OFF: now 90s v. 80s

[Tim Gadd]

At 08:52 PM 3/7/00 -0500, K Henderson wrote:
>Alex remarked...
>
>>>dunno what else. Overall, '99 was a bit disappointing.
>>
>>Which year of the 90's wasn't ? :-o
>
>Surely this is a joke, right?
>
>I thought '99 produced a great number of really good albums, if you searched
>long and hard enough.  And the 90s have been spectacular, at least in
>comparison to the absolutely dismal 80s.

I couldn't agree more.

>Although I would prefer to divide recent rock history into decades landing
>on the 8's, i.e., 1968-77 (brilliant), 1978-87 (abysmal),

I'd bring the front end of that period forward a bit. I think the late 70's
was a fantastic, exciting period. I don't think the rot set in till after
1980, with 81-84 as the absolute nadir. There were stirrings of recovery by
then, I think. I also think this time coincides with the point atwhich the
Americans grabbed the momentum back after nearly 20 years of British dominance.



--
Tim Gadd
Hobart, Tasmania