Best Generation of Rock

[JERK DISEASE]

1. The first one is the 50's one as you'll probably know it, though early 60's Phil Spector stuff could be thrown in too. This was when it wasn't rock but rock n' roll!

Artist Examples: Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Elvis, Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis

2. The second is the boomer era! Hippies, drugs, psychedelia, prog rock's heyday, birth of metal, glam. The mid and late 60's, the early and mid 70's mostly.

Artist Examples: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan

3. The third is the era of punk, new wave, post-punk, synthesizers abound, and also regrettably the rise of hair metal.

Artist Examples: The Ramones, Talking Heads, U2, Van Halen , The Police

4. The fourth began as college rock in the mid-80's and eploded in the early 90's into the mainstream. Probably also including the britpop era on it's end.

Artist Examples: Nirvana, Oasis, The Pixies, The Stone Roses, Radiohead

5. And I guess fifth gen would be the 00's rock, the various "revivals", indie, etc.

Artist Examples: The Strokes, The White Stripes, Animal Collective
Who da best.

[SympathyX]

Seventies or Eighties are by far my favourites but I'd say that mid sixties to seventies are the best.

Sixties was great for the more experimental stuff but by the seventies it had more of a clear idea of where it was going.

I found the "fifth gen" as you put it to be mostly garbage mainstreamwise.

[Cyan D. Funk]

! qhLW1lYvhRg&autoplay=1

[JERK DISEASE]

NUMBAH THREE MOTHAFUCKA

! K56soYl0U1w
PldpBJEn4vQ
I1wg1DNHbNU
2VFJB-ZeVqM
ucZRore0-EE
HGOC4Hib4OM
ePwjipxjAmA
lotkzHsIuoA
xOU6_JKL9r0
4QBmTHwR3hg
y6QBaZHltJw

[Pochipochi]

@SympathyX:

Sixties was great for the more experimental stuff but by the seventies it had more of a clear idea of where it was going

[Cyan D. Funk]

! _S3t-ev7F1o
p0HmFr7mPsk
dtqDB2spyG0
7IjgZGhHrYY
R-K0ZnFl0q4
Rk6YDzmqZ0I
Gbfnh1oVTk0
1NAq4HyoNe4

[SympathyX]

@Holy:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/vIv2e.jpg[/qimg]

I've always found that 'seventies' rock as a whole always had a bit more of a defined sound whereas the stuff from the sixties was way more of a mixed bag.

Not really much wrong with saying that.

[Cyan D. Funk]

! Jp6j5HJ-Cok
OtlNlTHe-_0
PtTC3pGBjs4
V80VjKXlSEc&feature=related
n1gggXjEobY

[RPGJay]

After a tough call between third and fourth, I voted fourth but I really like all the generations of rock to some degree.

[fedcom]

Second all the way

! XXq5VvYAI1Q
PfAWReBmxEs
S5j-S6Eq81g
0cWzxJvgWc8
XCamHEA64uo
Ad2EPO_y0ps
D6vlIvdz71I

[WarshipArc]

I'm going to have to say option three.
During grade 10 I had to have listened to London Calling twice a day, usally before going to sleep.

! XYK7bEo1Z4M
YxoG1AUO2Ec
The next year after recieving "All the stuff and More Vol.II" for Christmas I climbed the highest summit do declare to the gods that the Ramones will be my all time favorite band.

! lQeo3OfuEDM
6siGKxcKol0

[JERK DISEASE]

@SympathyX:

I've always found that 'seventies' rock as a whole always had a bit more of a defined sound whereas the stuff from the sixties was way more of a mixed bag.

Not really much wrong with saying that.

I really have no idea what your describing.

[Wagomu]

You've got an interesting way of separating eras and defining rock, some of which I disagree with, especially. There's a lot more to more recent rock than just a few alt rock and revival bands. It's a much weirder and more diverse phenomenon involving a largely post-modern take on rock. There's genres like noise rock and, well, post-rock that really redefine what a rock band can be. I think the latest generation of rock, even music as a whole, can be defined by experimentalism more than anything else. Even indie rock is caught up in a lot of that. To see the era for the popular music is the fault of our proximity to it.

By the way, I'm really enjoying these music discussion threads you've been posting lately, Zephos. I may just have to contribute a few, myself. Bring music back to AP culture!

[GuetaMinute]

Honestly, I'd say 00's, given the great relatively niche bands out there, and the more well-known but kickass indie bands.

Second to that would be 70s or 90s IMO.

[Nobodyman]

It's a close match between 2nd and 3rd generation for me, but I believe 3rd generation edges out ahead. I absolutely adore Duran Duran, ELO, the B-52s, Foreigner, Styx, Journey, Queen, all of which (I believe) belong to that era.

Gotta give props to the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Led Zeppelin though.

[andre]

I've been struggling between the 4th and 5th generation but if I was stuck on a desert island, I'd go with the 5th. (and hopefully get to keep one of my favorite albums of all time, which came out late 90's.)

[Conekiller]

My tastes lie between #3 and #4. With a good heapin of #2 tossed in, but I enjoy listening to 3 & 4 moreso.

[RageaSarus]

80s (especially early) music own.

Period.

[Kylor]

The third generation is the best and none of the other options are better than the third one.

[andre]

For me in order it would be 5>4=2>1>3

If 4 ends in the mid 90's then I can still claim OK Computer.

[Envy]

For my post it will be 'favorite', not 'best'.

I'll say 2nd Generation, although I'm not really a big fan of the most of the bands you mentioned for it.

The years you listed for it encompass my favorite band's (Chicago) absolute best years (and I'm naturally inclined to not vote anything with the 80s in it because of what happened to Chicago then.).

So, yeah, that's my favorite, but not just because of Chicago. The Beatles later years were awesome, and there are a few other bands that I listen to quite often from that time (like Blood, Sweat & Tears).

I steer clear of "best" because I, honestly, haven't listened to much rock from the 80s and beyond. I listened to some late 90s/00s rock back in my early teens but eventually the radio station I listened to started playing dance music and then went off air in entirety. I haven't listened to much modern rock since then. Nothing against it, just don't get much exposure to it.

[Ubiq]

That stretch roughly covered by the second choice was the greatest in rock history where I'm concerned. If it were a shorter time period, then there might be some indecision on my part, but 1965 all the way to 1976?

How can anybody not vote for an era that includes such a wide variety of greats like Highway 61 Revisited, Sounds of Silence, Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Who Sell Out, Days of Future Passed, Electric Ladyland, Let It Bleed, Hot Rats, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Lola vs Powerman and the Moneygoround, Lost in the Ozone, Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs, Workingman's Dead, Aqualung, Harvest, Symbols/Led Zeppelin IV, Dark Side of the Moon, and Born to Run?

[Mrs. Iceburg]

't Was hard to choose between 1 and 2, but I went with 2. The Rolling Stones are my favourite band, Pink Floyd is flat out genius, and overall most of my favourite bands are from that generation. None of that would be true without the first generation though.

[Sarfallet]

"Two" yeah!

! p3uuJxZX7s4
yN9UT2zF8c8
yu5bPJ-b6Nw

…altough "One" had some really good ones to.

! 4vclF5gi1jE
And of course Link Wray, who someone already has mentioned.

[Sheep]

Psychadelic rock all the way.

AUO_5EALZoM
3oRKvpZ7PjE

Fuck, I was born way too fucking late.
Would pay my soul to the devil for experiencing woodstock.

[Wagomu]

If I had to choose based on how Zephos divided the eras, it's still a tough call. Two covers the golden age of prog rock, including Zappa. Three covers a lot of my metal or punk, plus post-punk, 'alternative'. Fifth includes a huge variety and many fantastic, diverse rock bands. Hmm… I'll have to come back to this later.

[JERK DISEASE]

Yeah, I can see how my divisions pretty much screws over Metal, since it followed it's own trajectory.

[Ubiq]

@Wagomu:

If I had to choose based on how Zephos divided the eras, it's still a tough call. Two covers the golden age of prog rock, including Zappa. Three covers a lot of my metal or punk, plus post-punk, 'alternative'. Fifth includes a huge variety and many fantastic, diverse rock bands. Hmm… I'll have to come back to this later.

Yeah, there's quite a bit of overlap between some of those for certain categories of music. Glam Rock, for instance, is a genre that most people would probably think of as more of a late '70/early '80s phenomenom, but Queen had two or three albums come out prior to 1976.

While not a Glam Rocker, The Boss had released both Greetings from Asbury Park and Born to Run by the end of '75 though I think most people would probably think of him as more of a '80s rocker thanks to Born in the USA.

[JERK DISEASE]

Glam Rock was definitely an early 70's phenomenon. Queen was a latecomer to it.

[JERK DISEASE]

Quick poll.

I'm near to listening (well…relistening) to the Clash's debut.

And I need your opinions.

Should I listen to the original UK version (which actually dates to 77') or should I listen to the US version which came out a few years later and adds some really awesome tracks.

I pretty much know I prefer the extra songs on the US version, but I feel like for both accuracy and reasons of character I should stick the UK version.

Am I the only one who would find it odd to review the US version for the 77' release?

[Dryish]

I find it foolish to choose just one of them. Do yourself a favour and choose both. If you enjoy the music and have enough time, nothing stops you. Accuracy and character reasons aside, there can never be too much good music. Music snobism is something one should try to avoid.

[JERK DISEASE]

@Dryish:

I find it foolish to choose just one of them. Do yourself a favour and choose both. If you enjoy the music and have enough time, nothing stops you. There can never be too much good music.

You don't understand.
I'm asking this for the list project I'm doing on RYM.
I'm in 77 now, and of course "The Clash" is among the 20 albums I'm listening to for this year.
It's a matter of picking one version to review for the list.
Technically speaking the original 77' version would make the most sense to pick.
But I'd rather pick the American version even if it did come out in 79'.

I'm pretty damn principled when it comes to my RYM lists, but if enough people don't really care then maybe I'll go with the 79' version.

[Dryish]

Ah, I was thinking of something like that but I wasn't sure. My apologies.

If it is for your RYM list, I would suggest that you indeed listened to the 79' version rather than to the original version. The original one has some kind of charm to it, but the 79' version is, shall we say, more interesting. Heck, if you even like it better personally, I don't see why you should choose the original over the newer one. It might even be easier to review something that pleases you more than something else. Official reviews are better to be done with enthusiasm.

The fact that you're doing 1977 doesn't matter that much. It is (almost) the same record after all. Had it been any other, I would have suggested otherwise, but when talking about the Clash's debut, the difference isn't that huge.

[Wagomu]

@JERK:

Quick poll.

I'm near to listening (well…relistening) to the Clash's debut.

And I need your opinions.

Should I listen to the original UK version (which actually dates to 77') or should I listen to the US version which came out a few years later and adds some really awesome tracks.

I pretty much know I prefer the extra songs on the US version, but I feel like for both accuracy and reasons of character I should stick the UK version.

Am I the only one who would find it odd to review the US version for the 77' release?

I would probably stick with the original release, mostly because you're doing the year 1977, so you should probably stick with content released in 77. In general, though, I would stick with the incarnation best known. That will typically be the original, but a lot of early overseas rock got the 'Real Release', 'American Release' treatment.

[JERK DISEASE]

I picked the US Out of Our Heads and US Are You Experienced. But those were released in the same year as the British version.

If anything this is more about the year of release.
I'd pick the American if all the new tracks were from 77', but half are from 78' and 79' nrrrgggh.

[taboo]

Eighties forever, other generations never

[CosmicDebris]

There's really no contest for me, if I had to narrow it down to only being able to take one bracket of music with me to a desert island, I'd go with option two. If we're arguing about what's of a higher caliber of quality, or more socially relevant in history, I'm no expert there. But you have to give proper respect to a generation that produced the Beatles, The Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who, Zappa, Hendrix, etc. etc..

[Ubiq]

@JERK:

Glam Rock was definitely an early 70's phenomenon. Queen was a latecomer to it.

True, but, after Bowie, Queen is probably the band most people think of when they think of Glam Rock.

@JERK:

Quick poll.

I'm near to listening (well…relistening) to the Clash's debut.

And I need your opinions.

Should I listen to the original UK version (which actually dates to 77') or should I listen to the US version which came out a few years later and adds some really awesome tracks.

I pretty much know I prefer the extra songs on the US version, but I feel like for both accuracy and reasons of character I should stick the UK version.

Am I the only one who would find it odd to review the US version for the 77' release?

Clash City Rockers, the single of White Riot,
(White Man) In Hammersmith Palais, and I Fought the Law are a lot better than what they replaced. So I'd say go with the US release; sure, it may not be as "authentic" as the UK release, but there's a lot of, for lack of a better word, dross on that album. You don't see the stuff that was cut on their greatest hits collections for a reason.

If you're going year by year, I'd pick something else for '77 and hold The Clash over until '79.

[CosmicDebris]

@Ubiq:

True, but, after Bowie, Queen is probably the band most people think of when they think of Glam Rock.

Bowie yes, Queen I never thought of as glam rock, their sound superseded their image, imo.

[Pochipochi]

This post is deleted!

[taboo]

i like 80s music because they're all so angry

[m00n]

That would be generation two for me. The music between Hendrix and Zepplin is what I play the most. After that my interest is more in the Metal area with some good rock bands in between. So I'd say 2<3<4<1<5 or so.

[JERK DISEASE]

I'm gonna review the original Clash.
77' is already winning me over on a huge level beyond any previous year, no reason for me to give it any kind of handicap on any album.

[JERK DISEASE]

Wire owns so hard, goddamn.

[Ao Kiji]

music quality stays pretty damn consistent from generation to generation; it's people's taste during each generation that's either good or shitty.

so, then, is this thread about personal taste, or popular rock music from generation to generation?
because i love my bloody valentine and the pixies(very late-80s/early-90s), but i also hate the shitty rock bands that were incredibly popular during that period (read:nirvana).

[JERK DISEASE]

@Ao:

music quality stays pretty damn consistent from generation to generation; it's people's taste during each generation that's either good or shitty.

This is bullshit.
I mean I'm not going to act like I can say anything about rock, because I can't yet.

But hip-hop wise I sure as shit can.
Things have golden ages. Adhering to some faux politically correct "it's always the same :)" is nonsense. If it can apply to nations it can sure as fuck apply to art.
I'm not some idiot who scoffs at modern stuff. In fact I had a good ol' time in 2010 hip-hop wise, and still think we're living a charmed current existence compared to the late 90's. I even kinda like Lil Wayne and Niki Minaj and all the current mainstream big wigs. WAY better than 50 Cent and P Diddy.

But today pales in comparison to 88-96.

Scenes that drive hundreds to compete and go for the gold at the opening moments of an exciting new something have an advantage over a time when disparate groups occasionally rise to the occasion unbound by any momentum.
It's common sense.

[Chrissie]

Number 2 first, then 3 closely behind, then 1, then 4 and last 5 for moi.

[Ao Kiji]

@JERK:

This is bullshit.
I mean I'm not going to act like I can say anything about rock, because I can't yet.

But hip-hop wise I sure as shit can.
Things have golden ages. Adhering to some faux politically correct "it's always the same :)" is nonsense. If it can apply to nations it can sure as fuck apply to art.
I'm not some idiot who scoffs at modern stuff. In fact I had a good ol' time in 2010 hip-hop wise, and still think we're living a charmed current existence compared to the late 90's. I even kinda like Lil Wayne and Niki Minaj and all the current mainstream big wigs. WAY better than 50 Cent and P Diddy.

But today pales in comparison to 88-96.

this is fine and i agree, but, once again, this applies exclusively to what's most popular in that musical genre. did underground hip-hop's quality change much from decade to decade? i doubt it. i'm just saying that if you're looking at everything coming out under such broad banners as 'hip-hop' or 'rock', you're going to find plenty of artist doing quality stuff regardless of timing.

it's popular trends that usually end up being good or bad when you look back on them. music doesn't have a whole lot to do with 'political correctness' and i wasn't making that statement to 'play it safe' or whatever you're saying, either. i'm saying you're probably talking about trends, not the genres themselves; the genres themselves just experience popular trends that may or may not suck. 50 cent and sean combs were big fads in their respective decades, not the musical representatives of it , imho.

Scenes that drive hundreds to compete and go for the gold at the opening moments of an exciting new something have an advantage over a time when disparate groups occasionally rise to the occasion unbound by any momentum.
It's common sense.

it creates a spark, yeah, but the amount of people trying to grasp hold of some swaying artistic momentum doesn't immediately equate 'quality'; just because lots of people are trying to push the envelope or grasp hold of this new trend opened up by someone(s) doesn't mean tons of amazing art is the result–especially when it's a musician who's tapped into a style that's inimitable.

and sometimes 'no one else is trying this' IS the momentum for an artist to break out and do amazing stuff.

[JERK DISEASE]

this is fine and i agree, but, once again, this applies exclusively to what's most popular in that musical genre.

Wait…what?

did underground hip-hop's quality change much from decade to decade?

Let me rephrase, the volume and frequency is less then it was. Momentum has left.
A Tribe Called Quest was part of a momentum.
The Cunninlyguists made their own way.

And actually, hardcore hip-hop has been one giant lost cause since like 97' or so. THAT has objectively sucked drastically in comparison to before that year.

i doubt it. i'm just saying that if you're looking at everything coming out under such broad banners as 'hip-hop' or 'rock', you're going to find plenty of artist doing quality stuff regardless of timing.

And how many more? And how much more game changing it was at an earlier time?

it's popular trends that usually end up being good or bad when you look back on them. music doesn't have a whole lot to do with 'political correctness' and i wasn't making that statement to 'play it safe' or whatever you're saying, either. i'm saying you're probably talking about trends, not the genres themselves; the genres themselves just experience popular trends that may or may not suck.

I'm not at all talking about popularity, or even about amount of bad music.
I'm tallying the good music. The numbers go deep south in the late 90's, and have been a steady up down middle area since.

Never again to the astronomic heights they were in the early and mid-90's, or as breathtakingly fresh and groundbreaking as the late 80's.

50 cent and sean combs were big fads in their respective decades, not the musical representatives of it , imho.

P Diddy effected negatively the direction of so many good careers. Namely Nas. The amount of great albums nosedived around his reign.

50 Cent is more a sympton, that people who should know better came to accept him as a good gangsta rapper when he wasn't worth snot.

it creates a spark, yeah, but the amount of people trying to grasp hold of some swaying artistic momentum doesn't immediately equate 'quality';

That's the point of having a lot of them. The more people trying, the more good ones you'll see. While the crappy ones just fall by the wayside.

Lessen that amount to a trickle and the amount of good ones goes down as well.

and sometimes 'no one else is trying this' IS the momentum for an artist to break out and do amazing stuff.

ONE artist.

[city_lights31]

~Portugal. The Man
~The Mars Volta
~The Black Keys
~Silversun Pickups
~Wolfmother
~Arctic Monekeys
~As Tall As Lions
~Beardfish
~Closure in Moscow
~The Dear Hunter
~Porcupine Tree
~Diablo Swing Orchestra
~Mono
~Pain of Salvation

Damn, I love this era of rock and I don't think it get's enough love (granted some of the above are arguably sub-genres of metal)…though I appreciate and enjoy them all for what they are. I have been a rock enthusiast all my life.

Outside of now (as in this era) I have always loved the 60's and when I was a teenager nothing could top the 70's - which I still love. The 80's has some standouts but I have never connected with it on the same level as some others.

EDIT: Queen is the greatest rock band of all time. Challenged legitimatley only by Pink Floyd and The Beatles…imo.

EDIT dues: It's funny I never think much of the 90's but when I look at it: The Pixies (as jerk pointed out) - Soundgarden - Stone Temple Pilots - Alice in Chains - were all very prominent and made some really great music. Even those that it has taken me forever to warm up to (Nirvana/Guns n Roses) made some great and memorable music. All these eras have a lot quality of when you look at them closely.