I think we should start referring to the sixties as between 1965-75 because that's when the sixties really were. Whereas 1960-5 were just a continuation of the 50s And I guess 75-85 would become the 70s although I don't know about that one
>>130733919a lot of decades are like that. although the "80s" as we know it was already starting a bit earlier than 85. at least by like 81-82, i'll grant you 1980 has some 70s vibes lingering90s kinda lingered up to 9/11. 2010-2011 are similar to late 2000s etc
the usual observation is that our memories of "decades" starts around the 3rd year - 1973, 83, 93, etc
>>130733919Defining "cultural decades" as literal decades is kind of retarded in general.
>>130733945The 2020s are weird imo. They feel similar to the mid-late 2010s and we're dealing with largely the same political garbage of that period, but also clear subtle shifts and differences. Attitudes are definitely different - 2010s "irony" and edgelord behavior were in, now its more passive aggressive and "new sincerity", even more doomer than before, tech goes from optimistic to pessimistic
>>130733919here i don't agree. the music scene by 62-63 was quite different from what it had been in the 50s.
70s ended right on time, the death of disco invention of MTV, and rise of Reagan made the 80s start in the 80s, you can also see signs of the 80s in the late 70s with new wave and van halen On another note my autism about this sort of thing made me realize cultural eras usually last about 6 years or so.1991-1996 was the era of grunge and gangsta rap1997- 2002- was the era of boy bands and nu metal and TRL2003-2008- was the era of scene, emo, crunk, myspace, live journal, 2009-2014- was indie and vaporwave and chill wave and dub step and electro pop2015-2020 was trap, soundcloud rap era2021-2026- this is a dark age where music is dead and covid happens2026-2032 -???????? the next pivot year, if things are to change it would be right around this time
>>130734254so as anon said in another thread, think of the "real" 80s as 78-87 instead of 80-89
>>1307339692020s have some clear differences. aesthetics are completely different. i havent seen this style in years for example
>>130734302of course it does. all the thick framed glasses hipsters and girls with hair buns are gone now.
>>130734111The 50s were completely over by 1961, nobody I think would dispute that.
>>130733919It comes from somewhere
>>130733945Which album was be the "starting shot" for every new era of music ?, Nevermind started Grunge, Suede Britpop, Bleed American Emo...
>>130734352the shift to the 60s started in 58 when the first wave of R&R fizzled out and the era of teen idols and bubblegum girl singers started, and the Mitch Miller kind of pop also went out of fashion.
50s ended when 50s era rock died because all the guys either died, went to prison, elvis joined the army.early 60s it was assumed rock and guitar groups were dead, so you got shitty brill building pop, mo town girl groups with the beehive hairdoos, although underground rock was alive with garage rock and surf rock bands. rock didnt really come back until 4 lovely lads from liver pool came around 63-64but the psychedelic 60s doesnt really start till like 67-69
>We used to have a bus. In a way, the 60s ended when we sold it: December 31, 1969.
>>130734442that's why it can be argued the real start of the 70s was 1968 because that year stuff got darker and no longer cute and optimistic. by 69 definitely yes, country and blues rock was taking over.
>>130734442>but the psychedelic 60s doesnt really start till like 67-691966 was the last pre-drug year, what happens in 67 was like flipping a switch.
>>130734440Meaning that the kind of stuff Connie Francis, Brenda Lee, Roy Orbison did was different, it was more cool and vibey and not the loud, in-your-face singalong kind of pop that people like Teresa Brewer or Kay Starr did. That style died out when the late 50s recession started.
>>130734539Well the musicians were all taking legal LSD, speed, Barbituates and Meth in 66 as well as the usual other stuff-But I think LSD use skyrocketed when it became illegal
>>130734585i know yeah the 50s favored obnoxious songs, still Patti Page was the biggest girl singer of the decade and she was laid-back and not at all in your face.
>>130734585And really, Sam Cooke mapped out the new direction of pop with "You Send Me" which was exactly that more chill, vibey sound.
>>130734442the thing to understand about 50s R&R is that it was riding on the general vibe of the era, which favored fast, loud novelty songs. when the mood shifted to laid-back in the late decade recession then all those acts of course died with it.
>>130734493Another important part is that '68 was the first year album sales in the US exceeded singles sales.
LSD put on the Federal controlled substances list 1966. The supply dried up when the DEA busted the only major producer so after 72 the preferred drugs shifted to coke and 'ludes.
>>130734442>50s ended when 50s era rock diedNot exactly. Everly brothers, Neil sedaka, dion, bo diddley
>>130735153EB, Sedaka, and Dion belonged to that "second wave" of R&R after the initial 54-57 wave died off, but their sound was more pop and not as rock.
>>130733919>And I guess 75-85 would become the 70sNaw, pic related came out in 1979. "The 70s" were already over by the time the decade was. It wasn't like the 50s that lingered into the 60s or how the 60s lingered into the 70s. New Wave and Synth came rolling in like a freight train
>>130735918so same with the 60s, big deal. the debut of Led Zeppelin in 69 clearly meant the 60s were over.
>>130734632that's why she was a perennial DJ favorite, pleasantly inoffensive while you'd get tired of Brewer or Starr pretty fast.
>>130735888out of the 59-63 period i feel 60 was the overall strongest year and had the most interesting crop of hits
>>130735888Rock music wasn't dead by the early 60s is what I mean. I don't fall for history of rock music oversimplifications.
anyway, the early 60s marked the dominance on top 40 of indie labels and a new crop of young acts. the major labels became kind of irrelevant and most singers born prior to 1935 disappeared from significant airplay and got confined mostly to albums. the charts were racially integrated as well, it was ok to play black music compared to the situation in the 50s.
>>130734277If by your logic the 50s were really 48-57, then I don't really see much of anything on the charts in 48-49 that sounds like the 50s at all. It's all slow boring crooner slop on 78 discs.
>>1307339191954-1962: The 50s1963-1970: The 60s1971-1976: The 70s1977-1990: The 80s
>>130736277Maybe not on pop so much but R&B in the late 40s had the familiar 50s rock and roll sounds taking form. Also RCA debuted the vinyl disc in 49 and a number of soon to be familiar names in 50s pop like Patti Page made their debut in the late 40s. By 1950-51 things definitely didn't sound like the 40s anymore, tape recording had come into use and they could do things with records that weren't possible before.
>>13073628477 to me doesn't really sound at all like the 80s.
The 90s also really begins in 88 when hair metal starts dying and alternative rock begins arriving on top 40.
>>130733919I was gonna mention here now that tango in the night by fleetwood mac keeps getting posted and i think that album definitely were some of those late eighties feelings
>>130736372Low almost sounds like it could have been in the 80s
>>130733946the counterculture essentially died completely after Nixon's reelection and coke and ludes replaced LSD as the drugs of choice. music started moving to polyester and gold chains shit in 73.
>>130734585reminder that Orbison was a pedo who groomed his second wife when she was underage
>>130741416it's 2026, #MeToo is dead and buried
