Nice post razorbladeSD. I agree with your points as well.

I really never listened to top 40 music in the 60's and 70's. We had what at that time what they called "Underground Radio". They played stuff like the Electric Flag, Iron Butterfly, Jefferson Airplane, JohnnyWinter, Ten Years After etc. My older brother had some cool stuff, Zappa Captain Beefheart, the Mahavishnu Orchestra. Top 40 back then was pretty bad. I did have a Death to Disco tee shirt.

I'm not at all impressed by shred. I've seen 10 year olds shred with tone like a kazoo, but can't play a blues lick.

uuuggghhhhh Why is this even being talked about.It is not even close it borders on the ridicules.Some good stuff as opposed to what.He said the 60s and 70s look at the acts it is one of the strongest times in music.Do we have to name names PLEASE.Yes every era has teen idols and novelty acts but the competition was just so powerful Black artist,girl artist,bands just power houses.I mean even people who were old during that era new who a lot of the acts were.T he ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME IS stuffed with mainly acts from the 60s and 70s Name just 5 acts or solo artist that started in the year 2000 that you can say will be there in 25 years,and music is so bad that it is letting some mediocre bands look better than they are.O.K MAKE YOUR POINT WHO SHOULD GO IN THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME OVER THESE BANDS AND ARTIST WHO ARE NOT IN THERE THEMSELVES - STEVIE RAY, DEEP PURPLE, BOSTON , HEART, FRAMPTON, IRON MAIDEN, JUDAS PRIEST, GENESIS, YES, MOODYBLUES, CHICAGO, ALICE COOPER, FOREIGNER, BAD COMPANY, DOOBIE BROTHERS, JOHNNY WINTER, KOOL AND THE GANG, MOTORHEAD, SCORPIONS,TED NUGENT, THIN LIZZY, STEPPENWOLF, MIKE BLOOMFIELD, RICK DERRINGER, TODD RUNDGREN, MOTLEY CRUE, JOURNEY, ELP, THE CARS, CHEAP TRICK, DICK DALE, DEF LEPPARD, THE GUESS WHO.KISS,KING CRIMSON,FREE,DIRE STRAITS, and a whole lot more AND DONT FORGET THATS RIGHT THESE ARE BANDS NOT IN.

I'm not a fan of shred either. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the effort required to master those skills, and their execution.

I'm not a fan of country, but that doesn't mean Junior Brown doesn't make my jaw drop.

I guess because of my background as a sound engineer I've just gotten use to the mindset of focusing on the quality of a project, versus whether it appeals to my tastes.

I like blues licks as much as the next guy, but for me, that gets pretty boring pretty fast as a steady diet. Sometimes Bob Marley hits the spot, sometimes it doesn't. You like what you like. I just try to be open minded and judge things for their individual merits. You have so many musical subcultures that are active and creative in their genres and are making exciting music, whether its blues, bluegrass, metal or electronic.
Say what you want, but these guys are out there strapping on their instruments and working hard, day in and day out...And there are plenty of people that do appreciate what they do, even if you don't.

For that they get my respect, even if they don't get my money.

_________________
'95 Custom Warmoth Soloist Solid Flame Koa Body/Neck, Duncan Classic Livewire SSH, Sperzel locking tuners, Wilkinson VS100 bridge, all black chrome.
2008 MIM Lonestar Strat Black/White Pearl
2008 Taylor 114 CE

First, this topic is so subjective that it can never be solved, but it can be fun to discuss.

I'm a much bigger fan of yesterday's music, 60's/70's/80's, but that doesn't mean that I never listen to new stuff either. I think every generation builds on what's before it. KISS and Alice Cooper took hard rock songs and added stage shows that took the music over the top. If you liked the albums than you would love the live show. Eddie's tapping started the whole shred thing, just took it up a notch.

The Partridge Family of the 70's is the Jonas Bros of today. The Shaun Cassidy of the 70's is the Miley Cyrus of today. It's all the same just different media presentationa and with the advent of the 'net the stars change so much faster.

Every generation thinks the teens of that time are out of control, and that their music was better.

In this opinion, there are a gob to the third power more musicians now than in the 60s-70s, even 80s.

Consequently, there are likely a large number of excellent musicians and songwriters now. Most of whom we have never heard of. And likely never will. Too much information to go through it all.

Tragically, there is a much larger mass "market" which seems to favour hyper-produced pop and "simple music." Also known in some cirlces as "garbage." Or a word less kind.

And shame on this writer, 'am not as open to the concept of sifting through fields of garbage to find those few gems, and usually, lazily lean back on the "known" high quality musical stuff of days gone by, from Joe Seb Bach through Knopfler, Isbin and Cooder.

Interesting topic here.

Consider that many of the older 60s, 70s and 80s music was recorded in a sorta lo-tech way, compared to the higher technology of today's recordings and I think anyone with a sense of good taste for music can see that the old school stuff has withstood the test of time.

Sure, there are some newer bands/artists that sound good...BUT...would they have sounded that good using the recording gear that was available back then?

_________________
Being able to play and enjoy music is a gift that's often taken for granted.

Don't leave home without it!

In the old days, you didn't need a boutique amp and a custom shop guitar to get a great sound. Some guys made simple minor mods to their amps. Two channel amps had two separate channels with their own inputs and eq, Tubes were great and manufactured here too, no Groove Tubes and all the associated hype . I still like the organic sound of analog recordings and effects.

I also appreciate all different kinds of music, but if shred took all that much skill, why is it that so many people can do it? Stanley Jordan was two hand touch playing way before Eddie Van Halen. It doesn't discount Eddies accomplishments though.

I guess I like the looseness and freedom in the older music. It went further than a bunch of scales played at lightning speed. A friend of mine teaches classes with ten kids playing the exact same shred riffs at the same time and these kids are only 13 or 14 years old.

To each his own.

There are many great new jazz artists as well. Even in jazz, there's often more "showmanship" today than in the past but the music is as good as ever. There are always some great new blues artists too.

That creativity and skill are still very much alive is probably easier to spot when the artist doesn't have to fill venues the size of Staples Center.

I'm 56 and I have Warped Tour and Headbanger's Ball CD's in my collection. I also have a lot of Jazz and R&B and some records form the 40's that I aquired from my Grandmom... I have Les Paul and Mary Ford 45's someplace. I don't really consider my era to be over until I drop dead.

I even like some of the more popish bands like We the Kings as well as The Used and A Perfect Circle. But sometimes when you see the new bands on Letterman or SNL, they suck.

I guess the difference is... back in the old days it was all talent. You didn't have a program like Pro Tools to edit your leads and put your voice back in tune. The Beatles didn't have any tricks to fall back on when they played on the roof...

_________________
"...The final truth is, there is no truth..." - (from "Nice n' Neat" by the Boomtown Rats)

I think a big thing too is, we all forget about the crap, and only the good music survives. I think there was way more variety back in the 60's and 70's so there's more to remember. But there was a ton of garbage on the airwaves back then too.

_________________
I'm not an expert, but I play one on the internet.

I think the reason you don't see those bands in the HOF yet is because much like the NFL and MLB, the RRHOF only allows very few bands in per year and the system crawls like a freaking snail. But I can think of others from later periods that I think should make it in. NIRVANA, THE RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS, METALLICA, KORN, PEARL JAM, JANES ADDICTION, ALICE IN CHAINS, MARILYN MANSON, GUNS N ROSES, TOOL, STONE TEMPLE PILOTS, RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE, PANTERA, ROB ZOMBIE, SOUNDGARDEN, NINE INCH NAILS. GODSMACK.

And where do the words "rock and roll" begin and end? Is that to say the bands like THE STRAY CATS, R.E.M., U2, PHISH, ALANIS MORRISSETTE, BECK, BLUES TRAVELER, HOOTIE AND THE BLOWFISH, RADIOHEAD, FOO FIGHTERS, LENNY KRAVITS, GREEN DAY, SUBLIME, OASIS, MATCHBOX 20, ETC.. ETC.. don't fit in to that spectrum. And that list could go on and on as well.

That's why I don't think using the HOF as a guage is a very good way to determine whether one era is better than another. I honestly don't think it's possible to guage that sort of thing anyway.

This is actually a pretty circular topic.

EDIT: Sorry, I have to edit this post, because I do think Metallica has been inducted. And who knows, maybe others on the list as well, I'm not exactly sure. But more to the point is that there are great bands from every era, and the HOF isn't such a great guage to use as a tool to determine whether one is better than another.

I think what we need today is an infusion of fresh ideas. The 60's (and 70's) had lots of uncharted rock and roll territory to explore, not so much so far in the new millenium.

We need some crazy kids with some wild musical ideas. Any volunteers?

_________________
"Life is like eating jalapenos. What you do today may burn your arse tomorrow"

Twelvebar makes a good point: there was a lot of junk in the 60s and 70s as well. It's a mistake to think that the airwaves were filled with Hendrix, Cream or to go even further, groups like King Crimson, back then. They were mostly filled with the "top 40" and it was pretty rare for prog groups to get a song that high up in the charts.

In my hometown and probably a lot of smaller towns and cities, we didn't even have a progressive station until sometime in 1968. And even after we did, they by no means had the bulk of the teens and 20-somethings in their demographics. The local Top 40 station won that race hands down year after year.

At the same time, I was in a working commercial band (high school dances, bars, beach clubs mostly) and believe me, the requests for tunes like "Seasons in the Sun" or "Backfield in Motion" far outweighed the times anyone asked if we knew any Hendrix or Zep. There's already enough threads about "pop" music, so let's not go there but I'll close with the idea that in the 60s you probably didn't have to work as hard to find great music, but it wasn't as simple as turning on your radio or popping down to the nearest bar with a band either.

In 1966 I had a friend who loaned me his copy of Freak Out. Once I got my first FM radio, I listened to a local DJ who had an "underground" music show late Sunday night. It was there I first heard bands like Led Zeppelin, Cream, Velvet Underground, Iron Butterfly. I also began to read Rolling Stone when it was still cool. Crawdaddy was another good magazine.

I remember I saved my lunch money and bought a copy of Ten Years After's Shhh... LP. I still listen to it sometimes.

I guess my point is, once I hit my teens I didn't listen to Top 40 and my record collection reflected that. One time a girl from the neighborhood came over for a visit, looked at my collection and said: "Don't you have any good records?..."

_________________
"...The final truth is, there is no truth..." - (from "Nice n' Neat" by the Boomtown Rats)