|
||||||||
70s acts that were big in the 80s |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
|
Quote:
Yes, that's better put. There probably weren't many prog to punk converts (although I was one, a 70s Yes fan). My friends seemed to embrace Rush and then Marillion I remember. I must admit to occasionally listening to Rush.
Quote:
I would suggest that Genesis did repackage the sound writing shorter, more pop oriented songs to complement the longer works. But it did work for them. I think Yes did the same but less successfully.
Pink Floyd's music has its roots in psychedelic and prog rock but they transcend both genres for me. However, I wouldn't argue if they were described as a prog rock band who were successful throughout their career. Whilst there might not be the "pure" Prog bands around today, there are a lot who have a large Prog influence, the obvious ones being the likes of Muse, Radiohead, Elbow, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
Whilst there might not be the "pure" Prog bands around today, there are a lot who have a large Prog influence, the obvious ones being the likes of Muse, Radiohead, Elbow, etc. ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,276
|
Quote:
I think you'd be surprised. Contrary to popular perception most Prog fans have, in general, a very wide and eclectic taste in music, one certainly not limited to Prog. Because Prog covers such a vast palate of music, from folk, jazz, thrash metal, orchestral, etc, there is a lot of cross-over between many genres as far as many prog fans are concerned. So where a Prog fan might initially like Van Der Graaf Generator, it is very likely they will also be open to the wider jazz catalogue.
Most Prog bands cover across various genres, Pink Floyd are one example. Whilst there might not be the "pure" Prog bands around today, there are a lot who have a large Prog influence, the obvious ones being the likes of Muse, Radiohead, Elbow, etc. |
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
|
Quote:
three of the most boring groups around!
![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
But highly successful.
but westlife were successful, doesnt make em good!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: I am here
Posts: 4,757
|
Adam and the ants started out in the 70s and think they just scraped into the 80s when they started to get noticed.
Wondering about Gary Numan. Had to go and look and it was the 70s but Cars was hitting number one in countries in the early 80s but he still had other hits |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,106
|
Quote:
Wondering about Gary Numan. Had to go and look and it was the 70s but Cars was hitting number one in countries in the early 80s but he still had other hits
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
|
Quote:
People tend to associate acts with particular decades but thinking back there were many acts from the seventies which continued to have success in the eighties. I have thought of a few here (some even started in the sixties) but I'm sure more could be added.
ABBA Dire Straits Madness Prince OMD The Cure Too many of those are groups that came out of the late-70s music scene, some barely having their first success before the new decade hit:- * Only Madness' first 3 hits were 1979 * Only OMD's first *single* came out in 1979, the rest was 1980 onwards * The Cure? Aside from reaching #22 in New Zealand in 1979, their first big hit was in 1980 * Dire Straits undoubtedly came *out* of the 70s scene and initially owed a lot to that, but their breakthough was only 1978 * Prince? Had his first hit (by any reasonable definition) in mid-1979 and didn't achieve real, consistent success until about 1982. No way would many people consider him a "70s" artist on that technicality! ![]() * ABBA? Undeniably associated with the 70s, but seriously declined chartwise after 1981, and they'd (effectively) split less than a year later. Considering that the stereotypical 80s only really kicked in around 1981 (1980 still owing a lot to the late-70s as far as mainstream music went) that's not much overlap. Quote:
bib: They had a UK number 1 with "The Model/Computer Love" in 1982 .
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,688
|
Quote:
Yes, that's better put. There probably weren't many prog to punk converts (although I was one, a 70s Yes fan). My friends seemed to embrace Rush and then Marillion I remember. I must admit to occasionally listening to Rush.
John Lydon was a big fan of Van der Graaf Generator and if you listen to Peter Hammill's Nadir's Big Chance, you might notice a striking similarity to Anarchy In The UK. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,106
|
Quote:
Honestly? That's a very poor case.
Too many of those are groups that came out of the late-70s music scene, some barely having their first success before the new decade hit:- * Only Madness' first 3 hits were 1979 * Only OMD's first *single* came out in 1979, the rest was 1980 onwards * The Cure? Aside from reaching #22 in New Zealand in 1979, their first big hit was in 1980 * Dire Straits undoubtedly came *out* of the 70s scene and initially owed a lot to that, but their breakthough was only 1978 * Prince? Had his first hit (by any reasonable definition) in mid-1979 and didn't achieve real, consistent success until about 1982. No way would many people consider him a "70s" artist on that technicality! ![]() * ABBA? Undeniably associated with the 70s, but seriously declined chartwise after 1981, and they'd (effectively) split less than a year later. Considering that the stereotypical 80s only really kicked in around 1981 (1980 still owing a lot to the late-70s as far as mainstream music went) that's not much overlap. FWIW it was 1981, and unlike "Computer Love", "The Model" wasn't from their then-current album, but an older track from 1978's "The Man Machine". (AFAIK this is because it was originally the B-side but became more popular than the A-side, and what drove it to #1). Abba had two number ones in 1980. The Cure released singles killing an Arab and boys don't cry in the seventies. I am interested in the actual 80s, not the "stereotypical" one that erroneously sticks are friends electric on eighties compilations or leaves out nirvana and the stone roses as if the nineties started early. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: I am here
Posts: 4,757
|
Fleetwood mac
Olivia Newton John..country music and grease then xanadu and physical |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
You must have been me in a parallel universe. I loved Yes up until and including Relayer (although not so much Tales of...). Then punk came along, I heard God Save The Queen and immediately hid all my old albums away. I remember buying 2112 by Rush, as it was being hyped up beyond belief in the music press. I tried to like it, but very soon realised it was just about the biggest load of crap I'd ever heard.
John Lydon was a big fan of Van der Graaf Generator and if you listen to Peter Hammill's Nadir's Big Chance, you might notice a striking similarity to Anarchy In The UK. |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
The eighties started on January 1st 1980, if an act released an album or single before then it is perfectly accurate to call them a 70's act. I actually left out a few bands like U2 and Iron Maiden which formed in the 70's because their debut albums didn't come out until 1980.
Abba had two number ones in 1980. The Cure released singles killing an Arab and boys don't cry in the seventies. I am interested in the actual 80s, not the "stereotypical" one that erroneously sticks are friends electric on eighties compilations or leaves out nirvana and the stone roses as if the nineties started early. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,276
|
Quote:
You must have been me in a parallel universe. I loved Yes up until and including Relayer (although not so much Tales of...). Then punk came along, I heard God Save The Queen and immediately hid all my old albums away. I remember buying 2112 by Rush, as it was being hyped up beyond belief in the music press. I tried to like it, but very soon realised it was just about the biggest load of crap I'd ever heard.
John Lydon was a big fan of Van der Graaf Generator and if you listen to Peter Hammill's Nadir's Big Chance, you might notice a striking similarity to Anarchy In The UK. I love Johnny Lydon and all Pistols and PiL works. Will listen to Pete Hamill though, didn't know about that. Quote:
The eighties started on January 1st 1980, if an act released an album or single before then it is perfectly accurate to call them a 70's act. I actually left out a few bands like U2 and Iron Maiden which formed in the 70's because their debut albums didn't come out until 1980.
Abba had two number ones in 1980. The Cure released singles killing an Arab and boys don't cry in the seventies. I am interested in the actual 80s, not the "stereotypical" one that erroneously sticks are friends electric on eighties compilations or leaves out nirvana and the stone roses as if the nineties started early. The Cure's career trajectory starts in punk/new wave era (suggestive of how important the 76-80 period is in UK music) and develops with a shift into New Romanticism of the early 80s but it is all The Cure. The point made earlier is that decades are arbitrary time boundaries and musical and cultural movements don't fit neatly into decades. That is, looking back the 90s in a sense did start early with The Roses and Nirvana. |
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,106
|
Quote:
The point made earlier is that decades are arbitrary time boundaries and musical and cuv v ltural movements don't fit neatly into decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
|
Quote:
true.
but westlife were successful, doesnt make em good! ![]() ![]() Quote:
You must have been me in a parallel universe. I loved Yes up until and including Relayer (although not so much Tales of...). Then punk came along, I heard God Save The Queen and immediately hid all my old albums away. I remember buying 2112 by Rush, as it was being hyped up beyond belief in the music press. I tried to like it, but very soon realised it was just about the biggest load of crap I'd ever heard.
John Lydon was a big fan of Van der Graaf Generator and if you listen to Peter Hammill's Nadir's Big Chance, you might notice a striking similarity to Anarchy In The UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: I am here
Posts: 4,757
|
Beach Boys .. in the 80s without Brian Wilson..maybe spaced out somewheres
they had the 60s, 70s and 80s Nobody say Cliff Richard yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,740
|
Quote:
That is the point I'm trying to make with this thread. Many acts are pigeon holed in retrospect into particular decades but in fact had success quite some time afterwards. For example the most popular British band of the early eighties was arguably the Jam despite being primarily associated with the mod revival of the late seventies, but because that doesn't fit with the popular conception of the early eighties as new romantics and synthpop it is often ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,106
|
The Specials
The Human League |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
|
Quote:
The eighties started on January 1st 1980, if an act released an album or single before then it is perfectly accurate to call them a 70's act.
![]() [quote=dodrade;72769348] I actually left out a few bands like U2 and Iron Maiden which formed in the 70's because their debut albums didn't come out until 1980.[/QUOTE} I think you're implying here that the date of a band's first recorded release (regardless of success) somehow defines the "true" that they originally belong to. In truth, you've still defined it in terms of a self-chosen cutoff point that doesn't count any band (or artistic) activity prior to this, e.g. live shows, unreleased recordings. Why? If an unbiased definition is what you're looking for, surely the only one we can really go for is the decade in which a band was first active in *any* meaningful sense, even if that's just a few small-scale live shows in a pub! Otherwise, you're still imposing your own self-selected cutoff point. Quote:
I am interested in the actual 80s, not the "stereotypical" one that erroneously sticks are friends electric on eighties compilations or leaves out nirvana and the stone roses as if the nineties started early.
The Jam was one of the better cases you made, as they had hits from 1977 onwards and definitely rose with punk (even if they were arguably new wave / mod revival in terms of style)- yet were consistently successful until they split in 1983. ABBA *did* have success into the 80s, but my point was that it declined sharply after less than a couple of years in. The problem is that people use decades as synonyms for artistic eras which *don't* overlap perfectly. But (e.g.) The Stone Roses' breakthrough hit came at the tail end of 1989 and was part of a scene and phenomenon that mostly took place during the 90s, that's why they're considered by most people as a "90s band". What they mean is that they were part of a scene (i.e. Madchester) that mostly took place in the 90s. Nirvana (for example) may have been around in the 80s, but they weren't successful until the grunge scene of the early-90s, and that's why they're a "90s" band. This definition is, of course, in terms of mainstream success and cultural association... but you have to be careful that you're not kidding yourself that *your* definition is more pure and unbiased than it actually is. As I said, if you want to impose a perceived correct and unbiased definition of how things are, you have to take it to its logical conclusion and not simply replace one cutoff point (e.g. first big hits, decade in which artist was most influential, most associated with, etc.) with another (e.g. first *recorded* release). |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,276
|
Quote:
That is the point I'm trying to make with this thread. Many acts are pigeon holed in retrospect into particular decades but in fact had success quite some time afterwards. For example the most popular British band of the early eighties was arguably the Jam despite being primarily associated with the mod revival of the late seventies, but because that doesn't fit with the popular conception of the early eighties as new romantics and synthpop it is often ignored.
Similarly, The New Romantics turning up didn't mean that the mod revival stopped. Anyway The Jam were part of the Punk/new wave movement as well as the mod revival and Paul Weller had a few more influences than either of these movements and The Jam were successful until they stopped. This simply shows the rich tapestry of movements and genres that make up pop through its development. It's the idea that The Jam were a 70s band that seems revisionist. This just ends up being another one of those list threads which are quite popular here. I see there's one doing the same for the 80s and 90s. I presume the 90s 00s will follow? |
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,276
|
Quote:
It's technically accurate, but meaninglessly pedantic!
![]() The problem is that people use decades as synonyms for artistic eras which *don't* overlap perfectly. But (e.g.) The Stone Roses' breakthrough hit came at the tail end of 1989 and was part of a scene and phenomenon that mostly took place during the 90s, that's why they're considered by most people as a "90s band". What they mean is that they were part of a scene (i.e. Madchester) that mostly took place in the 90s. Nirvana (for example) may have been around in the 80s, but they weren't successful until the grunge scene of the early-90s, and that's why they're a "90s" band. This definition is, of course, in terms of mainstream success and cultural association... but you have to be careful that you're not kidding yourself that *your* definition is more pure and unbiased than it actually is. As I said, if you want to impose a perceived correct and unbiased definition of how things are, you have to take it to its logical conclusion and not simply replace one cutoff point (e.g. first big hits, decade in which artist was most influential, most associated with, etc.) with another (e.g. first *recorded* release). The Roses were a fundamental part of a Madchester scene that crossed the decade boundary and the band started in the 80s. That seems more meaningful than being described as an 80s band who were also big in the 90s... |
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Norwich
Posts: 1,213
|
Apologies if already mentioned - The Stranglers
![]() Nice and Sleazy Nice and Sleazy Does it does it does it every time! |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,716
|
Quote:
In think the problem for some of us is that we see that most movements and eras don't fit neatly into decades and it is this '70s acts that were successful in the 80s' or '80s acts that were big in the 90s' tag that seems inappropriate.
The Roses were a fundamental part of a Madchester scene that crossed the decade boundary and the band started in the 80s. That seems more meaningful than being described as an 80s band who were also big in the 90s... |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:19.






