25-03-2010, 03:43
Beach Wrote:This is one of those things where I refuse to vote because it is far too subjective and depends on what music you truly love.
Jazz & Blues stretch from the beginning of the twentieth century right through and perhaps earlier. And when it comes to either Rock and Roll, or Classical? :o_O:
I personally have many favourites in many genres from most eras, as did my late wife! Our record collection reflects as much.
I feel much the same way, though the OP was posted in the Rock area. The question is difficult as the answers are opinion based on subjective preference. That being said...
I feel that every one of the listed choices provided crucial elements for the evolution of rock. Chuck Berry, Elvis, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Who, Led Zep, Rainbow, Kansas, Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons, Kiss, Steeley Dan, Black Sabbath, BOC, Van Halen, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Quiet Riot, Bon Jovi, Metallica, Yngwie Malmsteen, Guns N Roses, Dave Mathews, Hootie, Alice in Chains, The Foo Fighters, Disturbed, The Killers, have all added to what rock is by borrowing from what was and have thus influenced what will be.
"Better" implies relativity. I don't find one decade or portion thereof to be "better" than any other. They are ceratainly different, but much of that has to do with the improved sonic qualities that technological advances in recording have provided - and continue to provide. What The Beatles were able to do in the 60's was damn impressive, but I don't think it was "better" than what Yes did in the 70's. Was the musicianship better or worse back in the 60's? I don't think so, but the cutting edge evolved with the music. Glenn Cambell and Roy Clark were fantastic musicians, as were Steve Howe and David Gilmour; is Yngwie better than Vai?
The answers appear to me to be merely a matter of preference.
All these periods were (and are) vital to the music that was made in that time and to the music made afterward, including the music of the present.
Just my 2 cents.
Mac

