Customer Reviews

The Year the Music Died: 1964-1972: A Commentary on the Best Era of Pop Music, and an Irreverent Look at the Musicians and Social Movements of

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I was excited when asked to review this book because I experienced first-hand the music so well documented in it.
The years 1964-1972 brought with it music creators like, the Beatles, the Doors, Rolling Stones and the Byrds, just to name a few. Author Dwight Rounds takes us back to the 'golden era' of music in this work with information on different groups, trivia, quizzes and lists of their songs; along with charts and great pictures from old magazines of many different groups. I giggled at some of the lists he put in this work rating the artists. Good touch.
I take my hat off to this author as it would be impossible not to realize the work and research that was done. and the time it took to put this work together, great job. Let me just say this; if you enjoyed your youth during this time and want to splash in the past for a while you will love this book. Or, if you are a music enthusiast that yearns to know more, you won't be able to put this one down. To coin a phrase, this one is "A Blast From the Past." A really fun and interesting work. Well done Mr. Rounds, thanks for the memories.

Dwight Rounds has written a wonderful book on the music of this era. I was facinated with the section on The Beatles and his opinions and ratings of all of their songs. This book was truly a book written from Dwight's heart and he must have put much time and effort into compiling it. I know that some people might be put off with his elite and prolitarian views. I did not agree with him with everything pertaining to this subject but really understood where he was coming from with most of his comments and opinions. I have read a very long 3 star comment on Amazon about this book and the guy who wrote it really needed to lighten up . It is Dwight's book and he is certainly entitled to his opinions! By the way "Turn, Turn,Turn" is one of my favorites too! Thank you for a great read and I absolutely recommend this book to anyone who loved the music of this era...that includes musicians and the general music lovers too. Debbie A.

While expressing that the best music of his life was produced between 1964-72, citing "Disco Duck" and "Rock The Boat" as the END, he also includes what I as a serious musician would consider "bubblegum" as serious "songwriting". Such as "Dizzy" or 1910 Fruitgum Company. The energy and creative environment that produced the era's great music continued to some extent into around 1976-77. Even the author admits that "Hotel California" was a great album. Not everything was Disco Duck in the mid-seventies. The Who was still making good music, Jackson Browne, Dan Fogelberg, Cat Stevens, Al Stewart, YES, Chicago, Heart, Led Zeppelin, Dave Mason, David Bowie, Elton John, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Todd Rundgren, etc.... I'm sure you could all add your own favorites..Jeff Beck, Eric Clapton, Grateful Dead, Genesis and so on. Much of the early part of the book was interesting, but in the final chapters the author takes great pains to try his darndest to make sure that none of us get the idea that the music influenced how people felt, thought, and acted. While I agree that suicides can not be blamed on lyrics it doesn't work the other way around. I know people for sure who ran from the draft because the music communicated to them what the adults and TV would not tell them. That music for young people of that time was a type of "internet" that you could be "plugged into (informed)" if you really tried and wanted to know. Rolling Stone wasn't a large force yet as a media outlet but there were thousands of underground newspapers that were available at the hippest record stores in those days that kept you informed about what musicians and social commentators thought and believed. The author points out that Woodstock was a failure why??? Because a small percentage of irresponsible pigs left a big mess and didn't clean up after themselves. I was a hippy too. And I never left my trash for someone else to pick up and neither did most of my friends. I could go on forever giving examples of how the attitudes and beliefs of musicians effected--thru their songs or even the way that they played their instruments-- how individuals, tens of millions of them, were effected and changed by what they heard and what they're friends and boyfriends and girlfriends were listening to and responding to. And this also forced some amount of change on older folks as they usually continued to love their own children and had to deal with new ideas, new ways of expression, new possibilities, and an expanded acceptance of what was previously not even thought about or accepted just a few years before. While some of the ways of the hippies were to turn out not very well, at least being able to consider something different was tolerated in a way that was not tolerated before. People still by and large hate protestors but to protest WW2 was unheard of and not tolerated. Of course there are "phoney" hippies too. Frank Zappa made fun of them and their dishonesty. But the author tries to make it look like Frank Zappa thought hippies were stupid. He did not. He disliked "pretend" hippies, people who were just along for the party; people who used hippy ideas to just be irresponsible or to steal from others or get into someone's pants without regard for their feelings. It should also be pointed out that Frank Zappa also made fun of the establishment, governments, military, police, college, authority in general, religion. He was against anything dishonest and phoney including some hippies. He was anti-drug, never used them, but he was also anti-alcohol and prescription drugs and put down the older generations who accepted these "drugs" as normal and "ok". I guess what I'm saying is that you can skip this book. Read Zappa's book. The music very definitly affected the times, and people's behavior. Equal treatment of women, disdain for war and violence, treating your fellow man with respect, all of these ideas were promoted by the music and by TV shows like the Smothers Brothers--whom he also takes a swipe at because they complained about censorship. The author points out that the "owners" who own the network and have corporate sponsors have a right to decide what they broadcast. But the air-waves are supposed to be free to all. Not without cost free but free as in content and ideas. Sponsors still get to sell their products regardless of the content of a show or concert. The author makes the stupid attempt to separate the life force of the musician from their music. That what they beleive and advocate as human beings should have nothing to do with their music and performances that are sponsored by owned entities of the establishment. This means that they own us too if we can't freely express ourselves thru these mediums. He fails to get it that without the artists' art, there is NO SHOW !! There is only official propaganda left---whether corporate or government. Entertainment venues only have the obligation to give equal time to opposing views, they are not supposed to censure based on political offensiveness. People of those times, collectively had grown tired of the lies of the establishment, and the music was a reflection and a confirmation, and validation of those shared feelings. It doesn't mean that they provided all the answers to our problems. But how many things would be judged as failures on that criteria? Because Eric Clapton and Jerry Garcia couldn't solve everything they were not to be listened to or taken seriously? Because they couldn't reverse years of authoritarian control and because sometimes they were wrong we should discount them and say that they had nothing to offer socially or politically?? Bull! What; were they supposed to become senators and run for president so they could fix everything for us? Nonsense! They were musicians, artists, writers. They were giving us--reminding us--of the tools to use to fix it ourselves and at least be informed and involved and care. I don't understand why someone who considers this music to be the best doesn't get it that the energy and thought and belief systems behind the music is what facilitated its creation. You cannot ban Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Youngs' philisophical beliefs without erasing the great music that those energies made possible. So if you go to one of their concerts or to see Linda Ronstadt and she supports gay marraige or ending torture or warrantless spying on American citizens, and you are angry and dissappointed because you paid to hear them sing not talk about their beliefs, you're pretty stupid to spend money on an artist (product, if you will allow) that you obviously know nothing about.

I admire the author's attempt to catalog some of the bands that were playing during that period. In fact, one could make the argument that this period of time WAS "a" sweet spot in rock and roll history. However, this book is flawed in that his facts aren't always correct and the endless meaningless trivia gets old. When it comes to the Beatles, his reviews are outright ridiculous, although everybody has an opinion. His own editorial comments are at times odd. I guess one of my favorites was when he thinks Peter Noone (Herman of the Hermits) is comparing himself to Jimi Hendrix when it was obvious that all Noone was doing is paying homage to the guitar hero by saying his band's time had come and gone. I couldn't finish the book.