cac (09/04/82)
According to the radio show "Rolling Stone's Continuous History of Rock and
Roll", being played on the local radio station this weekend, these are the
rock and roll songs requested most often (in 1982).
Counting Down...
15 Born To Run Bruce Springsteen
14 Jumping Jack Flash Rolling Stones
13 Layla Derek and the Dominoes
12 Roundabout Yes
11 Highway to Hell AC/DC
10 A Day In The Life Beatles
9 Cocaine Eric Clapton
8 Purple Haze Jimi Hendrix
7 Light My Fire Doors
6 Won't Get Fooled Again Who
5 Satisfaction Rolling Stones
4 Hey Jude Beatles
3 Another Brick In The Wall Pink Floyd
2 Free Bird Lynard Skynard
1 Stairway To Heaven Led Zepplin
Here are some thoughts I have about this list, what do you think?
Many of these songs are "long" (>5 minutes). A number are from groups who,
for some reason or another, haven't made music in more than 10 years.
None of these songs are from the 80's (unless I'm wrong in thinking that both
AC/DC's and Pink Floyd's albums are from 1979).
None of these songs are from earlier than 1965.
What do you think? Are these truly the best rock songs since the 50's,
or in 2000 will we be mostly requesting songs from the 70's and 80's?
Any other ideas or thoughts?
Charley Cox
{cmcl2, lbl-unix, purdue, utah-cs}!lanl-a!cac
lanl-a!cac@lbl-unixtif (09/12/82)
I was not surprised that all of the most requested songs were old and long. Indeed, it would have been surprising if such were not the case. Consider: What songs are most likely to be *requested* - meaning, what songs will inspire actual exertion (a rare thhing indeed!) from the listening public? Answer: songs that are not likely to be played, otherwise. This leads to the bias towards older, longer music. Radio stations exist to squeeze as many ads into an hour as they possibly can. They are not going to play "Stairway To Heaven" (duration:7:52) if they can instead run "Think I'm In Love" and three important announcements about acne medicine. Thus, if Zepplin's opus is going to be played at all, it requires outside initiative. By the same token (profits), stations will play new music to exhaustion unless they have a reason not to. New music, by and large, is what the majority of the public wants to hear (and is, naturally, what the record companies want the stations to play). It WILL BE PLAYED. "Layla", on the other hand, has not been in the public eye for ten years or so. "Eye Of The Tiger" will be heard, even if you dont WANT to hear it. Not so with "Layla" (does anyone know what happened to Derick and The Dominoes?). Thus, I dont think that these are the only records that will be requested in the future. As songs currently being hawked fade from the record playlists, they will become more requested. I hope so, anyway; I for one do not think that those oldies are any better than current songs. Time will tell.
klick (09/16/82)
(I'm catching up on last week's news due to vacation.) Derek and the Dominoes featured Eric (alias Derek) Clapton. As far as I know, the album with Layla on it was their only recording. While I did not get in on the beginning of the "older, longer" discussion, I'll put in my two cents on the question of whether the most requested oldies are better than today's songs. I would say that the oldies that are often played today were (for the most part) the best of the hits at their time, and that the "best" (not necessarily most played) songs today will move into that category. Rock is evolving, and liking 60's or 50's rock better than today's is mostly a matter of taste. Anyhow, glad somebody likes to talk about rock and roll. Vickie Klick ...!ihlpb!klick
tw (09/18/82)
#R:unc:-395500:hp-pcd:6600001:000:766 hp-pcd!tw Sep 18 09:59:00 1982 Derek and the Dominoes, with Eric Clapton and Duane Allman, recorded 2 albums (one studio and one live) before once again becoming just the constituent 'superstars.' Actually, the only other song that's really that worthwhile (other than the obvious) on the album is a Buddy Holly cover. And where was he in this greatest-hits list? Actually the only thing to do is find out about the several tens of thousands of different records, musics, and record labels coming out, by listening to noncommercial radio wherever possible. Lots of different magazines (Cadence, OP, Living Blues) give good points to start in all of this. Personally, I hardly think there's anyone who hasn't memorized Stairway to Heaven by now anyway. Cheers. --Mark C. Linimon (c/o hp-pcd!tw)
tsd (10/07/82)
I'm sure I'll be torched for this article but the last entry I read on most
requested rock was the one to break the camel's back. I'm refering to the
one by grkermit!markm.
Give me a break, how can you rant about the greatness of the music of the
60's and discount all that before it and after it as worthless. Do you think
the music of the 60's just came about through "spontaneous combustion" (maybe
this should go to the evolution vs. creation argument). I say it evolved from
that before it, just as it evolved into later forms. Why try to isolate
yourself in a period of time (regardless of its strengths) and ignore the
present? Had Van Morrison, the Stones, the Kinks, Moody Blues. etc. done that
they wouldn't be a musical force today. Granted the Doors resurgence is an
exception, but I've heard about all the "L.A. Woman" I can handle for awhile.
Of course there were some great acts in the 60's but when you mention Iron
Butterfly????? Listening now, I realize they produced possibly the 30+ WORST
consecutive minutes of music(??) ever to grace a turntable.
I know 6th graders with more musical talent (and creativity).
The days of "Stop the War", "Peace Brother", campus disorder, flourescant
clothes, etc. have left for new themes (for better or worse). Why not face
reality and give the new a chance. The 60's had their chance, why not give
the 80's their shot. Acts such as Dire Straits, Springsteen, Tom Waits,
The Clash, The Jam, Steve Forbert, etc. etc. etc. are well worth a listen.
Hey, sometimes you "Don't Always Get What You Want" (I managed to survive Disco
anyway) but you do encounter fresh, pleasant, surprises down the road.
'nuf said, I'm waiting patiently, tied to the stake atop a stack of firewood.
Tim Davidheiser
nscs!tsdmarkm (10/08/82)
Are you actually trying to tell me that todays lyrics have meaning??? Granted 'In a gadda da vida' don't make any sense to me either, but at least it's so screwed up that no one else can understand it either. The new wave stuff is starting to sound more and more like what would be called new wave in '60. We will probably be faced with a resurgence of the same styles in the '90s if things continue as they are. I ask you this - in 10 years who will be reuested more - Pink Floyd and the Doors, or the Clash and Journey??? Endurance, thats the test. Morrison's been dead 10 years and it's like he was never gone as far as popularity goes. They just released a 'new' (!?!?) Hendrix album. Can you honestly say that todays group's have enough substance to rate such loyalty and interest??? I say no. Then again, it's just my opinion. The factors of age, personal taste, .... must of course be factored in. I was responding to a question on why the old groups are so popular, in my opinion it is because they were the best. I perhaps should have specified that this applies to the group of people who listen to FM rock stations in the North American continent between the hours of 10 and .... In Europe, groups that can't find work here thrive, same in Aussie. Awaiting Combustions ... MSMiller (aka: markm) GR Concord, MA
dpj (10/10/82)
I am another of those who prefer the older (early 70's) rock and consider the current run of the mill stuff of inferior quality. I also believe, however, that hindsight is better than forsight. I wonder if I would have been a Genesis fan after having heard only their first couple of albums (in fact, it is not until just recently that I have come to appreciate those first couple of albums). How many discs did Zeppelin have to cut before they had a large and strong following? The waves come, and the waves go. Give us ten years and we'll probably have another stack of favorite oldies. Or at least some other slice of society will have another stack of favorite oldies. (Remember Benny Goodman et al? They were pretty good, too, for that matter.) Those were the good ole days Dean Jagels mhtsa!dpj P.S. In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida <-> In the garden of eden ?
markm (10/12/82)
At last, some one who agrees with me (at least a little). I suppose I did neglect the 50's, but that was somewhat before my time. The 50's music, what I've heard of it (not the Frankie Avalon stuff) sounded OK, and the early 60's groups sounded a lot like the late 50's groups (that figures). The difference, in my opinion, is the lyrics and the complexity. Some of the classic 60's stuff takes some real listening, which music of years before, and indeed since, do not. Probably the video revolution has something to do with the current trends. With so many music shows on the divine box, alot of the groups are 'all show and no go'. And networks don't want possibly controversial lyrics on their show, so things get mellowed out. If they showed an old Doors concert in prime time, there'd be so many parents complaining about it, it wouldn't be funny. The UHF channels can get away with stuff like that though . . . but they don't control billions of dollars. With the advent of more cable TV, things may change. The USA network runs some almost frightening concert and other film footage on weekends (last one I saw was 'Sympathy for the Devil'). The Talking Heads seem to be popular on the net, I don't know. I don't listen to the radio that much, but do they really get more air time than Pink Floyd? The Who? Led Zeppelin? I wonder . . . If groups that are 10+ years old (and in some cases - dead) get more recognition than current groups, that should count for something. In fact, lots of the new 'stuff' gets overplayed so much that if the Heads don't have a new album, they're probably not getting much air time . . . unless they are. Who knows, who really cares, someone already said that a message on the 'net' wouldn't really change anyone's mind . . . but what the hell, the fun is in the trying . . . MSMiller GR Concord, MA
fjg (10/12/82)
Sir, Here's your combustion: Whoever speaks of the Clash and Journey in the same breath is showing their ignorance of today's music. The Clash's song 'Washington Bullets' is a powerful political song. Lyrics with meaning. I'm-so-glad-I'm-not-living-in-the-past, Joe Glynn P.S. and a tip of the hat to Columbus's tsd for starting this ball rolling.