Now, "All the loud noise, drugs, absurd dress and conduct". For me, that was the description of the '60s. And while I certainly agree with rok that many times with music it covered up a lack of talent, I believe that is too much of an oversimplification.
The "loud noise" developed from a couple of things. First, the transition to more electronically amplified instruments. Second, as rock grew in popularity it commanded larger and larger venues for performance, which in turn demanded more electronics. That wasn't only rockers. Young folks were demanding to be heard. Consider the evolution of Dylan.
"Drugs" were certainly a contributor to the development of R&R during the '60s. That had been some part of musical development and presentation previously but not to such an extent. But was that not a "chicken and egg" situation of the culture of the times? Tune in and drop out was not a musical expression.
Similarly, "absurd dress" was part of the search for identity among young people in the '60s. So dress, speech, and hair (facial and otherwise) were simply outward manifestations of separating youth from their parents. Music and musicians went along with that, but they were far from exclusive.
And "conduct" of young people may be considered as an overall manifestation. Free speech, sit-ins, flower power, question authority, don't trust anyone over 30 did not evolve from R&R. Those attitudes utilized music as one other form of expression.
The fact that jazz partially evolved during that decade, but still survived intact decades later is a testament to its underlying worth.
Can you tell I was young in the '60s? ;^)
