|
|
Post by upinkzeppelin2 on Nov 18, 2006 21:36:09 GMT -5
I really wanted to list Bob Dylan since I prefer him to the Beatles, but I figured the Beatles would win for sure if I did. This way, the Beatles might not win. Hmmmm, actually I'm still pretty sure they will. At least my vote won't be for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 18, 2006 21:41:01 GMT -5
The 60's were all about MUSIC !!
Like any other fuckin! decade
that came before or after ... !
|
|
|
|
Post by upinkzeppelin2 on Nov 18, 2006 21:58:36 GMT -5
Hey Phil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 18, 2006 21:58:39 GMT -5
Nelson?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Nov 18, 2006 22:04:00 GMT -5
Since Nelson wasn't an option, I went ahead and voted for the Beatles.
I think the reasons are pretty obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 18, 2006 22:04:36 GMT -5
The 60's were all about the Monkees or the Banana Splits ...
Take your pick !!
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 18, 2006 22:05:16 GMT -5
OOPS !
Forgot the Archies ...
Nevermind !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 18, 2006 22:07:18 GMT -5
The Turtles.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 18, 2006 22:17:51 GMT -5
Them too ...
BTW, when did Kiss released their first album ... ??
|
|
|
|
Post by wayved on Nov 18, 2006 23:07:44 GMT -5
I was not alive in the 60s. I was born in 74. but if I had a time machine and 2000 dollars I would be a very happy man indeed. I would buy a shitload of 45s--"Medicine man" by the Bucanan Brothers would be first. would write a book too.
1965-1969. Hook me up. I would be going to record stores picking up all I could. Rascals, Turtles, Stones, Beatles, manfred Mann, The Supremes, Buffalo Springfield, Otis, Standells, all sorts of other crazy shit. The 50s seemed alright but still a little square to me. But we could go back to books by obscure authors in the 1800s and things would still be as "groovy" i suppose....
HERE IT IS: Music WAS BETTER before i was born. Half of my favorite records were recorded before I was around. People had to WORK at it instead of throwing it all down on a computer. Things started to sound like shit around 1984. Pick up any album by any artist that was released on a major label in 1984. You tell me!
I do not know if I would want to live in those times though. Race Riots, Vietnam. Altamont was just a concert. All these critics want to call it the DARK END OF THE 60s--life--its always dark.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Nov 19, 2006 0:22:39 GMT -5
I'm glad that I was old enough to appreciate the early 90s while it was going on. No other era of music I'd have rather grown through. But anyway!
The Velvet Underground would like to have a word with this topic. The Velvets' first three albums are every bit as strong as any three album sequence the Beatles had.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Nov 19, 2006 0:55:08 GMT -5
I know who owns the sixties now...  |
|
|
|
Post by frag on Nov 19, 2006 2:18:49 GMT -5
The sixties really did belong to the Beatles. Love 'em or hate 'em, no other decade was so specifically one band oriented. Think of music and the '60s together and it's VERY LIKELY that the Beatles are the first thing that come to mind. Hundreds of great bands got their starts there, but the decade still belongs to the Beatles.
Actually, I guess the same could be said for Dylan. Alright, the Beatles own 78% of the sixties and Dylan owns 22%.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Nov 19, 2006 3:30:09 GMT -5
I voted for Nelson.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Nov 19, 2006 9:25:51 GMT -5
The Beatles, yeah, of course.... On the other hand, when you consider that a guy like John Lennon, six or seven months Dylan’s senior, looked up to guy practically like a mentor – it kinda puts it a whole 'nother spin on it.
|
|
