10 Reasons the '70s were Rock's best decade

[Guest Len B'stard]

[izzygirl]

And in the end, 70s rock rules. But that was never in doubt. For the reasons originally listed.

What can i say, to me, the world is bigger than America and England and the monsters of rock that they produced There's a whole other world, a whole other expieirience, many other experiences of music that were many times more original and entertaining and substancial than "rock".

For exmaple?

I've mentioned it before but reggae for example, carribean music in general, Ska, Rocksteady, Dancehall, or the aforementioned Krautrock, bands like Neu or Kraftwerk or Can, or Motown or...is this a serious question, you're asking me what music exists in the world or existed in the 70s OTHER than the monsters of rock out of America and England?

The fact that you ask kinda backs up my point about people thinking that music is limited to like...Rolling Stone magazines dictates.

I'm just asking because as I've said I just whip through your posts...I don't read them completely. I didn't even read this, just the first sentence, and when I heard the word reggae I stopped. Reggae... really? I can't stand reggae.

My favourite band isn't American or English; it is Spanish, but whatever.

And if those rock bands are so big is because they are good. I had this discussion at class one day with the teacher. I said indie music usually is shit. If those bands don't have a contract or they have to play at small places is because 90% of them suck. If you are good people will talk about you and you'll end up being great. I bet a lot of bands were playing in England when The Beatles were playing in The Cavern...why The Beatles are legendary and no one knows the other bands? Because they had something special. Something that made them better.

It's like Shakespeare; he was/is so famous because he was the best...or are people just saying he was good because he is the most popular one?

[Guest Len B'stard]

Forget all the rest though, just reggae unto itself, it's like, half a centurys worth of unexplored music there for the uninitiated, an entire history, with as many artists and as many big albums and like...to me it's like being a kid in this sweet shop, with an entire history just as long and varied as rock n rolls to explore, it's enough to make me spunk my pants

[izzygirl]

That sounds really bad to be honest.

Enjoy:

Forget all the rest though, just reggae unto itself, it's like, half a centurys worth of unexplored music there for the uninitiated, an entire history, with as many artists and as many big albums and like...to me it's like being a kid in this sweet shop, with an entire history just as long and varied as rock n rolls to explore, it's enough to make me spunk my pants

Reggae is just for potheads.

Edited November 11, 2012 by izzygirl

[izzygirl]

One of the best songs (the lyrics are wonderful) ever made in Spain. This is from 1974:

[Guest Len B'stard]

And in the end, 70s rock rules. But that was never in doubt. For the reasons originally listed.

What can i say, to me, the world is bigger than America and England and the monsters of rock that they produced There's a whole other world, a whole other expieirience, many other experiences of music that were many times more original and entertaining and substancial than "rock".

For exmaple?

I've mentioned it before but reggae for example, carribean music in general, Ska, Rocksteady, Dancehall, or the aforementioned Krautrock, bands like Neu or Kraftwerk or Can, or Motown or...is this a serious question, you're asking me what music exists in the world or existed in the 70s OTHER than the monsters of rock out of America and England?

The fact that you ask kinda backs up my point about people thinking that music is limited to like...Rolling Stone magazines dictates.

I'm just asking because as I've said I just whip through your posts...I don't read them completely. I didn't even read this, just the first sentence, and when I heard the word reggae I stopped. Reggae... really? I can't stand reggae.

My favourite band isn't American or English; it is Spanish, but whatever.

And if those rock bands are so big is because they are good. I had this discussion at class one day with the teacher. I said indie music usually is shit. If those bands don't have a contract or they have to play at small places is because 90% of them suck. If you are good people will talk about you and you'll end up being great. I bet a lot of bands were playing in England when The Beatles were playing in The Cavern...why The Beatles are legendary and no one knows the other bands? Because they had something special. Something that made them better.

It's like Shakespeare; he was/is so famous because he was the best...or are people just saying he was good because he is the most popular one?

Yes there were a lot of bands playing and yes they are heard of but they're heard of by people that have an interest in music and not just an awareness of the big names.

I'm glad you gave the Shakespeare example because...OK, you got someone thats into literature, it's like someone whoose only into like, 5 or 10 big writers and nothing besides, when there's an entire universe of literature out there.

Whats wrong with reggae, whats the big problem with it? In fact, all that aside, what do you even KNOW about reggae? Do you see what i mean about opinions formed on like...ignorance?

You can like what you like and your welcome to it but i just, for myself personally, don't see why i should limit myself like that. I don't understand why i should approach music with predudice towards particularly sounds i mean, it's organised noise, isn't it, when did it become like the church where you gotta find one and stick to it and thats your religion in perpetuity?

I just think thats a really boring way to live for me. What can i say, i just love music and i'm interested in lots and lots and lots of it.

And thats a ridiculous thing to say, that if you're great people'll listen and just call you great, thats simply not true, many bands never found their audience right away, certain people weren't exposed to certain shit and The Beatles that you just mentioned, people didn't just fall at their feet y'know, they fought and struggled for acclaim, it ain't as easy as they were good so everyone that heard it felt immediately in love, they were rejected by record companies, the one that signed them did so as a gamble and there was a very very very organised machine behind them handling their management and publicity that MADE it so they got the exposure they did and got the room to grow that they did to BECOME a good band, they did come out their mums as the fab four.

There's a whole other world, a whole other expieirience, many other experiences of music that were many times more original and entertaining and substancial than "rock".

And there's plenty of threads to discuss them in. "the 70s were rock's best decade" is probably not a good fit. Trust me, after hearing Smoke on the Water for the billionth time on radio, the last thing one wants to do is go home and put on Machine Head. As good as anything is, you're gonna get sick of it for a while. THAT'd be when you or me, or anyone will look for other stuff. I'm sure like you, I could fill a huge chunk of this thread with all the non-rock, non English or American music I've come across, the internet provides ridiculous access to anything you wanna hear. The test for me I guess, is after however long it's been, if you go back and put on some of that rock you were sick of a while back, and it still makes you nod, and smile... that shit is undeniable. And most of it is from the 70s.

Izzygirl, I saw Paco when he came thru town last year. It was fantastic. The man still got it, unlike jokers like Bob Dylan who go onstage and proceed to commit self-parody these days.

Right but the post i was responding to was saying how the 70s was rocks best decade to which my response was it weren't but there was a lot of good going on during that decade compared to which rock was relatively complacent, i didn't just come in to 70s weren't rocks best decade because there was other shit going on, i was expanding on a point thats sort of led the discussion down this path.

[izzygirl]

You're such a hipster... I love you anyway, you know?

[Guest Len B'stard]

That sounds really bad to be honest.

Enjoy:

Forget all the rest though, just reggae unto itself, it's like, half a centurys worth of unexplored music there for the uninitiated, an entire history, with as many artists and as many big albums and like...to me it's like being a kid in this sweet shop, with an entire history just as long and varied as rock n rolls to explore, it's enough to make me spunk my pants

Reggae is just for potheads.

Thats a really really really arrogant thing to say? They consider it to be a sacrement, it's part of their religion, now whether you agree with that idea or not is up to you but y'know, have some respect, particularly since you take such exception when a certain cross-section of your own faith is slagged off for being pedophiles, like people into rock n roll never smoked a spliff, right

Reggaes OK when you're stealing from it and plundering from it with ur fuckin' Dyer Makers and your Ob La Di's and your I Shot the Sheriff but lets just stay away from that messy authentic stuff, nobody need to know about that. Is it a race thing? Not accusing or anything but it's just difficult for me to figure out what the issue is exactly? Suddenly the great Zep and Beatles and Eric Claptons need to come looking for this awful dreadful music for inspiration.

Something about reggae and that syncopated guitar skank over those fuckin' bone marrow shaking bass-lines and steady rockin' drums just makes the music the very embodiment of rhythm, thats why the music never ever got so out there that it couldn't be played in clubs, there's something of the core of what it is to be rhythmic embodied by reggae and certain great musicians of our times understood this...the space of it too, Keith Richards is a great example, someone whoose playing is hugely informed by reggae.

I guess it was the same with rock n roll, if white people do it, it's OK to listen to, right but if it had stuck with the black lads that fuckin' created it all your fuckin' European teenyboppers would still be listening to their fuckin' parents Polka records i guess?

Again, to reiterate, i can't see the problem so i'm musing on the issue, not making a statement, is that what it is, deep down, just a natural kinda aversion to "those awful negroes"?

Edited November 11, 2012 by sugaraylen

[moreblack]

Right but the post i was responding to was saying how the 70s was rocks best decade to which my response was it weren't but there was a lot of good going on during that decade compared to which rock was relatively complacent, i didn't just come in to 70s weren't rocks best decade because there was other shit going on, i was expanding on a point thats sort of led the discussion down this path.

I can't agree, the thing with that 70s stuff is, that's when they took all the things rock picked up along the way in the 60s and turned it into the quintessencial sub genres of rock that still influence folks today. Even the established 60s musicians became something much different in the 70s, and they had their ears open, they also picked up on that other music that was going on at the time. It all helped 70s rock grow and evolve in a way that hasn't really been matched since. once the 80s rolled around all the sub genres setteled into their little boxes and stayed there. There never was this kind of criss crossing of influences again.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Right but the post i was responding to was saying how the 70s was rocks best decade to which my response was it weren't but there was a lot of good going on during that decade compared to which rock was relatively complacent, i didn't just come in to 70s weren't rocks best decade because there was other shit going on, i was expanding on a point thats sort of led the discussion down this path.

I can't agree, the thing with that 70s stuff is, that's when they took all the things rock picked up along the way in the 60s and turned it into the quintessencial sub genres of rock that still influence folks today. Even the established 60s musicians became something much different in the 70s, and they had their ears open, they also picked up on that other music that was going on at the time. It all helped 70s rock grow and evolve in a way that hasn't really been matched since. once the 80s rolled around all the sub genres setteled into their little boxes and stayed there. There never was this kind of criss crossing of influences again.

Y'know i could actually agree with you on that but see with the criss-crossing there weren't an even amount of light shined on both sides of the cross, it was just the rock end that got illuminated like wow look at these guys and their new sounds and the other motherfuckers, save from a few "lucky" artists just got fuckin' ignored and that balance is unfair, in my opinion.

And also, rock didn't do a lot of change, sure for a song here or there it'd dip it's toe in the water but it never was really gutsy enough to really get out there with it, it took entire other movements to do that for it.

[izzygirl]

This is Lenny:

[moreblack]

And also, rock didn't do a lot of change, sure for a song here or there it'd dip it's toe in the water but it never was really gutsy enough to really get out there with it, it took entire other movements to do that for it.

I still maintain the "not a lot of change" happened in the 80s, after the dust had settled. The trying of new stuff had ended, and everyone just got keyboards and drum machines and pretended they were cutting edge.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I'd make one for you but its perhaps a little more complicated to find a picture of a 26 yr old Spanish girl by a window that looks out onto a vast empty field, staring into a full length mirror, kitted out in full 80s rock regalia, posters plastered with pictures of Bruce Springsteen, her hands raised in that two fingered satan salute bullshit, trying desperately to speak English in an American accent, with Friends on the TV in the background

[izzygirl]

At the risk of sounding snotty, this forums basically populated, by and large, by people that only seem to like your big monster bands and artists like Zep and Queen and AC/DC and Bruce Springsteen and The Who and The Stones and The Beatles and...just a billboard run down basically. Now a lot of those artists are extremely good, i'm a big fan of em but there was a lot more to the 70s than the rock that was going on, which was probably the least substancial in EVERY aspect compared to other musical movements, all except commerce.

Why is not David Bowie in that list? Silly masses aren't so silly when they like Bowie or what? he is just part of the Billboard top 100 too.

[Guest Len B'stard]

And also, rock didn't do a lot of change, sure for a song here or there it'd dip it's toe in the water but it never was really gutsy enough to really get out there with it, it took entire other movements to do that for it.

I still maintain the "not a lot of change" happened in the 80s, after the dust had settled. The trying of new stuff had ended, and everyone just got keyboards and drum machines and pretended they were cutting edge.

House music? Dance music kinda exploded in the 80s on the back of a load of formative groundwork laid by people who i guess could be considered prog...electronic at any rate.

At the risk of sounding snotty, this forums basically populated, by and large, by people that only seem to like your big monster bands and artists like Zep and Queen and AC/DC and Bruce Springsteen and The Who and The Stones and The Beatles and...just a billboard run down basically. Now a lot of those artists are extremely good, i'm a big fan of em but there was a lot more to the 70s than the rock that was going on, which was probably the least substancial in EVERY aspect compared to other musical movements, all except commerce.

Why is not David Bowie in that list? Silly masses aren't so silly when they like Bowie or what? he is just part of the Billboard top 100 too.

Same reason a lot of others weren't, cuz i ain't about to list every commercially huge artist of the past 40 plus years here on a forum

[moreblack]

And also, rock didn't do a lot of change, sure for a song here or there it'd dip it's toe in the water but it never was really gutsy enough to really get out there with it, it took entire other movements to do that for it.

I still maintain the "not a lot of change" happened in the 80s, after the dust had settled. The trying of new stuff had ended, and everyone just got keyboards and drum machines and pretended they were cutting edge.

House music? Dance music kinda exploded in the 80s on the back of a load of formative groundwork laid by people who i guess could be considered prog...electronic at any rate.

Yeah far from prog. If any new avenues were explored, it was hardly in rock. Unlike the 70s.

[izzygirl]

Same reason a lot of others weren't, cuz i ain't about to list every commercially huge artist of the past 40 plus years here on a forum

Yep, I will believe that explanation. It has nothing to do with the fact that he is your guilty pleasure. I'll keep the secret, you anti-mainstream boy!

[Guest Len B'stard]

And also, rock didn't do a lot of change, sure for a song here or there it'd dip it's toe in the water but it never was really gutsy enough to really get out there with it, it took entire other movements to do that for it.

I still maintain the "not a lot of change" happened in the 80s, after the dust had settled. The trying of new stuff had ended, and everyone just got keyboards and drum machines and pretended they were cutting edge.

House music? Dance music kinda exploded in the 80s on the back of a load of formative groundwork laid by people who i guess could be considered prog...electronic at any rate.

Yeah far from prog. If any new avenues were explored, it was hardly in rock. Unlike the 70s.

So then you've pretty much come full circle back to what i was saying in the first place, what you called the criss crossing was what i was calling thievery on rocks part, see it's criss-crossing when each side gets equal benefit, when one side takes from the other and the other don't take back from them and the one in the first instance gets all the credit and plaudits, that ain't criss-crossing, thats a jack

Same reason a lot of others weren't, cuz i ain't about to list every commercially huge artist of the past 40 plus years here on a forum

Yep, I will believe that explanation. It has nothing to do with the fact that he is your guilty pleasure. I'll keep the secret, you anti-mainstream boy!

:rofl-lol:

The Beatles and The Sex Pistols are my two favorite bands of all time dear, they (The Beatles) were mentioned, as were The Who and The Stones, two more bands that i adore. See this is where reading peoples posts comes in handy when you wanna reply to them or comment on em

Edited November 11, 2012 by sugaraylen

[izzygirl]

The Beatles and The Sex Pistols are my two favorite bands of all time dear, they (The Beatles) were mentioned, as were The Who and The Stones, two more bands that i adore. See this is where reading peoples posts comes in handy when you wanna reply to them or comment on em

Ha...the Sex Pistols aren't in that list either!!! I knew I was right...

I just find funny that Bruce Springsteen came to your mind before others...that's it And I can't pay all my attention to your posts or I could miss some Chandler joke!

Edited November 11, 2012 by izzygirl

[moreblack]

And also, rock didn't do a lot of change, sure for a song here or there it'd dip it's toe in the water but it never was really gutsy enough to really get out there with it, it took entire other movements to do that for it.

I still maintain the "not a lot of change" happened in the 80s, after the dust had settled. The trying of new stuff had ended, and everyone just got keyboards and drum machines and pretended they were cutting edge.

House music? Dance music kinda exploded in the 80s on the back of a load of formative groundwork laid by people who i guess could be considered prog...electronic at any rate.

Yeah far from prog. If any new avenues were explored, it was hardly in rock. Unlike the 70s.

So then you've pretty much come full circle back to what i was saying in the first place, what you called the criss crossing was what i was calling thievery on rocks part, see it's criss-crossing when each side gets equal benefit, when one side takes from the other and the other don't take back from them and the one in the first instance gets all the credit and plaudits, that ain't criss-crossing, thats a jack

Not exactly, the thing was the other styles are gonna mostly stay as they are, seeing as most of them were very traditional anyway. You`re never gonna get double bass drumming into Mariachi music. But there`s still usage of electric guitars and mad solos in some Salsa, or a good lot of unexpected places these days. Visually you started to see long hair in genres that were initially very square, even that clip of Paco that was posted earlier. The whole rock vibe got into a lot of other places.

[Guest Len B'stard]

And also, rock didn't do a lot of change, sure for a song here or there it'd dip it's toe in the water but it never was really gutsy enough to really get out there with it, it took entire other movements to do that for it.

I still maintain the "not a lot of change" happened in the 80s, after the dust had settled. The trying of new stuff had ended, and everyone just got keyboards and drum machines and pretended they were cutting edge.

House music? Dance music kinda exploded in the 80s on the back of a load of formative groundwork laid by people who i guess could be considered prog...electronic at any rate.

Yeah far from prog. If any new avenues were explored, it was hardly in rock. Unlike the 70s.

So then you've pretty much come full circle back to what i was saying in the first place, what you called the criss crossing was what i was calling thievery on rocks part, see it's criss-crossing when each side gets equal benefit, when one side takes from the other and the other don't take back from them and the one in the first instance gets all the credit and plaudits, that ain't criss-crossing, thats a jack

Not exactly, the thing was the other styles are gonna mostly stay as they are, seeing as most of them were very traditional anyway. You`re never gonna get double bass drumming into Mariachi music. But there`s still usage of electric guitars and mad solos in some Salsa, or a good lot of unexpected places these days. Visually you started to see long hair in genres that were initially very square, even that clip of Paco that was posted earlier. The whole rock vibe got into a lot of other places.

Right but they weren't all traditional, don't get me wrong there's a lot to be said for structure and tradition but shouldn't the other side, shouldn't as many sides as possible get an airing? I mean like you say they're traditional structures and not open to change, well reggae weren't, reggae changed at a blistering rate really so it's not like it weren't open to change and other influences but 70s rock just pretty much took from it and made a lot of money out of it and didn't really do it no favours. And after that throughout fuckloads of 80s pop music UB40, The Police, Boy George, tons and tons of others did too. The only one that can claim to've taken from it but given back to it is hip hop. All this bullshit about Clapton waking people up to reggae, did you ever hear that? Load of fuckin' bullshit if you ask me.

[moreblack]

rock was one of the biggest genres of popular music at the time, so whenever anything filtered through its music on to the masses, it sparked the curiosity on at least a good amount of listeners. I see the Clapton thing as no different than what he and his peers did for the blues the previous decade. I doubt as many people would know about T-Bone or Willie Dixon if the British blues thing hadn`t happened. And I gotta say, part of me sees the old pics of Bob Marley with the Les Paul and expect him to bust out some KISS riffs

Edited November 11, 2012 by moreblack

[Guest Len B'stard]

part of me sees the old pics of Bob Marley with the Les Paul and expect him to bust out some KISS riffs

I just threw up in my mouth And yeah, as far as Eric Clapton doing shitloads for black music because he was this fuckin' noble soul is sullied somewhat by the fact that the bloke is an incorrigible racist that did a pissed up rant against blacks and arabs and foreigners in general, even going as far as to cite Jamaicans specifically:

"I used to be into dope, now I’m into racism. It’s much heavier, man. Fucking wogs, man. Fucking Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The black wogs and coons and Arabs and fucking Jamaicans and fucking [indecipherable] don’t belong here, we don’t want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don’t want any black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. We are a white country. I don’t want fucking wogs living next to me with their standards. This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for fuck's sake? We need to vote for Enoch Powell, he’s a great man, speaking truth. Vote for Enoch, he’s our man, he’s on our side, he’ll look after us. I want all of you here to vote for Enoch, support him, he’s on our side. Enoch for Prime Minister! Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!"^[113]

And this idea that, y'know, it was Clapton what spread reggae through England and the world is a load of bollocks, it was bought over by Jamaican immigrants who made it the sound of the streets of London, that weren't Claptons doing, it was there before he even came about, the whole skinhead movement was centered around SKA for crying out loud...and it was a reaction to hippies like Clapton, not informed or led by it, Clapton didn't introduce no one to shit, in fact the people that were into reggae scoffed at that shit, Reggae has been widespread throughout England since a decade plus before Clapton recorded I Shot the Sheriff...even the mods were listening to Ska, back when Clapton still making a name for himself of sorts.

Edited November 11, 2012 by sugaraylen

[rock4eva]

I LOVEEE David Bowie...more than words can describe. And AC/DC were fuckin' lethal for as long as they had that hairy chested Aussie space-case Bon Scott with em. Not that the other fella was bad, Brian whatshisface but the couple of albums that i was reccomended of theirs, High Voltage and Highway to Hell that i got my love for them from, i've not heard no better album out of them that those

I agree with every single word.

Punk on the other hand...

I agree with Izzygirl who agrees with sugaraylen. AC/DC played at my high school, for some unknown reason I missed them.

[Dan H.]

And in the end, 70s rock rules. But that was never in doubt. For the reasons originally listed.

What can i say, to me, the world is bigger than America and England and the monsters of rock that they produced There's a whole other world, a whole other expieirience, many other experiences of music that were many times more original and entertaining and substancial than "rock".

For exmaple?

I've mentioned it before but reggae for example, carribean music in general, Ska, Rocksteady, Dancehall, or the aforementioned Krautrock, bands like Neu or Kraftwerk or Can, or Motown or...is this a serious question, you're asking me what music exists in the world or existed in the 70s OTHER than the monsters of rock out of America and England?

The fact that you ask kinda backs up my point about people thinking that music is limited to like...Rolling Stone magazines dictates.

And if those rock bands are so big is because they are good. I had this discussion at class one day with the teacher. I said indie music usually is shit. If those bands don't have a contract or they have to play at small places is because 90% of them suck. If you are good people will talk about you and you'll end up being great. I bet a lot of bands were playing in England when The Beatles were playing in The Cavern...why The Beatles are legendary and no one knows the other bands? Because they had something special. Something that made them better.

It's like Shakespeare; he was/is so famous because he was the best...or are people just saying he was good because he is the most popular one?

Everything about this post is ass backwards