Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Why do I hate the 1970s so much?

Status
Not open for further replies.
On the Monkees:

You have to take the group as the whole of the parts - this includes the session muscians and the writers (Weill/Mann, Goffin/King, Diamond, Boyce/Hart and others) As a collection of artists they made it work. Was it a ripoff? Did it devalue the music? Not a fair question. The boys did put up fight to play their own instruments, but Kirschner was hired to take care of the musical end of things and wanted complete control (most of the writers, you'll notice, are from The Hit Factory). Nesmith, a songwriter before the Monkees, was only allowed to contribute a few of his great songs like Papa Gene's Blues and You Just May Be the One.

The Beatles are often cited as the downfall of music in an odd way. A rarity, they were musicians who were able to write hit after hit, some like A Hard Day's Night on demand. (They needed a title song in 10 hours and came up with what I've always thought was the greatest rock and roll song ever) When they were a huge success, the record labels began to rely less and less on tin pan alley and more on the bands they signed, even though most of the bands could only write a few great tunes each year. If you look back at the lps from this era, you'll notice that it marks the birth of 'filler' material. The forces behind The Monkees were simply using the old tin pan alley method, what had been successful since the invention of the victrola, to make the group shine. Perhaps in the end there was nothing really wrong with that.

Finally, I think it's easy to dismiss performers like The Beatles, Sinatra, and Elvis these days. We're so far removed from their time that we have forgotten how innovative they were. When you remove the hype from all of them - when you forget about the fans, the hysteria, the endless press releases - the fact is these people made great records. And as far as dismissing any musicians because they smoked reefers, maryjane, spliffs, blunts or whatever else they called it over the years, you'd probably have to dismiss 90 percent of 20th Century musicians. You really think the boys in the Glenn Miller Orchestra weren't smoking pot? Let's put away those rose colored glasses again.

Regards,

Senator Jack
 
Senator Jack said:
On the Monkees:

You have to take the group as the whole of the parts - this includes the session muscians and the writers (Weill/Mann, Goffin/King, Diamond, Boyce/Hart and others) As a collection of artists they made it work. Was it a ripoff? Did it devalue the music? Not a fair question. The boys did put up fight to play their own instruments, but Kirschner was hired to take care of the musical end of things and wanted complete control (most of the writers, you'll notice, are from The Hit Factory). Nesmith, a songwriter before the Monkees, was only allowed to contribute a few of his great songs like Papa Gene's Blues and You Just May Be the One.

The Beatles are often cited as the downfall of music in an odd way. A rarity, they were musicians who were able to write hit after hit, some like A Hard Day's Night on demand. (They needed a title song in 10 hours and came up with what I've always thought was the greatest rock and roll song ever) When they were a huge success, the record labels began to rely less and less on tin pan alley and more on the bands they signed, even though most of the bands could only write a few great tunes each year. If you look back at the lps from this era, you'll notice that it marks the birth of 'filler' material. The forces behind The Monkees were simply using the old tin pan alley method, what had been successful since the invention of the victrola, to make the group shine. Perhaps in the end there was nothing really wrong with that.

Finally, I think it's easy to dismiss performers like The Beatles, Sinatra, and Elvis these days. We're so far removed from their time that we have forgotten how innovative they were. When you remove the hype from all of them - when you forget about the fans, the hysteria, the endless press releases - the fact is these people made great records. And as far as dismissing any musicians because they smoked reefers, maryjane, spliffs, blunts or whatever else they called it over the years, you'd probably have to dismiss 90 percent of 20th Century musicians. You really think the boys in the Glenn Miller Orchestra weren't smoking pot? Let's put away those rose colored glasses again.

Regards,

Senator Jack

I dunno, kind of sounds like you are saying leave the Mokees alone. They didn't really do anything. They were just a formulaic group with puppet masters pulling their strings. They sure took the money though.
The Beatles, where to start. :eusa_doh: Ok how about here: OB LA DI OB LA DA. Who really likes this song? Is it really a song? :eusa_doh: Its one of the most inane songs I have ever heard. Was it the Beatles who wrote it or was it George Martin? Who even wants to take the credit? :eusa_doh: I am sure they wrote When I am 64 too. :rolleyes: The Ballad of John and Yoko? Has to be the most navel gazing title for a song I have ever seen. :eusa_doh: Paul and Ringo must have been thrilled with that one.
'I am the Walrus, I am the Egg man, Coo coo ca choo' or something involving Puff the Magic Dragon. Were they trying to be funny? Or were they just happy to come up with any old hash to disguise the fact that they had run out of ideas? I could go on and on with examples of stuff they wrote that was inane, repetitive and formulaic as they come. They weren't really musicians--they were personalities. There is a difference. To even compare them with Elvis or Sinatra is really going out on a limb.
As for drug use and musicians, yes other musicians may have been high as a kite on drugs---even Glenn Miller and the entire Orchestra but the trick was performing and playing like you weren't. The Beatles never mastered that with rose colored glasses or bongs. :eusa_doh: :p
This puts us back into the 1960s though and the Beatles broke up in 1970 (1964 to 1970 wow, what a long time :rolleyes: ). Kind of outside the scope of this thread. Back to why I hate the 1970s---bean bag chairs. :eusa_doh: :p
 

Atomic Glee

Practically Family
Messages
628
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Another reason the '70s weren't so bad:

ghia.jpg


My other car - though to be honest, it's a '50s design that went unchanged into the '70s. So, maybe it doesn't count. :)
 

happyfilmluvguy

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,541
I am finding it very interesting how almost everyone in this thread hates the 70s based on it's appearance. Too much hate, not enough love. How's that for the 70s!

Today we commemorate the death of Andy Kaufman. He too, was one of many in the 70s.
 

Maj.Nick Danger

I'll Lock Up
Messages
4,469
Location
Behind the 8 ball,..
happyfilmluvguy said:
I am finding it very interesting how almost everyone in this thread hates the 70s based on it's stereotypical appearance.
The seventies was all about stereotypes. Or maybe I should say it was about marketing the stereotypes. Everything that became popular in the seventies was grabbed by the media and the military-entertainment complex, and then exploited to it's fullest potential. I think it was the beginnings of the all too earnest crass materialism we see running so rampant in the world today. :mad:
(End of rant :eek: )
 

happyfilmluvguy

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,541
I think we criticize too much on stereotypes. We as human beings have been swelled up by so many stereotypes that we forget what these times were really like. We look at the movies or the music to define them. Or we emphasize the highlights. They were so much more than drugs, intercourse and bell bottoms. Just as the Golden Era was so much more than suits, dresses, and class.

Also, I deleted the word "stereotypical" because I felt that was going to far. After reading a lot of the posts, I felt not all were about the stereotypes of the 70s. I hope you will delete it as well. :)

I think I can honestly say that those of you who were old enough to notice the 1970s in the 1970s knew it was much more than this.

And isn't general marketing all about stereotypes? :p
 

Rafter

Suspended
Messages
436
Location
CT
Maj.Nick Danger said:
Hey,...I wanted to be a Monkee, or at least one of the Banana Splits.
But I was too young to grow the sideburns. :p

MajorDanger, What 'bout H.R. Pufnstuff!

This 1970's TV show was like Banana Splits on acid!


pufnstuf.jpg
 

Absinthe_1900

One Too Many
Messages
1,628
Location
The Heights in Houston TX
happyfilmluvguy said:
I am finding it very interesting how almost everyone in this thread hates the 70s based on it's appearance. Too much hate, not enough love. How's that for the 70s!

It was the polyester fumes that did it.

Just imagine how many people were permanently damaged by orange shag rugs, and plaid bellbottoms.:p
 

Dr Doran

My Mail is Forwarded Here
Messages
3,854
Location
Los Angeles
Rafter said:
MajorDanger, What 'bout H.R. Pufnstuff!

This 1970's TV show was like Banana Splits on acid!


pufnstuf.jpg

H.R. Pufnstuf rocked my world. Sid and Marty Kroft.
The Kroft Superstars.
LAND OF THE LOST with the green creatures webbed to the cave walls. "Marshall, Will, and Holly, on a routine expedition..."
DR. SHRINKER - HE'S A MADMAN WITH AN EVIL MIND.
Loved that stuff.

Then again, I was 7.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
109,311
Messages
3,078,633
Members
54,243
Latest member
seeldoger47
Top