1980 was pretty great too but I would tend to agree.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 12:57pmWhether it died or not in 1979 is an arguable point. That 1979 was the last mind-splitting, great year for popular music is not arguable. For all the various books that have come out in recent years focusing on this year or that as "the greatest in the history of rock," that nobody has taken up 1979 is remarkable and suggests a slavish reliance on mainstream/chart music in making arguments.
"1980-- The year rock and roll died"
- Heston
- God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
- Posts: 38370
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
- Location: North of Watford Junction
Re: "1980-- The year rock and roll died"
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116590
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: "1980-- The year rock and roll died"
Mind your elders, juggalo!matedog wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 1:40pmDefinitely arguable.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 12:57pmWhether it died or not in 1979 is an arguable point. That 1979 was the last mind-splitting, great year for popular music is not arguable. For all the various books that have come out in recent years focusing on this year or that as "the greatest in the history of rock," that nobody has taken up 1979 is remarkable and suggests a slavish reliance on mainstream/chart music in making arguments.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- 101Walterton
- The Best
- Posts: 21973
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
- Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific
Re: "1980-- The year rock and roll died"
1980 was great however it was a continuation of the good things that came in 1979.Heston wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 2:23pm1980 was pretty great too but I would tend to agree.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 12:57pmWhether it died or not in 1979 is an arguable point. That 1979 was the last mind-splitting, great year for popular music is not arguable. For all the various books that have come out in recent years focusing on this year or that as "the greatest in the history of rock," that nobody has taken up 1979 is remarkable and suggests a slavish reliance on mainstream/chart music in making arguments.
Re: "1980-- The year rock and roll died"
I love 1979 desperately. It was incredibly exciting to live through and spoiled me for everything else. That being said, I also loved 1981, 1983, 1989, 1990, 1994 and 1996. Do I love them as much? Probably not. But I think claiming London Calling and The River, two very backward-looking and conservative (maybe even reactionary) albums, were the end-all be-all doesn't really cut it for me.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 12:57pmWhether it died or not in 1979 is an arguable point. That 1979 was the last mind-splitting, great year for popular music is not arguable. For all the various books that have come out in recent years focusing on this year or that as "the greatest in the history of rock," that nobody has taken up 1979 is remarkable and suggests a slavish reliance on mainstream/chart music in making arguments.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116590
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: "1980-- The year rock and roll died"
It's a neat question whether we want to discuss music or think about our relationship with the past more broadly. Is history something that nurtures and provides comfort by demonstrating continuity, that life isn't just a random series of events; or is it something we have to get past, that all the limitations on our possibilities are informed by the past (Marx: "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.") Is LC something that helps confirm the value of rock music, or is it reactionary, especially amidst the amazing explosion of post-punk that was self-consciously forward-looking? My head says reactionary, my gut says the fucker validates the best elements of rock (and some of the worst—"Lover's (ugh) Rock"). And it's because it operates in those two contrary ways that it's succeeded to me for so many years. But you look to S! and "Radio Clash," and it's hard to think that Joe and especially Mick looked around and felt LC was not any type of forward-looking statement and made a course correction.IkarisOne wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 6:16pmI love 1979 desperately. It was incredibly exciting to live through and spoiled me for everything else. That being said, I also loved 1981, 1983, 1989, 1990, 1994 and 1996. Do I love them as much? Probably not. But I think claiming London Calling and The River, two very backward-looking and conservative (maybe even reactionary) albums, were the end-all be-all doesn't really cut it for me.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 12:57pmWhether it died or not in 1979 is an arguable point. That 1979 was the last mind-splitting, great year for popular music is not arguable. For all the various books that have come out in recent years focusing on this year or that as "the greatest in the history of rock," that nobody has taken up 1979 is remarkable and suggests a slavish reliance on mainstream/chart music in making arguments.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: "1980-- The year rock and roll died"
I think both albums can fairly be called reactionary, but in the sense they were both conscious reactions against the music their respective peer groups were making by reaching for the comforts of the past. I think both albums were very much out of step with what was happening at the time, which was probably part of their appeal. I've read some very interesting interviews with Mike Appel, who was very disappointed in Springsteen stripping down all the complexity that made his music interesting in favor of this platonic ideal of American rock 'n roll that Jon Landau had fixed in his head. Springsteen was definitely responding to the Clash, ironically in that Joe was originally responding to Springsteen.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 6:39pmIt's a neat question whether we want to discuss music or think about our relationship with the past more broadly. Is history something that nurtures and provides comfort by demonstrating continuity, that life isn't just a random series of events; or is it something we have to get past, that all the limitations on our possibilities are informed by the past (Marx: "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.") Is LC something that helps confirm the value of rock music, or is it reactionary, especially amidst the amazing explosion of post-punk that was self-consciously forward-looking? My head says reactionary, my gut says the fucker validates the best elements of rock (and some of the worst—"Lover's (ugh) Rock"). And it's because it operates in those two contrary ways that it's succeeded to me for so many years. But you look to S! and "Radio Clash," and it's hard to think that Joe and especially Mick looked around and felt LC was not any type of forward-looking statement and made a course correction.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116590
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: "1980-- The year rock and roll died"
Right, and we can then go down goofy rabbit holes to wonder whether being reactionary to the vanguardist impulses of all their peers makes LC dynamic in its own way. That is, if everyone is being self-consciously forward-looking, does being traditionalist then become the more interesting and radical move? Or do we just tie ourselves up in intellectual knots?IkarisOne wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 8:52pmI think both albums can fairly be called reactionary, but in the sense they were both conscious reactions against the music their respective peer groups were making by reaching for the comforts of the past. I think both albums were very much out of step with what was happening at the time, which was probably part of their appeal.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 6:39pmIt's a neat question whether we want to discuss music or think about our relationship with the past more broadly. Is history something that nurtures and provides comfort by demonstrating continuity, that life isn't just a random series of events; or is it something we have to get past, that all the limitations on our possibilities are informed by the past (Marx: "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.") Is LC something that helps confirm the value of rock music, or is it reactionary, especially amidst the amazing explosion of post-punk that was self-consciously forward-looking? My head says reactionary, my gut says the fucker validates the best elements of rock (and some of the worst—"Lover's (ugh) Rock"). And it's because it operates in those two contrary ways that it's succeeded to me for so many years. But you look to S! and "Radio Clash," and it's hard to think that Joe and especially Mick looked around and felt LC was not any type of forward-looking statement and made a course correction.
Those discreet conversations that the public isn't especially meant to listen in on fascinate me. In a way, they seek to escape history and just exist as artists talking to one another, but they can never break free. And in the case of both Broooos and Joe, they were so entwined by American myths while playing at being social realists. Which isn't necessarily a criticism—myths have valuable inspirational power—but both trafficked in the realm of being truth tellers.I've read some very interesting interviews with Mike Appel, who was very disappointed in Springsteen stripping down all the complexity that made his music interesting in favor of this platonic ideal of American rock 'n roll that Jon Landau had fixed in his head. Springsteen was definitely responding to the Clash, ironically in that Joe was originally responding to Springsteen.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: "1980-- The year rock and roll died"
Well, one thing I can say is that in Boston at least, London Calling had an extremely short shelf life. I started listening seriously to college radio in the summer of 1980 and you never- I mean ever-- heard anything off it played. Even Bankrobber-- I think I heard it played once or twice on WERS.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 9:20pmRight, and we can then go down goofy rabbit holes to wonder whether being reactionary to the vanguardist impulses of all their peers makes LC dynamic in its own way. That is, if everyone is being self-consciously forward-looking, does being traditionalist then become the more interesting and radical move? Or do we just tie ourselves up in intellectual knots?IkarisOne wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 8:52pm
I think both albums can fairly be called reactionary, but in the sense they were both conscious reactions against the music their respective peer groups were making by reaching for the comforts of the past. I think both albums were very much out of step with what was happening at the time, which was probably part of their appeal.
I think the whole "Clash sold out" mantra was pretty standard in those circles and you only heard them on WBCN, which at the time was a distant second ratings-wise to the horrible cock-rock station WCOZ. That was an incredibly reactionary time overall, with shitty arena rock --and particularly southern boogie bands like Molly Hatchet and 38 Special-- being very popular in the suburbs.
Unfortunately, The Clash fell between two poles-- too mainstream for the college rock set and too punk for the reactionary rock revanchists. When the hardcore h-bomb dropped in 1981, forget it. Year Zero rules were in full effect.
What's really interesting is how that arena rock reaction was the last gasp of the late Boomers and that it was almost gone by 1982 and totally evaporated by early 1983. WCOZ vanished sometime in there and the other hard rock station --WAAF in Worcester-- was full tilt New Wave by mid-1983. I think they shifted back toward the new wave of HM by 1984 though.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116590
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: "1980-- The year rock and roll died"
From your memory, was this part of a general rejection or disinterest in UK acts, or were the Clash (or at least LC) notable for their absence? I mention this because the usual narrative is that UK bands didn't really crack the American market until MTV, and that was because more UK bands were producing videos, so they had an immediate advantage. So I'm a bit curious about whether the Clash stood out for their absence.IkarisOne wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 9:54pmWell, one thing I can say is that in Boston at least, London Calling had an extremely short shelf life. I started listening seriously to college radio in the summer of 1980 and you never- I mean ever-- heard anything off it played. Even Bankrobber-- I think I heard it played once or twice on WERS.
Shot by both sides, so to speak. It's sadly amusing that it would take that horrible rag Rolling Stone to force wider recognition of LC years after the fact. Strange allies.Unfortunately, The Clash fell between two poles-- too mainstream for the college rock set and too punk for the reactionary rock revanchists. When the hardcore h-bomb dropped in 1981, forget it. Year Zero rules were in full effect.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: "1980-- The year rock and roll died"
Well, in the college rock and club scenes there was a tremendous interest in UK acts. Siouxsie, Bauhaus, Killing Joke, XTC, PiL, Gang of Four, Stiff Little Fingers, Joy Division, Ultravox, Human League, Simple Minds etc etc etc.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 10:22pmFrom your memory, was this part of a general rejection or disinterest in UK acts, or were the Clash (or at least LC) notable for their absence? I mention this because the usual narrative is that UK bands didn't really crack the American market until MTV, and that was because more UK bands were producing videos, so they had an immediate advantage. So I'm a bit curious about whether the Clash stood out for their absence.IkarisOne wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 9:54pmWell, one thing I can say is that in Boston at least, London Calling had an extremely short shelf life. I started listening seriously to college radio in the summer of 1980 and you never- I mean ever-- heard anything off it played. Even Bankrobber-- I think I heard it played once or twice on WERS.
The Clash were just seen as a mainstream band by those folks at that point.
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116590
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: "1980-- The year rock and roll died"
Audiences are a funny, funny lot.IkarisOne wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 11:51pmWell, in the college rock and club scenes there was a tremendous interest in UK acts. Siouxsie, Bauhaus, Killing Joke, XTC, PiL, Gang of Four, Stiff Little Fingers, Joy Division, Ultravox, Human League, Simple Minds etc etc etc.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 10:22pmFrom your memory, was this part of a general rejection or disinterest in UK acts, or were the Clash (or at least LC) notable for their absence? I mention this because the usual narrative is that UK bands didn't really crack the American market until MTV, and that was because more UK bands were producing videos, so they had an immediate advantage. So I'm a bit curious about whether the Clash stood out for their absence.IkarisOne wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 9:54pmWell, one thing I can say is that in Boston at least, London Calling had an extremely short shelf life. I started listening seriously to college radio in the summer of 1980 and you never- I mean ever-- heard anything off it played. Even Bankrobber-- I think I heard it played once or twice on WERS.
The Clash were just seen as a mainstream band by those folks at that point.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: "1980-- The year rock and roll died"
Well, Boston. Puritanism and all.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Jan 2020, 7:06amAudiences are a funny, funny lot.IkarisOne wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 11:51pmWell, in the college rock and club scenes there was a tremendous interest in UK acts. Siouxsie, Bauhaus, Killing Joke, XTC, PiL, Gang of Four, Stiff Little Fingers, Joy Division, Ultravox, Human League, Simple Minds etc etc etc.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 10:22pmFrom your memory, was this part of a general rejection or disinterest in UK acts, or were the Clash (or at least LC) notable for their absence? I mention this because the usual narrative is that UK bands didn't really crack the American market until MTV, and that was because more UK bands were producing videos, so they had an immediate advantage. So I'm a bit curious about whether the Clash stood out for their absence.IkarisOne wrote: ↑15 Jan 2020, 9:54pmWell, one thing I can say is that in Boston at least, London Calling had an extremely short shelf life. I started listening seriously to college radio in the summer of 1980 and you never- I mean ever-- heard anything off it played. Even Bankrobber-- I think I heard it played once or twice on WERS.
The Clash were just seen as a mainstream band by those folks at that point.
And it was every bit as hypocritical, seeing as how all these hardcore luminaries who badmouthed The Clash were always right up front when they came to town...