Skip to main content

Seventies music mythbusting

For a long time I've been puzzled by the assertion that seventies music was rubbish. (Clothes, yes, that I'll admit.) Much of my favourite music originated in the 1970s - I couldn't see why people were so snide about it.

It's only recently I've realized the reason for this. Seventies pop music was garbage. Truly awful. (But then that's true for the pop of most decades.) Seventies rock music, which is what I'd always listened to, was a whole different kettle of fish.

I'm not going to burden you with a huge list, but think of Pink Floyd, Yes and Genesis. Or, with a lighter touch, 10cc and Supertramp. If you're feeling a little folky, how about Jethro Tull, Al Stewart and Simon & Garfunkel? Or for sheer style, the remarkable music produced by Curved Air at their best. I think, if I had to pick my top three albums ever they would be Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here, Supertramp's Crime of the Century and Curved Air's Second Album.

Of course it's still possible to attack music of that period. Some of it was overblown, grandiose and self-important. (But then, have you ever listened to Wagner?) Other examples were failed experiments. But much of it was great in a way that has rarely been equalled.


  1. I sorta went 'WTF!' for a second there - scanned it too quickly and thought you were saying that the linkes of Pink Floyd were garbage!

    A 'proper' read set me straight - and I agree with you.

    Wish you Were Here IS a great album, and so was Dark Side - although some of the later ones were superb too - even without Roger Walters - tracks like On the Turning Away and Comfortably Numb ... "when I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse, out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone. I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone"

    One of the sadest few lines - and one that have me determined to never have my son think.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou