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 agree with TweakGeek, mostly. And, everyone else has made some good points. I think that a major force in music's demise is big money. The same with sports. I have found that my favorite artists have become people who have been ultimately screwed by the big labels and are now making music because they enjoy it (Colin Hay(.com), Colin Vearncombe(.com), etc...). I no longer listen to music on the radio or look for it on TV. The more popular it is the more likely I am to hate it. But, that's always been true to a point.

Brad Day
Atlanta, GA
I would agree with TWL that the best of rock was over by 1973-74. However, there are people still around that say there hasn't been any good music written since the early 50's. I think as much as anything is what age group you are in - when were you 17-25 years old? What made rock special from the mid-60s to the early 70s was how I could personalize and how much time I had to invest in listening (and partying). Certainly rock has changed over the years but tell our children that there isn't anything good coming out now and they will disagree.
I would disagree about Paul McCartney's contributions since going solo. He has put out many good albums. They are basically like the old Beatles with just McCartney songs. Throw the proper mix of Lennon, Harrison, and even Starr songs and you got the Beatles. Maybe all McCartney albums are boring compared to the Beatles but he still has written alot of good music over the years. In St. Louis, tickets went for between $89 - $250 this past October.
I do agree that everything has become too commercial - too much corporate pressure to pop out albums. Not enough artistic suffering to generate art/music with feeling....
Tweakgeek you sound like one unhappy camper. The best thing that ever happened to me after 1971 was getting turned on to jazz. It started with McCoy Tyner or Roland Kirk, and it took a while to get it, but I know I'd be one sad puppy if I was still trying to find value among the ruins of rock & roll. My CD's are a treasure to me. I'd way glad the format came along.
I think a lot of this is age related. People rarely like the next wave after they started listening. People who grew up in the fifties seldom have any use for the music of the sixties and so on down the line.

TWL mentioned that he was losing interest around '73. I only began listening to Rock and Roll about the time most of you were checking out of the scene. There were. in my mind anyway some very interesting things going on in this period. None of it would have been "Pop" or probably even a commercial success. King Chrimson, Yes, ELP, and Jethro Tull were hitting their stride at this point. You may or may not like them, but they were very creative. Different eras produced a different product. I have been buying music from many of these groups (and attending concerts) ever since.

I was finishing up my second round of college in the early 80's and there was some music I really enjoyed, but a lot of it was MTV trash! Ultravox and U2 were very a refreshing change from the drivel Madonna and Romeo Void were foisting on the listing public.

Now that I'm getting older I really dislike much of what is coming out. Record companies complain about lost sales from people downloading what they want to hear. I'm sure the lack of sales has more to do with the quality of music available than other poor quality sound mediums.
BUT what do I know???
To me, Rock was becoming formulated in the early 70s. Gone were the sitars, harpsichords and guitarist's own distorted, yet distinctive styles of playing. The creativity and diversness was amazing from '64 to '69. If one were to look at a AM radio playlist from that period, they would be in awe of the eclectic music one could hear. Soundtrack titles, mild psychedelia, folk, soul, lounge...just to name a few. And then came FM(WOR in '67)! Whole sides of albums in stereo and no commercials.
But, it seems that after Woodstock, Madison Ave. and record producers jumped on the "hippie" bandwagon. Soon the words celebrate, rock n" roll and something to do with a peaceful exsitence dominated lyrics.

This, for me, made rock unadventurous and well, disappointing. Luckily, this void turned my ears to the world of jazz, international, classical and those import bins filled with bands I never heard of. The adventure started again.

And yeah, I know... what the hell is a harpsichord doing in rock and roll in the first place ?!?!.