Richard Gagnon wrote:

>> Michael wrote:
>> Subject: Association's "Waterbeds In Trinidad" isn't half bad...
>> Message-ID: <4198E26E.4010103@sonic.net>
>>
>> ...for a 1972 release. The early 70's was not the best of musical
>> times, but this soft-pop 12" is a keeper.
> 
> They weren't? What does this say about the 80s and 90s, then?

Well for me, a child of the 60's, the early 70's were a bit of a hangover.
The whole sincere singer-songwriter mania just gave (and still gives) me
one big headache. Two words: Helen Reddy - stomach cramps! Jethro Tull ->
blah! Motown near bottom and Atlantic/Stax/Volt chasing after, Neil Young
at his whiny worst (Harvest), the pop Rod Stewart, My Ding-A-Ling - gotta
stop here!.

What was great about 1972?
Top 40 was good in fits & starts - Brandy, Burning Love, Dancing in the
Moonlight, Hold Your Head Up, Layla, Scorpio (yea!, one of the best
instrumentals ever!), Superfly, Roundabout, Rock & Roll part #2. But
mostly top40 was heading to the trash bin (disco loomed).

Stevie Wonder & Syreeta, Stories, Badfinger, The Raspberries, Big Star's
#1 Record (no one heard in 72!), Glam!!! dominates in 72, Philadelphia soul
and Todd's Something/Anything, Yes - Fragile, Nilssen!!, Al Green, Steely
Dan, Fleetwood Mac's Bare Trees, America's best work (?), Aretha Franklin's
Young, Gifted & Black.

What else?

As for 80's/90's/now comparisons, I think independently created, produced
and released music ultimately saves the day. Although some so obscure I'm
just discovering now (as I am with early 70's music - Sleepy Hollow for
one), there's a big catalog of non-major recordings accessable via elbow
grease & time.

> I give pretty much anything from the era a chance, personally. Guess I'm 
> also biased, but in the opposite direction.

I'm not biased, just lived it.

  - michael, last post of the week