Debate Series #2: The 1980s

 The dust has settled on our inaugural debate series article and it seems that the jury is still very much out on the subject of British indie. This time round we’re tackling an even more divisive issue - the 1980s. Whether you lived through the decade or not, every music fan has an opinion on the era that spawned R.E.M, The Smiths, New Romanticism, Madonna and MTV. 

Let the debate begin...

Taking on the conflicting sides of the argument this time round are D.C Harrison (pro) and Alan Shulman (very much con).

. . .

D.C. Harrison defends the 80s, somehow name-checking Shakin’ Stevens in the process...

So, how to not only defend the 80s but argue that it was the best period for music. Tricky. I’m aware that for most people, it’s a time that brings up images of stupid haircuts, horrendous production values and the utter horror of the SAW sound.

And yet, go through my record collection and I’d wager a good 50% (at least) come from the 80s, because there was so much more than the clichés I listed above. This is especially true in the first half of the decade, as anyone who has read Simon Reynolds’ Rip It Up and Start Again may well already know.

I was born at the start of the 80s, so perhaps I’m biased on that level, showing a warped kind of loyalty. But I feel it was an era in which musicians actually developed as time went on, rather then rehash the same album with minor tweaks to diminishing returns. The decade started with Joy Division producing Closer, my favourite album of all time. Three of the people behind that album subsequently produced a series of works of genius concluding in Technique: albums that people still listen to and buy today (ok, maybe not so much Movement). Even the guy who produced Closer managed to hang around (just) long enough to produce another significant album by the end of the 80s.

Also, check out the advancements over the decade made by the Cure, XTC, R.E.M., Husker Du, the Replacements and Depeche Mode. A fair share of those were commercially successful acts who felt a need to musically evolve. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t. Talking Heads went from quirky post-punk outfit to pop band, climaxing in one of the all time great music films/soundtracks, Stop Making Sense.

It’s also a time that keeps giving. Recently, I’ve found myself falling in love with the albums of the Church while the last few years have seen me discover and grow to love the Wild Swans, Comsat Angels, Orange Juice, Japan, the Beat and Felt amongst others.

And it’s not like all your actual ‘popular’ music was all dross either. People like the Jam, Blondie and Dexys Midnight Runners had #1 singles. Mainstream albums like The Lexicon of Love, Dare and Pelican West still sound absolutely glorious and nothing like one another.

Wandering into realms just outside the music itself, it also appeared to me to be an era in which intelligence seemed to get you somewhere. Morrissey, Billy Bragg, David Byrne, Lloyd Cole, Neil Tennant and Jimmy Somerville could talk a good game as well as write a good song. Which brings me into my next point: that it seemed to be the last time that musicians actually talked about the big issues both in song and interview.

Morrissey covered animal rights, Somerville sexual equality, Jerry Dammers campaigned for the release of Nelson Mandela, Billy Bragg (and others) supported striking miners. All used their songs to convey whatever message they had. On the one hand, it may date the songs, on the other it lends them an intensity and conviction lacking in most pop music since.

I’m aware I’m focusing a lot on what was happening in the UK at the time and this is deliberate in that I’m not all that familiar with what was going on in the States. However, the works of Prince alone should be a strong enough defence in any argument and I’ll throw Bruce Springsteen (whose rise to mega-stardom with Born In The USA may well have put him amongst the least obvious looking global icons in history) in there as well

It’s true that post-Band Aid, a lot of the fun went out of the best pop music of the time. U2 rose to their position as ultra-serious kings of ‘meaningful’ rock music while the nation bought into the Thatcherite sheen of the much loathed SAW stable. The public want what the public get, I suppose, but even in that time you could take solace in the Pet Shop Boys, who went on an astonishing run of singles lasting through the second half of the decade.

All the same, at least you can say for the most part the terrible trio wrote their own stuff. The retro market didn’t really exist then, except for everyone’s favourite denim-clad Welshman Shakin’ Stevens scoring a freakish number of hits across the decade.

Yes, there was plenty of crap, as there was in every other decade. After all, when people wax lyrical about the 60s, they don’t mention Frank Ifield or Cilla Black records: they talk about the Beatles and the Stones, Motown and Stax.

So with that in mind, I conclude by saying that I, for one, feel that the foundations of No Ripcord were born in the 80s, through acts like Joy Division, the Smiths, the Stone Roses, Dinosaur Jr, Pixies etc etc. I could even throw in the growth of hip-hop, if I knew anything about it. That the interesting, original and even experimental direction that these acts pointed towards was never acted on is the real tragedy. These acts are the true legacy of the 80s, a decade that this prematurely old git will celebrate.

. . .

Alan Shulman bemoans the lack of greatness in a decade that placed too great an emphasis on synths and drum machines...

Ok, let’s start with a short history of pop music up to and including the 1980’s:

1920s – Explosion of the recorded Delta Blues and popular jazz, folk and country, including Charlie Patton, Son House, Bessie Smith, Louis Armstrong’s Hot Fives and Sevens, Dock Boggs, and the Carter Family.

1930s – Depression hits record industry hard.  Still, jazz continues to develop into big band, Robert Johnson records, Bing Crosby expands the vocabulary of popular song and Billy Holiday hits the scene.

1940s – Sinatra hits big and bebop develops, seemingly out of nowhere, giving us the likes of Charlie Parker, Mac Roach, Thelonius Monk, Art Tatum, Bud Powell and many others.  Hank Williams starts to redefine country.  Rhythm and Blues is born and foreshadows what is to come.

1950s – Shit starts to seriously go down.  Cool Jazz blossoms, Folk music is popularized, Country styles become refined and Rock and Roll is born.

1960s – The Beatles, Dylan, Stones, Yardbirds, Who, Morisson (both), Pink Floyd, Hendrix, Brown, Gaye, Redding, Motown, Coltrane, Davis, Coleman, and a hundred others.  ‘Nuff said.

1970s – Money pours in and everything goes to hell in a handbasket.  But it’s a slow and glorious death as jazz and rock fuse for a few productive years and punk becomes the alpha and omega turning back the clock and turning it up to 11.  

1980s – Er, uh, let’s see…checking my critic’s handbook to see who I’m supposed to like.  Hmm, it says here REM, U2, Sonic Youth and the Replacements.  Something about Husker Du and the Pixies.  Oooooooo k.

Look, don’t get me wrong, there were some great records in the 80s.  Nebraska, King of America, Nation of Millions, Sign of the Times, Thriller, etc.  Great stuff.  Lots of great, cheesy, one hit wonders too, like always.  But, and I’ll make this quick by just asserting it, the mainstream was robbed of something vital when the synths and drum machines took over; period, done, ended.  Dancing in the Dark is representative.  Ah Bruce, you made a great record but it sounds like shit.  Max Weinberg, always a stiff drummer, is in full cyborg mode and Roy Bittan, who tinkled the ivories on Jungleland, is given 3 notes to play on the newest toy they could find.  Economics demanded a homogenized product to market and supply was plentiful.  So I won’t waste your time comparing the groove geniuses at Motown in the 60s to the Yamaha XKwhatever, because I already know what you’re saying.  What about the Replacements?  They rocked it old school!  Westerberg can’t sing, isn’t that cool?!  He’s a pop songwriting genius, just like Alex Chilton!  Yeah, whatever.  Sales don’t mean much, but I’m a little skeptical of pop geniuses who couldn’t move 50,000 units.  But wait, REM were big stars, what about them?  Sure they were a decent band that got a good ten years out of 2 or 3 melodic phrases, arranged in different order.  Never knew what they were talking about, but they seemed sincere about it, so bravo.  U2?  Been there, done that.  Ok, what about the pioneers, Sonic Youth and the Pixies?  Let’s put it this way – you had to be there.  

I know I sound negative.  All these bands had a couple great songs and a share of good ones.  I’m not saying this stuff wasn’t any good, or innovative, or even mildly entertaining, as the case may be.  But how great was it, really?  Miles Davis great?  Bob Dylan great?  John Lennon great?  I could go on, but you get the point.  These bands may have challenged corporate hegemony, but you don’t join the ranks of the greats just because you were better than everyone else at the time.  And I think that really is what’s going on here – a massive case of grade inflation.  Sure, when you put Sonic Youth up against MTV and Madonna’s crass self-ploitation and I Want to Know What Love Is, they sound like pillars of integrity, which they probably were.  But the greatest music opens up, communicates, touches almost anyone willing to listen in places they can’t usually reach.  It doesn’t pose nor does it stare at its own shoes.  Musicianship is important, but making it swing is more so (computers can’t swing!).  And don’t forget, behind every great piece of music is an artist we want to know more about, because they have given us a real part of themselves.  This is why Van Halen fans will always prefer David Lee Roth to Sammy Hagar – because he was simply more interesting.  Do any of you U2 fans really know or care what Bono is thinking?  Don’t tell me it’s about the poor suffering people of wherever; that’s bullshit.  Let’s face it, the bands above are the best of the lot and their figureheads are all people you’d probably want to avoid at a party.  If Dylan walked into the room, I’d want to inch closer just to hear him say something about the onion dip.  That, my friend, is greatness.

. . .

The debate is now well and truly open. Do you agree with D.C? Did Alan hit the nail on the head? Have your say by entering your comments below...