Alvin Stardust, one of your failed 60s acts turning up as a glam star, rather like Gary Glitter.
ha ha... you threw me with listing groups.
Glam introduced the theatrical, the carnivalesque, it was a contrast to the seriousness of prog rock and heavy rock. And it hadn't been done in that full on way before. I'm not sure you grasp the significance of that. It's about attitude, disrespect and disregard for the established order. Like all movements that freshness didn't really last, of course.
theres no significance... youre making it sound like glam was a subversive movement. all it was was dressing up as daft as you could and having a larf... it was daft., and half the people 'glamming up' did so because it was the fashion of the day. roxy for eg, werent real glam acts, just acts who were around at the glam era so adpoted a more sober attitude then some did.
i was at school when glam was big, in my last years. i mixed with glam fans.... there was nothing subversive about their attitude, rockers, skinheads, suedeheads, and after i left school punks, anarchists, mods... they were subversive to a degree or another, but glam rock fans were just kids out for a laugh.
The new romantics developed some of their ideas from Glam but they brought their own cultural sensibilities to the game as well. So it is not the same as Glam. But it is good that you recognise how pop music and culture is a evolving, developing cultural practice.
unlike you to patronise... but yes i know all that sir!
Pop music won't necessarily hold the same status within pop culture as it has in the past.
I suspect pop music in the 60s held a more elevated status than it does today. The 00s is a world of video games which have a strong cultural influence which didn't exist in earlier decades like the 60s and 70s.
hmmm.... i was only a boy in the 60's so itshard for me to tell. from my memory, pop music has always been frowned upon as not 'real' music. it was for 'the kidz' and reprisented youth culture/rebelion. so i dont think that generally it was holding a more elevated status at the time. its only now, when pop music is deeply ingrained in our culture that we look back and recognise the great artists, the ones who have influenced, so if anything the 60's is more reveered now then what it was at the time.
'Gangnam Style's notoriety is not just dependent on its musicality but on its life as part of social media. And you could say that it is part of the dance craze phenomenon akin to the 'Macarena' or the Charleston. Not my idea of quality but it will be part of the pop cultural firmament I guess.
not my idea of quality either, and neither is glam, but some tracks do get into the cultural psyche and in some cases even more now then they did then. perhaps the most noticable example being 'the ace of spades'. very well known now but at the time was only a minor hit. dancing queen, come on eileen, mama mia, being other examples of tracks that have lasted. i dare say gangnam style, and something or two by gaga will do the same thing.
Consider how influential Glam was with many of the new wave bands - Siouxsie, The Damned, The Human League, The Tubeway Army and the New Romantics like Ultravox, Visage, Thompson Twins, The Associates, The Cure.... And later Marilyn Manson, Prince and Lady Gaga at heart.
The Cure weren't New Romantics. They were post-punk, first coming together (under other names) in 1976.
Robert Smith: "...when punk came came along I found my generation's music. When I first saw The Stranglers I thought "This is it". And then I saw the Buzzcocks the following week and I thought "This is definitely it."
no..i mentioned that in the past these convos have often come up..im talking about 12 years in internet forums as well as real life convos with music fans.
it isnt just my opinion, but a general concensus and this is supported by the poor sales figures for 76. it was post glam, but pre punk/new wave/disco. a transitional year between the sounds that defined the two halfs of the decade. sales and interest in music are always greatest when there was a strong youth movement going on.
now thats my opinion, by someone with experience first hand of this period. i doubt that last paragraph will have many who disagree with it.
btw, which year in the 70's do YOU regard as the weakest?
I don't really regard any year in the 70s as the weakest. Every 70s year had got great music in it.
I know what you're saying about it being a transitional year. I've often thought that before. By 1975/76 Glam was on its last legs but Disco and Punk hadn't really taken off although there were some Disco hits about like 'Love to love you baby' by Donna Summer, 'You should be dancing' by the Bee Gees. Having said that fashions or movements don't die out overnight and they don't suddenly take off overnight so 75/76 was a time when Glam, Disco and Punk were all around at the same time. In that sense you'd think 76 would be a great year.
Anyway how can you slag off a year with Girls Girls Girls by Sailor in it:D.
The Cure weren't New Romantics. They were post-punk, first coming together (under other names) in 1976.
Robert Smith: "...when punk came came along I found my generation's music. When I first saw The Stranglers I thought "This is it". And then I saw the Buzzcocks the following week and I thought "This is definitely it."
Actually I left a whole lot out of that bit, must have been tired. I was going to throw in The Mission and The Sisters of Mercy and suggest that all that Gothic rock stuff was influenced by Glam.
It's funny but I saw The Cure at the Ulster Hall in the late 70s playing with Siouxsie and they were clearly a post- punk band as you say, short hair and denims. But then a year or so later I see them with makeup and the goth look and I think did they copy someone? Alice Cooper perhaps? And I imagine Robert Smith just walked into a band practice one day and suggested they all put on makeup. It just looked so contrived. So although I like a lot of their music I have always had this doubt that there is a cynical side to The Cure.
Still doesn't undermine the essential point about the influence of Glam.
theres no significance... youre making it sound like glam was a subversive movement. all it was was dressing up as daft as you could and having a larf... it was daft., and half the people 'glamming up' did so because it was the fashion of the day. roxy for eg, werent real glam acts, just acts who were around at the glam era so adpoted a more sober attitude then some did.
i was at school when glam was big, in my last years. i mixed with glam fans.... there was nothing subversive about their attitude, rockers, skinheads, suedeheads, and after i left school punks, anarchists, mods... they were subversive to a degree or another, but glam rock fans were just kids out for a laugh.
Glam was irreverent, that's subversive in itself. They also brought theatre and art to pop. So glam wasn't just the glitter acts who were having a laugh. I think there are many who would like to exclude Roxy, Bowie and Queen from the glam tag. But just because Roxy and Bowie went to art school or the equivalent doesn't preserve them from a dalliance with glitter. And it's not a bad thing, the carnival holds an important position in cultural theory. Bread and circuses and all that.
hmmm.... i was only a boy in the 60's so itshard for me to tell. from my memory, pop music has always been frowned upon as not 'real' music. it was for 'the kidz' and reprisented youth culture/rebelion. so i dont think that generally it was holding a more elevated status at the time. its only now, when pop music is deeply ingrained in our culture that we look back and recognise the great artists, the ones who have influenced, so if anything the 60's is more reveered now then what it was at the time.
Well, UK and US experience were a little different. Dylan touched a chord when he sang that 'The Times are a-Changing' and it was picked up in the counter culture reflected in civil rights, flower power and Rolling Stone magazine. The upshot being that pop music was understood as being culturally significant maybe for the first time. It was real music.
Arguably it took a little longer in the UK. Although i'm not sure it was that long. It was all about the swinging 60s. It was a more optimistic time, sex laws were changed and drugs were popular. They were liberated times and I think it was reflected in pop music. It is definitely reflected in the music of The Beatles and The Who.
You have been espousing the quality of modern music but I can safely say not one of those artists could produce a 'My Generation', 'A Day in the Life' or 'Waterloo Sunset'.
how can other peoples opinions that dont agree with yours be 'rubbish'?... i lived through that wretched year, so did others, it was a very poor year for quality of music. lowest year (70's) for sales for eg supports this.
Lowest year for sales would confirm erm... less sales. That's all. The majority of sales tend to be of mainstream pop music and stuff that mostly appeals to the rather young and this demographic doesn't tend to be particularly discerning or sophisticated in their tastes. They latch onto things that are instant, in-your-face, supported by a manufactured image that is marketed to them to buy into, hence all the young people who would have been buying Glam Rock or Punk or Heavy Metal or the Grease soundtrack songs or anything else with a lot of imagery tied in. You say that '76 was a transition period, which does tend to support why sales were down but that has no reflection on the quality of the music being released.
If sales equate quality the Spice Girls are better than En Vogue and Take That are better than the White Stripes (in terms of the UK anyway). A couple of us have posted a selection of records which were released in '76, so, regardless of some indifference from the teeny-boppers at the time because they caught 'between movements', great music was happening. The obsession with the top 40 singles chart on this DS forum in general gives the same skewed view of music as a whole as the content of the Radio One playlists would.
yes we all get you like the 70's over anything this side of 1990... thats your choice, but please dont equate your choice to quality music. theres been hundereds of quality tracks this side of 1990 too, and just because you dont like them doesnt make them bad.
Sticking to what you're likely to hear on daytime radio (chart music) I think, in a nutshell, 'ItsNick' possibly feels that in 1976 some great tracks were on regular rotation, whereas in 2014, there would be precious little that would appeal to him. It can seem that way when you are bombarded with the super-prevalent, in-your-face, overcompressed, techopop-R&B-Dance-blend mess, where in many cases, the songs are weak as hell beneath all the production. Now I rarely head anything I could listen to on the daytime shows, so I understand when people think mainstream music (i.e. all that they even seem to hear) has gone to the dogs.
btw, which year in the 70's do YOU regard as the weakest?
I know this question wasn't directed at me but I want to comment on it.
Personally I don't see weak years, I only have an awareness of music - I see things in terms of sublime music, very good music, music that is good enough to buy, music that is of little interest to me (which I won't buy) and music which is horrible that I want to switch off or escape from.
So, to assess the worst year from the 70's, musically (and it would be a 100% personal choice based on what I like), I'd have to go through what I have, then I'd have to consider the good releases I don't have and then try to estimate bulk, year by year.
I'd probably need a week to devote to it and at the end of it, I wouldn't even see the point because I like records based on how they sound and everything else is just statistics. What I could say though, off the top of my head, is this: if you offered me the music I want/own from the first half of the decade of the 70's, or that from the second half, I'd take the first half...
... and it has absolutely nothing to do with Punk or Glam Rock because I rarely listen to either. They are just two facets amongst everything that was going on.
To be fair, probably not *nothing* but I tend to listen to Radio 4 in the car (or CDs) and at home it will be CDs and records, or downloads from music blogs and YouTube, on the computer. I absolutely don't want to listen to those banal daytime radio shows. I actively avoid them! I know enough of what they play and what they never play to not want to waste my life hearing it. But like everyone else I still hear them by accident.
you surprise me! you seem a well versed music fan, trance wasnt exactly underground! some vocal trance tracks have etherial female vocals... which imho add to the dynamic, forget them as vocals, see them more as part of the instrumentation.
surely youve heard of 'cafe del mar' - energy 52?
I've heard *of* Café del Mar but that's as far as it goes. I'll try to give those ones you posted a listen. I do like some 90's music which comes under the dance umbrella - De'Lacy's "Hideaway", Masters at Work, Joi Cardwell, Vaness Daou, Ultra Naté, Romanthony, L'il Louie, Barbara Tucker etc. Mostly American House music. (There's loads more than that but I haven't really been digging through that stuff for quite a while, concentrating on older stuff).
Right I've listen to the trance. It's too fast for me. The Agnelli & Nelson I preferred out of the three. The Sunburst track just built into an unlistenable racket!
of course if you dont like dance then this wont impress you! but it has the beat, the melody, the composition i like. this style of music leaves boring, plodding old guitars in the last centuray.
well you agree with mgvsmith about peaks, surely the troughs are ... poor at least.?
When I say creative peaks I mean when things develop more distinctly than before and are therefore noteworthy and will be much discussed by the music press. I don't feel that developments are always positive to all listeners or that new equals enjoyable.
I like some Disco: the Disco Funk end of things, not the cheesy stuff but that doesn't mean that I was happy that Soul or Funk was sidelined because of it.
I like American House and Garage from the mid-80's but I tend not to like the British and European rave sounds that were inspired by it. Basically what happened with me at the start of the 90's is that I didn't get to hear much new US House and Garage because everyone was hyping the UK stuff and I was pissed off about this because most of the UK stuff was garbage.
This caused me to become detached from listening to dance genres to a great extent and go through the 90's with New Jack Swing/ R&B, Hip Hop and Ragga being the newer sounds I was checking.
The 90's means Britpop to many people but don't own a Britpop record. I would have a handful of Alternative Rock. I hated Madchester and Britpop and all that Eurodance, (Black Box, Technotronic, 2Unlimited, Snap) and all that Hardhouse or Hardstyle rave crap. I couldn't even stay in a room if rave was playing or even respect anyone who'd listen to it. I've been listening to music long enough to know that stuff isn't anything!
Actually I left a whole lot out of that bit, must have been tired. I was going to throw in The Mission and The Sisters of Mercy and suggest that all that Gothic rock stuff was influenced by Glam.
.
goths were inspired mainly by siouxsie... she popularised the look, the point is though was siouxsie inspired by glam? i see her style as 'anti-glam'.
i dont regard alice cooper as glam either , his forray into make up was possibly the first 'anti-glam' style.
You have been espousing the quality of modern music but I can safely say not one of those artists could produce a 'My Generation', 'A Day in the Life' or 'Waterloo Sunset'.
not sure how being irrelevant can be subversive, i doubt 95% of the population could give a flying fcuk who they were, what they dressed like, nor what they played.
but we arent comparing todays acts with the best of the 60's! my point has always been that in comparison to the 60's, the 70's material overall was inferior.
and you talk about 'the 70's as if it was one big club... but there was sharp divisions within the 70's by fans of differing styles. dont forget music was far more polarised then, you either liked this style or that style, very few people liked whatever appealled to them.
you champion glam... but rock fans, prog rock fans, soul fans, hated glam! you were looked down on if you 'followed the charts', until punk came along and made singles cool again.
And here's Siouxsie doing a rough version of 20th Century Boy. . I would suggest that punk was influenced by glam and was perhaps anti-glam in a fashion sense. Punk was a lot of things.
not sure how being irrelevant can be subversive, i doubt 95% of the population could give a flying fcuk who they were, what they dressed like, nor what they played.
but we arent comparing todays acts with the best of the 60's! my point has always been that in comparison to the 60's, the 70's material overall was inferior.
and you talk about 'the 70's as if it was one big club... but there was sharp divisions within the 70's by fans of differing styles. dont forget music was far more polarised then, you either liked this style or that style, very few people liked whatever appealled to them.
you champion glam... but rock fans, prog rock fans, soul fans, hated glam! you were looked down on if you 'followed the charts', until punk came along and made singles cool again.
I said irreverent which at that time was against the serious hard rock/prog brigade.
I mentioned the 60s to show that in the US that was the first decade to take pop music seriously. The songs I mentioned were used to suggest why pop music should be considered alongside poetry and literature and film. But if you read the reviews sections of quality newspapers today, you will find computer games and apps are there as well. In that sense the new youth have more cultural artefacts to interest them than music.
Look how many computer music mags there are these days and then look at the charts and see how many songs are boys with their toys getting girls to sing for them, Chase and Status being a good example. That's the pattern and I'm not sure what it means.
I was reading through a review of a new album by Bright Light Bright Light, a nom de plume for Rod Thomas a modern, highly rated songwriter and 'Life is Easy' is album of the week. There is a track on the album with Elton John on it. Nowadays you can simply go to Spotify and listen to the album which I did. I thought it was very melodic, not overly melancholy but very unadventurous in terms of its electronics.
And then I thought I wonder what Elton John (also a bit of a glam artist) sounded like at about that time in his career. So I put on Tumbleweed Connection and yeah what do you find? so much better. 'Where to now St Peter' , Love Song, 'Madman Across the Water' haven't dated at all. Perhaps it is unfair to compare but it was that thing about quality in the 70s and now.
goths were inspired mainly by siouxsie... she popularised the look, the point is though was siouxsie inspired by glam? i see her style as 'anti-glam'.
i dont regard alice cooper as glam either , his forray into make up was possibly the first 'anti-glam' style.
not sure how being irrelevant can be subversive, i doubt 95% of the population could give a flying fcuk who they were, what they dressed like, nor what they played.
but we arent comparing todays acts with the best of the 60's! my point has always been that in comparison to the 60's, the 70's material overall was inferior.
and you talk about 'the 70's as if it was one big club... but there was sharp divisions within the 70's by fans of differing styles. dont forget music was far more polarised then, you either liked this style or that style, very few people liked whatever appealled to them.
you champion glam... but rock fans, prog rock fans, soul fans, hated glam! you were looked down on if you 'followed the charts', until punk came along and made singles cool again.
Siouxsie was a fan of Roxy Music. In fact, the nucleus of the Banshees actually met at a Roxy gig. Having said that, I'm one of the people who don't count Roxy, Bowie, Queen as Glam. Sure they dressed glam in the early days but their music was very different.
And here's Siouxsie doing a rough version of 20th Century Boy. . I would suggest that punk was influenced by glam and was perhaps anti-glam in a fashion sense. Punk was a lot of things.
I always understood punk to be a reaction against the music that preceded it, which was sometimes called pub rock: bands who were musically proficient, but not interested in prog-style technical wizardry, and with strong American influences: country, blues and soul. There was more emphasis on traditional songwriting and musicianship and very little interest in stagecraft or any of the other aspects of glam.
As Wikipedia says, pub rock was knocked out of the park by punk, but it was the genre that spawned Elvis Costello and Ian Dury. It also gave us Graham Parker and the Rumour, one of the finest live bands of the late seventies.
And here's Siouxsie doing a rough version of 20th Century Boy. . I would suggest that punk was influenced by glam and was perhaps anti-glam in a fashion sense. Punk was a lot of things.
i see siouxsie as anti-glam, punk was (as has been mentioned) a rebelion against music that preceeded it. did early punks like some glam? likely, siouxsie may well have done, it was that or prog or rock or soul.
I said irreverent which at that time was against the serious hard rock/prog brigade.
appoligies...my bad
but wasnt it just kids being cheeky towards older people? i dont know what you experience with glam fans was, but they were the younger teens, my generation, whilst older teens/adult wouldnt touch glam...it was kids stuff... a fad, a gimmick.
I mentioned the 60s to show that in the US that was the first decade to take pop music seriously. The songs I mentioned were used to suggest why pop music should be considered alongside poetry and literature and film. But if you read the reviews sections of quality newspapers today, you will find computer games and apps are there as well. In that sense the new youth have more cultural artefacts to interest them than music.
Look how many computer music mags there are these days and then look at the charts and see how many songs are boys with their toys getting girls to sing for them, Chase and Status being a good example. That's the pattern and I'm not sure what it means.
i dont do computer games, but have been surprised by my lads mentioning tracks i never thought theyd hear.
And then I thought I wonder what Elton John (also a bit of a glam artist) sounded like at about that time in his career. So I put on Tumbleweed Connection and yeah what do you find? so much better. 'Where to now St Peter' , Love Song, 'Madman Across the Water' haven't dated at all. Perhaps it is unfair to compare but it was that thing about quality in the 70s and now.
its only quality if you like it though... elton john meant nothing to me...i never understood why a piano player should be getting a fan base... well maybe il being abit unfair, sure he did some catchy pop tunes i guess.
but no, he wasnt a glam artist. he was an artist who used contemporary fashions...
Siouxsie was a fan of Roxy Music. In fact, the nucleus of the Banshees actually met at a Roxy gig. Having said that, I'm one of the people who don't count Roxy, Bowie, Queen as Glam. Sure they dressed glam in the early days but their music was very different.
absolutely... as i see it whatever fashion style we talk about... there was those true leaders of that fashion (music and dress) then there were 'the rest' who merely dressed in the style of the day. slade, t rex, sweet, glitter, wizzard, were the main artists who lead the movement. alice cooper and lou reed were just contemporary americans to glam.
no no noooo ... that had been going on long since. johnny kidd and the pirates, dave dees mob... and others, did that long before glam
You have been espousing the quality of modern music but I can safely say not one of those artists could produce a 'My Generation', 'A Day in the Life' or 'Waterloo Sunset'.
ed sheeran 'the a team'?.. an example of social comment in pop music. probably not as good as the tracks you mentioned, but times are different now and its not cool to sing about social problems/observations.
Lowest year for sales would confirm erm... less sales. That's all. The majority of sales tend to be of mainstream pop music and stuff that mostly appeals to the rather young and this demographic doesn't tend to be particularly discerning or sophisticated in their tastes. They latch onto things that are instant, in-your-face, supported by a manufactured image that is marketed to them to buy into, hence all the young people who would have been buying Glam Rock or Punk or Heavy Metal or the Grease soundtrack songs or anything else with a lot of imagery tied in. You say that '76 was a transition period, which does tend to support why sales were down but that has no reflection on the quality of the music being released.
i accept some of that, but low sales = disinterest in the music produced.
id suggest that the quantity of quality was down in 76... which does make it a poor year, a bad one if you didnt like the stye produced.
its no point in going on about what might have happened outside the charts... like em or not, they are a useful, consistent, means of measuring the music scene over the last 60 years.
If sales equate quality the Spice Girls are better than En Vogue and Take That are better than the White Stripes (in terms of the UK anyway). A couple of us have posted a selection of records which were released in '76, so, regardless of some indifference from the teeny-boppers at the time because they caught 'between movements', great music was happening. The obsession with the top 40 singles chart on this DS forum in general gives the same skewed view of music as a whole as the content of the Radio One playlists would.
theres a difference between sales of an individual act and sales of the whole scene. sales of an individual act only serve to point to their popularity at and given point in time as our old bickering friend unique will tell us. but when you apply sales firgures to and given time period, its a measure of the popularity of the music of that era. 76 = low sales, 76 = low popularity / disinterest in the music produced.
Sticking to what you're likely to hear on daytime radio (chart music) I think, in a nutshell, 'ItsNick' possibly feels that in 1976 some great tracks were on regular rotation, whereas in 2014, there would be precious little that would appeal to him. It can seem that way when you are bombarded with the super-prevalent, in-your-face, overcompressed, techopop-R&B-Dance-blend mess, where in many cases, the songs are weak as hell beneath all the production. Now I rarely head anything I could listen to on the daytime shows, so I understand when people think mainstream music (i.e. all that they even seem to hear) has gone to the dogs.
dont get me wrong here...im not saying we are in a golden age for music, ive argued against that recently! pity the protagonists for modern music arent here to defend it better then i want to.
but i dont think that todays pop is worse then that in the 70's... its different, music was more polarised then, the good was arguably very good, the bad was really bad. we dont have as much choice or variety nowdays, but we do have better produced, more polished pop tracks. and we dont have the utter crap that some of the 70's produced.
Personally I don't see weak years, I only have an awareness of music - I see things in terms of sublime music, very good music, music that is good enough to buy, music that is of little interest to me (which I won't buy) and music which is horrible that I want to switch off or escape from.
So, to assess the worst year from the 70's, musically (and it would be a 100% personal choice based on what I like), I'd have to go through what I have, then I'd have to consider the good releases I don't have and then try to estimate bulk, year by year.
I'd probably need a week to devote to it and at the end of it, I wouldn't even see the point because I like records based on how they sound and everything else is just statistics. What I could say though, off the top of my head, is this: if you offered me the music I want/own from the first half of the decade of the 70's, or that from the second half, I'd take the first half...
fair play, thats your pov...
To be fair, probably not *nothing* but I tend to listen to Radio 4 in the car (or CDs) and at home it will be CDs and records, or downloads from music blogs and YouTube, on the computer. I absolutely don't want to listen to those banal daytime radio shows. I actively avoid them! I know enough of what they play and what they never play to not want to waste my life hearing it. But like everyone else I still hear them by accident.
i have radio 1 o9n in my van.. yes the dj's are banal...or am i just old? but every so often ill hear a good tune, i am a grumpy bastard and i am hard to please...but a few times a year a melodious track will grab me.... like one republic 'counting stars', a great melodic uplifting pop song. sooner hear that then billy dont be a hero, get down, summer nights, pushbike song...etc etc.
In the context of the mainstream, quite probably but like you've said, you didn't dig to see if you could unearth anything more satisfying.
ive always viewed the charts and radio as the shop window to the current scene. i think that was pretty fair in the past...but not now.
Right I've listen to the trance. It's too fast for me. The Agnelli & Nelson I preferred out of the three. The Sunburst track just built into an unlistenable racket!
lol youre sounding old!
i like the complexcity the way it builds... the energy...
When I say creative peaks I mean when things develop more distinctly than before and are therefore noteworthy and will be much discussed by the music press. I don't feel that developments are always positive to all listeners or that new equals enjoyable.
I like some Disco: the Disco Funk end of things, not the cheesy stuff but that doesn't mean that I was happy that Soul or Funk was sidelined because of it.
I like American House and Garage from the mid-80's but I tend not to like the British and European rave sounds that were inspired by it. Basically what happened with me at the start of the 90's is that I didn't get to hear much new US House and Garage because everyone was hyping the UK stuff and I was pissed off about this because most of the UK stuff was garbage.
im the opposite, i dont like the american stuff, im not keen on house.. much prefer the euro versions
The 90's means Britpop to many people but don't own a Britpop record. I would have a handful of Alternative Rock. I hated Madchester and Britpop and all that Eurodance, (Black Box, Technotronic, 2Unlimited, Snap) and all that Hardhouse or Hardstyle rave crap. I couldn't even stay in a room if rave was playing or even respect anyone who'd listen to it. I've been listening to music long enough to know that stuff isn't anything!
i wasnt keen on madchester, nor grunge, i liked some britpop as it was just another version of my beloved 60's styles.
ed sheeran 'the a team'?.. an example of social comment in pop music. probably not as good as the tracks you mentioned, but times are different now and its not cool to sing about social problems/observations.
Ed Sheeran isn't bad actually. There's a bit of The Killers and the Arctic Monkeys that's good too but it's not in the spirit of the age. That's why so much of the music is bland.
Siouxsie was a fan of Roxy Music. In fact, the nucleus of the Banshees actually met at a Roxy gig. Having said that, I'm one of the people who don't count Roxy, Bowie, Queen as Glam. Sure they dressed glam in the early days but their music was very different.
I think there is a tendency to confuse Glam rock with what was essentially Glitter rock. And that is not fair to the range of music that was part of Glam Rock. Roxy Music were part of it in fact Ferry was so obsessed with up market glamour he became part of it.
However Eno and Bowie were glam artists too and took different directions.
I always understood punk to be a reaction against the music that preceded it, which was sometimes called pub rock: bands who were musically proficient, but not interested in prog-style technical wizardry, and with strong American influences: country, blues and soul. There was more emphasis on traditional songwriting and musicianship and very little interest in stagecraft or any of the other aspects of glam.
As Wikipedia says, pub rock was knocked out of the park by punk, but it was the genre that spawned Elvis Costello and Ian Dury. It also gave us Graham Parker and the Rumour, one of the finest live bands of the late seventies.
I think Dr Feelgood were part of that short-lived pub rock scene but they were admired by the punks. In fact was the unpretentious nature of pub rock not one of the factors that meant it appealed to punk bands? Was it not the pretentious, over the top nature of the rock behemoths like ELP, Pink Floyd and even Zeppelin that punk was a reaction against?
i see siouxsie as anti-glam, punk was (as has been mentioned) a rebelion against music that preceeded it. did early punks like some glam? likely, siouxsie may well have done, it was that or prog or rock or soul.
but wasnt it just kids being cheeky towards older people? i dont know what you experience with glam fans was, but they were the younger teens, my generation, whilst older teens/adult wouldnt touch glam...it was kids stuff... a fad, a gimmick.
I see Glam and Pub Rock as important precursors to punk and new wave. There are some who say that's all wrong and punk was really inspired by American bands like The Velvet Undergound, Iggy and The New York Dolls. Maybe they are right. All it says to me is that the early 70s had an incredibly rich pop music culture quite unlike today.
its only quality if you like it though... elton john meant nothing to me...i never understood why a piano player should be getting a fan base... well maybe il being abit unfair, sure he did some catchy pop tunes i guess.
but no, he wasnt a glam artist. he was an artist who used contemporary fashions...
He didn't mean that much to me either although listening back to the early stuff I was surprised how good it sounded.
but i dont think that todays pop is worse then that in the 70's... its different, music was more polarised then, the good was arguably very good, the bad was really bad. we dont have as much choice or variety nowdays, but we do have better produced, more polished pop tracks. and we dont have the utter crap that some of the 70's produced.
I don't hate all modern music. There are some groups I like for eg, The Pierces. What do you think of them? I think they've got some great harmonies in their songs. Their sound reminds me a bit of the Mamas and the Papas. Also Goldfrapp. I thought Strict Machine was excellent.
I don't hate all modern music. There are some groups I like for eg, The Pierces. What do you think of them? I think they've got some great harmonies in their songs. Their sound reminds me a bit of the Mamas and the Papas. Also Goldfrapp. I thought Strict Machine was excellent.
yeah they are ok...
my fav goldfrapp track is 'train'
i dont hate all 70's music, i dont like all modern music...by a mile, i just dont think modern music overall is any better nor worse then 70's music. im bored of dated 70's music though, hence i like the modern favs over the 70's favs.
there was more variety in mainstream in the 70's... there was a succession of fresh new youth movements it was an exciting time and thats whats lacking nowdays. but that doesnt mean the actual material was superior.... i mean, which car is the best, the original model t ford or whatever the latest ford car is? i guess the answer is that they are both good in the areas they belong.
i can understand younger people getting into older music because they dont like the modern styles...i did exactly that in the early 70's through the glam/prog/philly era.
but i think what modern music lacks in originality and the strength of variety in mainstream, is made up for by vastly improved production techniques and a slicker product.
i dont like coldplay, but arent their records decent enough pop songs? i dont think muse or kasabian produce inferior material to what most early 70's glam groups did. like i said earlier... the bottom line is that its down to personal taste.
ive not heard that before... i see what you are saying, but for me it lacks something that 'everyday' delivers. it has more depth and the euphoric drops make it work for me.
now then... the issue here is that whilst this is good music, it doesnt mean anything to me as i cannot relate to it.
i guess im not as sophisticated, but hey, i can live with that! lol
ultimately, it is pop that like... pop that the brits are buying/producing , pop music in all its forms to some degree or another. THATS what has been the backdrop to my life and why 'era appropriate' music applies to me. hence i want to remember the good times in 2014 with music from today, not some 40 year old track which has already got its place in my lifes memories.
i dont hate all 70's music, i dont like all modern music...by a mile, i just dont think modern music overall is any better nor worse then 70's music. im bored of dated 70's music though, hence i like the modern favs over the 70's favs.
there was more variety in mainstream in the 70's... there was a succession of fresh new youth movements it was an exciting time and thats whats lacking nowdays. but that doesnt mean the actual material was superior.... i mean, which car is the best, the original model t ford or whatever the latest ford car is? i guess the answer is that they are both good in the areas they belong.
i can understand younger people getting into older music because they dont like the modern styles...i did exactly that in the early 70's through the glam/prog/philly era.
but i think what modern music lacks in originality and the strength of variety in mainstream, is made up for by vastly improved production techniques and a slicker product.
i dont like coldplay, but arent their records decent enough pop songs? i dont think muse or kasabian produce inferior material to what most early 70's glam groups did. like i said earlier... the bottom line is that its down to personal taste.
Decent summary.
I just tend to think we start with personal taste.
I think Goldfrapp were the first artists to make me think that I preferred the sound of the original music they were clearly influenced by.
I think Muse and maybe Kasabian are modern day Glam bands? I really like Muse.
I think Coldplay produce very good pop songs and they have worked with one of the original Glam artists, Eno, in the process. But they're not U2.
I think Dr Feelgood were part of that short-lived pub rock scene but they were admired by the punks. In fact was the unpretentious nature of pub rock not one of the factors that meant it appealed to punk bands? Was it not the pretentious, over the top nature of the rock behemoths like ELP, Pink Floyd and even Zeppelin that punk was a reaction against?
I'm sure that was part of it, but also the pub rock bands were musically conservative and more interested in old-school songwriting, which the punks abhorred. If anything the punk bands were more interested in avant-garde and prog rock (I remember one of The Damned saying in an interview that they used to wear false moustache-and-sunglasses outfits as a tribute to Mike Ratledge from Soft Machine). John Lydon's famous appearance on Capital Radio gave a very interesting insight into his musical taste: track list here and recording of the show part 1part 2 and part 3.
I'm sure that was part of it, but also the pub rock bands were musically conservative and more interested in old-school songwriting, which the punks abhorred. If anything the punk bands were more interested in avant-garde and prog rock (I remember one of The Damned saying in an interview that they used to wear false moustache-and-sunglasses outfits as a tribute to Mike Ratledge from Soft Machine). John Lydon's famous appearance on Capital Radio gave a very interesting insight into his musical taste: track list here and recording of the show part 1part 2 and part 3.
I guess punk could not come out of a complete musical vacuum.
I've read about John Lydon's listening habits before, so there is little that surprises me on that list. There's a healthy dose of reggae and of course John Cale and Lou Reed (perhaps the biggest influences on punk/new wave). Of course the music that Lydon did with the Pistols and PiL probably makes him as important an influence in music as anyone on that list!
Decent summary.
I just tend to think we start with personal taste.
I think Goldfrapp were the first artists to make me think that I preferred the sound of the original music they were clearly influenced by.
I think Muse and maybe Kasabian are modern day Glam bands? I really like Muse.
I think Coldplay produce very good pop songs and they have worked with one of the original Glam artists, Eno, in the process. But they're not U2.
u2 were 80's though really, i know they started in the 70's but cannot be called a 70's band.
yeah i chose muse and kasabian, whos material i consider to be akin to slade/sweet , i dont really care for them much but can see the appeal. hence i dont think modern music is as bad as many would have us believe..... i cannot get past the old mantra ive heard since the 60's 'music was better in my day. blah de blah de blah'.
im not bothered who did what first, im not a deliberate fan of anyone, nor any era or sound. if i likes summut, i likes it, regardless of who it is or what year it was out. so goldfrapp and gaga, borrow heavily from glam/retro but ill not hold that against them IF they do it well. and imho goldfrapp and gaga make damn good pop. i like some of their material, not others.
Comments
ha ha... you threw me with listing groups.
theres no significance... youre making it sound like glam was a subversive movement. all it was was dressing up as daft as you could and having a larf... it was daft., and half the people 'glamming up' did so because it was the fashion of the day. roxy for eg, werent real glam acts, just acts who were around at the glam era so adpoted a more sober attitude then some did.
i was at school when glam was big, in my last years. i mixed with glam fans.... there was nothing subversive about their attitude, rockers, skinheads, suedeheads, and after i left school punks, anarchists, mods... they were subversive to a degree or another, but glam rock fans were just kids out for a laugh.
unlike you to patronise... but yes i know all that sir!
hmmm.... i was only a boy in the 60's so itshard for me to tell. from my memory, pop music has always been frowned upon as not 'real' music. it was for 'the kidz' and reprisented youth culture/rebelion. so i dont think that generally it was holding a more elevated status at the time. its only now, when pop music is deeply ingrained in our culture that we look back and recognise the great artists, the ones who have influenced, so if anything the 60's is more reveered now then what it was at the time.
not my idea of quality either, and neither is glam, but some tracks do get into the cultural psyche and in some cases even more now then they did then. perhaps the most noticable example being 'the ace of spades'. very well known now but at the time was only a minor hit. dancing queen, come on eileen, mama mia, being other examples of tracks that have lasted. i dare say gangnam style, and something or two by gaga will do the same thing.
The Cure weren't New Romantics. They were post-punk, first coming together (under other names) in 1976.
Robert Smith: "...when punk came came along I found my generation's music. When I first saw The Stranglers I thought "This is it". And then I saw the Buzzcocks the following week and I thought "This is definitely it."
I know what you're saying about it being a transitional year. I've often thought that before. By 1975/76 Glam was on its last legs but Disco and Punk hadn't really taken off although there were some Disco hits about like 'Love to love you baby' by Donna Summer, 'You should be dancing' by the Bee Gees. Having said that fashions or movements don't die out overnight and they don't suddenly take off overnight so 75/76 was a time when Glam, Disco and Punk were all around at the same time. In that sense you'd think 76 would be a great year.
Anyway how can you slag off a year with Girls Girls Girls by Sailor in it:D.
Actually I left a whole lot out of that bit, must have been tired. I was going to throw in The Mission and The Sisters of Mercy and suggest that all that Gothic rock stuff was influenced by Glam.
It's funny but I saw The Cure at the Ulster Hall in the late 70s playing with Siouxsie and they were clearly a post- punk band as you say, short hair and denims. But then a year or so later I see them with makeup and the goth look and I think did they copy someone? Alice Cooper perhaps? And I imagine Robert Smith just walked into a band practice one day and suggested they all put on makeup. It just looked so contrived. So although I like a lot of their music I have always had this doubt that there is a cynical side to The Cure.
Still doesn't undermine the essential point about the influence of Glam.
Glam was irreverent, that's subversive in itself. They also brought theatre and art to pop. So glam wasn't just the glitter acts who were having a laugh. I think there are many who would like to exclude Roxy, Bowie and Queen from the glam tag. But just because Roxy and Bowie went to art school or the equivalent doesn't preserve them from a dalliance with glitter. And it's not a bad thing, the carnival holds an important position in cultural theory. Bread and circuses and all that.
Well, UK and US experience were a little different. Dylan touched a chord when he sang that 'The Times are a-Changing' and it was picked up in the counter culture reflected in civil rights, flower power and Rolling Stone magazine. The upshot being that pop music was understood as being culturally significant maybe for the first time. It was real music.
Arguably it took a little longer in the UK. Although i'm not sure it was that long. It was all about the swinging 60s. It was a more optimistic time, sex laws were changed and drugs were popular. They were liberated times and I think it was reflected in pop music. It is definitely reflected in the music of The Beatles and The Who.
You have been espousing the quality of modern music but I can safely say not one of those artists could produce a 'My Generation', 'A Day in the Life' or 'Waterloo Sunset'.
If sales equate quality the Spice Girls are better than En Vogue and Take That are better than the White Stripes (in terms of the UK anyway). A couple of us have posted a selection of records which were released in '76, so, regardless of some indifference from the teeny-boppers at the time because they caught 'between movements', great music was happening. The obsession with the top 40 singles chart on this DS forum in general gives the same skewed view of music as a whole as the content of the Radio One playlists would.
Sticking to what you're likely to hear on daytime radio (chart music) I think, in a nutshell, 'ItsNick' possibly feels that in 1976 some great tracks were on regular rotation, whereas in 2014, there would be precious little that would appeal to him. It can seem that way when you are bombarded with the super-prevalent, in-your-face, overcompressed, techopop-R&B-Dance-blend mess, where in many cases, the songs are weak as hell beneath all the production. Now I rarely head anything I could listen to on the daytime shows, so I understand when people think mainstream music (i.e. all that they even seem to hear) has gone to the dogs.
I know this question wasn't directed at me but I want to comment on it.
Personally I don't see weak years, I only have an awareness of music - I see things in terms of sublime music, very good music, music that is good enough to buy, music that is of little interest to me (which I won't buy) and music which is horrible that I want to switch off or escape from.
So, to assess the worst year from the 70's, musically (and it would be a 100% personal choice based on what I like), I'd have to go through what I have, then I'd have to consider the good releases I don't have and then try to estimate bulk, year by year.
I'd probably need a week to devote to it and at the end of it, I wouldn't even see the point because I like records based on how they sound and everything else is just statistics. What I could say though, off the top of my head, is this: if you offered me the music I want/own from the first half of the decade of the 70's, or that from the second half, I'd take the first half...
... and it has absolutely nothing to do with Punk or Glam Rock because I rarely listen to either. They are just two facets amongst everything that was going on.
To be fair, probably not *nothing* but I tend to listen to Radio 4 in the car (or CDs) and at home it will be CDs and records, or downloads from music blogs and YouTube, on the computer. I absolutely don't want to listen to those banal daytime radio shows. I actively avoid them! I know enough of what they play and what they never play to not want to waste my life hearing it. But like everyone else I still hear them by accident.
In the context of the mainstream, quite probably but like you've said, you didn't dig to see if you could unearth anything more satisfying.
Oh yes, and I see nothing wrong with that - they were prolific and heavily involved in creating their music. I guess I got hip too quick.
I've heard *of* Café del Mar but that's as far as it goes. I'll try to give those ones you posted a listen. I do like some 90's music which comes under the dance umbrella - De'Lacy's "Hideaway", Masters at Work, Joi Cardwell, Vaness Daou, Ultra Naté, Romanthony, L'il Louie, Barbara Tucker etc. Mostly American House music. (There's loads more than that but I haven't really been digging through that stuff for quite a while, concentrating on older stuff).
Right I've listen to the trance. It's too fast for me. The Agnelli & Nelson I preferred out of the three. The Sunburst track just built into an unlistenable racket!
Here's some dance music which is guitar music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZZOKCeyiwg
and some jazz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0N_hd0drIc
When I say creative peaks I mean when things develop more distinctly than before and are therefore noteworthy and will be much discussed by the music press. I don't feel that developments are always positive to all listeners or that new equals enjoyable.
I like some Disco: the Disco Funk end of things, not the cheesy stuff but that doesn't mean that I was happy that Soul or Funk was sidelined because of it.
I like American House and Garage from the mid-80's but I tend not to like the British and European rave sounds that were inspired by it. Basically what happened with me at the start of the 90's is that I didn't get to hear much new US House and Garage because everyone was hyping the UK stuff and I was pissed off about this because most of the UK stuff was garbage.
This caused me to become detached from listening to dance genres to a great extent and go through the 90's with New Jack Swing/ R&B, Hip Hop and Ragga being the newer sounds I was checking.
The 90's means Britpop to many people but don't own a Britpop record. I would have a handful of Alternative Rock. I hated Madchester and Britpop and all that Eurodance, (Black Box, Technotronic, 2Unlimited, Snap) and all that Hardhouse or Hardstyle rave crap. I couldn't even stay in a room if rave was playing or even respect anyone who'd listen to it. I've been listening to music long enough to know that stuff isn't anything!
goths were inspired mainly by siouxsie... she popularised the look, the point is though was siouxsie inspired by glam? i see her style as 'anti-glam'.
i dont regard alice cooper as glam either , his forray into make up was possibly the first 'anti-glam' style.
not sure how being irrelevant can be subversive, i doubt 95% of the population could give a flying fcuk who they were, what they dressed like, nor what they played.
but we arent comparing todays acts with the best of the 60's! my point has always been that in comparison to the 60's, the 70's material overall was inferior.
and you talk about 'the 70's as if it was one big club... but there was sharp divisions within the 70's by fans of differing styles. dont forget music was far more polarised then, you either liked this style or that style, very few people liked whatever appealled to them.
you champion glam... but rock fans, prog rock fans, soul fans, hated glam! you were looked down on if you 'followed the charts', until punk came along and made singles cool again.
Well you judge what Siouxsie thought of Glam. Here's a very short summary of glam and punk. Note who Siouxsie is pictured with.
And here's Siouxsie doing a rough version of 20th Century Boy. . I would suggest that punk was influenced by glam and was perhaps anti-glam in a fashion sense. Punk was a lot of things.
I said irreverent which at that time was against the serious hard rock/prog brigade.
I mentioned the 60s to show that in the US that was the first decade to take pop music seriously. The songs I mentioned were used to suggest why pop music should be considered alongside poetry and literature and film. But if you read the reviews sections of quality newspapers today, you will find computer games and apps are there as well. In that sense the new youth have more cultural artefacts to interest them than music.
Look how many computer music mags there are these days and then look at the charts and see how many songs are boys with their toys getting girls to sing for them, Chase and Status being a good example. That's the pattern and I'm not sure what it means.
I was reading through a review of a new album by Bright Light Bright Light, a nom de plume for Rod Thomas a modern, highly rated songwriter and 'Life is Easy' is album of the week. There is a track on the album with Elton John on it. Nowadays you can simply go to Spotify and listen to the album which I did. I thought it was very melodic, not overly melancholy but very unadventurous in terms of its electronics.
And then I thought I wonder what Elton John (also a bit of a glam artist) sounded like at about that time in his career. So I put on Tumbleweed Connection and yeah what do you find? so much better. 'Where to now St Peter' , Love Song, 'Madman Across the Water' haven't dated at all. Perhaps it is unfair to compare but it was that thing about quality in the 70s and now.
Siouxsie was a fan of Roxy Music. In fact, the nucleus of the Banshees actually met at a Roxy gig. Having said that, I'm one of the people who don't count Roxy, Bowie, Queen as Glam. Sure they dressed glam in the early days but their music was very different.
I've always though Alice Cooper just carried on where Arthur Brown left off http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en1uwIzI3SE
I always understood punk to be a reaction against the music that preceded it, which was sometimes called pub rock: bands who were musically proficient, but not interested in prog-style technical wizardry, and with strong American influences: country, blues and soul. There was more emphasis on traditional songwriting and musicianship and very little interest in stagecraft or any of the other aspects of glam.
As Wikipedia says, pub rock was knocked out of the park by punk, but it was the genre that spawned Elvis Costello and Ian Dury. It also gave us Graham Parker and the Rumour, one of the finest live bands of the late seventies.
Here's some pub rock:
Brinsley Schwarz - Surrender to the Rhythm (Nick Lowe on vocals)
Here's Graham Parker in full-on righteous preacher mode:
Hey Lord Don't Ask Me Questions (Brinsley "Brinsley Schwarz" Schwarz on rhythm guitar)
Stick to Me
i see siouxsie as anti-glam, punk was (as has been mentioned) a rebelion against music that preceeded it. did early punks like some glam? likely, siouxsie may well have done, it was that or prog or rock or soul.
appoligies...my bad
but wasnt it just kids being cheeky towards older people? i dont know what you experience with glam fans was, but they were the younger teens, my generation, whilst older teens/adult wouldnt touch glam...it was kids stuff... a fad, a gimmick.
i dont do computer games, but have been surprised by my lads mentioning tracks i never thought theyd hear.
its only quality if you like it though... elton john meant nothing to me...i never understood why a piano player should be getting a fan base... well maybe il being abit unfair, sure he did some catchy pop tunes i guess.
but no, he wasnt a glam artist. he was an artist who used contemporary fashions...
absolutely... as i see it whatever fashion style we talk about... there was those true leaders of that fashion (music and dress) then there were 'the rest' who merely dressed in the style of the day. slade, t rex, sweet, glitter, wizzard, were the main artists who lead the movement. alice cooper and lou reed were just contemporary americans to glam.
no no noooo ... that had been going on long since. johnny kidd and the pirates, dave dees mob... and others, did that long before glam
ed sheeran 'the a team'?.. an example of social comment in pop music. probably not as good as the tracks you mentioned, but times are different now and its not cool to sing about social problems/observations.
i accept some of that, but low sales = disinterest in the music produced.
id suggest that the quantity of quality was down in 76... which does make it a poor year, a bad one if you didnt like the stye produced.
its no point in going on about what might have happened outside the charts... like em or not, they are a useful, consistent, means of measuring the music scene over the last 60 years.
theres a difference between sales of an individual act and sales of the whole scene. sales of an individual act only serve to point to their popularity at and given point in time as our old bickering friend unique will tell us. but when you apply sales firgures to and given time period, its a measure of the popularity of the music of that era. 76 = low sales, 76 = low popularity / disinterest in the music produced.
dont get me wrong here...im not saying we are in a golden age for music, ive argued against that recently! pity the protagonists for modern music arent here to defend it better then i want to.
but i dont think that todays pop is worse then that in the 70's... its different, music was more polarised then, the good was arguably very good, the bad was really bad. we dont have as much choice or variety nowdays, but we do have better produced, more polished pop tracks. and we dont have the utter crap that some of the 70's produced.
fair play, thats your pov...
i have radio 1 o9n in my van.. yes the dj's are banal...or am i just old? but every so often ill hear a good tune, i am a grumpy bastard and i am hard to please...but a few times a year a melodious track will grab me.... like one republic 'counting stars', a great melodic uplifting pop song. sooner hear that then billy dont be a hero, get down, summer nights, pushbike song...etc etc.
ive always viewed the charts and radio as the shop window to the current scene. i think that was pretty fair in the past...but not now.
lol youre sounding old!
i like the complexcity the way it builds... the energy...
im the opposite, i dont like the american stuff, im not keen on house.. much prefer the euro versions
i wasnt keen on madchester, nor grunge, i liked some britpop as it was just another version of my beloved 60's styles.
heres a few of my faves
veracocha - carte blanche
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6KFq8s2fgg
sunburst - eyeball
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dORrHvh4PY4
agneli and nelson - everyday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-le1F3WwCY
[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lne4izAcT5w Except that it came 30 years before and is less repetitive
People have dressed up to perform for a long time before that. It's the oppositional and artistic nature of glam that makes it different.
And I've seen The Pirates on numerous occasions. They were much like the pub rock bands mentioned above.
Ed Sheeran isn't bad actually. There's a bit of The Killers and the Arctic Monkeys that's good too but it's not in the spirit of the age. That's why so much of the music is bland.
I think there is a tendency to confuse Glam rock with what was essentially Glitter rock. And that is not fair to the range of music that was part of Glam Rock. Roxy Music were part of it in fact Ferry was so obsessed with up market glamour he became part of it.
However Eno and Bowie were glam artists too and took different directions.
I think Dr Feelgood were part of that short-lived pub rock scene but they were admired by the punks. In fact was the unpretentious nature of pub rock not one of the factors that meant it appealed to punk bands? Was it not the pretentious, over the top nature of the rock behemoths like ELP, Pink Floyd and even Zeppelin that punk was a reaction against?
I see Glam and Pub Rock as important precursors to punk and new wave. There are some who say that's all wrong and punk was really inspired by American bands like The Velvet Undergound, Iggy and The New York Dolls. Maybe they are right. All it says to me is that the early 70s had an incredibly rich pop music culture quite unlike today.
I think that's how my kids seem to know a lot of rock and rap music.
He didn't mean that much to me either although listening back to the early stuff I was surprised how good it sounded.
I don't hate all modern music. There are some groups I like for eg, The Pierces. What do you think of them? I think they've got some great harmonies in their songs. Their sound reminds me a bit of the Mamas and the Papas. Also Goldfrapp. I thought Strict Machine was excellent.
yeah they are ok...
my fav goldfrapp track is 'train'
i dont hate all 70's music, i dont like all modern music...by a mile, i just dont think modern music overall is any better nor worse then 70's music. im bored of dated 70's music though, hence i like the modern favs over the 70's favs.
there was more variety in mainstream in the 70's... there was a succession of fresh new youth movements it was an exciting time and thats whats lacking nowdays. but that doesnt mean the actual material was superior.... i mean, which car is the best, the original model t ford or whatever the latest ford car is? i guess the answer is that they are both good in the areas they belong.
i can understand younger people getting into older music because they dont like the modern styles...i did exactly that in the early 70's through the glam/prog/philly era.
but i think what modern music lacks in originality and the strength of variety in mainstream, is made up for by vastly improved production techniques and a slicker product.
i dont like coldplay, but arent their records decent enough pop songs? i dont think muse or kasabian produce inferior material to what most early 70's glam groups did. like i said earlier... the bottom line is that its down to personal taste.
ive not heard that before... i see what you are saying, but for me it lacks something that 'everyday' delivers. it has more depth and the euphoric drops make it work for me.
now then... the issue here is that whilst this is good music, it doesnt mean anything to me as i cannot relate to it.
i guess im not as sophisticated, but hey, i can live with that! lol
ultimately, it is pop that like... pop that the brits are buying/producing , pop music in all its forms to some degree or another. THATS what has been the backdrop to my life and why 'era appropriate' music applies to me. hence i want to remember the good times in 2014 with music from today, not some 40 year old track which has already got its place in my lifes memories.
Decent summary.
I just tend to think we start with personal taste.
I think Goldfrapp were the first artists to make me think that I preferred the sound of the original music they were clearly influenced by.
I think Muse and maybe Kasabian are modern day Glam bands? I really like Muse.
I think Coldplay produce very good pop songs and they have worked with one of the original Glam artists, Eno, in the process. But they're not U2.
I'm sure that was part of it, but also the pub rock bands were musically conservative and more interested in old-school songwriting, which the punks abhorred. If anything the punk bands were more interested in avant-garde and prog rock (I remember one of The Damned saying in an interview that they used to wear false moustache-and-sunglasses outfits as a tribute to Mike Ratledge from Soft Machine). John Lydon's famous appearance on Capital Radio gave a very interesting insight into his musical taste: track list here and recording of the show part 1 part 2 and part 3.
I guess punk could not come out of a complete musical vacuum.
I've read about John Lydon's listening habits before, so there is little that surprises me on that list. There's a healthy dose of reggae and of course John Cale and Lou Reed (perhaps the biggest influences on punk/new wave). Of course the music that Lydon did with the Pistols and PiL probably makes him as important an influence in music as anyone on that list!
u2 were 80's though really, i know they started in the 70's but cannot be called a 70's band.
yeah i chose muse and kasabian, whos material i consider to be akin to slade/sweet , i dont really care for them much but can see the appeal. hence i dont think modern music is as bad as many would have us believe..... i cannot get past the old mantra ive heard since the 60's 'music was better in my day. blah de blah de blah'.
im not bothered who did what first, im not a deliberate fan of anyone, nor any era or sound. if i likes summut, i likes it, regardless of who it is or what year it was out. so goldfrapp and gaga, borrow heavily from glam/retro but ill not hold that against them IF they do it well. and imho goldfrapp and gaga make damn good pop. i like some of their material, not others.