Say, am I alone in noticing the contradiction in Mike’s argument? First he cites the decline of album-orientated artists/bands in the 1980’s as the reason for that decade being a musical wasteland, then predicts that the decade will be forgotten because of it’s lack of classic singles that will be played on the radio. Schizophrenia, anyone? ;-)
So his yardstick for determining the quality of any music made is by whether or not it gets played on the radio?! There was a lot of great music made in the 1970’s which never received any airplay (the 60’s too), music now considered classic. The same with the 1980’s (just look at all the names posted above). Geez, what a weak, weak argument. Unless of course one’s only source of music is the radio. But that would make one pathetic, right? No one here like that, right?
A lot of the "best" music made in the 70’s and 80’s (as well as other decades) was known and appreciated only by cult-sized audiences. Pet Sounds was a flop when it was released in 1966 (I didn’t buy it), and is now considered one of the greatest albums of all time (Paul McCartney cites it as his favorite). The same is true of the audiences for Jazz and Classical. Why is the popularity of only Rock bands being used to examine any question about a given decades musical quality?