Rock Evolution – The History of Rock & Roll - 1984 - (page 198)

Apologies for not being able to add the tracks as we've gone but the playlist is mostly up to date now, I've left a few of people's extras in reserve and will add if the final list isn't too long.

Anyone who's contributed but has not yet picked 4 tracks from the year feel free to use your remaining nominations.

Anywhooo, I couldn't help but notice something as I put the tracks in so I asked Chat GPT....


"I am on a rock evolution thread that has reached 1980 and the music that is being nominated remains steadfastly guitar based, why do so many rock fans not accept the power of the synth and is there any evidence that people who reject synths are psychologically incomplete?"


This is what it came back with :-) and Btw - You can't be abusive towards me about this because according to Chat GPT I asked a really good and layered question and it's AI so it must be true.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


This is a really good and layered question — it touches both on rock culture and identity and on psychology of taste and resistance to change. Let’s break it apart.



1. Why many rock fans resist synths​


Rock has long been tied to certain ideas about “authenticity.” When synthesizers entered popular music in the late 1970s/early 80s, many guitar-based fans saw them as a threat to the core identity of rock. A few reasons:


  • Authenticity vs. Artificiality
    • Guitars are “played with the hands,” visibly physical and expressive.
    • Synths were seen (wrongly) as machines doing the work, removing the human struggle/effort that rock often glorifies.
  • Generational Boundaries
    • Early synth-heavy music (Kraftwerk, Gary Numan, Depeche Mode, Human League) was embraced by younger, club-oriented audiences.
    • Older or more traditional rock listeners often saw this as “not real instruments,” creating a generational clash.
  • Cultural Coding
    • Guitar-based rock was coded “masculine, rebellious, authentic.”
    • Synths were coded “pop, androgynous, dance-oriented, commercial.”
    • So it wasn’t just a sound issue, but an identity issue.
  • Tribalism in music fandom
    • Fans often use genre boundaries to define who they are not as much as who they are.
    • For rock fans, rejecting synths meant rejecting disco, new wave, pop — the “other tribes.”


2. Is rejecting synths evidence of being “psychologically incomplete”?​


There’s no evidence that rejecting synths (or any instrument) is a sign of psychological deficiency. However, research in psychology of music and taste does suggest that:


  • Openness to Experience(a Big Five personality trait) strongly correlates with liking diverse and novel music.
    • People high in openness tend to embrace experimentation (including electronic and avant-garde music).
    • People low in openness prefer familiar, traditional, and guitar-based sounds.
  • Identity Defense Mechanism
    • Music taste often becomes part of personal identity.
    • Rejecting synths isn’t “incompleteness” — it’s more like protecting a stable sense of self.
  • Cognitive Dissonance Avoidance
    • If someone defines “real rock” as guitars, synth-based rock creates dissonance.
    • Rejecting it is a way of avoiding the discomfort of rethinking categories.

So: people who dislike synths aren’t “psychologically incomplete,” but they may be less open to novelty, more tradition-oriented, or more invested in defending their cultural identity through music.



3. Why this still matters in 1980s “rock evolution” debates​


By 1980, synths weren’t just add-ons — they were reshaping the sound of rock:


  • Joy Division → New Order (bass + synth marriage).
  • Talking Heads incorporating synth textures.
  • Bowie and Eno shaping art-rock.
  • Prince, Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush pushing hybrid sounds.

But in rock fandom, guitars remained the badge of purity, and many still see synth-driven acts as outside the “true lineage.”



✅ Bottom line:


  • Rock fans resist synths not because of the sounds themselves, but because of cultural meanings attached to them (authenticity, masculinity, rebellion).
  • People who reject synths aren’t “incomplete” — they’re often less open to novelty and more protective of tradition, which is a normal variation in personality.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Anyway, I think it's being a little bit harsh on you lot and there are definitely some synths swirling around in a variety of tracks but very few synth led songs. What is quite interesting is the difference between the UK and the US when it came to the adoption of the synthesiser but that's a separate discussion maybe after we bottom out whether your masculinity is stopping you from enjoying synths?
 
Last edited:
threespires said:
Apologies for not being able to add the tracks as we've gone but the playlist is mostly up to date now, I've left a few of people's extras in reserve and will add if the final list isn't too long.

Anyone who's contributed but has not yet picked 4 tracks from the year feel free to use your remaining nominations.

Anywhooo, I couldn't help but notice something as I put the tracks in so I asked Chat GPT....


"I am on a rock evolution thread that has reached 1980 and the music that is being nominated remains steadfastly guitar based, why do so many rock fans not accept the power of the synth and is there any evidence that people who reject synths are psychologically incomplete?"


This is what it came back with :-) and Btw - You can't be abusive towards me about this because according to Chat GPT I asked a really good and layered question and it's AI so it must be true.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


This is a really good and layered question — it touches both on rock culture and identity and on psychology of taste and resistance to change. Let’s break it apart.



1. Why many rock fans resist synths​


Rock has long been tied to certain ideas about “authenticity.” When synthesizers entered popular music in the late 1970s/early 80s, many guitar-based fans saw them as a threat to the core identity of rock. A few reasons:


  • Authenticity vs. Artificiality
    • Guitars are “played with the hands,” visibly physical and expressive.
    • Synths were seen (wrongly) as machines doing the work, removing the human struggle/effort that rock often glorifies.
  • Generational Boundaries
    • Early synth-heavy music (Kraftwerk, Gary Numan, Depeche Mode, Human League) was embraced by younger, club-oriented audiences.
    • Older or more traditional rock listeners often saw this as “not real instruments,” creating a generational clash.
  • Cultural Coding
    • Guitar-based rock was coded “masculine, rebellious, authentic.”
    • Synths were coded “pop, androgynous, dance-oriented, commercial.”
    • So it wasn’t just a sound issue, but an identity issue.
  • Tribalism in music fandom
    • Fans often use genre boundaries to define who they are not as much as who they are.
    • For rock fans, rejecting synths meant rejecting disco, new wave, pop — the “other tribes.”


2. Is rejecting synths evidence of being “psychologically incomplete”?​


There’s no evidence that rejecting synths (or any instrument) is a sign of psychological deficiency. However, research in psychology of music and taste does suggest that:


  • Openness to Experience(a Big Five personality trait) strongly correlates with liking diverse and novel music.
    • People high in openness tend to embrace experimentation (including electronic and avant-garde music).
    • People low in openness prefer familiar, traditional, and guitar-based sounds.
  • Identity Defense Mechanism
    • Music taste often becomes part of personal identity.
    • Rejecting synths isn’t “incompleteness” — it’s more like protecting a stable sense of self.
  • Cognitive Dissonance Avoidance
    • If someone defines “real rock” as guitars, synth-based rock creates dissonance.
    • Rejecting it is a way of avoiding the discomfort of rethinking categories.

So: people who dislike synths aren’t “psychologically incomplete,” but they may be less open to novelty, more tradition-oriented, or more invested in defending their cultural identity through music.



3. Why this still matters in 1980s “rock evolution” debates​


By 1980, synths weren’t just add-ons — they were reshaping the sound of rock:


  • Joy Division → New Order (bass + synth marriage).
  • Talking Heads incorporating synth textures.
  • Bowie and Eno shaping art-rock.
  • Prince, Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush pushing hybrid sounds.

But in rock fandom, guitars remained the badge of purity, and many still see synth-driven acts as outside the “true lineage.”



✅ Bottom line:


  • Rock fans resist synths not because of the sounds themselves, but because of cultural meanings attached to them (authenticity, masculinity, rebellion).
  • People who reject synths aren’t “incomplete” — they’re often less open to novelty and more protective of tradition, which is a normal variation in personality.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Anyway, I think it's being a little bit harsh on you lot and there are definitely some synths swirling around in a variety of tracks but very few synth led songs. What is quite interesting is the difference between the UK and the US when it came to the adoption of the synthesiser but that's a separate discussion maybe after we bottom out whether your masculinity is stopping you from enjoying synths?
Click to expand...
I asked a similar question of AI. Contrasting music in 1980 between Uk and US. It came up with this.

There’s something peculiar about 1980. It wasn’t a beginning, exactly — more like a hangover. Punk had burnt out, disco was being buried alive by baseball stadiums full of meatheads, and all the swagger and excess of the ‘70s had left a bitter aftertaste. Music didn’t know where to go, but it knew it couldn’t go back.

Unless, of course, you were American.

In the States, 1980 was business as usual. Big guitars, big choruses, big hair. AC/DC’s Back in Black (released five months after Bon Scott’s death) was tearing up charts, a thunderous farewell and rebirth in one. Van Halen were still showboating like it was '78. Journey and REO Speedwagon made soft rock for people who’d never question soft rock. Even Bruce Springsteen — America’s working-class prophet — was still chasing the open road. There’s craft, sure, but innovation? Not really.

Meanwhile, back in Britain, the kids were in the ruins, wiring up drum machines and dreaming of post-industrial futures. If punk was the explosion, 1980 was the radiation — and the UK was glowing with fallout. Joy Division dropped Closer, a record so bleak and beautiful it felt like it had been carved from ice. Ian Curtis was gone, but the album remains — a requiem for punk’s false promises and a doorway to something colder, stranger.

Across the board, British music turned inward and experimental. Siouxsie, The Cure, and Wire were sketching the blueprint for goth, post-punk, and art-rock with every dissonant chord. Synths crept in. The Human League, John Foxx, and OMD didn’t just embrace technology — they surrendered to it. “We’re making music for a world that already exists,” Foxx said in an interview that year, “not one that remembers Woodstock.”

It wasn’t all doom and gloom — but it was clever. Elvis Costello’s Get Happy!! took vintage soul and twisted it through a bitter, barbed lens. The Specials, still riding high from the Two Tone wave, offered sharp-dressed social commentary in ska form. In the UK, you could dance and think at the same time. In the US, you could mostly just rock out.

Not that America lacked spark. The embers of something new were glowing in the Bronx, where block parties and breakbeats were turning into something nobody had a name for yet. Grandmaster Flash hadn’t dropped The Message yet, but hip-hop was already buzzing under the surface. Downtown NYC was also weird and wonderful — Talking Heads fused funk and paranoia on Remain in Light, and Debbie Harry was rapping (sort of) on Blondie’s Rapture. But these were exceptions, not the rule.

In contrast, Britain’s underground was the rule. Post-punk wasn’t a genre — it was a mindset. Less “no future,” more “no past.” It rejected American stadium rock, and frankly, it laughed at it. You could hear the shift in production too — thinner guitars, synthetic beats, space where the riffs used to be. The UK wasn’t interested in selling records to men with mullets in Ohio. It was making music for bedroom isolationists and Thatcher-era misfits.

“Everyone’s trying to look forwards because there’s nothing left to go back to,” said Robert Smith in an NME interview. “We’re not doing nostalgia. We’re doing what comes next.”

And that was the difference. In America, 1980 sounded like the last days of the empire — glorious, bloated, unbothered. In Britain, it sounded like the beginning of something else entirely — angular, anxious, brilliant. It wasn’t always easy listening. But it mattered.

Looking back now, it’s clear: America kept the volume up. Britain changed the channel.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
I asked a similar question of AI. Contrasting music in 1980 between Uk and US. It came up with this.

There’s something peculiar about 1980. It wasn’t a beginning, exactly — more like a hangover. Punk had burnt out, disco was being buried alive by baseball stadiums full of meatheads, and all the swagger and excess of the ‘70s had left a bitter aftertaste. Music didn’t know where to go, but it knew it couldn’t go back.

Unless, of course, you were American.

In the States, 1980 was business as usual. Big guitars, big choruses, big hair. AC/DC’s Back in Black (released five months after Bon Scott’s death) was tearing up charts, a thunderous farewell and rebirth in one. Van Halen were still showboating like it was '78. Journey and REO Speedwagon made soft rock for people who’d never question soft rock. Even Bruce Springsteen — America’s working-class prophet — was still chasing the open road. There’s craft, sure, but innovation? Not really.

Meanwhile, back in Britain, the kids were in the ruins, wiring up drum machines and dreaming of post-industrial futures. If punk was the explosion, 1980 was the radiation — and the UK was glowing with fallout. Joy Division dropped Closer, a record so bleak and beautiful it felt like it had been carved from ice. Ian Curtis was gone, but the album remains — a requiem for punk’s false promises and a doorway to something colder, stranger.

Across the board, British music turned inward and experimental. Siouxsie, The Cure, and Wire were sketching the blueprint for goth, post-punk, and art-rock with every dissonant chord. Synths crept in. The Human League, John Foxx, and OMD didn’t just embrace technology — they surrendered to it. “We’re making music for a world that already exists,” Foxx said in an interview that year, “not one that remembers Woodstock.”

It wasn’t all doom and gloom — but it was clever. Elvis Costello’s Get Happy!! took vintage soul and twisted it through a bitter, barbed lens. The Specials, still riding high from the Two Tone wave, offered sharp-dressed social commentary in ska form. In the UK, you could dance and think at the same time. In the US, you could mostly just rock out.

Not that America lacked spark. The embers of something new were glowing in the Bronx, where block parties and breakbeats were turning into something nobody had a name for yet. Grandmaster Flash hadn’t dropped The Message yet, but hip-hop was already buzzing under the surface. Downtown NYC was also weird and wonderful — Talking Heads fused funk and paranoia on Remain in Light, and Debbie Harry was rapping (sort of) on Blondie’s Rapture. But these were exceptions, not the rule.

In contrast, Britain’s underground was the rule. Post-punk wasn’t a genre — it was a mindset. Less “no future,” more “no past.” It rejected American stadium rock, and frankly, it laughed at it. You could hear the shift in production too — thinner guitars, synthetic beats, space where the riffs used to be. The UK wasn’t interested in selling records to men with mullets in Ohio. It was making music for bedroom isolationists and Thatcher-era misfits.

“Everyone’s trying to look forwards because there’s nothing left to go back to,” said Robert Smith in an NME interview. “We’re not doing nostalgia. We’re doing what comes next.”

And that was the difference. In America, 1980 sounded like the last days of the empire — glorious, bloated, unbothered. In Britain, it sounded like the beginning of something else entirely — angular, anxious, brilliant. It wasn’t always easy listening. But it mattered.

Looking back now, it’s clear: America kept the volume up. Britain changed the channel.
Click to expand...
About sums it up.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
I asked a similar question of AI. Contrasting music in 1980 between Uk and US. It came up with this.

There’s something peculiar about 1980. It wasn’t a beginning, exactly — more like a hangover. Punk had burnt out, disco was being buried alive by baseball stadiums full of meatheads, and all the swagger and excess of the ‘70s had left a bitter aftertaste. Music didn’t know where to go, but it knew it couldn’t go back.

Unless, of course, you were American.

In the States, 1980 was business as usual. Big guitars, big choruses, big hair. AC/DC’s Back in Black (released five months after Bon Scott’s death) was tearing up charts, a thunderous farewell and rebirth in one. Van Halen were still showboating like it was '78. Journey and REO Speedwagon made soft rock for people who’d never question soft rock. Even Bruce Springsteen — America’s working-class prophet — was still chasing the open road. There’s craft, sure, but innovation? Not really.

Meanwhile, back in Britain, the kids were in the ruins, wiring up drum machines and dreaming of post-industrial futures. If punk was the explosion, 1980 was the radiation — and the UK was glowing with fallout. Joy Division dropped Closer, a record so bleak and beautiful it felt like it had been carved from ice. Ian Curtis was gone, but the album remains — a requiem for punk’s false promises and a doorway to something colder, stranger.

Across the board, British music turned inward and experimental. Siouxsie, The Cure, and Wire were sketching the blueprint for goth, post-punk, and art-rock with every dissonant chord. Synths crept in. The Human League, John Foxx, and OMD didn’t just embrace technology — they surrendered to it. “We’re making music for a world that already exists,” Foxx said in an interview that year, “not one that remembers Woodstock.”

It wasn’t all doom and gloom — but it was clever. Elvis Costello’s Get Happy!! took vintage soul and twisted it through a bitter, barbed lens. The Specials, still riding high from the Two Tone wave, offered sharp-dressed social commentary in ska form. In the UK, you could dance and think at the same time. In the US, you could mostly just rock out.

Not that America lacked spark. The embers of something new were glowing in the Bronx, where block parties and breakbeats were turning into something nobody had a name for yet. Grandmaster Flash hadn’t dropped The Message yet, but hip-hop was already buzzing under the surface. Downtown NYC was also weird and wonderful — Talking Heads fused funk and paranoia on Remain in Light, and Debbie Harry was rapping (sort of) on Blondie’s Rapture. But these were exceptions, not the rule.

In contrast, Britain’s underground was the rule. Post-punk wasn’t a genre — it was a mindset. Less “no future,” more “no past.” It rejected American stadium rock, and frankly, it laughed at it. You could hear the shift in production too — thinner guitars, synthetic beats, space where the riffs used to be. The UK wasn’t interested in selling records to men with mullets in Ohio. It was making music for bedroom isolationists and Thatcher-era misfits.

“Everyone’s trying to look forwards because there’s nothing left to go back to,” said Robert Smith in an NME interview. “We’re not doing nostalgia. We’re doing what comes next.”

And that was the difference. In America, 1980 sounded like the last days of the empire — glorious, bloated, unbothered. In Britain, it sounded like the beginning of something else entirely — angular, anxious, brilliant. It wasn’t always easy listening. But it mattered.

Looking back now, it’s clear: America kept the volume up. Britain changed the channel.
Click to expand...

Think that's broadly right but underplays some of what was going on in the US, especially ignoring how the US punk scene developed differently from ours.

Can't remember if it was described as such at the time but there was this concept of a 'second British invasion' driven by the fact that new wave and synth pop emerged from the UK and the UKs music had more 'edge'.

Though I don't think it properly started until a new way of listening to, or to be more precise watching, music came along which we are about to get but not until next year.
 
threespires said:
Think that's broadly right but underplays some of what was going on in the US, especially ignoring how the US punk scene developed differently from ours.

Can't remember if it was described as such at the time but there was this concept of a 'second British invasion' driven by the fact that new wave and synth pop emerged from the UK and the UKs music had more 'edge'.

Though I don't think it properly started until a new way of listening to, or to be more precise watching, music came along which we are about to get but not until next year.
Click to expand...
Thats easily resolved.

1980 saw punk in the US swap safety pins for steel-toed boots. As Britain tangled with post-punk experimentation and Thatcher-era gloom, the American scene went feral. Out went the art-school sneer of CBGBs (a club in NY); in came the full-throttle chaos of hardcore. Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, and Bad Brains weren’t interested in fashion – they wanted speed, fury, and DIY ethics. LA’s scene exploded in a haze of slam dancing and police batons, while Washington D.C. gave birth to Dischord Records, paving the way for Minor Threat and a new puritanical punk code.

While the UK’s punks dabbled in dub and synths – see Public Image Ltd. or The Pop Group – their U.S. cousins stripped it all back. Dead Kennedys’ Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables spat venom at authority, while Circle Jerks and Fear amped up the aggression. Meanwhile, New York’s art punks drifted into no wave weirdness, as post-punk’s shadow loomed.
Across the Atlantic, UK punk was cerebral, even introspective. But in America, it was war – fast, loud, and barely legal. By year’s end, Darby Crash was dead, and the first wave of U.S. punk was buried with him. In its place? A violent, vital new underground.
I think the 'British Invasion' was resisted for a short time until the launch of you know what in 81. Then it was skinny ties, and synths aplenty :-)
 
threespires said:
Apologies for not being able to add the tracks as we've gone but the playlist is mostly up to date now, I've left a few of people's extras in reserve and will add if the final list isn't too long.

Anyone who's contributed but has not yet picked 4 tracks from the year feel free to use your remaining nominations.

Anywhooo, I couldn't help but notice something as I put the tracks in so I asked Chat GPT....


"I am on a rock evolution thread that has reached 1980 and the music that is being nominated remains steadfastly guitar based, why do so many rock fans not accept the power of the synth and is there any evidence that people who reject synths are psychologically incomplete?"


This is what it came back with :-) and Btw - You can't be abusive towards me about this because according to Chat GPT I asked a really good and layered question and it's AI so it must be true.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


This is a really good and layered question — it touches both on rock culture and identity and on psychology of taste and resistance to change. Let’s break it apart.



1. Why many rock fans resist synths​


Rock has long been tied to certain ideas about “authenticity.” When synthesizers entered popular music in the late 1970s/early 80s, many guitar-based fans saw them as a threat to the core identity of rock. A few reasons:


  • Authenticity vs. Artificiality
    • Guitars are “played with the hands,” visibly physical and expressive.
    • Synths were seen (wrongly) as machines doing the work, removing the human struggle/effort that rock often glorifies.
  • Generational Boundaries
    • Early synth-heavy music (Kraftwerk, Gary Numan, Depeche Mode, Human League) was embraced by younger, club-oriented audiences.
    • Older or more traditional rock listeners often saw this as “not real instruments,” creating a generational clash.
  • Cultural Coding
    • Guitar-based rock was coded “masculine, rebellious, authentic.”
    • Synths were coded “pop, androgynous, dance-oriented, commercial.”
    • So it wasn’t just a sound issue, but an identity issue.
  • Tribalism in music fandom
    • Fans often use genre boundaries to define who they are not as much as who they are.
    • For rock fans, rejecting synths meant rejecting disco, new wave, pop — the “other tribes.”


2. Is rejecting synths evidence of being “psychologically incomplete”?​


There’s no evidence that rejecting synths (or any instrument) is a sign of psychological deficiency. However, research in psychology of music and taste does suggest that:


  • Openness to Experience(a Big Five personality trait) strongly correlates with liking diverse and novel music.
    • People high in openness tend to embrace experimentation (including electronic and avant-garde music).
    • People low in openness prefer familiar, traditional, and guitar-based sounds.
  • Identity Defense Mechanism
    • Music taste often becomes part of personal identity.
    • Rejecting synths isn’t “incompleteness” — it’s more like protecting a stable sense of self.
  • Cognitive Dissonance Avoidance
    • If someone defines “real rock” as guitars, synth-based rock creates dissonance.
    • Rejecting it is a way of avoiding the discomfort of rethinking categories.

So: people who dislike synths aren’t “psychologically incomplete,” but they may be less open to novelty, more tradition-oriented, or more invested in defending their cultural identity through music.



3. Why this still matters in 1980s “rock evolution” debates​


By 1980, synths weren’t just add-ons — they were reshaping the sound of rock:


  • Joy Division → New Order (bass + synth marriage).
  • Talking Heads incorporating synth textures.
  • Bowie and Eno shaping art-rock.
  • Prince, Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush pushing hybrid sounds.

But in rock fandom, guitars remained the badge of purity, and many still see synth-driven acts as outside the “true lineage.”



✅ Bottom line:


  • Rock fans resist synths not because of the sounds themselves, but because of cultural meanings attached to them (authenticity, masculinity, rebellion).
  • People who reject synths aren’t “incomplete” — they’re often less open to novelty and more protective of tradition, which is a normal variation in personality.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Anyway, I think it's being a little bit harsh on you lot and there are definitely some synths swirling around in a variety of tracks but very few synth led songs. What is quite interesting is the difference between the UK and the US when it came to the adoption of the synthesiser but that's a separate discussion maybe after we bottom out whether your masculinity is stopping you from enjoying synths?
Click to expand...
Do you remember when Queen wore 'and no synths' on the back of their album covers as a badge of honour?
 
Saddleworth2 said:
Thats easily resolved.

1980 saw punk in the US swap safety pins for steel-toed boots. As Britain tangled with post-punk experimentation and Thatcher-era gloom, the American scene went feral. Out went the art-school sneer of CBGBs (a club in NY); in came the full-throttle chaos of hardcore. Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, and Bad Brains weren’t interested in fashion – they wanted speed, fury, and DIY ethics. LA’s scene exploded in a haze of slam dancing and police batons, while Washington D.C. gave birth to Dischord Records, paving the way for Minor Threat and a new puritanical punk code.

While the UK’s punks dabbled in dub and synths – see Public Image Ltd. or The Pop Group – their U.S. cousins stripped it all back. Dead Kennedys’ Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables spat venom at authority, while Circle Jerks and Fear amped up the aggression. Meanwhile, New York’s art punks drifted into no wave weirdness, as post-punk’s shadow loomed.
Across the Atlantic, UK punk was cerebral, even introspective. But in America, it was war – fast, loud, and barely legal. By year’s end, Darby Crash was dead, and the first wave of U.S. punk was buried with him. In its place? A violent, vital new underground.
I think the 'British Invasion' was resisted for a short time until the launch of you know what in 81. Then it was skinny ties, and synths aplenty :-)
Click to expand...

I'm no expert but I do think that the true DIY spirit of punk was very much more kept alive in the US than the UK.

Whilst my synth chat gpt conversation was mostly tongue in cheek I do thing there's some seeds of truth in it.
 
threespires said:
I'm no expert but I do think that the true DIY spirit of punk was very much more kept alive in the US than the UK.

Whilst my synth chat gpt conversation was mostly tongue in cheek I do thing there's some seeds of truth in it.
Click to expand...
You are probably right. I dont think its been mentioned yet but didn't REM form in 1980? Although they didn’t start as a punk band, it ran deep in their DNA. They were more chiming guitars and cryptic lyrics rather than three-chord fury. Still, they were raised on punk’s DIY ethos and energy—bands like Television, Patti Smith, and The Velvet Underground shaped their sound and attitude. Early on, they played small clubs, pressed their own records, and carved a path outside the mainstream, all very punk in approach if not in sound. They may not have sounded punk, but they definitely thought punk.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
Do you remember when Queen wore 'and no synths' on the back of their album covers as a badge of honour?
Click to expand...

I don't but I'm not surprised.

It's interesting that some of the prog bands were of course early adopters of synths but that's viewed in quite a different way than the synth bands. The chatgpt view was use in that context was viewed as cape wearing wizardry and virtuoso playing which is seen as heroic and masculine in the same way as a guitar solo is. Whereas a lot of new synth bands looked androgynous or much more feminised.

It's possible that was the reason but I'd have thought it was equally possible that simply a lot of the synth bands were playing music much closer to disco and what we now call edm. But I suspect chatgpt would come back with the argument that rock was always distainful of disco and dance as much because it wasn't 'masculine' rather than the music itself.

The cultural changes and context is something we haven't really touched on that much as we go along. We're s couple of years away from Boy George and I remember the furore he caused, he was literally on the front page of newspapers!

Back on 1980 and there was already a cable channel that predated you know what, called Video Concert Hall. Another example that first mover advantage doesn't always pan out.
 
On the subject of DIY - I thought that @FogBlueInSanFran might want to chime in on 1980 - I've been leaving a certain Pretenders song for him to nominate but I might have to do it myself!
 
threespires said:
I don't but I'm not surprised.

It's interesting that some of the prog bands were of course early adopters of synths but that's viewed in quite a different way than the synth bands. The chatgpt view was use in that context was viewed as cape wearing wizardry and virtuoso playing which is seen as heroic and masculine in the same way as a guitar solo is. Whereas a lot of new synth bands looked androgynous or much more feminised.

It's possible that was the reason but I'd have thought it was equally possible that simply a lot of the synth bands were playing music much closer to disco and what we now call edm. But I suspect chatgpt would come back with the argument that rock was always distainful of disco and dance as much because it wasn't 'masculine' rather than the music itself.

The cultural changes and context is something we haven't really touched on that much as we go along. We're s couple of years away from Boy George and I remember the furore he caused, he was literally on the front page of newspapers!

Back on 1980 and there was already a cable channel that predated you know what, called Video Concert Hall. Another example that first mover advantage doesn't always pan out.
Click to expand...
It is interesting to think about 'image' in music and how it morphed.

You have the stereotypical masculine long hair, bare chested warriors (Robert P being the archetype)
The man of the people check shirt and jeans (Rory and Bruce)
The androgynous space being (Bowie, Gary Newman)
The theatrical hippies (Floyd, Genesis, Yes)
Punk
etc etc etc

You can absolutely tell the type of music they are going to play without them hitting a note. I'm sure there are lots of exceptions but in the main how you look is how you play.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
It is interesting to think about 'image' in music and how it morphed.

You have the stereotypical masculine long hair, bare chested warriors (Robert P being the archetype)
The man of the people check shirt and jeans (Rory and Bruce)
The androgynous space being (Bowie, Gary Newman)
The theatrical hippies (Floyd, Genesis, Yes)
Punk
etc etc etc

You can absolutely tell the type of music they are going to play without them hitting a note. I'm sure there are lots of exceptions but in the main how you look is how you play.
Click to expand...
A bit of a simplistic view but to a point accurate. Numan, changed his clothes to a more wasteland look and all his music did the same.
 
BimboBob said:
Anyway...one day left and shit loads of fantastic tunes are missing!

Messages - OMD

The Plastic Age - The Buggles

We Are Glass - Gary Numan

And then we hit the behemoth that was to become with...

Dog Eat Dog - Adam And The Ants
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say that had you heard Dirk Wears White Socks (which in 1980 became the first #1 in the new Indie Albums Chart) you might have been quite taken back by Kings of the Wild Frontier. I knew people who really liked the debut album and hated what they did next. I thought he was a bit up himself but that the music was pretty harmless fun and I could never really understand why the music press hated him quite as much as they seemed to?

Messages was a quality song, another thing about OMD was they did a nice line in cover art too.
 
As we've had a track from Roxy's Flesh and Blood and a mention of Adam and The Ants, who is the common link between them and also Dodi Fayed?
 
Last edited:
BimboBob said:
Anyway...one day left and shit loads of fantastic tunes are missing!

Messages - OMD

The Plastic Age - The Buggles

We Are Glass - Gary Numan

And then we hit the behemoth that was to become with...

Dog Eat Dog - Adam And The Ants
Click to expand...

A few surprising omissions, for example surprised we've not had mention of a certain fur lined sheepskin jacket wearing relative. A song which also disses the synth boys too if I remember?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top