Re: I was recently reminded of how bad the 80's were
posted at 3/8/2012 1:19 AM EST
In Response to Re: I was recently reminded of how bad the 80's were
[QUOTE]Not to get picky but Dire Straits was a 70s band. Their first record, I believe, dropped in 1978. Definite 70s band, with roots tracing back to the early 1970s. Also, they were sort of JJ Cale meets Elvis or something. Very unique band who didn't hit it big until MTV, ironically. I think even the Pretenders were well underway in the 1970s, too. The Cars are another. 10,000 Maniacs to this day are arguably the best band to come out of the 1980s. U2 and REM as well. I said it above, over and over. Of course, there are exceptions. But, in no way, are the bands I just listed junk or in the same vein of the garbage that was processed out of the 1980s. Go back to my first post and I clearly introduce my opinion as to WHY things went into overdrive in say, 1976. Disco is one reason, but also the industry was changing in that arenas were now used for shows, stadiums and the festival idea came into play, which meant more bands on a bill, etc. It made it easier for bands to get notoriety and sell even if they weren't that good. You could catch fire with one single and that was all you needed. A Day on the Green, for example in Oakland CA in 1976, is a perfect example. The festival is a way to make a lot of money in one shot. It's almost foolproof for promoters and the people/bands involved if it's priced well and marketed well. This, in a nutshell, started to water down music. Some might argue, the 1950s were all about rado and singles, which is true, but radio was also new, at least in terms of using it as a way to market onself. So, it's not fair to compare. Once the 1960s hit, making albums were clear artforms and the men were separated from the boys, no doubt. This is why the late 70s and a regression sort of sets up the weak 1980s. Prior to this era, the only way for bands and artists to communicate with fans was to make a record pretty much EVERY YEAR. Their tours on those albums were the platform to generate the revenue needed. Even the big bands and artists had to have it. That's why some records had 8 tracks on them. Today, that doesn't even make some artist's final tracklistings. They'd release a record per year, around 8 or 9 tracks, some of it not ebven that good, but sometimes half of it was filler. When did the big artists or bands start to stumble? IMO, it was the mid 1970s. Almost every band that started in the 1960s, started to put out filler albums. This is mostly due to their peak eras as artists fading (lasts generally about 6-8 years), but it's also because the record companies knew they could market an album with filler, a cover and 2 makeshift singles as well. Just look at Led Zeppelin for example: 1. 1975 Physical Grafitti: Double album. True piece of art, arguably their best record. 2. Pressure to follow that up, record company wanted another immediately, 1976's Presence. Not a real good album, most of it filler, but 2 solid singles or radio friendly type songs to sell the record. My cut off point is 1975, basically. The transition away from the art standing on its own and it becoming more manufactured started in the late 1970s, which set up the 1980s. MTV only put this concept into overdrive. Again, IMO, it was a combo of gimmick genres like disco and punk, sort of merging with this thing that everyone called "new wave" at the dawn of the MTV era, which in turn buried the good stuff. This is not to say all punk or new wave was bad, just that it was a fad sort of thing. Disco was just horrendous, IMO, but I can totlly dig why some wanted it to dance to, party with, etc.
Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]
I guess it depends on how you're defining it. The Straits' debut album came out in '78, but the recorded three -- including, IMO, their best with "Brothers in Arms" -- in the '80s. So I guess it's how you interpret it.
With the Pretenders, no debate there. Their first album (again, their best, IMO) came out in '80.
It really sounds like we agree more than we disagree.