Rock Music: 1951-1976 vs. 1977-2003

Jafox: You hit it on the head. If i was stuck listening to only "rock" music from those years, i wouldn't be all that upset. Most newer music, at least what gets commercial airplay ( and that's not saying much ) is extremely repetitive and lacking in originality. Nowadays, it truly is a case of "one size fits all" if you know what i mean.... Sean
>

Interesting post, onhwy61. Trying to decide which era produced the "best music" is tough. I can pick certain groups like Rare Earth, Yes, Little Feat and even the Monkeys and find gems of musicality from the 1951-1976 years. After 1977 I can again find great music from Morphine, Depeche Mode, Suzanne Vega and others. Based only on the music I cannot decide which era is best.

For me, the 1951-1976 era was my "growing up" era. I listened to music with friends and my world was being formed with music all around me. Songs and groups became associated with memories and those memories trigger a feeling of greatness for those songs. When I hear a lot of those songs I can remember where I was, who I was with, what time of day it was, etc. There aren't too many songs from 1977 and later which I associate with events, friends, new discoveries, etc. I believe, for most people, the "growing up" era produces the best music. As great as the "growing up" era was for music, today I need different sounds, something I haven't heard before. It's almost as if I thrive on knowing what's new and I am looking for different sounds to rock me. I find artists like Keller Williams, Radiohead and Beck very different and in years to come I will relegate them to the "oldies" bin and I will try to find new, fresh artists. With that said, I would rather listen to music from the 1977-2003 era.

I have argued/discussed this point only too recently, elsewhere. Jafex did make a good point though. I think 1968/1969 was as much of a pivitol thim in Rock as when The Beatles came to America.

As far as I am concerned, the 1970's represent rock as it's lowest and has since improved.

I think I understand the issue being discussed, but isn't this similar to: which came first, the chicken or the egg? If Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf hadn't done what they did, would the Beatles and Rolling Stones ever done what they did?
For the most part I think the phrase ' dwarves on the shoulders of giants' sums up the music world. How far back does one have to go to find the line between the dwarves and giants???
That said, there have been great musicians in every era, and to ask us to draw a line is a difficult and personal thing.
Comments were made about Jethro Tull for instance. I prefer some of their later work to their earliest work, but if it weren't for the early stuff the later stuff would never have been made!
I grew up in the 70's so it is all the more difficult for me to draw the line. The Doors work done in the early 70's I liked. The Jethro Tull and Bob Dylan of the mid to late 70's I prefered to the earlier work.
What came first, This Was or Crest of the Knave; Free wheelin' or Blood on the Tracks???
I personally prefer good music to era specific music!

Unclejeff...the 70s were the lowest point? Oh I would say the opposite. We had the most technical and melodic material of the times: ELP, Yes, Led Zep, Jethro Tull, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Rush, Beatles solo, etc., etc., etc. Much before with a few exceptions like Beatles, Stones, Moody Blues, rock bands were one-hit wonders. Fortunately many of these great bands continued into the 80s and even the 90s but so few new bands really came into play at the same level. What a disappointment! Once the 90s kicked in, the one-hit wonder phase returned. The 70s and even the 80s were times when I could put on an LP and enjoy both sides with perhaps all but one or two songs. Now with new material, I feel lucky to find more than a few songs worthy of my time.