2010s>2000s>1990s>1980s>1970s>1960s >1950s

that is indeed a correct display of reverse chronological order

>>69779631
Assuming s= a positive integer that is indeed perfectly correct

>>69779847
pretty bold assumption on the meaning on the binary relation >

>>69779847
It needn't be an integer.

Generally because the amount of music grows exponentially.

My personal ranking based on what I listen to would be more like
2010s>1990s>2000s>1970s>1960s>1980s>1950s

>>69779905
More ≠ Better
>>69779631
>Prove me wrong

>PROTIP: You can't

You haven't proven anything, so there's nothing to prove wrong, you turbonerd.

>>69779935
it's quite simple
each successive decade contains all of the previous decades' releases

>>69779631
As far as being a music fan, yes, that is correct that each decade is better than the last...but if you want to go for the best music released in those respective decades:

80's > 70's = 60's > 90's > 00's > 50's > 10's

>>69779631
1950s<1960s<1970s<1980s<1990s<2000s<2010s

Musically:
1970s>1990s>1980s=2010s>1960s>1950s>2000s