it's kinda become "cool" to like Phil Collins in recent years.  So, if I were in high school today, I could brag about my copy of Invisible Touch, which was the first Phil Collins related album I ever bought.  Of course, I bought it in 1997, but it was released in...................................1986
Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7004


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: December 29, 2016, 10:51:38 AM »

It's that era when I realized success was impossible for the kinds of bands I liked: if you exist only to do a perfect impression of [band], perfection is still just ... sad. Pastiche started jumping out in a bad way.

As for the Phil Collins thing, kill me.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius, Patronizing Twaddler, Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick, and Sensationalist Dullard who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 9352


🍦🍦 Not Dead and Not For Sale ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #88 on: December 29, 2016, 10:52:08 AM »

Oddly enough, I like the so-called "alternative" rock of the early 1990s a lot more now then I did in the early 1990s. I was mainly listening to classic rock then. My tastes have expanded as I've gotten older. These days, the only things I don't listen to are Tejano, polka, most current pop, most current rap, and  death metal.
Logged

Hi there. I am Billy. I am Smiley Smile's  resident left-wing ambassador. A snowflake if you will.
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: December 29, 2016, 10:55:24 AM »

It's that era when I realized success was impossible for the kinds of bands I liked: if you exist only to do a perfect impression of [band], perfection is still just ... sad. Pastiche started jumping out in a bad way.

As for the Phil Collins thing, kill me.

So, that means you're not a Phil Collins fan?
Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 9352


🍦🍦 Not Dead and Not For Sale ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #90 on: December 29, 2016, 11:00:49 AM »

I liked Phil Collins when it was uncool to do so; I like him just as much now that it *is* cool to do so.
Logged

Hi there. I am Billy. I am Smiley Smile's  resident left-wing ambassador. A snowflake if you will.
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: December 29, 2016, 11:02:47 AM »

I liked Phil Collins when it was uncool to do so; I like him just as much now that it *is* cool to do so.

I think I started liking him when it was uncool.  I'm not 100% when his cool factor increased so much, but I really only recently started going deeper in the Genesis / Phil Collins catalog.
Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
auf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2173


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: January 22, 2017, 01:59:22 PM »

I've noticed in the past that 1986 seems to be a relatively lean year for me, and I'm not sure why. I seem to recall this being a very pop-heavy year from the singles and albums that charted. I also stop following just about any popular band from the 60s or 70s once they hit the 80s, so I can't comment much on those cases. However, I can easily see older artists becoming lost and out of touch around the mid-1980s and releasing some terrible attempts at remaining relevant.
Logged
JK
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3405


Perhaps I put too much faith in atmosphere


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: January 23, 2017, 01:22:57 AM »

I can easily see older artists becoming lost and out of touch around the mid-1980s

A bit like older listeners, I suppose. Grin

On the whole, it's a lost area for me, a sort of a doldrums between synth pop (over its peak) and the house/rave scene (yet to emerge). With notable exceptions, of course. This one got me through some sh*t:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX-Ru1XkNZc
Logged

"I don't want to go out. I want to stay in. Get things done." (David Bowie)
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: January 23, 2017, 05:52:04 AM »

I've noticed in the past that 1986 seems to be a relatively lean year for me, and I'm not sure why. I seem to recall this being a very pop-heavy year from the singles and albums that charted. I also stop following just about any popular band from the 60s or 70s once they hit the 80s, so I can't comment much on those cases. However, I can easily see older artists becoming lost and out of touch around the mid-1980s and releasing some terrible attempts at remaining relevant.

Although while hard rock bands of the 80s were doing the 80s version of AOR, and the old heavy metal guard (Sabbath, Maiden, Priest, Ozzy) was getting more poppy with synths, 1986 saw the creative peak of thrash metal with Anthrax, Slayer, Megadeth, and Metallica all releasing career defining albums in 1986.
Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
auf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2173


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: January 23, 2017, 12:09:47 PM »

Yes, and that's another thing. A lot of the "good stuff" from 1986 just isn't for me.

oh well
Logged
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: January 23, 2017, 12:33:10 PM »

To each their own, but I'd gladly take the music of 1986 over 1996, 2006, or 2016. 
Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2637


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: January 27, 2017, 11:54:41 PM »

Yes, and that's another thing. A lot of the "good stuff" from 1986 just isn't for me.

oh well
Yeah, you can say that again!  Sad
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7004


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: January 28, 2017, 06:48:59 AM »

To each their own, but I'd gladly take the music of 1986 over 1996, 2006, or 2016. 

As time passes, it seems to me that there ends up being some good stuff (and more mediocre stuff, and even more crap) from every year or era. Though I wouldn't bother going through it in detail to chart it out because, well, that's a huge waste of one's limited lifespan! But years where I wholly ignored new music because what I was hearing sucked, inevitably later I find out had plenty of good things happening.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius, Patronizing Twaddler, Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick, and Sensationalist Dullard who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2897


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: January 28, 2017, 10:21:15 AM »

To each their own, but I'd gladly take the music of 1986 over 1996, 2006, or 2016. 

As time passes, it seems to me that there ends up being some good stuff (and more mediocre stuff, and even more crap) from every year or era. Though I wouldn't bother going through it in detail to chart it out because, well, that's a huge waste of one's limited lifespan! But years where I wholly ignored new music because what I was hearing sucked, inevitably later I find out had plenty of good things happening.

There may be some truth to that, but you appreciate more different genres than I do. 
Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!