I Don't Like Mondays - one of the best pop intros!!
Don't the children look quite demonic.
I recall being unable to stop humming I Don't Like Mondays the entire length of a rainy 100 mile journey to Bournemouth in the back of my fathers Triumph Stag on 16th August 1979, the week of the Solent Fastnet disaster while we were holidaying there. The weather was so awful we came back after just 2 days!
I'm glad I watched the full episode. I had no idea until I read on here this evening that they cut some of the performances out of the earlier edition.
I remember watching this episode - particularly the Boomtown Rats - as it was my sons 3rd birthday and my auntie died that evening. For some reason I've always remembered it as the Rats being No 1.
Tubeway Army and Gary Numan, just one word for it - electrifying! Even now all this time later as I watched it I got a buzz from that performance and record. Even now it seems like a record from the future, even though it is now from the receding past. A bit like Donna Summer's I Feel Love. How remarkable that 2 tracks that were at No1 in the late 70's can still sound futuristic more than a decade into the 21st century and well over 30 years later.
(I'm going from my memory of being at Newcastle University from 84-87)
Yes, the shop opposite the Central Station was Pet Sounds. It was sticker to the roof with crest records. There was another shop in Pink Lane that sold old singles. Can't remember what it was called.
It often seems like there are more classics in one edition from 1979 than you would get in a whole year nowadays. But age, and the passage of time likely plays a part. These will be the fondest days ever for some people in the future. But if you go forward say 100 years from now, with people that can look at 1979 and 2014 without the first hand experience, and a dispassionate view, I think they will ultimately vote 1979 vastly superior. With luck music even more superior than 1979 will develop between now and the end of the 21st century. Never say never.
Today is so much different, because it isn't always the problem that the song isn't so hot, or the artists aren't especially talented (although those things are of course a major issue too). It is the suffocating over production today, which is one of the primary reasons why the music tended to sound so fresh and exciting back in 1979, and still does 35 years later, yet today, virtually nothing seems to sound so vibrant, and so vital. The only way things will get better is if the artists go back to recording those songs like they used to, otherwise pretty much everything will continue to sound like it was recorded from a computer keyboard. Many of the artists were so much better then, too, of course, where many displayed their own musical individuality, to a much greater degree, and variety was a thing to be encouraged. Today, every artist tends to be a clone of someone else, in an attempt to jump on the bandwagon of success, partly as a result of the industy's obsession with making plenty of profit.
It often seems like there are more classics in one edition from 1979 than you would get in a whole year nowadays. But age, and the passage of time likely plays a part. These will be the fondest days ever for some people in the future. But if you go forward say 100 years from now, with people that can look at 1979 and 2014 without the first hand experience, and a dispassionate view, I think they will ultimately vote 1979 vastly superior. With luck music even more superior than 1979 will develop between now and the end of the 21st century. Never say never.
I remember Danny Baker saying the Golden Age of music was during the 60s & 70s, I think the Golden Age was through the 70s & 80s, my mum thinks the Golden Age was the 50s & 60s, someone younger than me would probably think it was the 90s & Naughties (Heaven Forbid ).....etc etc...
So, I really think it is based on timescale & fond memories at present, like FavershamSaint also mentioned.
However, like you said - if in 100 or even 200 years time they look back and compare the chart music, I definitely think the latter half of the 20th Century will stand the test of time! (Possibly from the late 50s to the early 90s).
There will be odd bands and groups remembered from this century obviously, but I think the main bulk of dance & chart & manufactured bands will be long forgotten.
We already hear radio stations playing classics from the 60s, 70s & 80s more so than other decades, therefore, in a way Danny Baker is right. I think we all have already lived through the Golden Age of music!
To be honest, I dread to see what pop music will be like in years to come or whether it will exist at all - except for tribute bands and manufactured pop acts!!
Let's just hope the alternative music scene will always be out there! ;-)
Is this promo for Dave Edmunds Girls Talk in New York? Looks like the twin towers of the World Trade Centre behind him.
Yes it was filmed in New York.
I've seen a video for this on youtube which is the roof top performance shown on TOTP, but has scenes of New York interespered in it. I'm guessing they shot a performance quick for play on TOTP then later added edited the other shots in for an official promo.
I assume you were probably born between 1969 and 1971.
Arguably most people born between 1959 and 1961 would find TOTP shows from 1972/3 more interesting (if they were still available).
I think personal memories play a large part in determining preferences in pop music.
My favourite years were 1979-1984, and I was born before 1959, so age isn't always a guideline. Nor would I put it down to personal memories in my case - I just liked the music more. I do have lots of music from the 70s that I love, but it isn't the kind of thing that was ever played on TOTP.
Today is so much different, because it isn't always the problem that the song isn't so hot, or the artists aren't especially talented (although those things are of course a major issue too). It is the suffocating over production today, which is one of the primary reasons why the music tended to sound so fresh and exciting back in 1979, and still does 35 years later, yet today, virtually nothing seems to sound so vibrant, and so vital. The only way things will get better is if the artists go back to recording those songs like they used to, otherwise pretty much everything will continue to sound like it was recorded from a computer keyboard. Many of the artists were so much better then, too, of course, where many displayed their own musical individuality, to a much greater degree, and variety was a thing to be encouraged. Today, every artist tends to be a clone of someone else, in an attempt to jump on the bandwagon of success, partly as a result of the industy's obsession with making plenty of profit.
Never gonna happen sadly, because it costs too much. Producers come up with the songs on their laptops, and a singer such as Rihanna goes into a studio and records some vocals, and then it's released at little cost. It's an extreme example, but 'Bohemian Rhapsody' took 3 weeks to make, and there's no way a record label would pay that amount in costs nowadays.
Same applies to TV in many ways - you don't really see TV shows like 'Minder' anymore because they cost too much to make, so we end up with loads of reality (and cheap) shows.
The internet has been great in many ways, but I'd argue it's been terrible for stifling high quality production, as has all the choice of channels - ironically mostly showing repeats of expensively made TV shows from the 70s and 80s.
Never gonna happen sadly, because it costs too much. Producers come up with the songs on their laptops, and a singer such as Rihanna goes into a studio and records some vocals, and then it's released at little cost. It's an extreme example, but 'Bohemian Rhapsody' took 3 weeks to make, and there's no way a record label would pay that amount in costs nowadays.
Same applies to TV in many ways - you don't really see TV shows like 'Minder' anymore because they cost too much to make, so we end up with loads of reality (and cheap) shows.
The internet has been great in many ways, but I'd argue it's been terrible for stifling high quality production, as has all the choice of channels - ironically mostly showing repeats of expensively made TV shows from the 70s and 80s.
Sorry but that's just not true. There have been a lot of high production dramas on BBC, ITV and Sky networks recently as well as all the fabulous stuff you can get through Netflix.
yet today, virtually nothing seems to sound so vibrant, and so vital. The only way things will get better is if the artists go back to recording those songs like they used to, otherwise pretty much everything will continue to sound like it was recorded from a computer keyboard. Many of the artists were so much better then, too, of course, where many displayed their own musical individuality, to a much greater degree, and variety was a thing to be encouraged. Today, every artist tends to be a clone of someone else, in an attempt to jump on the bandwagon of success, partly as a result of the industy's obsession with making plenty of profit.
I said ages ago that quite a lot of music isn't overproduced and sometimes it is even produced like it was in some past decades, yet you totally ignored me and just keep repeating what you said above.
The industry has always had a profit motive and there have always been clones. There's probably more variety in the range of music styles now than there has ever been because of the accumulation of styles over time.
Never gonna happen sadly, because it costs too much. Producers come up with the songs on their laptops, and a singer such as Rihanna goes into a studio and records some vocals, and then it's released at little cost. It's an extreme example, but 'Bohemian Rhapsody' took 3 weeks to make, and there's no way a record label would pay that amount in costs nowadays.
Same applies to TV in many ways - you don't really see TV shows like 'Minder' anymore because they cost too much to make, so we end up with loads of reality (and cheap) shows.
The internet has been great in many ways, but I'd argue it's been terrible for stifling high quality production, as has all the choice of channels - ironically mostly showing repeats of expensively made TV shows from the 70s and 80s.
I agree completely. TV is another example of the decline, and especially with regards to the quality of the dramas and comedies. Years ago there was a much greater degree of subtlety, and attention to detail, whereas now the tv producers are more inclined to go for the obvious, and often more excessive scenarios, as if the viewer needs constant stimulation, as a way to keep them watching. The days when the programme makers regarded the viewers as having a high enough level of intelligence, to understand more intricate characterisation, has long gone. TV is much less cerebral than it was in the seventies. The soaps and reality type tv show are pretty open ended, without really a beginning, middle and an end, and yes, they are cheap television.
I remember Danny Baker saying the Golden Age of music was during the 60s & 70s, I think the Golden Age was through the 70s & 80s, my mum thinks the Golden Age was the 50s & 60s, someone younger than me would probably think it was the 90s & Naughties (Heaven Forbid ).....etc etc...
So, I really think it is based on timescale & fond memories at present, like FavershamSaint also mentioned.
However, like you said - if in 100 or even 200 years time they look back and compare the chart music, I definitely think the latter half of the 20th Century will stand the test of time! (Possibly from the late 50s to the early 90s).
There will be odd bands and groups remembered from this century obviously, but I think the main bulk of dance & chart & manufactured bands will be long forgotten.
We already hear radio stations playing classics from the 60s, 70s & 80s more so than other decades, therefore, in a way Danny Baker is right. I think we all have already lived through the Golden Age of music!
To be honest, I dread to see what pop music will be like in years to come or whether it will exist at all - except for tribute bands and manufactured pop acts!!
Let's just hope the alternative music scene will always be out there! ;-)
The fifties was very much an essential time in popular music, and especially with regards to the rock 'n' roll greats, like of course, Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry etc, some of whom were self contained writers, as well as performers, too, which was a very new thing to behold, at the time and very much set the template of what was to come. I think though, there existed a lull between 1958 and around 1963, when many of those rock 'n' roll pioneers, were engaged elsewhere (be it death, in the army, in prison, or with god, for example). The charts, meanwhile, for a time were clogged up with manufactured (and inoffensive) pretty boys and girls.
Popular music i believe, was never as singularly as potent a force, and especially within the singles charts, as it was in the sixties (1964 onwards), when the stars of the day, were less in numbers, and the music, was still a fairly new concept (and a breath of fresh air), and something that impacted a great deal more on people's individual lives. Everyone was aware of the home grown Beatles, and the Rolling Stones, and Cilla, and Cliff etc, because they represented the core of what was happening. Many of those had a more 'social' (lifestyle, political) impact, also, which wouldn't necessarily be the case so much with the stars of the seventies
The seventies was the time, however, where popular music fragmented, somewhat, into a great number of more specialised niche's, which were extremely varied in style, and was very much a more in depth musical progression on what had started during the sixties. In a sense, during the seventies pop grew so greatly as an industry, that compared with the core acts of the sixties, it became more difficult for the listener, to keep pace on all the changes that were taking place. Yes, there were still the high profile stars of the day, in the singles chart, like Slade, Gary Glitter, Abba, and Elton John and T Rex, but unlike, say, the Beatles, Stones, and the motown sound etc. of the sixties, they didn't really represent pretty much singularly the bulk of what was happening, because pop had just gotten so huge, by that time (although the Bee Gees came close for a while with the 'Saturday Night Fever' soundtrack). However, although the seventies, at times may have seemed a little less focused/structured than that of the sixties, i think, certainly if measured in bulk, there were perhaps a great deal more brilliant singles, and albums, than those of the sixties (but possibly a great deal more mediocrity, at the same time). The great advancement also when measuring the music of the seventies to that of the sixties, is also a much greater level of musical sophistication that took place as time went on. That's why, i think there is a tendency, for some of the younger generations to feel more empathy towards seventies and eighties music (despite my belief that after around the 1983 period, pop was beginning a sharp decline in quality). The seventies, ultimately, is a never ending source of interest, to me.
I said ages ago that quite a lot of music isn't overproduced and sometimes it is even produced like it was in some past decades, yet you totally ignored me and just keep repeating what you said above.
The industry has always had a profit motive and there have always been clones. There's probably more variety in the range of music styles now than there has ever been because of the accumulation of styles over time.
How on earth can you claim there's more variety in music now, unless you are also including the sixties, seventies and eighties music, that's also still available to purchase ?
And if you are, then you are not referring at all to what's happening now !
Never gonna happen sadly, because it costs too much. Producers come up with the songs on their laptops, and a singer such as Rihanna goes into a studio and records some vocals, and then it's released at little cost. It's an extreme example, but 'Bohemian Rhapsody' took 3 weeks to make, and there's no way a record label would pay that amount in costs nowadays.
Same applies to TV in many ways - you don't really see TV shows like 'Minder' anymore because they cost too much to make, so we end up with loads of reality (and cheap) shows.
The internet has been great in many ways, but I'd argue it's been terrible for stifling high quality production, as has all the choice of channels - ironically mostly showing repeats of expensively made TV shows from the 70s and 80s.
The electronic dance music that appeared 25 years ago proved a record label or DJ could have a massive hit at very little cost( most of the acts were faceless and there was little promotional cost) anthis has probably proven to be a popular template ever since as it's maximum profit for minimum cost. However, this type of music has produced little of lasting value, there is little live or album material and most acts come and go very quickly. The Boomtown Rats, who peaked in 1979, are playing my home town tomorrow, but would anyone go and see David Guetta in 34 years time, or remember him.
Same with the television, 70s and 80s drama and comedies are still highly regarded and make millions in DVD and repeat fees. I doubt no one would want to watch old series of Big Brother, or buy an entire series of The X Factor on DVD, there just isn't the interest when these disposable shows end.
The highlight of Glastonbury this year.......Dolly Parton!
Says it all really, when a lady the same age as my own mother reached today, and maybe many other's parents on here, can wow the crowd and steal the whole event and get the front pages, more than any younger contemporary acts who appeared.
She was brilliant though, quite shockingly so I thought, and I hate most country music. A real eye opener, and I'm not referring to her most obvious assets. Sounded fantastic, looked fabulous, had a fantastic crowd connection and rapport, and looked as if she was truly enjoying it. :cool:
I recall her doing Jolene on the early showings of TOTP from summer 1976, doing a live version I think, in a promo film, but this was not specifically done for TOTP benefit if I am correct. Presuming she never did do a proper TOTP performance in that case. I stand to be corrected if anyone else knows better.
The highlight of Glastonbury this year.......Dolly Parton!
Says it all really, when a lady the same age as my own mother reached today, and maybe many other's parents on here, can wow the crowd and steal the whole event and get the front pages, more than any younger contemporary acts who appeared.
She was brilliant though, quite shockingly so I thought, and I hate most country music. A real eye opener, and I'm not referring to her most obvious assets. Sounded fantastic, looked fabulous, had a fantastic crowd connection and rapport, and looked as if she was truly enjoying it. :cool:
I recall her doing Jolene on the early showings of TOTP from summer 1976, doing a live version I think, in a promo film, but this was not specifically done for TOTP benefit if I am correct. Presuming she never did do a proper TOTP performance in that case. I stand to be corrected if anyone else knows better.
On a Dlt edition Istr, before things 'blew up', but the same clip is available on 'Country Music At The BBC', so isn't totally lost!
Comments
Don't the children look quite demonic.
I recall being unable to stop humming I Don't Like Mondays the entire length of a rainy 100 mile journey to Bournemouth in the back of my fathers Triumph Stag on 16th August 1979, the week of the Solent Fastnet disaster while we were holidaying there. The weather was so awful we came back after just 2 days!
Are Friends Electric? STILL sounds like it's from the future
I remember watching this episode - particularly the Boomtown Rats - as it was my sons 3rd birthday and my auntie died that evening.
Add Chic to the list. Of course Chic.
Yes, the shop opposite the Central Station was Pet Sounds. It was sticker to the roof with crest records. There was another shop in Pink Lane that sold old singles. Can't remember what it was called.
Today is so much different, because it isn't always the problem that the song isn't so hot, or the artists aren't especially talented (although those things are of course a major issue too). It is the suffocating over production today, which is one of the primary reasons why the music tended to sound so fresh and exciting back in 1979, and still does 35 years later, yet today, virtually nothing seems to sound so vibrant, and so vital. The only way things will get better is if the artists go back to recording those songs like they used to, otherwise pretty much everything will continue to sound like it was recorded from a computer keyboard. Many of the artists were so much better then, too, of course, where many displayed their own musical individuality, to a much greater degree, and variety was a thing to be encouraged. Today, every artist tends to be a clone of someone else, in an attempt to jump on the bandwagon of success, partly as a result of the industy's obsession with making plenty of profit.
I remember Danny Baker saying the Golden Age of music was during the 60s & 70s, I think the Golden Age was through the 70s & 80s, my mum thinks the Golden Age was the 50s & 60s, someone younger than me would probably think it was the 90s & Naughties (Heaven Forbid
So, I really think it is based on timescale & fond memories at present, like Faversham Saint also mentioned.
However, like you said - if in 100 or even 200 years time they look back and compare the chart music, I definitely think the latter half of the 20th Century will stand the test of time!
There will be odd bands and groups remembered from this century obviously, but I think the main bulk of dance & chart & manufactured bands will be long forgotten.
We already hear radio stations playing classics from the 60s, 70s & 80s more so than other decades, therefore, in a way Danny Baker is right. I think we all have already lived through the Golden Age of music!
To be honest, I dread to see what pop music will be like in years to come or whether it will exist at all - except for tribute bands and manufactured pop acts!!
Let's just hope the alternative music scene will always be out there! ;-)
Yes it was filmed in New York.
I've seen a video for this on youtube which is the roof top performance shown on TOTP, but has scenes of New York interespered in it. I'm guessing they shot a performance quick for play on TOTP then later added edited the other shots in for an official promo.
My favourite years were 1979-1984, and I was born before 1959, so age isn't always a guideline. Nor would I put it down to personal memories in my case - I just liked the music more. I do have lots of music from the 70s that I love, but it isn't the kind of thing that was ever played on TOTP.
Never gonna happen sadly, because it costs too much. Producers come up with the songs on their laptops, and a singer such as Rihanna goes into a studio and records some vocals, and then it's released at little cost. It's an extreme example, but 'Bohemian Rhapsody' took 3 weeks to make, and there's no way a record label would pay that amount in costs nowadays.
Same applies to TV in many ways - you don't really see TV shows like 'Minder' anymore because they cost too much to make, so we end up with loads of reality (and cheap) shows.
The internet has been great in many ways, but I'd argue it's been terrible for stifling high quality production, as has all the choice of channels - ironically mostly showing repeats of expensively made TV shows from the 70s and 80s.
Sorry but that's just not true. There have been a lot of high production dramas on BBC, ITV and Sky networks recently as well as all the fabulous stuff you can get through Netflix.
I said ages ago that quite a lot of music isn't overproduced and sometimes it is even produced like it was in some past decades, yet you totally ignored me and just keep repeating what you said above.
The industry has always had a profit motive and there have always been clones. There's probably more variety in the range of music styles now than there has ever been because of the accumulation of styles over time.
I agree completely. TV is another example of the decline, and especially with regards to the quality of the dramas and comedies. Years ago there was a much greater degree of subtlety, and attention to detail, whereas now the tv producers are more inclined to go for the obvious, and often more excessive scenarios, as if the viewer needs constant stimulation, as a way to keep them watching. The days when the programme makers regarded the viewers as having a high enough level of intelligence, to understand more intricate characterisation, has long gone. TV is much less cerebral than it was in the seventies. The soaps and reality type tv show are pretty open ended, without really a beginning, middle and an end, and yes, they are cheap television.
The fifties was very much an essential time in popular music, and especially with regards to the rock 'n' roll greats, like of course, Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry etc, some of whom were self contained writers, as well as performers, too, which was a very new thing to behold, at the time and very much set the template of what was to come. I think though, there existed a lull between 1958 and around 1963, when many of those rock 'n' roll pioneers, were engaged elsewhere (be it death, in the army, in prison, or with god, for example). The charts, meanwhile, for a time were clogged up with manufactured (and inoffensive) pretty boys and girls.
Popular music i believe, was never as singularly as potent a force, and especially within the singles charts, as it was in the sixties (1964 onwards), when the stars of the day, were less in numbers, and the music, was still a fairly new concept (and a breath of fresh air), and something that impacted a great deal more on people's individual lives. Everyone was aware of the home grown Beatles, and the Rolling Stones, and Cilla, and Cliff etc, because they represented the core of what was happening. Many of those had a more 'social' (lifestyle, political) impact, also, which wouldn't necessarily be the case so much with the stars of the seventies
The seventies was the time, however, where popular music fragmented, somewhat, into a great number of more specialised niche's, which were extremely varied in style, and was very much a more in depth musical progression on what had started during the sixties. In a sense, during the seventies pop grew so greatly as an industry, that compared with the core acts of the sixties, it became more difficult for the listener, to keep pace on all the changes that were taking place. Yes, there were still the high profile stars of the day, in the singles chart, like Slade, Gary Glitter, Abba, and Elton John and T Rex, but unlike, say, the Beatles, Stones, and the motown sound etc. of the sixties, they didn't really represent pretty much singularly the bulk of what was happening, because pop had just gotten so huge, by that time (although the Bee Gees came close for a while with the 'Saturday Night Fever' soundtrack). However, although the seventies, at times may have seemed a little less focused/structured than that of the sixties, i think, certainly if measured in bulk, there were perhaps a great deal more brilliant singles, and albums, than those of the sixties (but possibly a great deal more mediocrity, at the same time). The great advancement also when measuring the music of the seventies to that of the sixties, is also a much greater level of musical sophistication that took place as time went on. That's why, i think there is a tendency, for some of the younger generations to feel more empathy towards seventies and eighties music (despite my belief that after around the 1983 period, pop was beginning a sharp decline in quality). The seventies, ultimately, is a never ending source of interest, to me.
How on earth can you claim there's more variety in music now, unless you are also including the sixties, seventies and eighties music, that's also still available to purchase ?
And if you are, then you are not referring at all to what's happening now !
The electronic dance music that appeared 25 years ago proved a record label or DJ could have a massive hit at very little cost( most of the acts were faceless and there was little promotional cost) anthis has probably proven to be a popular template ever since as it's maximum profit for minimum cost. However, this type of music has produced little of lasting value, there is little live or album material and most acts come and go very quickly. The Boomtown Rats, who peaked in 1979, are playing my home town tomorrow, but would anyone go and see David Guetta in 34 years time, or remember him.
Same with the television, 70s and 80s drama and comedies are still highly regarded and make millions in DVD and repeat fees. I doubt no one would want to watch old series of Big Brother, or buy an entire series of The X Factor on DVD, there just isn't the interest when these disposable shows end.
Just my era, not a bad song so far. Lots of performances from other shows not just TOTP.
Says it all really, when a lady the same age as my own mother reached today, and maybe many other's parents on here, can wow the crowd and steal the whole event and get the front pages, more than any younger contemporary acts who appeared.
She was brilliant though, quite shockingly so I thought, and I hate most country music. A real eye opener, and I'm not referring to her most obvious assets. Sounded fantastic, looked fabulous, had a fantastic crowd connection and rapport, and looked as if she was truly enjoying it. :cool:
I recall her doing Jolene on the early showings of TOTP from summer 1976, doing a live version I think, in a promo film, but this was not specifically done for TOTP benefit if I am correct. Presuming she never did do a proper TOTP performance in that case. I stand to be corrected if anyone else knows better.
On a Dlt edition Istr, before things 'blew up', but the same clip is available on 'Country Music At The BBC', so isn't totally lost!