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

[moreblack]

The issues of that or any time of course shape history. But when I put on Allman Brothers, the Who, or Kansas, none of the social baggage comes with the cd.

[Guest Len B'stard]

The issues of that or any time of course shape history. But when I put on Allman Brothers, the Who, or Kansas, none of the social baggage comes with the cd.

Right but why encourage people in effect to like, forget history and forget the reality of that stuff in favour of like, how great and wonderful everything supposedly was back then?

[moreblack]

The issues of that or any time of course shape history. But when I put on Allman Brothers, the Who, or Kansas, none of the social baggage comes with the cd.

Right but why encourage people in effect to like, forget history and forget the reality of that stuff in favour of like, how great and wonderful everything supposedly was back then?

Because sometimes, a good tune is just a good tune. And in the end, the 70s was full of 'em. Edited November 16, 2012 by moreblack

[Guest Len B'stard]

The issues of that or any time of course shape history. But when I put on Allman Brothers, the Who, or Kansas, none of the social baggage comes with the cd.

Right but why encourage people in effect to like, forget history and forget the reality of that stuff in favour of like, how great and wonderful everything supposedly was back then?

Because sometimes, a good tune is just a good tune. And in the end, the 70s was full of 'em.

Fundamentally though, i don't think they were, i don't think rock as a genre was ever really perfected and beyond certain points it's very disinteresting, in fact i find that with most genres, better in their formative stages because they tend to be played and presented more passionately and there's less predudices of the time-honoured variety. Very rarely has a genre or a style or a way of playing music ever matured and then had a long long run of being exceptional, Motown comes to mind though, the blues as well, very little else, certainly not rock, for as beautiful as it was up to and including i don't think rock ever saw beyond where Jimi Hendrix took us and thats as far as like, passion, innovation, the lot.

[moreblack]

But then all that stuff wouldn't still be around. And despite as far as Hendrix got, even he didn't complete the job, it still had other places to go. I'd say the 60s as a whole were a good launching point, but clearly not the end of the journey.

[Zint]

Punk was rock's fingers being jammed in the light socket.

...and it needed it by that point

[Guest Len B'stard]

I totally agree except for on Punk. Its a low-point in my opinion. I actually love the late 70s, its one of my favorite times in music, just could do without the Punk.

As to sugaraylen's point about Blues being better/more original for riffs, I don't really agree at all. Classic Blues isn't usually about "riffs" in that way. Muddy wasn't doing "Smoke on the Water" type shit. That was actually somewhat of an originality and really marked the transcendence of Rock out of 1, 4, 5 Blues changes. No one is a bigger advocate for classic Blues than me, but I just don't see a viable point there.

A lot of em are great, i like em unto themselves but...i don't think they are something that is well integrated into the music in rock. I'm not sure if that makes sense but a lot of the bluesmiths sort of utilised space within a piece and the riff kinda slotted in there, they were always sort of loose sounding and subtle whereas rock riffs are very like...right at the forefront, like they're the focal part of the song, it's got some to do with the rock invention of lead guitarist showboatery or something perhaps...not that they didn't showboat in the blues but it was more of a performance thing.

The point being that in the blues way it came across as so much more smooth and flowey and a part of the overall song. Subtle y'know, part of the rhythm propulsion of the piece instead of...just a really fuckin' dense...thing placed on top of this piece for the purposes of a guitarist to skip up front and give it large in front of a stadium full of students.

To me, Smokestack Lightning is one of the greatest and at the same time most understated riffs ever, it works to serve the song. Now, far be it from me to sit here like a cunt and go "this is what a riff SHOULD do in music" cuz thats a load of shit, i'm just explaining the way i like things and why and why i believe one way of doing things to be of a higher merit than another.

Chuck Berry, see here's a man who knew what to do with and where to put a lick or a riff in the context of a song, to serve the song, SOO many fuckin' guitarist use Chuck as the blueprint of the archetypical rock n roll guitarist and so few artists actually do what he does, as cleanly as he does and thats because Berry had an understanding of what i'm talking about.

It's interesting that you should point out the timing too because what i'm trying to convey somewhat haphazardly has something to do with that and the way a collection of notes works to serve the overall rhythm of a piece, it's sort of required to be that way but with me, as far as rock and what rock did with that whole kinda shit, it sort of bought it to a dead end? Purposely took it to a point where there was nowhere to do with it, instead of exploring the intricacies it because about bigger and grander sounding, more about the presentation of it without striking a balance between presentation and function.

But hey, what do i know, not like i'm an authority on any of this shit, it's just the way i feel.

Edited November 17, 2012 by sugaraylen

[DieselDaisy]

I believe rock's greatest decade was its first decade. Chuck, Elvis, JLL, Little Richard, Holly, Cochrane. Then I would go, 60s, 70s - after that, who cares? There was some great stuff around in the 70s. I however am not a big fan of punk. I am a shameless supporter of ten minute guitar solos, of permed barechested rock-god frontmen, of studio albums housed in artsy fartsy sleeves. All this was made redundant by punk, but, I like it.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I believe rock's greatest decade was its first decade. Chuck, Elvis, JLL, Little Richard, Holly, Cochrane.

I very much agree (for once )

[Johnny Drama]

Maybe for Elvis, Chuck and Little Richard. No one rocks your cock off like Little Richard IMO

[Zint]

Blues had some very recognizable and defining riffs.

Example

ba-da-dee-dum

"I woke up this mornin"

ba-da-dee-dum

"My woman was gone"

That's the best I could type it, but you know the one I mean.

[Johnny Drama]

I'd personally say ba-duh-duh-dum

[Death Star]

Only good bands to come out of the 70's were Aerosmith, The Stooges, Led Zeppelin, Ramones and The Clash.

[moreblack]

The point being that in the blues way it came across as so much more smooth and flowey and a part of the overall song. Subtle y'know, part of the rhythm propulsion of the piece instead of...just a really fuckin' dense...thing placed on top of this piece for the purposes of a guitarist to skip up front and give it large in front of a stadium full of students.

It's rock, subtle don't enter into it. Why do you think Pete Townsend went from Vox AC15s to Marshall stacks? At that point it became an arms race... But the hotshot lead guitar has been a thing since the days of Django Reinhardt, it wasn't anything new for them to have a "me" moment.

At the stage that blues went electric, it was just barely the begining, and hey, Smokestack Lignthin' was a great setup for How Many More Times

I believe rock's greatest decade was its first decade. Chuck, Elvis, JLL, Little Richard, Holly, Cochrane.

I very much agree (for once )

Nah, rock could never reach its' peak before Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, or Queen existed.

Edited November 17, 2012 by moreblack

[DieselDaisy]

My favourite '70s band are Queen. Queen followed by Purple, Kiss and Lizzy. Never liked Aerosmith. Do not like Zeppelin either,

[dalsh327]

The 70s were a great decade for well produced albums, but to me the overall essence of rock was and is about was at its peak in the 60s.

Now, if you're talking about loud guitars and all that -that's where you get into Townshend, Reed, Garcia, Harrison, Beck, Page (as session guy), Neil Young (and Angus Young in the 70s) Hendrix etc playing with feedback & distortion and learning how to master that as a skill in itself. That came way more into play in the 70s, the 60s showed the potential of what could be done with it. Once guitar guys had some money and studio time, they dove deep into doing all sorts of things with it.

Using the guitar more like a noisemaker and synthesizer would happen in the 70s, but The Beatles running George's guitar through a Leslie organ speaker was pretty creative. I guess if someone was handy with electric and a soldering iron, they could figure shit out on the fly.

[Guest Len B'stard]

The point being that in the blues way it came across as so much more smooth and flowey and a part of the overall song. Subtle y'know, part of the rhythm propulsion of the piece instead of...just a really fuckin' dense...thing placed on top of this piece for the purposes of a guitarist to skip up front and give it large in front of a stadium full of students.

It's rock, subtle don't enter into it. Why do you think Pete Townsend went from Vox AC15s to Marshall stacks? At that point it became an arms race... But the hotshot lead guitar has been a thing since the days of Django Reinhardt, it wasn't anything new for them to have a "me" moment.

At the stage that blues went electric, it was just barely the begining, and hey, Smokestack Lignthin' was a great setup for How Many More Times

I believe rock's greatest decade was its first decade. Chuck, Elvis, JLL, Little Richard, Holly, Cochrane.

I very much agree (for once )

Nah, rock could never reach its' peak before Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, or Queen existed.

I think it did. Overall, in a broader, lasting sense, i don't think those bands offered anything new to rock n roll. Now, before you slap me out of my chair for making that comment, first of all, remember, i love The Beatles and The Stones, i'm well aware of the breadth of their impact and everything but...at the heart of it they didn't take the music anywhere that Chuck, Buddy, Rich, Eddie C and Elvis Aaron hadn't taken it already?

Like what, y'know, you got the Chuck rock n roll stuff, the Buddy ballads, it was all variations on that. The Beatles were such a huge fucking smash hit because they were total pop music and without a shred of predudice, they played what was popular, they played rockers and ballads and love songs but aside from a few acid-soaked forays into the abstract (which were more or less like, stylistic vacations if you like) the music never really went anywhere beyond the blueprint that rock n roll laid down. Like Lennon said himself, y'know, we went crazy along with the whole generation but really, at the heart of it, it's just rock n roll.

If anything, the 70s fucked rock n roll up, they just went all serious, all about like "art" which has its place and you can work those notions into 3 minute pop songs if you so desire but you can't pull it away from the Saturday Night Sock Hop Ball level because the more you do that the more you are destroying the essence and cut to a few years of that shit and instead of seats being ripped out and mental dancing you've got a bunch of mongs looking up with their gobs open at some bloke pissing around with his guitar for 20 minutes.

Fuckin' bunch of cross-legged oat-munching hippies sitting on the floor watching Clapton have the lengthiest wank in human memory it's like...y'know, what the fucks it for? It's cool to experiment, it's cool to take things outside the box, WAAAAY outside the box even but if you're gonna do that with a particular genre then at least have enough respect and understanding of it to know which aspects are like, essential to it and which are superfluous and what parts you can mess with without ruining what was cool about the thing in the first place.

All the Stones and Beatles did was re-present the archetype of rock n roll to the international audience once it was already established but i don't think that, by the end of the careers of the bands you cited, that you could really say rock n roll had been like...fundamentally changed because it hadn't, not really, certain aspects might've been accentuated and focuses might've shifted slightly from one aspect to another but it was pretty much (and is to this day) true to what the old boys laid down.

[moreblack]

I'm not saying the 50s guys didn't make waves, clearly they were the butterfly that flapped its wings. The tsunami didn't come until decades later though. But this genre is such a weird blubbery ever shifting, ever changing mass... And all the eras bring something new to it and shake it up. If anything, I'd say the 50s guys were great in that they influenced the guys who took rock to a whole other level. But those guys weren't just taking from the old guard, they took from other places as well. I could never see Eddie Cochran doing a song with a Sitar...

Using the guitar more like a noisemaker and synthesizer would happen in the 70s, but The Beatles running George's guitar through a Leslie organ speaker was pretty creative. I guess if someone was handy with electric and a soldering iron, they could figure shit out on the fly.

I don't think those guys could forsee where people like Tom Morello were gonna take it.

Edited November 19, 2012 by moreblack

[dalsh327]

I'm not saying the 50s guys didn't make waves, clearly they were the butterfly that flapped its wings. The tsunami didn't come until decades later though.

Using the guitar more like a noisemaker and synthesizer would happen in the 70s, but The Beatles running George's guitar through a Leslie organ speaker was pretty creative. I guess if someone was handy with electric and a soldering iron, they could figure shit out on the fly.

Although I don't think those guys could forsee where people like Tom Morello were gonna take it.

I think there was always an interest in the possibilities of what a guitar can do. When hip-hop became part of the landscape, bands were trying to figure out how to work some of it in, but when Dre had gone solo he wanted to use a real band in the studio, which was because of the lawsuits over sampling, but also because he wouldn't have to have vinyl noise that was on CDs at the time. Tom and Adam Jones were classmates and when they moved to LA, found the right group of guys to work with. People say Nirvana or GNR's the "last true rock band" but you always have bands evolving and coming together every day.

We have to look at why people come together, the period of time they were living in, and what rock and roll meant to them at the time. It doesn't resonate the way it used to, it's more packaged. Record companies tried to capture the GNR look and they failed. GNR packaged themselves, no Simon Cowell or Brian Epstein went "here you go boys" with a bag of clothes, bandannas, belts, and hats. Thrift stores, a girlfriend's dresser and closet, maybe an S&M store and shoplifting put the GNR look together. Now hipsters go to thrift stores and they sell band t-shirts in malls and retail stores instead of bong shops and at shows.

If GNR recorded AFD today, they'd be done in 2 days, and it's because they had the songs down cold. I think Axl getting a hold of Pro Tools didn't help move things along. Even Pink Floyd in "Live at Pompeii" warned bands about becoming technology slaves. Keep in mind Dark Side of the Moon was worked out on the road and spent a little over a month in the studio. I think it's hard for a well known band to do that, but Axl was working a fair amount of songs out on the road. I know "Silkworms" has its fans, but could you imagine what the response to it on "Chinese Democracy" would've been?