the ILMer considers 1978-82 to be the greatest ever years for music, and the real lifer thinks they're the worst.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

i wanted to discuss this in a little more detail in a couple of ways. props to dom for the comment in the thread with the tull picture.

1. do you agree with the statement. yes/no, no write in answers or waffling. i just want to count.

2. it's kind of a random designation. i bet, if you said of all ilmers, pick one of the four 68-72, 78-82, 88-92, 98-02 you would actually not see anything beyond standard deviation. anyway i don't want to debate that really, my point is just that we would all have strong feelings about it. but i want to say that the converse sort of falls apart: most average people would find the concept "what five-year run was the worst in music" not only a baffling question, but sort of missing the point in whatever way. music doesn't work like that, i guess they would think to themselves.

so it's like, we can all see the history of 20th cent music [or at least the last 40 years] like a map or timeline of colored patches or thicker and thinner nodes. these are the times and places that interest us, that we want more of, etc. brazil in the late 60s, germany in the 70s, jamaica in the 60s, 70s, not so much in the 80s, even less in the 90s, suddenly again.

what i think is interesting is that the brain obviously works with a sort of intuitive shorthand so that any one of us could immediately call up a strong feeling about something we've perhaps never debated before: 78-82, quick make a snap judgment. of course, after the brain lurches instantly for it or against it [depending also a bit on whether we are contrarian by nature or mood], we start to think "rationally" about disco, punk, nostalgic pop i grew up with, old school and a zillion diy kids or whatever it is we think of. but don't you just already have a sort of sense of the contours of the history?

and how bogus is that? look at two really canonical judgments: the changeover from 50s rock and roll to 60s pop was a bad time, right? and 80s production values had a detrimental effect on major label records...

well, we're now reevaluating that latter bit of wisdom. perhaps the former is due for a re-eval? or not. i do start to think that the history of music is rather more homogeneous over time, quality-wise, than i can even comfortably accept.

― mig, Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

No way. I'll take 66-71 and 92-98 over just about any other time.

― otto, Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:23 (twenty-two years ago)

real lifers usually think most fondly of whatever it was they listened to in high school or college.

― jack cole (jackcole), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:26 (twenty-two years ago)

1. no, there is no one ILMer/view

― 1984 Forever (blueski), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

88-92

― donny dorko (searchanddelete), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

'78-'82 is probably my favorite five-year period of music. I don't know enough through '63 to make an informed opinion on whether or not it was the best.

― Andy K (Andy K), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

72-76

88-92

― ddb, Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

22-99

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:37 (twenty-two years ago)

1. I disagree with the statement
2. Some "re-evaluation" was discussed on this recent thread

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

right now. no, now. nooooo... NOW. errrr.....

i disagree.

― badgerminor (badgerminor), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:57 (twenty-two years ago)

87-91

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:58 (twenty-two years ago)

as i said on the tread that inpired this one - '78-'82 is when numan did his best stuff (so it wins). and i never listened to him in high school either. after that i'd take '88-'92.

― dyson (dyson), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 19:00 (twenty-two years ago)

i think 78-82 is the trendiest period right now, but a lot of ILMers will be better fit in the 67-72 one.
so, NO.

― joan vich (joan vich), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 19:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I may be a realliferist. Actually, real lifers often say that this or that period of music was good or bad.

I think I would choose 68-72 over 78-82, but I still think 78-82 were pretty good years. (That gap there is the 70's would be tempting as well, since there was a lot of pop music then that I liked as a kid, plus that was part of the golden age of salsa, although so was 78-82, or at least, I don't know, 78-81.)

― Rockist Scientist (rockistscientist), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 19:06 (twenty-two years ago)

1. no
2. 88-00

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 19:08 (twenty-two years ago)

'78-'82 is when numan did his best stuff (so it wins)

Quite right! *said while listening to Living Ornaments 81*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 19:08 (twenty-two years ago)

i picked up a greensleeves comp from 1990 that's really good.

― g--ff (gcannon), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 19:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I think I'd have to go with 68-72, so no.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 19:23 (twenty-two years ago)

1778-1782, maybe

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/2914/biography/biography3.html

― zebedee (zebedee), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 19:30 (twenty-two years ago)

85-89

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 19:37 (twenty-two years ago)

'88-'91.

― The Good Dr. Bill (Andrew Unterberger), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 20:10 (twenty-two years ago)

of the four offered, 68-72 no question, followed very hard by 98-02, then 78-82, and finally 88-92. ALL OF WHICH I LOVE, BTW.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 20:17 (twenty-two years ago)

(I'm working on a CDR Go! for 93-7 right now, and in the right mood might vote THAT one no. 1, too.)

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 20:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh fer chrissakes, who give a rolling rat fuck what John Q. Real-Lifer thinks? Like what ya like.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 20:19 (twenty-two years ago)

1950-2004 were great, IMO.

― Sym (shmuel), Wednesday, 25 February 2004 21:17 (twenty-two years ago)

78-82 is it for me (I'd exapnd it to 72-82 if pressed), but I doubt I'm representative of the average ILMer.

― anode (anode), Thursday, 26 February 2004 00:44 (twenty-two years ago)

67-91

― Francis Watlington (Francis Watlington), Thursday, 26 February 2004 01:23 (twenty-two years ago)

78-82 fuck yeah.

D.I.Y., Post-punk, Flying Nun stuff... It's got it all

― Sasha (sgh), Thursday, 26 February 2004 01:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm going to have to go 88 - 92. It may be the sound of rock dying, but it's also the sound of rock going out with style.

― Jedmond (Jedmond), Thursday, 26 February 2004 02:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Why isn't 93-97 up there (cuz that's clearly onr of the best 5 year periods ever.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 26 February 2004 02:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually I'm of the same mind as Matos, though watch that order shift radically if you change it to 77-82 (a little Television/Brothers Johnson/Eno-Bowie make a lotta difference)

― Nate in ST.P (natedetritus), Thursday, 26 February 2004 02:52 (twenty-two years ago)

sym OTM!

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 26 February 2004 02:55 (twenty-two years ago)

65-72, but then the prog bunch got a hold of me. Discouting Disco, Rock was stellar for about fifteen years. I think I have more albums from around 1972 than any other year...

― jim wentworth (wench), Thursday, 26 February 2004 03:48 (twenty-two years ago)

87-91

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Thursday, 26 February 2004 04:02 (twenty-two years ago)

1856-79 were the best years of my life.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 26 February 2004 04:24 (twenty-two years ago)

jack cole is totally right. Sorry, still can't make myself say OTM. Oh shit!

― Le Coq, Thursday, 26 February 2004 04:54 (twenty-two years ago)

four months pass...

74-78

― peter smith (plsmith), Thursday, 22 July 2004 19:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Real Lifers also go see "White Chicks". Real Lifers are morons.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 22 July 2004 19:35 (twenty-one years ago)

78-82 for me, probably, though it's hard choice between all except 88-92, which is miles behind the others for me, despite personally being aged 14-19 in those years, which you might expect to be formative.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 22 July 2004 19:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Real Lifers also go see "White Chicks". Real Lifers are morons.
-- Alex in NYC (vassife...), July 22nd, 2004.

OTM.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 22 July 2004 19:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh shit I've been forgetting to listen to WPRB.

― Rockist Scientist (rockistscientist), Thursday, 22 July 2004 19:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Ha - I've just checked iTunes to see how many tracks I have from each period.

1968-72 = 705
1978-82 = 446
1988-92 = 492
1998-02 = 859

So maybe I'm full of shit. Or maybe it's just that I've been especially enjoying a lot of 78-82 lately (because it's trendy) even if I don't have that much of it.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 22 July 2004 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

how do you do that alba?

― artdamages (artdamages), Thursday, 22 July 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

With a smart playlist - I've filled in the year tag for almost all my tracks, so I just choose year is between 1968 and 1972 or whatever and there it is.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 22 July 2004 21:53 (twenty-one years ago)

1.Can't fully agree because there is no typical ILMer, but yeah, there would seem to be an abundance of sentimental fondness for that general period around here.
2.No. Real lifers don't put any sort of thought into it one way or another. The longtime existence of "classic rock" radio would appear to reflect a disproportionate enthusiasm among real lifers for the 5-year period of '68-72, if anything. Among the four arbitrary timespans mentioned above, I personally would rank them

68-72
88-92
78-82
98-02

in terms of the amount of music I personally own from each period. And yet I don't actively listen to a lot of the 68-72 stuff because it's so overexposed. And I think 5-year periods are misleading anyways. Aside from '68-72, my REAL favourite stuff appears in 2-3 year clusters, like '76-78 and '87-89. And 1964-66 for jazz. And I'm surprised to discover that I actually own relatively few LPs from 1984, an absolutely FABULOUS year AM-radio-wise.

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Thursday, 22 July 2004 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)

While I do feel it's a bit unfair to begin to speculate on what "the average ILMer" likes, '78-'82 is indeed where it's at for me. I'd also like to challenge this idea that said time is currently "trendy". It may be, but it's also possible the fascination with that time will not wane. I've felt it was my favorite time in music for almost 10 years now. Previous to that I didn't give the idea much thought because I was too caught up in current things.

This thread does make me realize I should probably check out more things from the early 70's, though. Donovan's Open Road LP just kills me, way better than I might have expected from him.

I'm SO glad someone decided to hate on White Chicks. I am often haunted by the repulsive photo that appears in the ad of that guy/girl with the white eyes that make him look like a lizard for crying out loud. It's just absolutely revolting.

― Bimble (bimble), Thursday, 22 July 2004 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, '78-'82 without a doubt...

― Ian Moraine (Eastern Mantra), Friday, 23 July 2004 00:42 (twenty-one years ago)

the two minutes and eighteen seconds before dawn on august 23, 1971

― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 23 July 2004 00:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I dont know/care to know the time period of 90% of the music I listen to. Download, put in a playlist, and then don't think about it.

― David Allen (David Allen), Friday, 23 July 2004 03:31 (twenty-one years ago)

If I could only listen to music from one of those periods, I'd definitely take 78-82. But that's 'cause that's wot I likes.

― Sasha (sgh), Friday, 23 July 2004 06:30 (twenty-one years ago)

1994-2004. Suckers. LIVE IN THE NOW!

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Friday, 23 July 2004 06:42 (twenty-one years ago)

'77 - '84 were the greatest ever years for just about everything as far as I'm concerned (I was born in '63 - you work it out)!

Purely in terms of music 'though, '59 and '65-'69 must rate pretty darned highly.

― Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Friday, 23 July 2004 08:44 (twenty-one years ago)

2004-2008 for me. Every time.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Friday, 23 July 2004 11:50 (twenty-one years ago)

1994→

― gwilx (ex machina), Friday, 23 July 2004 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)

It's too tough to say at this point.. But 85-87 would definitely be my least favorite period.

― billstevejim, Friday, 23 July 2004 12:33 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.