We are entering a golden age if 2015-2016 is any indication

That's not exactly what the OP stated and your post is actually a bit dismissive of his opinions. "Ridiculous"? Really? Maybe you want to do a re-think on that one.

OP is not saying he simply likes a few albums. He's stating that he feels that there are so many great albums recently that he equates it to a "golden age", and even compares it to 1965-1966. Do I necessarily agree with his opinion? I don't know but there is a lot of great music these days. And there was a lot of great music in 1965-1966. There's no reason why the OP cannot think of both time periods as equals.

How many of the albums on his list have you heard?

Exactly. If new music is blowing the OP's mind, then it's a golden age for him. And that's really all that matters.

 

Thanks for making me re-listen to that Tindersticks again. I glossed over it the first round, but on listen #2 I'm enjoying it much more.

Yeah, I got past that whole "sell out" mentality a long time ago. If an artist I like can make some cash from a commercial so they can fund a new album to blow my mind, I'm all for it.

 

Never forget the Mighty Tindersticks!

Yeh, what choice do they have???If there is no record sales, and gigging can be expensive...how do they pay the rent?

The fans, if anything, have sold them out by not buying the music.

 

I can't speak directly about 65/66 (as I wasn't born yet). But looking back at classic death metal, hip hop and the 80's Indie, I wasn't watching it in real time and saying to myself "I'm watching the dawn of music innovation!". That didn't happen until much later on, when looking back. In real-time I was just enjoying myself...music history wasn't in my mind.

Of course that means that the OP could just be grossly exaggerating. And maybe he is. But if he's got the music bug and enjoying the hell out of himself, then he's certainly on the right track.

 

I think the golden age never ended. The difference between 1965/1966 and today that the golden age talent isn't necessarily what is widely promoted.

 

I like that...well said.

 

And so many more could easily be mentioned, but I just checked and there are only 2 posts on the forum about this band, so here's number three, the somewhat similar and also amazing record last year by the Revolutionary Army of the Infant Jesus that seemed to go by mostly unnoticed, Beauty Will Save the World, really a shame so little known, but give it a listen if you get the chance. Think along the lines of Dead Can Dance. Vinyl available too, though you don't really give up anything with the CD, sounds great, something in the DR10-11 range.

 

Now THAT'S a Golden Year!

 

Well, Adele for example isn't entirely geared to "the kids", but you might actually forget that it took a long time for top 40 radio to actually pick up on Rolling In The Deep to start with because programmers (and I say this because someone who worked in radio in 2011 told me so) were unsure how it was going to fly to 12 year olds who liked Taylor Swift and Katy Perry. It was only once the 21 album reached about 2 million sold in so many weeks that top 40 stations finally moved with the times. Had she not exploded like a nuke in popularity, she would probably be mostly featured on NPR and nothing else.

But yes, top 40 today is all about the kids... I don't see how you can argue differently. Programmers are mortified by anyone over 35 because they want to shield the precious kids away from "old people" because lo and behold, todays kids are afraid of someone their moms age... even though I was once that age myself and it didn't bother me how much older Steven Tyler or Cher was.

 

Excuse me. We also had Round The Horne.

 

It's a silly premise with a click-bait ish conceit. I'm allowed to express my opinion of his opinion by dismissing it. Glad you caught that.

 

Whenever I hear about a new artist/band on NPR the story almost always focuses on some sort of virtue signaling. i.e., The new artist suffered from abuse, drug addiction, was cheated by the industry, was a victim of racism/sexism/*whatever*phobia etc. Most of the interviews then focus on their backstory. Often there is very little talk about music. (My favorite peeve about this is the whole Rodriquez thing -- a 3rd rate Donovan knock-off (to me) is propelled by a backstory -- perceived industry racism against a "minority" artist and his connection to the south africa history.)

What this does is set up in the mind of the listener that...hey, this artist has suffered -- he/she must be *good* -- what would it say about me if I don't like their music? After all, they -- and their backstory -- have been featured by NPR?

Oh, and would Bowie's last album really be considered by many to be one of his greatest if not for his death? The album received all that attention from his death and the backstory on the album...

 

You didn't answer my question....how many albums on his list have you heard?

 

I don't see how that's relevant. I didn't make the initial post.

 

Blackstar had almost 80 pages here before his death, and many were touting it as one of his best after only a few listens, and before he died. So yes, I think it would go down as one of his top 10 records even if he was still with us in 5 years. Seems kind of an odd sidetrack to this thread premise.

 

Nah, not even close to the Top 10.

Btw, I haven't actually heard the album.

 

To further your sidetracking of this thread -- I checked this thread
NEW David Bowie album: Blackstar (January 8, 2016)
Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Bowie Fett, Oct 24, 2015.

and noticed that many -- if not most -- had some reservations about the album prior to Bowie's death -- after that, most everyone was on board about it's greatness. It's okay -- after all, Bowie -- an artist from 40+ years ago -- must have been at the forefront of this new 2016 golden age the OP is referencing.

 

Ya know, I think music may be a little like marriage, sometimes you just have to remind yourself why you fell in love in the first place. The good music is still there, many of the artists are still giving their heart and soul, it may not have the cultural impact or chart success or group love that some of us remember (and I am old enough to remember), but it's still there, at least for quite a few of us around here.

 

Well, he did die only 2 days after the record was released, so it's kind of hard to draw a line unless you just want to be cynical. What I said is how I saw it unfold. It's a very good record. But it really doesn't have much t do with this thread.

 

You music lovers and your common sense. You're killing me.

 

Actually, when I heard it on Jan 8th... I already thought this was one of the best albums he's made in eons and reviews were great. His death just took it to another level and will now forever be linked to it. But critics and fans were already warmly embracing the album and considering it a latter day masterwork from him. Rolling Stone for one was likening it to Low and the review was printed when Bowie was still with us.

 

I wasn't as blown away by Blackstar as a lot of fans have been, but as someone who followed that thread up until the album's release, I can tell you that the vast majority of the feedback here and on another message board I frequent was very positive before he died, as were all of the reviews I read. Naturally, his death cast the album in a different light, but for what it's worth, I think that it would have garnered a favorable response regardless.

 

Yeah, I'm no less excited about music in general and discovering new artists than I was in college 35 years ago -- and I am exposed to and able to find out about way way way more different artists now than then, so many that it's almost overwhelming at times. There have been periods over the decades when I was temporarily interested in other stuff more, busy, etc., but by and large I feel the same thrill over it all that I did at 17 or 25.

The one really arid time when I was somewhat out of the loop was the early-mid 90s because grunge mostly bored me, and I had just moved to a new state without my former network of music-interested friends, record store people, magazines, and word of mouth -- and there wasn't a thriving easily accessible online music culture to tap into yet. But I was able to go back later on and catch up on what I'd missed.

 

I have a question: Why when one of a old geezers release a new (usually so-so by their standard ) album it goes to the top of the charts or close?
Where are all new golden age boys and girls? Can't compete?

 

40-50 years of name recognition? Seriously?