|
In hindsight, I believe we can appreciate the music made during the post-disco early eighties out of its context- certainly the pop music of today pales in comparison to The Police, Squeeze, Hall and Oates....at least IMO. Now if it's ROCK we're talking about....
I hate questions like this beacuse it implies that somehow "Rock" music was dying or something during those years, due to disco- thousands of Rock critics make this same mistake. What was really hurting the music was the tightening up of the AOR radio format initiated by Lee Abrams...this is the guy who restricted playlists based on the whims of housewives and non-concertgoers; he claimed that when he polled listeners to determine what songs should be played on the radio, he discounted the opinions of the poepl attending concerts and buying albums because he "got a tremendous bias," presumably a pro-Rock bias.
Factor number 2: Punk was not given the promotional dollars that were afforded ELO or Journey, in fact, major labels viewed punk as a novelty and gave up after letting the first albums by thieir token punkers die on the vine. So the music had to reach mass via word of mouth, fanzines, independent labels, etc. Metal was also dead to the major labels by this point and had to survive via this method as well. The two genres are almost the same except for textural differences anyways, as the hybridization that took place in the mid-80s thru Black Flag, Metallica, et al. has borne out.
Another contributing factor was the mega-success of Fleetwood Mac and ELO and other AOR mainstays, which was unprecedented and forced record companies to scramble and consolidate their rosters. Hundreds of promising-to-great bands were dropped from their labels because the big boys were now aiming for the level of a 10-million seller like "Rumors;" simply being good musicians and selling in the range of 100,000 to 500,000 wasn't good enough. Gone were the days when we saw albums like "An Evening With WildMan Fischer" or Skip Spencce's "Oar" released by major Labels- they were finished humoring the underground and now only courted the BIG markets. So the diversity and invention we were hearing in the undergound bubbling up to the surface via the Rock record industry wasn't getting air anymore by 1978.
An argument could be made that punk itself did more damage to the music than disco, beacause of it's famous "DIY" aesthetic- without the need for musicianship, the standards became lower and lower, and the listeners soon became accustomed to music played without skill or nuance, and singers without ability. This was not always the case, though...Punk produced bands of capable musicians as well as scamming no-talents.
However, there was great rock music being made during this time by punkers and metallers alike, AND by mainstream rock dudes as well...to single out one form over another gives tunnel-vision to a student of rock history. The myth that it as disco "killing" rock is just that: a myth. In truth, disco barely troubled rock listenership, instead attracting its own core of devotess. Sometimes the genres crossbred, providing new and innovative methods of producing rock (cf the Stones during this period, Chic, Flying Lizards).
Consult Joe Carducci's "Rock and the Pop NArcotic" for further inquiry.
|