Armenian Knowledge Base  

Go Back   Armenian Knowledge Base > Entertainment > MusiCity
Register

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 25.07.2002, 04:18   #1
Дошкольник
 
Join Date: 04 2002
Location: Armenia
Posts: 116
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post Why is the music of 60-ies better?

We grow up on the 60-ies (Arxiv populyarnoy muzyki) and then we start to listen to modern music. Why is the music of the 60-ies better, than that of 70-ies, 80-ies and the rather 90-ies.
Reply With Quote
Old 25.07.2002, 04:33   #2
Banned
 
Pinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03 2002
Location: Yerevan
Age: 35
Posts: 1,646
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

Wrong question, you should first ask why is the 60s music better then any other and just then ask why. You see, that's not a fact.
Reply With Quote
Old 26.07.2002, 04:08   #3
Дошкольник
 
Join Date: 04 2002
Location: Armenia
Posts: 116
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Pinhead:
Wrong question, you should first ask why is the 60s music better then any other and just then ask why. You see, that's not a fact.
No my friend, the question is not wrong as far as I am concerned. If it's wrong for you, then you can reply according to your taste and view. If you doubt that 60-ies are any better than any kind of music that came afterwards, then you have to do two things:
1. Step aside and explain the world of your newest hypotheses (who knows, you can win in the end)
2. Stand apart and watch how the discussion will grow to be and come in where it suits you right!
__________________
Mir lomaet kazhdogo, i mnogie potom tol'ko krepche na izlome.
Reply With Quote
Old 26.07.2002, 04:21   #4
Banned
 
Pinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03 2002
Location: Yerevan
Age: 35
Posts: 1,646
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Pinhead:
Wrong question, you should first ask why is the 60s music better then any other and just then ask why. You see, that's not a fact.
I should have wrote, is the music of 60s not "why is...", my bad

anyway, you stated that 60s music is better, now why should i try to prove that it's not? You made the statement so it's gonna be you who has to prove his words, not me. Besides i didn't say you're wrong, i said the question is wrong.
I could have asked, why is rabiz the most intelligent music, now would you bother answering that question? I think no
Reply With Quote
Old 26.07.2002, 04:31   #5
Banned
 
Pinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03 2002
Location: Yerevan
Age: 35
Posts: 1,646
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

Ah, ok, blije k delu. I don't think 60s music is the best, cuz in 70s there were better albums (even by the bands of 60s)(not counting disco **** ). Can't say much of 80s, though there were some great albums too in that decade. What about the 90s... Well 90% of music in 90s was junk, but the rest 10% could swallow up all the 4 decades, and don't even fart. Because there were masterpieces created in 90s that i don't think can ever be surpassed.
Reply With Quote
Old 26.07.2002, 20:33   #6
Дошкольник
 
Join Date: 04 2002
Location: Armenia
Posts: 116
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Pinhead:
Ah, ok, blije k delu. I don't think 60s music is the best, cuz in 70s there were better albums (even by the bands of 60s)(not counting disco **** ). Can't say much of 80s, though there were some great albums too in that decade. What about the 90s... Well 90% of music in 90s was junk, but the rest 10% could swallow up all the 4 decades, and don't even fart. Because there were masterpieces created in 90s that i don't think can ever be surpassed.
1.How do you think the albums in 70-ies were better than those in 60-ies and which are those? From the 60-ies kingdom Rolling and Presley remained in 70-ies.
2.What are the masterpieces unsurpassed - can you speak concretely?
Reply With Quote
Old 27.07.2002, 01:05   #7
Профессор
 
Join Date: 01 2002
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 2,938
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

2 Shai

There were great groups/albums in 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s

The fact that you love the music of 60s doesn't mean that it's "da best".
Reply With Quote
Old 27.07.2002, 02:58   #8
Дошкольник
 
Join Date: 04 2002
Location: Armenia
Posts: 116
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by groul:
2 Shai

There were great groups/albums in 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s

The fact that you love the music of 60s doesn't mean that it's "da best".
The fact is not that I love it, but most music critics and most intelligent people love it and respect it. History of modern music and time have proved the 60-ies the best. Not me, of course. Bring your examples of those eras that have such grandiose effect on poeple as the 60-ies perfect music. Bring them and explain why they are better. I don't judge subjectively, the rather I love 60-ies. If there's argument, one has to be objective, man! And I assure you I am.

p.s. Well concerning pre-War music, you hardly can say a good word about it in comparison to 60-ies. Pre-War music was one-sided, undynamic and poor. It was mostly improvization and nothing else.
Reply With Quote
Old 27.07.2002, 05:10   #9
Профессор
 
Join Date: 01 2002
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 2,938
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

IMHO

Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, John Lee Hooker, Ray Charles, Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerrald, Duke Ellington, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley....
...Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Jan Garbarek... Nirvana, Bjork, Dzax Harut i sotni drugix...

ty mozhesh' s etim spiskom ne soglasitsya, no eto malo chto menyayet...

Da, kstati my zabyli dedushek Bakha, Vivaldi, Mocarta, Komitasa i drugix...

Rock 60x - sledstvie Rock'n'Rolla 50x - sledstvie jazza 30-40x, sledstvie blyuza 20x...
__________________
Karen Vrtanesyan, աջակցող

ArmenianHouse.org - Armenian Library and Forum.
Literary Cafe - Young Armenian writers and poets
Reply With Quote
Old 27.07.2002, 05:47   #10
Banned
 
Pinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03 2002
Location: Yerevan
Age: 35
Posts: 1,646
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by shai:
Quote:
Originally posted by Pinhead:
Ah, ok, blije k delu. I don't think 60s music is the best, cuz in 70s there were better albums (even by the bands of 60s)(not counting disco **** ). Can't say much of 80s, though there were some great albums too in that decade. What about the 90s... Well 90% of music in 90s was junk, but the rest 10% could swallow up all the 4 decades, and don't even fart. Because there were masterpieces created in 90s that i don't think can ever be surpassed.
1.How do you think the albums in 70-ies were better than those in 60-ies and which are those? From the 60-ies kingdom Rolling and Presley remained in 70-ies.
2.What are the masterpieces unsurpassed - can you speak concretely?
1. More better bands in 70s, like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath.....
2. you don't know them
Reply With Quote
Old 30.07.2002, 03:59   #11
Дошкольник
 
Join Date: 04 2002
Location: Armenia
Posts: 116
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pinhead:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shai:
[qb]
Quote:
Originally posted by Pinhead:
[qb]1. More better bands in 70s, like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath.....
2. you don't know them
Well, Led Zeppelin, Floyd, Black Sabbath (well, this one is really funny to be better) can never be better than Beatles or Stones or Credence or Doors. Each of them play a certain stream of music - that is narrow, genred, and besides, Zep has songs that hardly have melody - namely not real songs. Floyd is good, but again has not the ultimate melodcal expression and not that musical dynamism and richness and wonder and spontainety that Beatles or Stones have.
AS far as your arrogant words go here in the second point, I would recommend you be polite and never ignore the one whom you don't know. I have studied rock music very well, and I do know too much about it - not only exclusively as music, but as a social phenomenon. So, even if I don't know the names of the albums, you should have posted them. But... if I happen not to know them, then they are NEVER unsurpassed, as YOU only think)

To Groul
To chto sledstvie drugogo ne znachit chto ono xuzhe. kakaya ne logichnaya mysl. Beatles na osnove blues i nachinayushego rock'nrola doshli do nedosegaemogo - tak i Rolling Stones. Oni vzyali opyt predydusehgo i dorobotali ego do samogo konca, tak chtobi bolshe nikto ne smozhet oboyti ix. Ix muzika byla sovsem novoy togda, sovsem. Eta muzika universlna, yeyo mozhno igrat na lyubom instrumente, i ona ochen bogata melodiey. A jazz, blues, i vse oni monotonnye, odnotonnye, net suchestvenno novyx variantov melodii, vsyo stroitsa na improvizacii predydushego.
A classiki rechi ne mozhet byt. Ona nikogda ne v sravnenii s lyogkoy muzykoy, xotya takoe voobshe delayut, i k tvoemu glubokomu gnevu, skazhu chto Lennon i McCArtney hayeren asac pattin BAxin el, Vivaldiin el hasarakakan karciqov "Kto samiy luchshi muzikant 1000 letiya. yesho god tomy nazad"
Reply With Quote
Old 30.07.2002, 04:33   #12
Профессор
 
Join Date: 01 2002
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 2,938
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

namely not real songs.
this shows that everything you don't like you call not real.

Floyd not that musical dynamism and richness and wonder and spontainety that Beatles or Stones have.
Oh, really?

AS far as your arrogant words
never talk like that in the forum. who are you to call someone arrogant? The only person being arrogant is you at this moment. Have you ever heard about something called "opinion"?
What about some good manners?

I would recommend you be polite and never ignore the one whom you don't know.
The only impolite persone around is... guess who?

I have studied rock music
LOL, You'd better listen to it, not study.

I do know too much about it...
Mama jan!

So, even if I don't know the names of the albums
so do you know "too much" or not?

To Groul
Lennon i McCArtney hayeren asac pattin BAxin el, Vivaldiin el
Ha, ba vonc... Baxn el tox gna cex uti merni, vor iran pattoxnery "organnaya tokata re minor" ein nvagum...

kakaya ne logichnaya mysl
Shai jan, ed tonov plz chxosas. Uxaki thach e. Chem asum vor liqy ankap baner es arden asel, da qo gorcn e. No esli s toboj vezhlivo vedut besedu, bud' dobr ne vyxodi za ramki.

Gnacir ignore mi xosqov, p-n Mecn Erazhshtaget...
Reply With Quote
Old 30.07.2002, 06:44   #13
Banned
 
Pinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03 2002
Location: Yerevan
Age: 35
Posts: 1,646
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

Quote:
well, this one is really funny to be better
Maybe, funny for you, the one that doesn't suspect that Sabbath created a whole new world of music with thousands of bands elvolved, new genre, new ideas and new tendencies.
Quote:
can never be better than Beatles or Stones or Credence or Doors
Which in their turn can never be better then Gusan Totik. Ari u hamozi, erb senc hamozvac hamozvac xosum en... mardu haves el a paxnum.
Quote:
Each of them play a certain stream of music - that is narrow, genred, and besides, Zep has songs that hardly have melody - namely not real songs.
I'ts much better to become a master in a genre then a student in many, which Beatles and Rolling actually are. Just a bunch of teenagers that created music for the masses. That's why masses love them (including you). That's their main problem (like today's pop divas'). They make music for the audience not for themselves.
What about the melody... if you're a hardcore fun of melodies why don't you listen to r&b crap like Boys 2 Man or Mariah Carey? Or you do?
And after all your statement about Zep not being melodic is absolutely wrong. Some of their songs show the highest level of melodiousness, melodiousness that plays on your soul not in the ears. Guess the one that finds cheesy and childish melodies like in "Yesterday" a state of art creations will never understand it.
Quote:
Floyd is good, but again has not the ultimate melodcal expression and not that musical dynamism and richness and wonder and spontainety that Beatles or Stones have.
OMG, I don't even want to compare (early) Pink Floyd with those commercial musicmakers. BTW listen to gospels for melodical expression, Slayer for dynamism, Bach for richness, cartoon soundtracks for wonder and Sektor Gaza for spontainety. That would be a nice collection.
Quote:
AS far as your arrogant words go here in the second point, I would recommend you be polite and never ignore the one whom you don't know
Recommendations declined.
Quote:
I have studied rock music very well
What made you think that i was speaking of rock music? krkin porcir. And Groul is right, you should rather listen to it.
Quote:
and I do know too much about it - not only exclusively as music, but as a social phenomenon
good for you but we're talking about music as a form of expression, not as a social phenomenon.
Quote:
So, even if I don't know the names of the albums, you should have posted them
Ok, here you go, Emperor, Arcturus, Katatonia, Dismal Euphony... I hope that i enriched your studies of music. Now you know the names, so you can argue with me with 100% proof of knowing your righteousnes. Don't you?
Quote:
But... if I happen not to know them, then they are NEVER unsurpassed, as YOU only think)
Sure, insufficient knowledge proves your righteousnes once again.

From "to Groul" (menak mi ban, el grelu haves chka)
Quote:
Eta muzika universlna, yeyo mozhno igrat na lyubom instrumente
Zilinu toje mojno igrat' na lyubom instrumente

P.S. I was a big fan of Beatles myself, even considered myself a "bitloman", and thought that it's the best band out there. No ya [email protected] iz etogo vozrasta.
Reply With Quote
Old 30.07.2002, 21:48   #14
Дошкольник
 
Join Date: 04 2002
Location: Armenia
Posts: 116
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by groul:
[b]
Gnacir ignore mi xosqov, p-n Mecn Erazhshtaget...
Groul, "arrogant words" were not inteded for you. Hm, man, you got furious because you didn't have no sound arguments to bring about and decided to back your opinion-sharer. Well, you posted a reply to me where you did say no argumentative phrase against my arguments, namely you either don't know how to argue, or you are already beaten up and down, so there's really nothing to put forth.
Ayo, "mecn" kdarnam. uzum es havata uzum es che. Isk du yerajshtakan argumentner ber yerb vicharkum es im argumentery, voch te zayracir qez chuxvac bareric. Tox ajn mardy vorin grel em patasxani.
Reply With Quote
Old 30.07.2002, 22:57   #15
Дошкольник
 
Join Date: 04 2002
Location: Armenia
Posts: 116
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Reputation: 0 | 0
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Pinhead:
Quote:
/QUOTE]I'ts much better to become a master in a genre then a student in many, which Beatles and Rolling actually are. Just a bunch of teenagers that created music for the masses. That's why masses love them (including you). That's their main problem (like today's pop divas'). They make music for the audience not for themselves.
What about the melody... if you're a hardcore fun of melodies why don't you listen to r&b crap like Boys 2 Man or Mariah Carey? Or you do?
And after all your statement about Zep not being melodic is absolutely wrong. Some of their songs show the highest level of melodiousness, melodiousness that plays on your soul not in the ears. Guess the one that finds cheesy and childish melodies like in "Yesterday" a state of art creations will never understand it.
Quote:

hey, Pinhead, you can say you understand music at all? Beatles not masters? My God! Beatles have sung all the genres - that's their mastery, man. They have left no genre open. Their songs include everything, that's why they are considered Highest music. They have elaborated Irish, scottis, negro and Greek folk music patterns but in a style and in a form no one has been able to do, because they've done it based on a natural and abundant melody pattern. Teen agers? Who were not teen agers? Can any teen ager create such beautiful songs?
Well, man, 60-ies never made music for audience, you'd better read Lipstic Traces and you will learn every thing. In 60-ies commercial music was unknown thing. It only started to come about. If Beatles created music for audience, they would have released every next album in two years, like today's groups do, in order to suqeeze all the money from the tracks via ads and concerts and stuff like that.
Masses? yes, but that masses included people from all ages, people from all social groups which is not the case with any other group. Elderly people neber listen to Led or Pink, one will find it even strange should one see it. Everybody liked Beatles, including you, everybody goes through Beatles, including you, and then each turns into HIS music. But that music falls hsort of Beatles, because it constitutes only one part of Beatles. What Beatles said in a few words, Pink, Led, Sabbath, Bee Gees, Deep Purple, Queen said in musically narrower lane and prolonged versions, which never adds to their mastership. Beatles were students before 1962, after that they became masters.
Boys 2 Men and Mariah Carey - man, do you believe such undirected, unaimed, prolonged and epic music can be better than 60-ies? Why should I listen if I don't like it? But it never means I have not listened. You have a very wrong opinion of me. You think I listen to Beatles day and night? ) Well, I listen to every kind of music, but at first ear, I know it's worth or not. Mariah Carey is jazz, such vague, unspecified, undramatic music that has all the melodies in the same pattern, one immitating the other. Is that your good music? Hm, man, here's the case for Show Biz, commercial music. Carey is worth nothing, only she has corporations and art men supporting her in advertisements. You know that Mona LIsa is NOT the best picture? But the show biz men won't have it declined, as their money will go under.
CHildish? Can you sing it? Can you write a similarity of that music. I write music myself, and your Mariah Carey's-like songs I can write in tongs, man, I don't boast. I can do it. But just try to write something like Beatles. CHildish is your Carey. You're judging not musically, I can see it. Yesterday is a perfect pattern in respect to harmonia: that is sequence of chords. Its beauty lies, as all Beatles' songs, in the irrevocable connectedeness of form and content. Every single note has its right place. Go and ask any music professor in the conservatory.
OMG, I don't even want to compare (early) Pink Floyd with those commercial musicmakers. OTE]

Early Pink is psychodelic stuff, uninteresting, madman's music, unhealthy msuic, incomprehensible, blur in meaning and form, not art, or art for invalids. Which is witnessed by the leadership of the fifth memeber, who went mad later (hope you know story).
good for you but we're talking about music as a form of expression, not as a social phenomenon.
Quote:

When music is only a form of expression which is the case with every kind of music but not Beatles, then it's usual music. 60-ies delievered music of upheavals, social sights, changed the psyche, fed on social phenomena themselves and added to its drama. That was real art.
Ok, here you go, Emperor, Arcturus, Katatonia, Dismal Euphony... I hope that i enriched your studies of music. Now you know the names, so you can argue with me with 100% proof of knowing your righteousnes. Don't you?

Oh my. Do you really think this ... music is just better and unsurpassed? You think that one album can overcome a whole history - a wrong judgement. If only one album can make that artist famous, then he's not good artist. Beatles' all songs are good. There's no defect in them. Absolutely. ALl your artists create only one good and worthy song or album "Stairway in Heaven", "Child In Time", "Wall", etc and then sink down forever. They can not be better. Beatles were real composers, they could compose whenever they wanted and the song would come off a masterpiece, others can not do it.
Your groups, something of them I know and listened, are so narrow music, like in detective genre Agatha Christie, that the range of their musical expression is but limited. 60-ies didn't know any range, any limit, any new song was a whole new wolrd, a whole new musical conception.

P.S. I was a big fan of Beatles myself, even considered myself a "bitloman", and thought that it's the best band out there. No ya [email protected] iz etogo vozrasta.[/QB][/QUOTE]

hey, eto ne vozrast. Tebe prosto nadoelo Beatles i ty reshil chto drugaya musica luchshe. daje segodnya bolshe lyudey slushayut Beatles - fact obyasnyaetsa tem, chto eto yestestvennaya musica, musica blishe k prirode i k cheloveku. Tvoi exoticheskie melodii obosnovany na electro instrumentax. Bez bolshoy ustanovki ix nevozmozhno igrat. Eto - ne nastoyahsya muzika. Takuyu muzyku sdelash i ty, ne somnevaysa, yesli u tya budet synthezator. Vot idi i sprosi u compositorov-pedagogov iz konservatorii, luchshe li Beatles ostalnyx? Otvet budet takoy chto tebe pridyotsa sprosit WHY??? ne somnevaysya. ya proshol cherez eto. ya govoril daje s metal rockerami, nikto tak rebyacheski kak ty ne vyskazyvalsya po otnosheniyu k Beatles. Bolshinstvo iz nix uvereny chto 60-ie luchshe, no oni lyubyat svoy metall ili hard rock, gde nichgo krasivogo, nchego artistichnogo. Odnako oni lyubyat, i vsyo. CHitay pro Beatles. Negde budet napisano o tvoix lyubimyx avtorov, i nikogda ne budet napisano.
Pinhead, nado umet proigryvat. Potomu kak ty ne lyubish Beatles a lyubish Floyd, ne znachit, chto Floyd luchshe. tebe ne povezlo, tebe nravitsa muzika drugogo stliya, nashix dney, musyka uzkix tonalnostey i improvizacii. A ty xochsesh chtob ona byla luchsey.
Ya uzhe 10 let ne slushayu Beatles. Ya izuchal (unlike you who only listens) pochti vsyu istoriyu muzyki. Segodnya ya lyublyu daje Modern Talking, no ne znachit chto MT mozhet byt kogda libo, kakim to obrazom luchshe Beatles. Mne povezlo, ya lyublyu to chto luchshe vsex. Eto ne moyo mneniye, Pinhead, a mneniye professionalov i lyubiteley. nado vsegda sporit objektivno.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Thread Tools


На правах рекламы:
реклама

All times are GMT. The time now is 23:16.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.