# 10 Reasons Why The '70s Were Rock's Greatest Decade



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

this is courtesy of ultimate guitar



> Every generation has a soft spot for the decade in which it came of age. For rock and roll fans, however, it’s hard to argue that any decade surpassed the ’70s, on a number of fronts. Post-Beatles and pre-MTV, the ’70s occupied a sweet spot where rock and roll was played out on wide-open terrain, and on a field where “genre” had yet to become a catch-word. Below are 10 other factors that made that decade rock and roll’s best.
> 
> Riffs, Riffs, and More Riffs
> 
> ...


10 Reasons Why The '70s Were Rock's Greatest Decade | News @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

Great list - I agree with pretty much everything. The last one seems like a stretch though - a Rolling Stones album? Might be a great album but I don't see where it fits in with the rest of the list.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I got my first guitar in 1963, and later that year heard about the Beatles on Jack Paar, subsequently watching all three Ed Sullivan appearances on Feb 9, 16, and 23, 1964.

And although there are some things from that era I am more sentimentally attached to, and the wheat-to-chaff ratio has changed in the intervening years, I have yet to hear a decade that was bad.


----------



## Decibel Guitars (Oct 14, 2010)

It's hard to argue most of the points on the list, but i would counter with:

*Flat, dead-sounding recordings*

Drums were muffled and dampened to the point where they just sounded like cardboard and tin. Everything sounded sterile and over-produced as producers and bands started fully taking advantage of massively expanded multi-track recording. Too many layers, too many overdubs, too many harmonized vocals... which brings me to my next point...

*The Album-Oriented Rock format*

This middle-of-the-road rock format epitomized the over-produced rock schlock of the 1970s, with bands like The Eagles sitting at the top of the heap. (I know this is going to make me a lot of enemies, but i can't stand that era of "easy-listening" rock music.)

--

I'd also add the following:

*Van Halen I and Van Halen II*

The band that launched a whole new wave of rock and pop-metal in the '80s actually kicked things off in 1978. Nobody had ever heard anything like Ed, and his playing spawned legions of copycats and kicked off an entire decade of high-gain riffing and solo shredding.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

but there is ONE major reason why the 70's also REALLY Sucked..................


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

This could be applied to any decade that that folkm person liked, they all gave us what we are at today, and at the end of the day how many notes and combinations do we have to play with, from here on out everything has been covered now we just keep putting different spins on it. And we all know for a fact that the 60's is what got us here, free love tune in, tune out and turn on and thats why some of our greats are not with us today, but then again some of us did survive and made it to today.Ship.....................................still waiting for those flash back that were suppose to happen and it looks as if I'll have to wait till I get to them pearly gates, cause momma says so
Dang that could be a pretty good lyric ( its mine so don't steal it ).


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

bagpipe said:


> Great list - I agree with pretty much everything. The last one seems like a stretch though - a Rolling Stones album? Might be a great album but I don't see where it fits in with the rest of the list.


I was just about to say the opposite. I love when the Stones get their due. So much is made of their output in the 80's and 90's (mostly because a good chunk of the people voicing these concerns on the interwebs are people who grew up in this era and think Wiaiting on a Friend and Emotional Rescue are representative of the Stones' catalogue), that people forget how awesome these guys were from 1968-1973 with Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile and Goats Head Soup. Now that's packing success! To top it all off, they came out with Some Girls in 1978 which melded Country and Disco together in such an awesome way. A brilliant way to close out the 70's!

As for the Stones being appropriate for the 70's, why not? The first couple albums were blues-oriented rock at it's finest. And the Stones never forgot their R&B influences and didn't shirk things like Country or Disco. They took those forms and made them their own, in many cases better than people who were "Country" or "Disco" artists. Don't forget that Country had Merle Haggard, Conway Twitty, Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, George Jones, Johnny Paycheck and a ton of others in this decade. The 70's were as huge for Country as they were for Rock, so why not integrate the two? Just because a lot of bands went hard in the 70's and the Stones went a different way doesn't make them any less relevant to rock.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

this is what got me...


> It was common practice, in the ’70s, for record companies to simply allot a budget to a band, and then turn them loose in the studio to make whatever type of album they wanted to make. Furthermore, artists such as Alice Cooper, Sly and The Family Stone, and Peter Frampton were nurtured along until commercial success came their way. Such freedom and nurturing would be unthinkable today.


its right...unless the band is an extreme money maker...and can do no wrong...there are very few bands that can do this...i think this is a great reason for bands to become indie...do their OWN thing...


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Yep the Rolling Stones I still remember laying in a hospital bed and watching Mick run around stage with the brightest red lipstick you ever saw, nough said about that right.ship
and as for Peter Frampton can you imagine your fist album out and it becomes a mega super hit, what in gods green earth do you do to top that, you end up making a crappy Bee Gee's movies and fade away til late in life.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

the article makes some interesting points, but there is a couple things i really disagree with:



> Who would have imagined, when they unleashed their debut album in early 1969, that Led Zeppelin would become the preeminent band of the ’70s? Over the course of 10 studio albums, Page, Plant, Jones and Bonham crafted a body of work that *rivals* that of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones in terms of far-reaching impact. Reflecting a purity of spirit that was in some ways unique to their decade, Led Zeppelin rightly called it quits when their beloved Bonzo died in 1980.


in terms of overall content, led zep has it all over the stones. there isn't one zepplin album that isn't an awesome record. you can't say that about the stones. yeah, they made some great records. but a few of them just flat-out sucked.

i'm not really into the stones too much, i think they're over-rated. i certainly disagree that _exile on main st_ is the definitive album of that decade. at least where i'm from, _sticky fingers_ got/gets a hell of alot more airplay. imo, _some girls_ was the stones last good album anyhow.
the way i remember the 70's the stones were only a part of what was going on in music, and they certainly were not the biggest thing. in fact, i remember it being pretty diverse as to what people were listening to. i remember hearing stuff like foghat, nazareth, leo sayer, disco duck, aerosmith, anne murray, c.w. macall, michael martin murphy, all on the same radio station. (i think it was an A.M. station)


----------



## Alex Csank (Jul 22, 2010)

I just don't agree that the '70s was "Rock's Greatest Decade". In my opinion, if you want to define 'Rock' as a loose collection of mostly electrically-instrumented 'Post Rock 'n Roll' sounds first played during the '60s, then I believe that each of the subsequent decades has had it's own particular...and important influence. I would probably be able to argue a case supporting the '60s over the '70s. And if I were younger, I'd probably be able to support the '80s or '90s just as well.

I agree that the '70s had AWESOME rock music...no doubt of that! But, better than the '60s? I don't think so....think Woodstock, Santana, Hendrix, The Who, The Kinks, The Stones, The Beatles, The Guess Who, Grand Funk, The Doors...etc, etc.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Reason # 11....
Robert Nesta Marley and the introduction of the upbeat to " popular" music


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

One reason the 70s may not have been the best:


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

As much as many may rag on disco as the low point of the 70's, and as much crap as there was coming out of studio factories, and as much as people may foolishly equate disco with John Travolta in a leisure suit pointing upwards, there was much that disco gave us that is still valued and gets overlooked:


Rich production values: Once Phil Spector and Sergeant Pepper were done, we seemed to forget about those things. You couldn't have Arcade Fire without disco.
Computer control and the advent of MIDI. The need for flawless synchronization of synths, as well as polyphony, led directly to MIDI.
DJs: Absolutely none of the house and similar music of today would exist without DJ culture, and that came directly from disco.
The re-mix: Yes, we had "album" and "45" versions of tunes before then, but the re-mix was 100% a disco phenomenon. Indeed, it was the pure democracy of audience recommendations to DJs that created the re-mix as we know it now.
Trashing disco for the aspects you didn't like, and ignoring the rest makes as much sense as trashing punk for the way it encouraged people with no musical skills to "turn pro", and ignoring Costello, Byrne, Verlaine, Parker, or Strummer.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Trashing disco for the aspects you didn't like, and ignoring the rest makes as much sense as trashing punk for the way it encouraged people with no musical skills to "turn pro", and ignoring Costello, Byrne, Verlaine, Parker, or Strummer.


Gary Glitter was neither disco nor rock.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I should have included a quote to make it clearer that I was responding to an earlier post, not yours. Sorry about the confusion.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

i think there's an arguement to be made that the 70s were Rock's "only" decade.
in the sixties it was a combo of folk& country and r&b/soul that got melded into rock'n'roll. 
by the eighties the music got fractured into all these subgenres like "new wave" and the whole MTV thing made it all about the visual presentation and less about the music. 
the only so-called Rock bands around anymore are either a) Legacy bands that are on never-ending reunion tours or b) bands performing songs that "sound like" they are trying to copy some 70s band.
i'm no fan of disco, but i will say in defensive of it, that a lot of people forget that the whole point of early rock'n'roll music was a simple 4/4 beat to dance to.
Chuck Berry didn't want people sitting on their butt listening. he wanted them to dance to his songs.
it wasn't meant to be "heavy" or require any thinking. and disco was similar- something with a beat to dance to. 

the best thing about music in the 70s was that it was affordable. 
at the start ticket prices maxed about $6 by the end it was up around $20. 
an LP went from about $3 up to around $7 
nowadays it costs a fortune to see some bands.
of course thanks to technology, everyone gets to download music for free off the internet. j/king


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

nkjanssen said:


> Yah, but there was also...


so... what are you saying? that the 70's were the era of musicians who like child porn and man-boy love?


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

The list fails to mention the 70's featured the Bon Scott era of AC/DC and ZZtop's best decade too. I'd take either over The Rolling Stones.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

six-string said:


> i
> the best thing about music in the 70s was that it was affordable.
> at the start ticket prices maxed about $6 by the end it was up around $20.
> an LP went from about $3 up to around $7
> ...


Good point ... I was able to build a great LP collection .. using paper route money....


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2010)

mrmatt1972 said:


> Bon Scott


 'nuff said.









Most of my LP collection was at conventions and used shops.
Vinyl Museum on Young st. and whatever else I encountered.
I shoveled a lot of driveways.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

bagpipe said:


> Great list - I agree with pretty much everything. The last one seems like a stretch though - a Rolling Stones album? Might be a great album but I don't see where it fits in with the rest of the list.


I agree with you about the Rolling Stones comment. When they had their last concert in Toronto, a lot of comments were that they were getting tiresome. That happened to me about 30 years ago. I never did like their personalities to begin with and those just got worse over the years.

One thing a really agree with and this will never go back to the way it was, is the album covers art. With the vinyl records and the large size of the albums, you could actually do something with it. It's hard to have the same punch on a those small CD covers.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I always thought that musically, decades flowed more from Mid Decade to mid Decade.

So 65-74 would be tops for me.
Other than a a few things in 75, 65-74 was better in my books than 75-84 , and onwards, and than before.

But no matter how you slice it--good stuff in every decade, and some really bad stuff as well.

And I still love a big chunk of the 1600's.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Disco tainted the 70's too much for me to consider it a stand out decade for rock.
Much the way alternative /keyboardica tainted the 80's, bubblegum pop tainted the 90's and hip-hop/dance/autotune tainted the 2000's.

So being objective, I'd have to say the 60's may have been the glory days for rock, even if I personally dont care for much of the music from that period.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

ezcomes said:


> this is courtesy of ultimate guitar
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Reasons Why The '70s Were Rock's Greatest Decade | News @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com


I'll give you the great cover art and Albums in general. I much prefer that format to one hit wonderism, but If I never heard a Stones/AC/DC/ZZTOP/Doors/Zep/Skynrd playlist A La Q107 I'd be happy!


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Diablo said:


> Disco tainted the 70's too much


Yes, but we're talking about music here, not disco.:rockon2:


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

Being someone who "came of age" in the mid-late nineties I realize that the music I have nostalgia for in my era really strongly points to the 70s. I like the list and quite agree with it. I would happily trade my own 90s experience for the 70s.

Also, whether or not Exile on Main St deserves to me the final point about 70s music, I would definitely say it is the most significant thing to say about the Stones.
I never took them seriously for most of my life. They were just "weird old guys that dance funny and are still around" and "the inspiration for Captain Jack Sparrow" until I discovered Exile on Main St. It is the single reason I actually like them today. Apparently they do rock.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

plus many more


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i woulda chosen a pic of bon without the spinal tap bulge in his drawz, but to each his own i suppose...hahahaha


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> i woulda chosen a pic of bon without the spinal tap bulge in his drawz, but to each his own i suppose...hahahaha


Why? i have to wonder if that's why they called their double dvd release "family jewels"? The 1st DVD is all Bon and the package is very much in yo face..... That can't be comfortable....


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

nkjanssen said:


> I would say that, taken together, "The Band" (i.e. the brown album) and "Exile on Main Street" are the most perfect, concise encapsulations of American music as it stood prior to 1970. Country, soul, rock, blues, ragtime, folk.... It's all in there. Brilliantly taken in, digested and re-interpreted.
> 
> Of course, neither of those albums were made by Americans (Levon Helm excepted).


I'd have to agree. Both those albums are fantastic and blaze a trail a few steps removed from what was current in music at the time.



Starbuck said:


> Why? i have to wonder if that's why they called their double dvd release "family jewels"? The 1st DVD is all Bon and the package is very much in yo face..... That can't be comfortable....


I'm experiencing significant discomfort at the moment just seeing that.


----------



## Shark (Jun 10, 2010)

hollowbody said:


>


Lol!!!

Can't really say I'm into 70s rock - until it started to morph into 80s rock at the end of the decade with The Police, The Clash, Bob Marley, Dire Straits, U2, and the like. Yeah, I know some of them started out earlier than the late 70s, but they didn't really get noticed into then. Led Zep is probably the main exception to this, though I maxxed out on them when I first started to listen to classic rock and kinda overdosed and ruined it for me now.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)




----------



## Alex Csank (Jul 22, 2010)

Starbuck said:


> Why? i have to wonder if that's why they called their double dvd release "family jewels"? The 1st DVD is all Bon and the package is very much in yo face..... That can't be comfortable....


Actually, I don't recall it as being that uncomfrtable. Back then, I think most of us wore those tight jeans...didn't we? I guess I did. Here's me in 1978:


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Alex Csank said:


> Actually, I don't recall it as being that uncomfrtable. Back then, I think most of us wore those tight jeans...didn't we? I guess I did. Here's me in 1978:


Dude .. they were always off... especially when you owned a shaggin' wagon....hwopv


----------



## ccuwan (Jul 9, 2008)

*+1 for 65>74.............The Golden Age of Rock*



zontar said:


> I always thought that musically, decades flowed more from Mid Decade to mid Decade.
> 
> So 65-74 would be tops for me.
> Other than a a few things in 75, 65-74 was better in my books than 75-84 , and onwards, and than before.


I totally agree. Music does not fall within predetermined "decades" There is no debate here if we go with 65 to 74. Not only do we include nearly everyones choices but even the bands that went on to record additional material did their best stuff in this period. This is simply the best 10 years that Rock ever had.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

ccuwan said:


> I totally agree. Music does not fall within predetermined "decades" There is no debate here if we go with 65 to 74. Not only do we include nearly everyones choices but even the bands that went on to record additional material did their best stuff in this period. This is simply the best 10 years that Rock ever had.


Cool.

Although I would be fine with 66-75 as well. Whether you leave out 65 or 75, you leave out some excellent stuff.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Better album art?

I think not.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Budda said:


> Better album art?
> 
> I think not.


no..that was the 80's..


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

1965 to 1976. So it's 11 years. British invasion, British blues rock to pyschedelic to classic and progressive rock. That musical decade of 11 years ended with Punk and new Wave. Nothing against that, Never Mind the Bullocks is still one of my favs. That just when it changed.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

The Guess Who came of age in the 70's. Did I really grow up in the psychedelic age? 

[YOUTUBE]rLQJ4toj-JY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## nutter (Aug 29, 2009)

i think the music today would be almost as good today if the artists were given as much freedom as 70's rockers. how many record companies would allow songs like inagaddadavida (i know, 1968 but you get my point) on current releases?? or a band to release something like 2112?


----------



## ccuwan (Jul 9, 2008)

*65>74*

The Guess Who
1968 - Wheatfield Soul
1969 - Canned Wheat
1970 - American Woman
1970 - Share the Land
1971 - So Long, Bannatyne
1972 - Rockin'
1972 - Wild One
1973 - Artificial Paradise
1973 - #10
1974 - Road Food
1974 - Flavours
1975 - Power in the Music

Inagaddadavida......the track was recorded on May 27, 1968


----------



## raimundo (Sep 30, 2010)

Well, I like music from all decades. The 70's were awesome because there were many creative bands, like the Zeppelin (amazing albums through the whole decade), Pink Floyd (amazing decade also, animals and the wall are my favourites) and David Bowie. The Wall is a kind of album that you don't see in every decade.


----------

