• @demlet
    link
    11 year ago

    Well, if that’s your comparison, sure… Music changes, and musical tastes vary, so I’ll avoid trying to give examples or make comparisons, I just don’t think music of that era was particularly better than music since then. It’s a weird fluke of history that we developed decent recording and playback technology right as the 60s bands were coming up. That probably explains why it holds such a grip on culture. But personally I think there have been some incredible musicians since the 60s.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      31 year ago

      You called it overblown. Now you’re saying it’s just as good as what happened later. I think you need to make up your mind.

      • @demlet
        link
        -11 year ago

        Actually I said sort of the opposite: what’s been done since then is just as good as what was done back then, which therefore is overblown by people who claim it’s somehow better. No contradiction.

        • SokathHisEyesOpen
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Nobody claimed it was better. You said it was overblown, to which I countered that some of the best music ever recorded is from that era, therefore not overblown. Some of the best music ever recorded is newer too. But for rock and roll, that was the era in which a lot of magic happened, a lot of progress was made, and it changed the face of music for everything that came after. So it’s not overblown. That doesn’t mean it’s better than whatever music you think I’m comparing it to. It means that it stands on its own as worthy of the praise it receives.

          • @demlet
            link
            21 year ago

            Yeah, I guess that’s fair enough. I’ve just run into way too many people who seem to think it’s the only music worth listening to or something. I can agree with what you said pretty much.