Which decade of the 20th Century do you feel was the most musically diverse?

I was there, but I think people are tending to talk about what was *on the radio*, not *what was available*. Clearly broadcast *radio* 'diversity' has contracted as the industry consolidated into the hands a of a few media giants. But the diversity of recorded music available to the consumer is probably greater now than it ever has been.


(I think the other thing at work here is *nostalgia*. I suspect the average age of this board's participants hovers in the 40s/early 50s)

 

I'm not using nostalgia, but yup, that's about the avarage age of the active members, although I would lower it a bit to 34.

 

For rock, I would have to say the 70s. Disco, funk, metal, blue-rock, singer/songwriters, punk, southern rock, new wave, etc.

For jazz, the 60s. Traditional stalwarts like Armstrong and Duke were still touring strong, be-bop in all its forms was at its high, avant-gard was making waves, and fusion was beginning.

 

I went with the 50's. Rock n' roll was in it's formative years, still resembling it's country influences and it's blues roots. Speaking of blues - Chess records were at their peak in Chicago land, and the country music hadn't quite lost it's "western" yet. The doo wop groups were developing a style that would mutate into soul and eventually "what came to be known as" 70's style rhythm and blues.

Classical recordings were at a peak of sorts, the technology for high fidelity stereo lp's created quite a renaissance of classical titles, available to the common man.

There was still some hot swing and good crooning from the singers all over the charts. Indeed, Sinatra also rediscovered his voice in this decade - cutting some sides that redefined the young and swinging lad from Hoboken as a more mature adult.

Be bop was the new kid on the block in jazz land, creating a style of extended compositions that dissected and reassembled the theme in a new and exciting way. The "jam bands" of the late 60's would apply this form to rock music and take it to a whole different level. The folk music scene was also hot - it was becoming the voice for the "alternate America", a type of music that questioned our existence a bit more than popular music would allow up to that point.

Alas, I only spent 4 years of my life in that decade, and remember very little of it first hand. I do know that all those diverse 60's artists credit the music they heard in the 50's as their major influences - so something MUST have been happening in the Eisenhower era that requires a little more investigation than watching Happy Days reruns. Even Dr Winston O' Boogie said - "You should have been there".

 

The question was not which was the 'best decade for music'. It was which was the most diverse. Since the questioner didn't specify what he meant, I define that as : which decade offered the most different recordings for consumers to buy. The answer is the 90's, as it probably will be for this century too.

 

That;s lowering it quite a lot from the mid40s/early 50s I was guessing!

A person born in 1968 would have formed his/her musical preferences mainly in the 80's. I don't see that reflected in the answers here, so I'm guessing that the people answering this thread are skewing older than that.

 

No . I meant most diverse, not in the availability of recordings from all time in a given decade, but diversity in the music made (performed) in each of these particular decades.

Great responses (and many votes) so far

 

Great call! I agree...

 

Is there a "correct" answer that you'll be divulging in the future?

 

OK, then *again* I'd give the nod to the 90's, because all the various types of music that had been performed previously in the century were still being performed...plus whatever the 90s had added (e.g. grunge, techno).
In a city like New York you could sample the entire history of music in the space of a year if you went to enough different performances. And if you couldn't you could always buy *recordings* of diverse performances.

The only way any of the earlier decades could be called more musically 'diverse' would be if you limited it narrowly to mean: more different kinds of music were played on the same radio station, or more different kinds of music were found in the top 40, in which case the late 60s/early 70s is probably the apex. Nowadays charts and radio stations are fragmented by genre (and back then, the charts were easier to manipulate with payola).

And here's where nostalgia comes in: I think most people are basing their answers on what they remember was on the *radio* when they were younger....radio today is less reflective of the actual available diversity of music than it was back then.

 

krab,
You are quite right on the technicality. If you take the question literally, then the last decade will always have a larger bank of musical options to draw on than the one before This is a point that cannot be argued (logically) and therefore there can be no poll.

Here, I believe you are closer to the intention of the poll. Interesting observation.

 

The 60's. Before innocence cracked like an egg. Kennedy and MLK. Maybe that was or wasn't the exact time, but it went up, and came to "a shuddering hault" as Jerry Wexler once said.

BTW, I'm 34. IMHO, this has nothing to do with generation. I loved the music BEFORE I was born, and my tastes have mainly stayed the same.

There has been major musical invents since then, but the richest was the 60's by far. You would have to be unaware of the music of the 60's, or maybe not as educated into that musical period to say that richness was in another far away decade, IMHO.

I was playing Ray Charles while waiting on hold with one of my hardware suppliers

"Who is that, that music?"
"Oh, That's Ray Charles."
"Aren't you a little young to be listening to Ray Charles?"

Sheesh. I know it wasn't insulting to say it, but DAMN!

 

I wonder if, in 40 years, the same thing will happen with "Oooops! I did it again"?

:-jon

 

Thanks. For all the wistful looking back I see here, I see us living *now* in something of a golden age for music consumers, even though the 'major ' pop/rock acts being foisted on us can seem drab. The thing is, I can buy lots more different music from all ages, much more easily, now, than I ever was able to in the 60's or 70's (assuming I had the cash then!) thanks to the proliferation of reissues, small labels (for new and old music), and the internet.

 

When you put it in an "availability" sense, you are correct, as one can now go on line and order directly from Europe, Japan, etc, where in the "old days", you were pretty much stuck with whatever the local record store had room to stock!!

As far as "exposure", I think the average American was exposed to more different types of music and artists in the '60s on TV variety shows, radio, and live venues, as music was not segregated as it is today.

:-jon

 

There may be variety in today's CD bins, but nowhere else. What was exciting about the '60s I grew up in was not just the diversity of radio--so many styles on one station at the same time--but on television. There is no show, anywhere I can find, that any longer features the range of acts of all kinds Ed Sullivan and others were offering. It's true that, today, you can buy virtually everything, but true variety entertainment is dead unless you seek it out for yourself. But the community will never hear it, or even get the chance.

Am I the only one who thinks it's tragic so much music is available but thrown into 'niche' areas with virtually no exposure beyond those fortunate enough to find them? I think of someone like Gillian Welch, a real talent who would have gotten a Sullivan-type booking, if such a fellow could do that kind of show today. It's true she sells a little--even made the charts a week or two ago--but her music doesn't really come to us anymore, we have to go seek it out. In the '60s, though some great music got buried too, that's only because there was a wealth of it, and so many were vying for the few spots there were.

ED

 

As I said before "Can't beat this answer".

My Dad used to see people like Jack Teagarden and Wilbur De Paris in smoky bars while the Beatles were playing in Hamburg.

 

Wilbur De Paris? No kidding! I just picked up an old black label Atlantic Lp of his he recorded at Boston's Symphony Hall. Haven't played it yet, but it looks promising. Don't know that much about him, but that's the fun of the summer: dig around, you find amazing vinyl for next to nothing, in decent shape, and explore.

ED

 

A "carved in stone" type "correct" answer? Not really.

I started this thread thinking it was either the 60's or the 70's, (leaning closer to the 60's as the answer). The responses here have convinced me of the 60's.

It's not really a matter of better or worse music as a whole coming out of a particular decade, so even if a person has a preference for music made from a particular time, it shouldn't be too much of a factor in making a choice.

 

Ed,

Wilbur kept New Orleans Jazz alive throughout the fifties and early sixties He was born in 1900 so his music really was from a different era, which was part of the fun. My Dad saw him a handful of times at Ryans where his group was the house band from 1951 - 1962. Always marvellous fun as the musicians traded solos and played off each other, getting better as the night wore on.

On one occasion in 1959, my father remembers the clarinetist, Omer Simeon, complaining of a sore throat. Four days later, he was dead.

My favoirte record of WDP is "Wilbur De Paris and his New New Orleans Jazz, Vol. 1".

Enjoy your listening.

John

 

One of the interesting things (to me) about the results of the poll so far, is that there are three decades - the 1910's, 20's, & 40's - without a single vote.

For the 1940's, I would guess the musicians union's two seperate bans on commercial recording at least somewhat curtailed diversity in music, even though instrumentalists were still performing on the radio in these periods, in addition to "regular" live performances. World War II seems to also have been a factor.

 

The big SEA CHANGE was round about 1954-55. Much innovation happened in the following 15 yrs, then the next 3-4 decades were filled with variations on a theme.

Before the big SEA CHANGE, there was much diversity based on lack of mass media and no ONE THING dominating popular music.

Because, by chance, the 60's were the first full deacde following the big SEA CHANGE,

STEVE'S RIGHT---IT'S THE SIXTIES!!!!!

Doug