The Biggest Disappointments in Rock and Roll


The history of rock music is a tale of squandered talent, over-hyped failures, and missed opportunities. In too many instances, the portend of greatness is followed by the all-too dismal reality. Here are my nominations for the biggest disappointments in rock.

1.The 80’s: 1976 through 1980 were the most exciting and innovative five years in the entire short history of rock music. Even though, by 1980, the punk revolt had petered out, there was an exciting “anything is possible” buzz in the music scene. The two minute, three chord, punk song had given way to some astonishing experimentation. I was enjoying noises as diverse as Gang of Four, Joy Division, Throbbing Gristle, Public Image Limited, and The Clash.
So, what happened? The airwaves were not conquered by these “post-punk”cohorts. Instead, it was the execrable “as if punk never happened” crew (e.g., Duran Duran, Huey Lewis and the News, Culture Club) that came to dominate. Hip-hop was the only music flourishing in the 80’s that broke new ground. Considering the promising way the decade started (i.e., 1980), it sure turned into a rotten decade for pop music.

2.The CD: The compact disc promised clean, crackle-free sound in a durable format (albeit at a higher price). It s soon became apparent that it was sonically inferior to the cheaper format that it had replaced. The compact disc rendered a sound that was sterile, compressed, and cold. Perhaps it was a fitting format for the cold, sterile synthpop of the day. Think about how much personal computers have improved in twenty years. It is truly scandalous that state of the art audio circa 1976 (i.e., a Linn Sondek turntable w/ all-tube amplification) has not been so dramatically improved upon. The compact disc was supposed to be a great leap forward. We got screwed.

3. Paul McCartney’s Solo Career: While there has since been a critical reappraisal in favor of John Lennon, at the time of the Beatle’s disintegration, it was McCartney who was believed to be the superior songsmith. His imminent solo career was awaited with the highest of expectations. While his solo career cannot be dismissed as a total failure, nobody is calling it an artistic triumph. “Silly Love Songs” and “Ebony and Ivory” do not a legend make.

4. US interest in Jamaican music died along with Bob Marley

5. The solo work of Led Zeppelin members: From the early to mid 70’s, Led Zep dominated the music scene. With the interesting exception of Robert Plant’s most recent album, none of the surviving members have released anything worth buying.

6. The Sex Pistols tour of The United States: This was supposed to be The Big One. Instead, they went to San Francisco, and proceeded to bite The Big One.

7. Elvis Presley’s post Sun Records music

8. The Stone Roses: After releasing what was, without a doubt, the most brilliant and beautiful album of the second half of the sorry ass 1980’s, this most promising of all bands then, as Monica Kendrick would put it, dropped the soap in the showers of the big record company. Barred from recording anything for nearly ten years, they sat out the Britpop explosion that they had created. When they did eventually get around to releasing a follow-up, it was nothing but some lame 70’s style guitar rock rehash. The Stone Roses remain rock’s greatest one-album wonder.

9. “End of the Century” (The Ramone’s Phil Spector produced fifth album): I wanted so much to like it. I was, and still am, an obsessed fan of both the Ramones and Phil Spector. The trouble was, it just didn’t work. It sounded trite, forced, and artificial. The tracks bespeak blatant toadying to the tastes of AOR programmers. Sure, it got more airplay than the previous Ramones releases; but at what price? This awkward disc didn’t give them the superstardom that their previous records should have earned them. The only thing worse than selling out is selling out, and finding no buyers.

10. The Ron Wood era Rolling Stones: Mick Taylor was by no means a first-division player when he was recruited for The Stones. However, with him on board, the Stones produced their very best work. Ron Wood was an established A-list player when he joined the band. At the time, the expectation was not only that, with Woodie on the team, The Stones could make records comparable to “Sticky Fingers” or “Exile on Main Street, ” it was even suggested that they would thus be able to make even better records! Instead, the Stones degenerated into a campy, overpriced, touring nostalgia act; kind of like a post-greaser Sha Na Na that charges 150 bucks a ticket.
tweakgeek
I'm 40 and the music of today bores me senseless.From '76 onward with the whole wave scene,Echo and the Bunnymen,Joy Division,Magazine,Gang of Four(neo marxist funk),The Meteors,even the Housemartins(who where Marxist's too)and then to Sonic Youth,The Pixies,Jesus Lizard,Nirvana,the idea was always sonically to kick the corporate induced sellouts squarely in the nuts,I'm trying to imagine Korn Biscuit,the Strokes/Hives/Green day et al doing anything radical/intelligent-maybe burning their bra's.I may be, gulp, middle aged but I'm still angry.
Give me The Strokes over the crummy Housemartins anyday.
Their socialist tendenacies seem to have went down the pan with Norman Cook's hedonist lifestyle and Paul Heaton's drunken thug street style.
Things weren't always better believe me I was there......
I'll give you that.I was there too,but the whole scene today is so bland, clearcut radio who own more than a third of U.S.radio today won't allow anything more challenging than the usual, boy meets girl under a silvery moon crap.Britney Spears on the cover of rolling stone(deliberate lower case)not that it was ever radical-I mean they even had norman mailer writing perodically for them,but I digress,she's sells millions of small aluminium discs-how?Is there that much money in babysitting today?I'm glad I'm not 21 today, their culture is so corporate controlled,and everyone trying so differently to look the same,ironically enough I'm still radical,insofar as i don't have tattoos,my tongue /nose/eyebrows are not pierced and I'm not prominent in a crowd!
Yes Mingus but it's always been thus...the 80's were the same,The Strokes are every bit as original as the Bunnymen i.e not very but like The Bunnymen they are passionate about what they do.
Live The Strokes are miles better than the Bunnymen ever were.
The 80's were full of Britney-like superstars-Madonna was seen as much the same at the time.
Things have got worse overall I'll give you that but plenty of kids are switched on,as are this generations artists who care about such things.........
Compared to the lame commercial fare that has become a festering sore...the Strokes do standout...but then anything (slightly) against the grain does...they look cool(in a GAP ad kind of way)...and some of their songs are catchy...they are a garage version of the Bay City Rollers!