Steely Dan: "Steely Dan's name has been popping up as a hip musical crush. Remember, this glossy bop-pop was the indifferent aristocracy to punk rock's stone-throwing in the late 70's. People fought

Invented by Byzantine eunuchs to celebrate victory in the Battle of Arcadiopolis in 970 to be exact.

I heard some Beatlemania level screaming this weekend throughout a 1987 performance of Soda Stereo in Chile, but other than that can’t recall such a phenomenon apart from the original.

Thanks, Byzantine eunuchs

xp

they were mid

It was kind of funny how on during the middle of American Bandstand, Dick Clark would pretty much say, "OK, enough dancing. Let's sit in these bleachers and listen to some live music."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkupadNBt6s

The liner notes to the first Byrds album emphasize the extent to which they were making folk(/rock) danceable, but despite this I don't think they appeal on that front to fans of modern dance music. But even a year or two later, when Cream or the Doors released their debuts, it's pretty absurd to imagine audiences reacting by screaming or dancing (maybe the kind of manic swaying you see in Woodstock or Gimme Shelter).

I confess that I do not know a lot of dance music fans but it is a stretch to assume that they totes love the Byrds and Steely Dan

Happy to be corrected if I am wrong in this

The received lore is that Beatles, when playing live, could not hear anything other than screaming, because (the story goes) the audience was interested only in them as personalities as opposed to musicians. Their concerts were completely drowned out by swooning teens (mostly girls, of course, because that is the narrative).

I personally don't buy this narrative. There wasn't, and isn't, any other instance of four average or slightly-better-than-average-looking dudes wearing clothes and standing someplace and receiving the same adulation. They must have been doing SOMETHING right.

All of those bands were screamed at though, look at this footage of the Stones, the screaming is constant!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL3CB6_4G3k

he audience was interested only in them as personalities as opposed to musicians. Their concerts were completely drowned out by swooning teens (mostly girls, of course, because that is the narrative).

I agree with this

but I do believe they couldn't hear themselves, just given the state of PA and amplification at the time.

Maybe everyone was just too stoned from 1967-74.

Everyone was wild then, even Charles Manson had girls acting a little crazy when he was around.

And his music sucked

The Prosecutors don't get it, but the little girls understand

I confess that I do not know a lot of dance music fans but it is a stretch to assume that they totes love the Byrds and Steely Dan

Happy to be corrected if I am wrong in this

My god I am sick of this thread’s title.

people fought and died so that this could be the main Steely Dan thread, matttt

My perhaps over-subtle point was that in the 1965 context, even a group as rhythmically basic as the early Byrds could be rated for danceability, which would pretty soon go out the window as a quality prized in a rock band.

...though Ellen Willis did call CCR "America's top dance band" at the time.

The Byrd's got started in clubs, where you had to be able to make people dance. They gradually was phased out as the ballrooms took over, and even then a lot of those shows were promoted as "dances" into the late '60s.

Sure, but were people dancing to it like they were to soul records? I somehow doubt it!

You’ll dance to anything…by the Byrds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCOxslTvwC4

https://giphy.com/gifs/dancing-party-elaine-ku2YMEjzMwud2

https://i.imgur.com/sDBHcZJ.jpg

"A full body dry heave set to music."

Brain now breaking thinking about an edition of Steely Dan with Michael Clarke on drums.

Sure, but were people dancing to it like they were to soul records? I somehow doubt it!

probably? that's just it, seems like rock and soul and r&b were intimately linked, then at some point in the mid-late 60's it becomes more segregated. the artists continue to recognize the connection for a time, but audiences come to see rock as separate. i don't know if this was influenced by critics, or whether there are key works that mark where the break occurs or what.

we’re sgt peppers lonely hearts club band

I feel like the Yardbirds started the stand there and watch the guitarist thing

i def think this happens before pepper

XP Jim McCarty said the part of Blow-Up that didn't ring true to him was the stillness of the audience during the concert scene--"We made people dance!"

Elijah Wald makes a convincing case that the Beatles "destroyed" rock 'n' roll by inventing a hegemonic genre uninterested in singles and dancing, segregating white rock (music for listening) from black soul (music for dancing) https://www.elijahwald.com/beatlespop.html

The received lore is that Beatles, when playing live, could not hear anything other than screaming, because (the story goes) the audience was interested only in them as personalities as opposed to musicians. Their concerts were completely drowned out by swooning teens (mostly girls, of course, because that is the narrative).

I personally don't buy this narrative. There wasn't, and isn't, any other instance of four average or slightly-better-than-average-looking dudes wearing clothes and standing someplace and receiving the same adulation. They must have been doing SOMETHING right.

I think what's missing both in the received lore and in your post is the modern concept of fandom - i.e. that it is not just about the idol, but also and perhaps even moreso about the feeling of belonging that you get from having others share your passion. So I'd argue it needn't have been either the four dudes standing there or the music they're playing that prompted the screams so much as the concentration of a stadium's worth of ppl obsessed with the records and the personalities all reinforcing each other's fandom.

Elijah Wald makes a convincing case that the Beatles "destroyed" rock 'n' roll by inventing a hegemonic genre uninterested in singles and dancing, segregating white rock (music for listening) from black soul (music for dancing) https://www.elijahwald.com/beatlespop.html

I'm sure the book as a whole is more nuanced but judging just from that title and your summation this feels a bit too tidy in putting on one group's shoulders what was clearly a collaborative effort amongst many players, Bob Dylan being a huge factor that instantly comes to mind (did people dance to Blonde On Blonde?). But really I'd suspect critics and execs had more to do with it than actual musicians ever did, judging by the amount of R&B covers of the Beatles' later material.

Fair point, Daniel_Rf.

One thing I have observed as a former teenager and current parent of a teenager is that teenagers tend to have addictive personalities but society is mistaken about what they're addicted to.

When I was 16 I appeared to cherish sex and rock music and alcohol and weed. I really just craved time with my peers. My 16-year-old child appears to cherish her phone. But Discord and TikTok and Instagram and such aren't ends in themselves; they are conduits to her peers.

Mostly, kids are addicted to each other.

^otm

beatlemania was girlpower 1.0 but much bigger than the 90s it was an extremely powerful collective phenomenon and source of freedom and solidarity and social power that teenage girls weren't getting elsewhere in the 60s

stan culture seems to be chasing something similar but things are way more fractured now. it's like a bunch of intense trotskyist or maoist cults that attack each other more than they attack the establishment. the objects of standom aren't irrelevant but they're only part of something much bigger - a faction of swifties could conceivably detach from TS at some point and keep going as their own thing as long as they have something/someone else to bind them

idk where dancing fits except its another thing that binds people and the popularity of dance music probably vaguely tracks the strength of social movements - 70s rock is often very reactionary and (pseudo-) individualistic in this regard

as for steely dan haters being clotheared, maybe - I can tell they're "good" in some sense but they're such a bummer vibe and I want my bummer music to be harsh and grating instead of groovy

going back a bit

or almost any footage during the time when bands frequently were shot for tv or concert films, it is remarkable how the behavior of the crowds is as sedate and passive as it is (the two guys losing their shit when Sabbath did Kirschners show, or the chicks dancing to Uriah Heep's "the Wizard" on whichever english show it is notwithstanding)…

the drug disappeared so I don't always think of it, but we shouldn't underestimate the role of Quaaludes

Just saw a Steely Dan cover band at a local park here, they were pretty damn good. Started off w/Green Earrings, real legit. No Deacon Blues, but yes to Cousin Dupree. Always love a cover band that does deep cuts.

Cousin Dupree probably a bit easier to play.

My local Steely Dan cover band playing at a local park didn't do any reunion era songs, quashing my hopes to hear "Lunch with Gina".|

They were the real deal though, seems like that could handle any Dan song thrown their way. They closed w/a mean version of Bodhisattva.

Bob Dylan being a huge factor that instantly comes to mind (did people dance to Blonde On Blonde?). But really I'd suspect critics and execs had more to do with it than actual musicians ever did

^that's what i assume

People already did go to clubs to hear Jazz and coffee houses or wherever to hear Folk. I suppose it was inevitable when Rock started getting serious.

i think of folk fans as the indie kids of their day, and it makes sense that critical support for revivalists, and Dylan and folk-rock would have influenced attitudes about rock but this is an unstudied assumption

Bob Dylan: "I think of myself more as a song and dance man".

Bob Dylan, on the Byrds: "Wow,you can dance to this!"