Entertainment For Lively Minds
Better to burn out…
Posted by David Rothon on 13 July 2009 - 1:57pm.
All this talk of the Beatles and what makes them unique or whatever, has led me to wonder how many other classic/important bands only ever existed during the decade that defined them. Any attempt at a reunion (regardless of how many/few original members) disqualifies them.
I can't think of many. Buffalo Springfield is one…
- More from David Rothon.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Abba
Slight cross over into the 80's but not by much...
Difficult Pop Quiz
Classic/important or perhaps the big name from an era that was one of the defining bands of a movement..
Can't really think of too many. A lot of the 60s bands that only lasted a while did tend to last until the early 70s, and the same is true for instance of a lot of punk bands.
And as for your reunion clause, well that sends quite a few others out of the window. Otherwise I might have suggested the Sex Pistols, but them as old men put paid to that..
The 80s throws up a few that while the average Word reader might not think of as 'important' certainly helped to define things from a mainstream point of view, with great success as well. Like Wham! and Frankie Goes To Hollywood. The Style Council, were Weller being far more 80s than 60s. 1983-1989 or thereabouts.
Huh. I'm stumped.
Didn't ...
two of Buffalo Sprignfield (and not the two you'd actually pay to see) tour in the 80s as 'Buffalo Springfield Revisited'?
Otherwise ...
The Smiths (1982-87)
And of course , ahem, the classic and important Wings (1971-79) - the band the Hey Jude Hitmakers ... oh well, you know...
I'd argue against The Smiths being defined by the '80s.
They were hugely informed by the ideals of punk, especially Moz.
Sorry, the 'defined by' bit…
… wasn't meant to be the main thing. It's more about bands that purely existed within one decade - and the Smiths is a great example I hadn't thought of. Not likely to be a reunion either.
Felt
10 albums and 10 singles in 10 years between 1979 and 1989. Then nada, zilch. Admittedly they're only classic/important in my house.
And in mine!
...
How about...
...Buddy Holly and the Crickets?
Led Zeppelin
I always associate them with the 70s, although the first album came out at the beginning of 1969. The breakup came at the end of 1980, so although it's not a precise fit, it ties in quite closely with 1970-80.
Yeah, but…
… there's also the small matter of a reunion gig last year. So sorry, they're out.
Spirit
may well be one, and their stable-mates Jo-Jo Gunne.
Also what about Matthews Southern Comfort, Juicy Lucy, If, Keef Harley Band, Aynsley Dunbar Retaliation, Stone The Crows etc.. I'm sure there are quite a few relatively short-lived bands.
Well, with respect…
… Spirit spanned the 1960s AND 70s, and none of the others - marvellous though I'm sure each of them is in their own way - would be popularly supposed to qualify as 'classic' or 'important'.
Spirit?
Spirit started in the late 60s and continued sporadically until the sad death of Randy California in 1997.
The Faces
1970-75, and no re-union just yet.
Or,if you can get past the first album being 1968, Free ... they are the very definition of early 70's denim and T-shirt rock.
Free albums
Free are anchored in the 60's: Tons Of Sobs was released March 1969; second album, Free came out in October 1969.
However to continue Fire and Water came out in June 1970 and Highway that December. So we have 4 albums, all pretty strong, in under two years; it puts a lot of today's band to shame with their 1 album every 2 years workrate.
without the benefit of checking
Tears for fears? Talk talk?
TFF currently touring
TT probably not
The Mamas & The Papas
Three albums in three years then called it a day. They did make a lacklustre fourth about a year later but only because they discovered they were contractually obliged to and the record company threatened to take them to the cleaners so I wouldn’t say it counted as a “reunion“.
They were very much of their time and place, i.e. California, 66-68 (yet, funnily enough, also pretty timeless) and you couldn’t really imagine a Mamas & Papas record made in say 1978.
I think short, sharp pop careers are a good thing and should be encouraged. Maybe pop stars should only be able to “serve” a couple of terms like US presidents.
Their last album was definitely in the 1970s ('73 I think)
So that's a no for them. Sorry.
The Rolling Stones
Version 1 with Brian Jones: quintessential 60's.
Version 2 with Mick Taylor: quintessential 70's.
Version 3: errrrrr....
Joy Division
?
The answer to your question...
..is seven.