Rock Music: 1951-1976 vs. 1977-2003

UncleJeff: I think that there are many people that would agree with you, but possibly in a different way. From my point of view, what was good and innovative in the 60's and early 70's began to stagnate. As such, many of the "youth" began to rebel against "corporate" rock and started their own "musical revolution". We know it today as "punk rock" and it obviously had a pretty big impact on both musicians and the music industry as a whole.

Looking back now, i "hated" much of what was "corporate" hard rock back then and gladly embraced the "rebellion" of punk. When i was a freshmen in 1978, i was one of two "punk rockers" in the whole 1000+ student high school. While the other guy had an older brother that played in the now famous band called "Ministry", there was literally nobody around that was into most of the music that i really liked. Most of this was due to lack of exposure on the part of others, so i was constantly lending out LP's. I did this so that "rockers" could actually find out that it was possible to share thought, emotion and energy in a record without having to listen to 30+ minutes of mindless lyrics and guitar wanking.

Sitting here and thinking about all of this, i feel kind of like a hypocrite. Not only do i enjoy many of the "legends" that i was "diss'ing" back then ( Zepplin, Sabbath, Floyd, etc... ), i now have a tendency to criticize the music and youth of today. In effect, the "rebellious punk has become a member of the establishment". I know that there are others here that are in similar shoes, but it sure doesn't feel very good to think of being one of those that the youth of today call "Mr Suit" ( which was a GREAT song by the way ). After reading some of the other comments and reviewing the one that i made regarding cutting off "rock" after about 1988, i've come to the realization that i either need to get out more often and go to different shows or agree to die a slow death while still walking on two feet. As such, i'd rather be the "old codger" yelling with the kids at a show than to be the "old bastard" yelling at the kids from the porch. Know what i mean ?

Maybe i need to dig a little deeper and find some GOOD "alternative" music to what is no longer "alternative" but simply "corporate". Most of the crap on the radio is no better or different than what i was rebelling against 20+ years ago, so why have i come to accept it as being "okay to listen to" nowadays ? Sean
>

Unclejeff, you're saying that the mid 70's were an interlude in good quality R&R? How can one really argue/debate this?

Jethro Tull (which started recording in '67, but was around much earlier) put out some of their best LPs in the 75-79 years.

It does seem as though R&R did lose its way in there though. At the time when everyone roundly criticised the 'arena' rock bands who no longer played clubs, now this is looked upon as the golden age of concert attendance. This might be due to the fact that many of the groups are no longer around.

I'm going to see Jethro Tull again for the umpteenth time in August, but it's about the show now, not so much about the quality of the music.

We're probably around the same age, just have different perspectives.

Sean, for the most part I couldn't warm up to the 'punk' scene. A lot of attitude, but not much talent! I still like The Clash though!

It seems somewhat silly to be rebelling against the music that allowed you to exist. I understand that it was mostly a political/economic thing, but to castigate other bands for having talent when the punk practiconers had none is self defeating.

This is all opinion anyway, so we're all right! You gotta love a thread whree people disagree and are still right.

I think Clueless is onto something with his hormonal imbalance comment. Music just seems more important when you're a teen/young adult. I think that whatever music you're exposed to during these formative years becomes imprinted on the brain. My age is such that the pre-1977 music is what has been imprinted, but that just means I like the music more, not that it's in any way actually better than post-1977 rock.

It's my observation that over the years rock music has alternated between periods of simple and complex music. The earliest rock was heavily R&B based with tinges of jazz (Johnny Otis, Ike Turner, etc.). It was relatively complex music to play. Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and others (doo-wop vocal groups) simplified this music to the point where, quite literally, any reasonably talented kid could pick up a guitar and play their songs. But within a few years the music become complex again. The early sixties witnessed Phil Specter's wall of sound. Lavish arrangements with full horn and string sections performed by top level studio musicians. The British invasion represented a return to a relatively simple musical form. A few years later rock becomes complex again with art rock groups (Yes, King Crimson) and disco. YES, disco is complex. If you doubt me, listen to Donna Summer's "MacArthur Park", or better yet get a guitar or bass and try to play anything by Chic. Three chord music it ain't. Punk & rap are obvious returns to simplistic music. You still needed talent to produce music, but punk & rap allowed relatively unskilled musicians to make music. By the mid to late 80s the music was still somewhat simplistic, but the skill level required to make it was quite high with the guitar pyrotechnics of Van Halen, Anthrax, Metallica and Steve Vai dominating. The grunge sound brought the musicianship back to a more humanly manageable level. The boy/girl bands and urban R&B sounds that followed are examples of complex music. It may sound simple, but it's a heavily produced music that requires a substantial level of musical skill to play.

At its core rock has been a very democratic music. The people producing the music are not that different than the people listening. Whenever it appears that the two groups greatly diverge, then the music returns to a simpler, more easily played/produced form. I think this is how rock is able to periodically reinvent itself. I can't imagine that any of rock's early pioneers could have envisioned the music lasting for fifty years.

Well Nirchy, I think I covered myself quite well as Jethro Tull was one of the three or four bands I gladly referanced as an exception to my laments concerning the mid-70's Rock. This was Clapton's forgettable years (okay Layla was really good): Wings bubble-gum time, Sex Pistols and the source of my local radio station's Friday 13th playing of the "Hits From Hell"

Again, I understand the weakness of over generalizing, but I think that the mid 70's represented the weakest link in what has turned into 50+ years of Rock. Other than the Moody Blues, and Pink Floyd, what album truly moved us all since McCartney's first solo venture--at least until the (very!) late 70's.

I don't include Motown, James Tayler, the BeeGees etc., as being representitive of rock. These are the departures I spoke of in my first posting.

For me, it is pretty simple. On one side, you have the Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Creedence Clearwater, James Brown, Steely Dan, Joni Mitchell, Van Morrison, Neil Young, and many others recording at the height of their artistic powers.

Who would like to try composing a list to compete with that in the second category (post 1977)? Yes, punk and alternative exploded around this time, but how many really believe that the Clash, Sex Pistols, and X are far superior artists to their forebearers, the Velvet Underground, the Stooges, and the New York Dolls?

Normally, I have no patience with those who insipidly claim that older is better by definition. Moreover, I believe that there is plenty of good music at any given time for anyone with the determination and resources to find it. But in this case, the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the earlier period. The Beatles and Stones alone seal it--add in the others, and it is no contest.

And let's not even get started with jazz...