Author:David Hepworth
David Hepworth’s book, in which he postulates that 1971 was rock’s ‘golden year’, has already excited a lot of comment on this site (lights blue touchpaper, stands well back!) Having started life as a column in ‘The Word’ magazine, it takes a month-by-month look at the major events and significant releases of that year, concluding each month with a short playlist of recommended listening.
It’s hard to put yourself back in that era now, when the whole back catalogue of recorded music wasn’t just a click away, when the only way of getting music news was the weekly copy of NME, when hours could be whiled away browsing the racks in the local record shop. Certainly the list of 100 albums that Hepworth presents at the book’s conclusion tends to support his theory, as such a high proportion of them went on to become regarded as classics in future years. However, there’s no real in depth dissection of their individual content, as he chooses to go with a more broad-brush approach in order to give an overall impression of the feel of the music scene, its major players and indeed society in general in that year.
Length of Read:Long
Might appeal to people who enjoyed…
The book is as entertaining and well written as you would expect from Hepworth, and will certainly appeal to ex Word readers -but if you were around and buying music in 1971 it will resonate even more and bring back many happy memories. It certainly inspired me to dig out some of those albums again!
One thing you’ve learned
The $64,000 question then – was 1971 really ‘rock’s golden year’ as the book claims? Well, it was certainly ‘a’ golden year, but more likely it was one of many others – 1966, 1977, whatever, take your pick. I’m sure all of us will have a particular candidate from when we were in our salad days and felt the world was our very own oyster. The author makes a good, interesting and most importantly very readable case for his own personal choice though.
Obviously haven’t read the book, but gotta say I’m with the Hep on this one. I was born in ’71, so the year always caught my eye as I sifted through rock’s back catalogue. The list of great albums from that year is astounding. The best Stones album, the best Who album, the best Sly album, the best Zeppelin album, the best Marvin Gaye album, Allmans at Fillmore, Surfs Up etc etc.
My theory?
1/ Most of these bands were 3-4 albums into their stride, and peaking. This is really the best year for 60s bands that were still around. They each put out maybe one more great album before their decline.
2/ Recording technology changed quickly and fundamentally in the year or so before, listen to the production of Tommy vs Who’s Next, consecutive studio albums. Their was a fundamental shift in how instruments were recorded and mixed. Amps were close miked, drum kits had every element miked. This was a hi fi stereo world. Abby Road was the harbinger of this change a couple of years prior, and it sounds like nothing else the Beatles did.
3/ The rise of the FM long format radio station. This was miles from the mono, AM singles-led format from just a couple of years before.
1966? Revolver and what else?
1977? Really?
Everyone knows ’71 produced the best babies.
1966 – Pet Sounds, Blonde on Blonde?
With respect to the production of Tommy v Who’s Next the difference is Tommy was produced by Kit Lambert, a dilettante rather than an experienced producer whereas Who’s Next was in the hands of Glyn Johns.
Hepworth discussed Who’s Next at the Word In Your Ear event last and Glyn Johns’ impact on the production. Getting Townshend to cut back the Lifehouse concept, because he didn’t understand it, the band didn’t understand it and the public wouldn’t. So a single album emerged.
Nice touch at the end of the evening when he took us through his Top 10 albums of the year (Yes Album, What’s Going On, LZ4 and more) culminating with Who’s Next and then taking us to the Moment Of The Year – which comes at 1:06 into Baba O’Riley when Daltrey’s vocals and Entwhistle’s bass come in.
As he said it’s his opinion. But also FACT.
I think Johns made an error in leaving Pure And Easy off the disc – one of the best Who songs ever. Now that is FACT.
Oh. He actually likes What’s Goin’ On? I honestly couldn’t tell from the book.
1979
http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/1979.html
A marvellous array of singles to be sure. As for albums, well I was 17 that year so have something of a soft spot for 1979. That said, I suspect that more people would be familiar with (and/or like) more albums from 1971 taking the music listening population as a whole.
The answer is 1982 but never mind.
Of course nowadays young folk don’t care *when* things came out – they can listen to anything they want from any era at the tap of an phone so the date things were released will surely become less relevant than ever. Nobody sits there waiting for music to define their era- everyone will have their own self-curated soundtrack that defines the era from them – so there can never be another 1971, or 1972, or 1973, or 1974 (no one died) etc etc
Poor them.
You make it sound awful.
I think the music angle is a red herring.
For me, 1971 is really the year when everything started to look shite (mid-60s George Best v. Charlie George, ‘Out Of Our Heads’ cover art v. ‘Sticky Fingers’, check McCartney’s threads in 1971/1972 compared to the mid-60s).
Watched the first series of ‘Budgie’ a few years back, broadcast and mainly filmed in 1971, and the clothes and London itself looked so down at heel, it appeared almost Dickensian.
1971 seems far more remote than, say, 1965, doesn’t it?
I’d argue it even appears more remote than 1958. Eddie Cochran’s ‘Summertime Blues’ is far more relevant and contemporary than The Who’s stodgy version.
I’m not sure why Hepworth is so obsessed with 1971. Suppose you’ve got to do something, but it’s like writing a book about conquering Everest in 1960.
You could do, but why on earth would you?
The Stones’ album title Out Of Our Heads is an interesting one.
It worked as a pun in 1965 because the grown-ups didn’t get it, so the double meaning was an in-joke for the kids.
A couple of years later and it might have been too obvious/naughty to work.
I’m reading this at the moment, and am enjoying it. I like the mixture of social history & music, and you don’t necessarily have to agree with everything to enjoy the book. I normally find the combination of social history and music to be off-putting but he does it well and it’s got a good cover which is always a plus for me.
That’s a fiver to the usual address, Mr DH.
I like Hepworth’s writing style. He is a nice, easy read, even over 350 pages. His sentences are short and clip along at a brisk pace, dotted with the occasional neat turn of phrase. He does enough to keep the reader engaged, despite the narrative thread within 1971 being thin and frayed in parts. He does, however, deal in absolutes. He takes a deliberately provocative position and sticks with it. There is no room for nuance, let alone shades of grey.
1971 is at its best when it looks at international and historical events through the lens of the music industry. It was my first teenage year and I remember it well. Hepworth captures its smell, its look and its feel extremely well; the sexism, the homophobia, the boredom. It is at its weakest supporting his case that 1971 is the ‘best’ year for Rock, mainly because he stretches the concept of twelve months to at least three years. For example, Carly Simon is discussed with respect to what she got up to in 1972 and the concert for Bangladesh leads to a lengthy passage on 1970’s All Things Must Pass. There are twelve chapters, one for each month, but the topics range far and wide, way beyond those few weeks.
If you ignore the premise and simply go for the ride, 1971 is really enjoyable. July may be the best chapter. Hepworth scrutinises Every Picture Tells A Story with great enthusiasm, his prose purpling with the excitement. Contrast that with barbs gleefully puncturing the myths surrounding What’s Goin’ On, barely relieved by the few positive strokes he reluctantly applies. Interestingly, the rest of the book is spent inflating myths, using the critic’s age old trick of stating subjective opinion as though it were an objective fact.
I believe the list of albums at the end of the book undermine his case. It is a depressingly dull list of sepia toned music with barely a splash of colour. In the end, however, I think he makes his point, if that point is that 1971 was pivotal in music’s transition from a business into an industry. He certainly seems to care less about the music than he does about the way money was made.
I enjoyed the read, as much as I enjoyed 1965. Jon Savage’s 1966 remains impenetrable to me.
Excellent review Tigs – really good to get a second opinion from someone who *was there* and interesting to read that you’re not convinced by his list of hallowed records.
Put it this way, there are only ten I would even consider for my top 100 and there are plenty years with far more worthy of consideration.
The Times’ review of it today gave the impression that Heppo was saying 1971 was also the year that the ‘heritage’ aspect of rock was born, via Bob and George playing oldies at the Concert for Bangladesh or somesuch.
I haven’t read the book yet, but if this is actually David’s opinion it’s surely demonstrably wrong: the 1969 Toronto ‘Peace’ Concert was actually a rock’n’roll revival festival, and there was a London rock’n’roll revival show at Wembley in 1970 or thereabouts – prompted by the previous couple of years full of rock revivalist bands (Shaky & the Sunsets, the Wild Angels) and tours of the UK by the remaining US originals, plus all of those 50s R&R covers on stage and record by the Who, Fotheringay, the Move, Zeppelin, etc.
True Colin – the Toronto Festival line-up included Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Gene Vincent and Little Richard. The Wembley show was actually held in 1972, however. Here’s @deramdaze and his friends on their way to the concert…
http://i917.photobucket.com/albums/ad15/camplimp/music-rock-n-roll-revival-concert-wembley-1355457_zpslxib5yfc.jpg
(waits for @johnny-concheroo‘s inevitable “I was there” story…)
From the Wembley show, here’s prize bell-end Screaming Lord Sutch, some doves, and what were probably called at the time ‘dolly birds’ failing to whip the crowd into a frenzy…
Never a fan of the 50s retro movement, so I avoided those rock & roll package shows.
Indeedy. Sha Na Na played at Woodstock in 1969, so the R&R-retro phenomenon was fairly well established by 1971. Might Elvis’s 1968 comeback special have been what kicked it off?
December ’71 was certainly a memorable month for Frank Zappa.
(from Wikipedia)
<>
On December 4, 1971, Zappa suffered his first of two serious setbacks. While performing at Casino de Montreux in Switzerland, the Mothers’ equipment was destroyed when a flare set off by an audience member started a fire that burned down the casino. Immortalized in Deep Purple’s song “Smoke on the Water”, the event and immediate aftermath can be heard on the bootleg album Swiss Cheese/Fire, released legally as part of Zappa’s Beat the Boots II compilation. After losing $50,000 worth of equipment and a week’s break, the Mothers played at the Rainbow Theatre, London, with rented gear. During the encore, audience member Trevor Howell pushed Zappa off the stage and into the concrete-floored orchestra pit. The band thought Zappa had been killed—he had suffered serious fractures, head trauma and injuries to his back, leg, and neck, as well as a crushed larynx, which ultimately caused his voice to drop a third after healing.
This accident resulted in an extended period of wheelchair confinement, making touring impossible for over half a year. Upon return to the stage in September 1972, Zappa was still wearing a leg brace, had a noticeable limp and could not stand for very long while on stage. Zappa noted that one leg healed “shorter than the other” (a reference later found in the lyrics of songs “Zomby Woof” and “Dancin’ Fool”), resulting in chronic back pain.
You say ‘accident’. Howell was convicted of assault and served 12 months in jail.
Can’t remember the exact order, but the most recent ‘Greatest, Greatest, Greatest Album of All Time’ Top 100/200/500 had a top 7 that read something like…..
‘Revolver’, ‘Pet Sounds’, ‘Blonde on Blonde’, ‘VU & Nico’, ‘Forever Changes’, ‘Rubber Soul’ and ‘The Beatles’ or, if you like, December 1965 to November 1968.
Not connected at all, but I’ve huge 800 page tomb coming out next year called, ‘The Most Successful Football Team since 1888 – Scunthorpe United’.
Are you *sure* that it’s a ‘tomb’ you have coming out next year? Are Scunthorpe United in it?
Two-thirds through, first chance I’ve had to read anything this quick in months because of work.
Enjoyable, easy page turner but the thing that strikes me so often when reading his stuff is, he doesn’t really seem to like music very much does he? Only marginally more than he likes music fans.
Which makes his an odd, if very successful career choice.
I’ve grown to wonder if he generally likes musicians. He may as well be a potato critic. He’d be one of the best writers on potatoes there is, mind.
I’m not wholly convinced he’s a big fan of people in general, our Dave.
I reckon he likes money.
It’s definitely more a book on the music business than one about music. Still a really good read, though.
Hep gives the impression that he’s constantly disappointed that other people don’t live up to his very high opinion of himself.
If that was the case we’d be reviewing “1571” instead (roughly the time the Spanish introduced the spud in Europe), and the songlist’d be along the line of the Bonzos’ “Tubers In The Moonlight” or “Desiree” by U2
I suspect at least one album (of their six to date) by indie electronic band Hot Chip would feature in Hep’s book, too.
Has anyone yet mentioned that the album which gives this book its title – Never A Dull Moment – was released in July 1972?
That’s the way he extends 1971 into 1970 & 1972. He claims all albums released in 1971 and recorded in 1970 plus all albums recorded in 1971 and released later, the most tenuous being The Modern Lovers. It’s a lot like the TV programme, Vinyl, which has a warped, telescopic view of time.
I did think that might be the case, but the Rod Stewart LP was recorded March–May, 1972 and released in July of that year.
I’m interested to know how he shoehorned Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers in there (recorded/released 1976), other than he worked for the London office of their label Beserkley Records
He claims they demo’d a handful of the tracks in 1971. Mainly, he says 1971 was the year Jonathan Richman fell in love with The Velvet Underground. I remain unconvinced.
Yes, I agree with you. At best they capture the spirit of 1971 I suppose
You simply cannot call a book about rock albums of 1971, Never A Dull Moment.
Not least because Every Picture Tells A Story is a better title and has the benefit of actually being released in his chosen year.
DH is a fine writer but his polemicism is a mask for inaccuracy. To my mind it’s because he has no great love for his subject matter.
That lack of love manifests itself in a shallowness and arbitrariness passed off as judgement.
There is an interesting comparison to be made with Mark Ellen. Ellen is the arch enthusiast but not as technically gifted as his old oppo, Heppo.
The best critics love, I mean *love* their chosen subject and since he doesn’t he remains readable but not compelling.
Although named correctly in the index, “The Band and The Street Choir” made my brain itch rather.
I couldn’t help but snarl when he stated that Oh! You Pretty Things opens Hunky Dory.
Aren’t we fucking picky!?
David Hepworh’s blog now has Spotify links to the monthly playlists at the end of each chapter, as well as to his main 1971 playlist
http://whatsheonaboutnow.blogspot.co.uk/