THE GREAT 70's TRANSITION : DREAM IS OVER

Years: 1970 - 1980 - ???

After the  80's it can be considered as "Dinosauric Rock" 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a very ambiguous era, because it does not represent a genre per se, but rather the gap left by hippie psychedelia after it faded away in the late 60s following the failed Altamont concert and the death of its most emblematic figures, either physically (Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Brian Jones and Jim Morrison) or symbolically (The Beatles, Cream, Creedence, The Mamas & The Papas, Simon & Garfuinkel...). The psychedelic color had already shown a slowdown from 1968 onwards, given the rise of Blues Rock and Roots Rock (Creedence, the White Album, Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed), but the idealism, the hippie utopia was still latent, not necessarily with music full of zithers and a Californian sound. While rock evolved, as we saw in previous installments, into Progressive and Hard Rock, which would later evolve into Metal, the colorful hippie niche was left without direction. These sounds had a more pop than blues base; their songs were perhaps more melodic and less dependent on the instrumental virtuosity of their members. Above all, they were inspired by a message of Love and Peace that was no longer credible in the face of the disillusionment of seeing no achievements. The spread of the Vietnam War, the harsh political backlash from the US government against the protesters, the return of soldiers addicted to harder drugs that soon replaced LSD among the youth, the 27 Club, the Stones' shift during this period, after Jones' death, to a more bluesy and artistic rock, and the disintegration of the greatest band in history, made clear what Lennon himself said in his Plastic Ono Band: "Dream Is Over." The same old game of putting flowers on rifles couldn't continue, and psychedelic music was exhausted, so new directions had to be sought for pop. Psychedelia proved definitive, not only for music, but for the course of history itself. It had enormously important cultural effects, but perhaps they weren't immediately detectable. They might have been more perceptible years later, with the triumph of women's liberation, birth control, the recognition of racial equality, the final withdrawal of troops from Vietnam... victories that didn't have an armistice date, but that were won. All these effects would take time to be seen, and the air of disenchantment led to the lyrical content diminishing, becoming more pessimistic or reactionary, or simply focusing on the rosy and superficial side of life. Instead, the possibilities for creating pop music expanded enormously, independent, I insist, of the major currents that dominated the early 1970s.​

​

Another issue is that in the early years of the decade, we lived more or less in the shadow of the ex-Beatles, waiting to see what they would do, what direction they would take, if a miraculous reunion would happen. Individually, of course, they no longer had such a huge impact, but they undoubtedly had a huge influence on the development of pop. Lennon, with his fierce, reactionary, and biting lyrics, was a figure who politically inspired many musicians, a figure to follow, perhaps more ideologically than musically, but his reputation grew until he retired to become a housewife in 1976, and he represents those who tried to remain rebels, whether lyrically or musically. Paul, with his melodic quality, his cleaner worldview, practical and commercial rock-pop, full of hooks, with a surprising facility for creating good albums and surrounding himself with good musicians, managed to become the artist who sold the most millions of copies until the arrival of Michael Jackson and Madonna and the definitive prostitution of pop. George released a huge triple album, the best album by an ex-Beatle, full of spirituality that other artists would later take up, and then he released some good albums until he gradually lost himself in his various hobbies; and Ringo... We love Ringo! Hahaha.

​

 

It's not a rule, of course, but the three main ex-Beatles set the tone for what pop would be like in those years: Lennon's rock-pop was more driven by political undertones, protest, and lyrical delivery than by structure or musical ease. Lennon didn't really care so much whether the song was melodic or a hit; he cared about the substance. And in that regard, for example, one can relate to David Bowie, Roxy Music, T. Rex, Bruce Springsteen, Brian Eno, Lou Reed, Tom Waits, Peter Frampton with his excellent guitar playing, and in some ways even Elton John at that time. I insist, I'm not talking so much about stylistic similarities, but rather about a feisty pop that wasn't content with just playing love songs with the book itself, but rather sought greater lyrical or musical depth.

​

Paul McCartney, on the other hand, represents another side of rock-pop, more committed to the melodic and musical aspect than to seeking to revolutionize. His music is more crowd-pleasing, full of hooks, structured with intelligence and cunning, but without seeking to experiment. There was no question of breaking down barriers; if the formula they'd used had already worked for them, these musicians made few changes throughout their careers, and their lyrics were generally about simple, everyday things. I don't mean to say they're bad musicians; on the contrary, their intentions were more... lighthearted, so to speak. And under McCartney's shadow, there were many artists, such as Billy Joel, Rod Stewart when he distanced himself from the Blues, ABBA, The Eagles (who, although they flirted with Hard Rock on a few songs, their forte was soft and accessible country ballads), the Bee Gees, Bonnie Tyler, Carole King, the seventies-era Chicago, Don McLean, The Carpenters, Badfinger, Klatuu a little later… Elvis himself, upon his return to the stage after a decade of mediocre films, released some good songs in this same vein, now converted into a complacent Las Vegas diva.

​

 

George Harrison, for his part, was more motivated by spiritual impulses, by the search for personal transcendence, and by supporting causes like Bangladesh—not so much political activism like Lennon, but humanitarian. This movement, more inclined toward introspection, spirituality, and social causes, would be followed by musicians like Cat Stevens, Leonard Cohen, Kansas, among others.

​

 

But these early 70s weren't as closely tied to what the Beatles (or Ex-Beatles) did or didn't do as they had been in the previous decade. While their shadow was felt in music, it wasn't the absolute reign it had been in the previous decade, and distancing themselves from them was necessary. Several bands, besides prog and hard rock-metal, began to distance themselves, experimenting on their own, and combining many influences and genres to create sounds that couldn't be pigeonholed anywhere. We can add Queen to this era, having so many influences in their early days that it wasn't strictly hard rock or metal, not strictly prog, but definitely not pop either. It's a very mixed sound, one of transition and searching, which would later evolve into operatic rock in the second half of the decade and into more synth-heavy pop in the 80s. Within this same experimental and hybrid brand, short of prog, we can add Crosby Stills & Nash (& Young), Fleetwood Mac, Supertramp, Blue Oyster Cult, Steele Dan, and Electric Light Orchestra, among those that come to mind.

​

 

On the other hand, the Motown movement also evolved separately, with its own distinct personality, led by Marvin Gaye, and borrowing elements from soul music. New figures, led by James Brown, gave funk enormous traction at the beginning of the decade, with Sly & The Family Stone and Larry Graham standing out. Funk was characterized by its strong rhythmic base and the fundamental figure of the bass, being the genre where the slapping technique was developed, which would later be adopted by other genres. Roger Waters would be one of the first to use it for Pink Floyd's "One of These Days" in the progressive genre. Musicians like Marvin Gaye, Isaac Hayes, and Curtis Mayfield would begin to use dance rhythms, becoming, by mid-decade, the fathers of the disco movement, which would deal a significant blow to rock music. Meanwhile, the Stooges, led by Iggy Pop, the New York Dolls, and MC5 revived some of the Mod sound and gave rise to proto-Punk, which would finally take shape and intensity by mid-decade.

​

 

Ultimately, the greatest characteristic of this early decade was diversity as a pro, but at the same time, the rock movement began to lose unity compared to the previous decade, influenced primarily by the loss of identity as a generation after the fall of the hippie movement. The 1960s had resulted in the record industry taking youth music more seriously as a huge gold mine. After the 1960s counterculture waned, it was even easier to give new artists a chance, to dictate their image, and to apply a degree of censorship to lyrics and attitude. The Counterculture, for its part, began to merge with the Establishment. Demonstrations, protest songs, and massive concerts continued to be frequent, but they lost their real sense of threat to the system and became an increasingly common and unimportant occurrence. Without diminishing the meaning and intention of songs like "Imagine," they were more anthems that placed artists in the "in" spotlight than true generational anthems that shook the system like "All You Need Is Love." There's a lot of interesting stuff in these songs.

​

Following the story of our beloved Rock, this is the part of the teenager who wanders lost in search of an identity after his greatest purpose, his personal utopia, seemed to vanish. Still influenced by it, but searching, snooping, trying to remain true to himself, yet aware that one can't stay stuck in one place all his life... but at the same time, like almost all teenagers, trying to be in everyone's good graces, and perhaps that's the biggest problem of these times. I'm not against Pop, especially when it shows signs of intelligence and some purpose, however small, or when it creates some worthwhile impact. The problem for me is when the sole purpose is to make dollars, when music is prostituted into a business and an image, a springboard to fame and not an artistic expression. This would be the first step. There were definitely some very interesting and substantial things in the early 70s, but if you were wondering why this era was titled, it's for this reason: not only was it the transition to the post-Beatles era, but it would also be the beginning of a transition to the dominance of hollow, purposeless pop, where the Material Girls, the Moonwalkers, the Womanizers, boy bands, and musicians who cared more about choreography, catwalks, and celebrity gossip than creating anything transcendent reigned. Adolescent rock began to take those hesitant steps here, yearning for the acceptance of the beautiful people, badly advised by producers for whom the only valid music was that of the cash registers.

​

 

Still, this era is worthwhile, despite being overshadowed by prog and hard rock. It's not as serious an era as the current one, but it would be definitive for posterity, culminating in the decline of rock in the 80s and the dominance of horrible synth pop and post-new wave. During the 80s and beyond, by the way, it could be considered a variant of this transition, with all the great icons turned into old fogies or "dinosaurs" playing with technology, and releasing some of their worst albums of their entire careers, like McCartney himself, Clapton, The Beach Boys, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Queen, Pink Floyd... In short, almost all of the old guard that dared to try to hit New Wave in the 80s would end up being classified as Dinosaur Rock, with very honorable and few exceptions that I can't remember at the moment.

​

 

We'll be revisiting some of the bands I mentioned near the beginning, although I must point out that it may take some time since I'll be focusing more on Prog and Hard Rock, which seem much more interesting to me during these same years. For obvious reasons, it's impossible to find a compilation of these artists, but most of the ones mentioned are worth a look, in case you find something from them or if you want to discover something on ElTubo.
 

 

 

By Corvan  

Feb/17/2010

​

​

​

​