ITT: Music that was way ahead of it's time.
I'll start. This album literally sounds like a trip-hop album circa 2006, but it was made in 1971, before trip-hop's precursors even existed.
This song especially
Gainsbourg had many albums ahead of it's time. L' homme a tete de chou is even more singular than melody nelson. He is probably the only artist who made it through the 80's making good albums.
I meant any solo artist who had make his carreer before the 80's. 80's David Bowie was inferior to 70's Bowie, Udo Lindenberg declined in quality too. You don't even deserve a reply since you have a shitty personality, but I'm in a good mood so enjoy this post.
this thread is a trainwreck
Back on topic, a lot of Ariel Pink's early work predicted chillwave, which started the current trend of nostalgia based microgenres, so he was fairly ahead of his time.
>naming bands and solo artists that only had two albums before the 80's all of them post 1975.
I give you Keith Jarrett though, still the majority of musicians didn't make it through the 80's, in most cases did totally forgettable albums . Gainsbourg did it great.
I know, just trying to make clear that I'm not going to argue his case, since I always disliked his music.
There's still Eric Clapton, Neil Young, Leonard Cohen (to be fair he only did one album in all that decade), Frank Zappa and others who did shit during the 80's.
That's a just a general rule when you've released more than 5 significant albums in the decade you started in you're most likely going to fuck up in the next decade. Name me artists that started in the 80s and did better or equal music 10 years later.
The Art of Fugue, written in the 18th century, literally songs like a contemporary piece from a couple of centuries in the future.
that's very specific, I barely know single artists from the 80's, let alone release 5 significant albums, most bands or artists never release 5 significant albums.
Phil Collins was equally shit both decades.
I don't agree, but even if I did, it would be just 1 artist.
I never said the artists you needed to find had to release 5 significant albums. By artists I also meant bands, are you trying to play with words here?
Wire started in the 70s.
most of the good bands that started in the 80s didn't make it to the 90s, they were more one shot bands or recorded only two or three albums in a couple of years
Etron fou leloublanc
>That's a just a general rule when you've released more than 5 significant albums in the decade you started in you're most likely going to fuck up in the next decade
I don't know in which way I'm supposed to understand that, but allright. Since I was arguing about solo artists originally, I wasn't talking about bands. Maybe the rolling stones, did good in the 70's and 80's highly arguable though, at least in terms of popularity they delivered good in both decades, also scorpions did good in the 70's and 80's, they were probably better in the 80's.
Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
Coil, Current 93 and many other industrial groups and artists
Scratch Acid/The Jesus Lizard
Beastie Boys (arguably, personally I'm not actually fond of their later stuff but everyone else)
I'll agree on Jesus Lizard and Boredoms. Haven't listened to enough C93 to decide on that and Madonna/R.E.M I don't have much knowledge on them.
I keep having to remind myself that this was made in '83.
I was legit surprised that it was from 1979. I thought it was some indie 2006 shit.
>all that edge
Nick Cave's most successful period was the 90's and even now he's still very popular and his 2013 album was considered an AOTY contender.
Sonic Youth's SYR label which has some of their best work didn't even start until 15 years into their career.
I'm not really going to defend Swans, but it's likely you're just trying to rustle people.
Same goes for Coil.
>implying Shellac isn't a great band
Beastie Boys' 90's albums are highly acclaimed and some of their 00's stuff too.
The Argument is considered one of, if not Fugazi's best.
the literal foundation for almost every single hip hop song made today