Tribute to the 70's...

[btoth76]

Did i ever show you mine?

 

 

Give us back the plus knob!!! What a beauty!!! Congratulations!

 

Cheers... Bence

[jdgm]

Did i ever show you mine?

 

 

No you didn't! A stunner! It's 3 pu so it's an early one, looks unmodded and I love the black too.

 

WANT!!!

[milod]

RE: Handyman...

 

The Taylor version was a cover, slowed down and "folkied" from the Jimmy Jones original in the late '50s.

 

Oklahoma City radio KOMA used a cuppla Jones pieces that had "words" sounding as though he were singing the call letters of the station - including Handyman.

 

m

[Rosemarie]

RE: Handyman...

 

The Taylor version was a cover, slowed down and "folkied" from the Jimmy Jones original in the late '50s.

 

Oklahoma City radio KOMA used a cuppla Jones pieces that had "words" sounding as though he were singing the call letters of the station - including Handyman.

 

m

 

I knew it was a cover, but Taylor's version is the one I remember and it evokes memories of visiting my Grandmom.

[milod]

<grin>

 

Yeah, that's 'cuz you're awfully young.

 

Heck, Taylor's younger than my little sis too.

 

m

[Mac Morganfield]

No you didn't! A stunner! It's 3 pu so it's an early one, looks unmodded and I love the black too.

 

WANT!!!

 

Right and wrong. Correct in that it is an early example (1978) but it is modified, nothing that can't be put back though. It's a players guitar, not mint by any stretch and when i got it, the original (?) bridge was so corroded the bass side post was welded to bridge frame. The TP-6 tailpiece was not as bad but the gold plating on all the metal work was very shabby. I cleaned her up and most of the gold came off the pup covers (original pups' though) and the tuners. I replaced the bridge and tailpiece with a Faber ABR-1 upgrade kit in aged condition with brass saddles and a Faber aluminium tailpiece with their locking studs. I've never been a lover of gold hardware but i don't think gold hardware suits distressing; it just seems undignified where as steel looks good with some Wabi-Sabi! The gold reflectors were smashed up and looked REAL shabby so i replaced them with silver reflectors. I've kept all the original hardware (bridge, tailpiece, reflectors) incase i or someone else wants to do a full resto and re-plate everything but everything else is stock.

 

 

 

[Unionman]

The 70s were great for me and for the country, until the rise of Lewis Powell and ALEC sent us on our way back to plutocracy. Good union jobs, didn't swelter in 90 degree heat in the summer (not in CO anyway), Kristy McNichol was not yet a lesbian (joke).

 

I have a '78 Artisan, fantastic sounding, plays like butter. In the '70s I had a '75 Fender Mustang, paid all of $130 for it.

[Unionman]

Right and wrong. Correct in that it is an early example (1978) but it is modified, nothing that can't be put back though. It's a players guitar, not mint by any stretch and when i got it, the original (?) bridge was so corroded the bass side post was welded to bridge frame. The TP-6 tailpiece was not as bad but the gold plating on all the metal work was very shabby. I cleaned her up and most of the gold came off the pup covers (original pups' though) and the tuners. I replaced the bridge and tailpiece with a Faber ABR-1 upgrade kit in aged condition with brass saddles and a Faber aluminium tailpiece with their locking studs. I've never been a lover of gold hardware but i don't think gold hardware suits distressing; it just seems undignified where as steel looks good with some Wabi-Sabi! The gold reflectors were smashed up and looked REAL shabby so i replaced them with silver reflectors. I've kept all the original hardware (bridge, tailpiece, reflectors) incase i or someone else wants to do a full resto and re-plate everything but everything else is stock.

 

 

 

 

Is that a black finish or dark walnut? Mine looks black but is the walnut. If yours is black, that seems rare, most of the time I've seen them in a lighter walnut finish.

[charlie brown]

The "Seventies" was when I stopped playing, altogether! So, it doesn't evoke

particularly good memories, in that regard, at all. Never got into '70's

music, all that much. Some exceptions, as there are, in all era's. But, for

the most part, I think of the '70's (certainly the mid, to latter part) as the

"disco" era! :angry:

 

LOL

 

 

CB

[charlie brown]

Well, I "tolerated" it, alright. But, with some notable exceptions,

not much of that music, was "my cup of tea," that's all. Other's loved

it, and the '70's, in general. It just was never my favorite decade,

music wise, or otherwise. Music wise, the first part, was ok...but,

after disco, pretty much "took over," I lost interest, almost entirely.

Again, there were notable exceptions.

 

But then, I tend to think of '63-'73, to be my favorite "golden age"

of Pop, and Rock music. Other's will have different periods, no doubt!

 

CB

[milod]

Actually Powell and his pre-Supreme Court writing didn't make much difference in how he'd hoped it would. Yes, business began to lobby politically as the unions and "left" in general, but don't forget that economics weren't all that great in the '70s, either. Wage and price controls, double-digit inflation... etc.

 

I made the point above after having lived through some difficult economic times brought by a number of factors - but not including Powell's paper.

 

The '70s were a very transitional period in politics and economics, and must be recognized as such regardless of one's politics.

 

One major factor seldom mentioned is the huge change in technology that spawned initially through WWII inventions into the IC era and the beginnings of major outsourcing by American firms to less expensive manufacturing alternatives offshore.

 

Again, regardless of one's politics, that outsourcing was the almost-unnoticed foundation of today's strange economy that IMHO increasingly resembles that of Rome in the imperial era with increasing differences between the wealthy and the poor - and increasing reliance on raw materials, foodstuffs and manufactured goods from outside what one might consider the "Roman" economy.

 

Odd, but I think one might consider I agree in principal that the '60s and '70s were pretty decent if you had a job of almost any sort - but I think it's lame to blame Powell. He didn't create either the offshoring of repetitive manufacturing jobs or the technological revolutions.

 

I'm somewhat cynical through covering politics for too close to 50 years, but I've heard most of the arguments for and against "whatever stuff is happening" for ages. IMHO it's too much talk and legislative gamesmanship and not enough consideration of what "politics" is supposed to be: the art of the possible.

 

Nobody, IMHO, has done beans to increase overall manufacturing jobs in North America, nor to increase potential of "middle class" lifestyles regardless of party or politics. Lots of posturing, but little happening. In fact, IMHO if most federal legislation designed to aid the economy under either U.S. party had been suspended since the 60s forever, there'd be little difference to what we see today for a national and international economy. The core issues ain't been addressed and in practical, not political terms, some can't.

 

One example severely affecting my community's economics is that North America has lost its ability to process the wool its ag sector produces. Why? Costs vs. perceived value in an era of synthetic fabrics and cheaper offshore manufacture of threads, cloth and clothing.

 

Musically the '70s were culturally different from the political/economic side of things. There was a lot of creativity that resembled that of the '50s in taking what had been done before in terms of "thinking out of the box" composition and turned it into something rather different that actually was more generally "standard material" than segments of '50s and pre-Beatle '60s rock. That's true of rock, country... whatever style.

 

I'll add that a lotta that musical change was enabled by improvements in electronics technology that would quickly explode into the '80s IC-computer era for the small business or individual.

 

m

[surfpup]

But then, I tend to think of '63-'73, to be my favorite "golden age"

of Pop, and Rock music. Other's will have different periods, no doubt!

 

I agree - though I'd probably extend it to '74 because some of my favorite albums came out that year. This has always been my problem with decades tough. They don't really define musical periods very well. It seems to be like the 60s lasted well into the 70's - musically speaking. Then the disco thing, which lasted until the punk/new wave thing, until the hair metal thing, then the alt. grunge thing, ... you get my point. Decades don't really capture that.

 

I'd also add that every decade has had great music in it - even if it was not the dominant radio music of the time.

[jdgm]

That's funny cuz that's how I feel about it only up to about 79 I hated the 80s with a passion.

 

I got in fist fights in the halls with new wavers in high school lol.

 

I hated the Police Flock of Seagulls and all the Alternative suit wearing bunch.

 

I only liked 70s artist still going strong mostly couple exceptions like Guns N Roses Black Crowes and Badlands.

 

Bands that were new but sounded 70s

 

I do want to add as you know Elvis, Johnny Cash, and The Beatles are my beginning.

 

Jimi Hendrix, KISS, Aerosmith, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Ted Nugent, Peter Frampton, AC/DC, and Nazareth were my High School daze.

Cool, Donny.

Your heart is definitely in the right place.

[milod]

One of the frustrating things about music today is that I think we have far more super-talents than in the '50s and '60s - but that they're not necessarily achieving what their musical fathers and grandfathers achieved in terms of recognition and acceptance of their music.

 

I tend to blame that on twice the people - but 10,000 times the media options for listeners that has both fragmented audiences and made "generally known tunes" pretty much a thing of the past.

 

m

[milod]

Shrek...

 

Yeah, I'm yet older, and I do remember life in the '50s and '60s.

 

We've had some folks on the forum howl that it was a horrid time in U.S. history but in general, if one checks such as high school graduation rates, unemployment stats and such, one might conclude it was approaching a golden age of post-war expansion and economic improvement across the board. There were bunches of small businesses and lots of manufacturing jobs.

 

Now... a bunch of "stuff" happened to change that, mostly IMHO ways that make operating a small business a far greater risk than back then since it costs so much more just to start. You also don't see the various sorts of repair shops since so much we have today can't be repaired - just tossed and replaced by another fancy but relatively cheap import. That's shoes, socks, televisions... electronics of all kinds.

 

Funny thing is how "teens" often were considered a bit too wild, and certainly wilder and more questioning than their parents had been in the '30s and during the war, but in terms of education and economics, we've had it a lot worse in the "developed world."

 

As for today's kids... I think where I live is probably 20 years behind the times which is better for the kids' basic "education on life," but modern "communications technology" is closing the gap whether for better or worse.

 

m

[STEVIL]

For all you Brits around in the 70s, it was a time when these 2 ruled the TV screens:

 

 

The Sweeney.

[jdgm]

For all you Brits around in the 70s, it was a time when these 2 ruled the TV screens:

 

 

The Sweeney.

 

Blimey Guv! I'll go down the Dog and Duck, bung my grass a monkey and get him to pony up some rabbit!

[STEVIL]

Blimey Guv! I'll go down the Dog and Duck, bung my grass a monkey and get him to pony up some rabbit!

 

Cor blimey!! I nearly fell down the apples and pears reading that!

[milod]

Shreck...

 

Talk about Americans and Brits separated by a common language...

 

I think - am I correct? - we've just been exposed to some "rhyming slang."

 

Frankly for me it's easier to read Chaucer or even one of the versions of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle.

 

m

[STEVIL]

LOL! That's right Milod, Cockney Rhyming slang. I've lost a lot of it now, but I knew a load of it when I lived in London years back.

[milod]

I was pretty sure, but not at all certain.

 

And... I'll stand by my comment that it's easier reading Middle or even Old English!

 

m

[Unionman]

Actually Powell and his pre-Supreme Court writing didn't make much difference in how he'd hoped it would. Yes, business began to lobby politically as the unions and "left" in general, but don't forget that economics weren't all that great in the '70s, either. Wage and price controls, double-digit inflation... etc.

 

I made the point above after having lived through some difficult economic times brought by a number of factors - but not including Powell's paper.

 

The '70s were a very transitional period in politics and economics, and must be recognized as such regardless of one's politics.

 

One major factor seldom mentioned is the huge change in technology that spawned initially through WWII inventions into the IC era and the beginnings of major outsourcing by American firms to less expensive manufacturing alternatives offshore.

 

Again, regardless of one's politics, that outsourcing was the almost-unnoticed foundation of today's strange economy that IMHO increasingly resembles that of Rome in the imperial era with increasing differences between the wealthy and the poor - and increasing reliance on raw materials, foodstuffs and manufactured goods from outside what one might consider the "Roman" economy.

 

Odd, but I think one might consider I agree in principal that the '60s and '70s were pretty decent if you had a job of almost any sort - but I think it's lame to blame Powell. He didn't create either the offshoring of repetitive manufacturing jobs or the technological revolutions.

 

I'm somewhat cynical through covering politics for too close to 50 years, but I've heard most of the arguments for and against "whatever stuff is happening" for ages. IMHO it's too much talk and legislative gamesmanship and not enough consideration of what "politics" is supposed to be: the art of the possible.

 

Nobody, IMHO, has done beans to increase overall manufacturing jobs in North America, nor to increase potential of "middle class" lifestyles regardless of party or politics. Lots of posturing, but little happening. In fact, IMHO if most federal legislation designed to aid the economy under either U.S. party had been suspended since the 60s forever, there'd be little difference to what we see today for a national and international economy. The core issues ain't been addressed and in practical, not political terms, some can't.

 

One example severely affecting my community's economics is that North America has lost its ability to process the wool its ag sector produces. Why? Costs vs. perceived value in an era of synthetic fabrics and cheaper offshore manufacture of threads, cloth and clothing.

 

Musically the '70s were culturally different from the political/economic side of things. There was a lot of creativity that resembled that of the '50s in taking what had been done before in terms of "thinking out of the box" composition and turned it into something rather different that actually was more generally "standard material" than segments of '50s and pre-Beatle '60s rock. That's true of rock, country... whatever style.

 

I'll add that a lotta that musical change was enabled by improvements in electronics technology that would quickly explode into the '80s IC-computer era for the small business or individual.

 

m

 

Well, the business elite certainly took the memo to heart, and now they run the country. They've stomped labor into the ground and dominate government. A good book on the subject is 'Who Stole the American Dream', by Hedrick Smith.

[milod]

I know the union side of things tends to blame business, business tends to blame unions and government simply goes broke.

 

All three factors essentially might be traced to increasing trends in growth and institutional bureaucracies to manage the growth - at least in my opinion from watching this stuff as a journalist for nearly 50 years.

 

The bottom line to all of it, again IMHO, is that "we" have doubled our population and that brings increasing bureaucracies to "control" various aspects of that growth.

 

It's also interesting to me the degree to which labor unions have "bought into" retirement plans involving stock in various large corporate entities that may or may not as institutions be "labor friendly." It's almost funny - and one wonders about those handling the stock purchases.

 

Back around 1970 I got in a bit of trouble with my WWII veteran boss by stating that it appeared to me that increasing government control and growing multi-corporations were the future and that the individual outside that control level was in for a decreasing standard of living compared to the senior bureaucrats. Partly I figured it was due to seriously expanding populations - double what it was when I was a kid - and partly due to the nature of bureaucrats constantly seeking to increase their own world of control.

 

I said then, and as has increasingly become the case now, that every measure of individual freedom traditional in the U.S. would be slowly degraded. Yesterday in spite of state and federal background checks for some ID, etc., etc., including decades of holding a U.S. passport, I had to delay getting my drivers license renewal because I didn't have a specific type of copy of my birth certificate. Yet we know that under other state bureaucracies, nobody cares - and the feds figure you should be able to vote without any ID. Of course, that's mostly in states where those in control figure it's to their political benefit.

 

That ain't big business.

 

Funny, but circa 1995, some 25 years after my comments and after he'd sold the once-family business to a corporation that sold it to another corporation that sold it to another corporation, that boss from 1970 said he had to admit that the kid had been correct. Bureaucracies perpetuate themselves by promising benefits that only accrue to themselves. The disaster of over-promised government union retirement also is something everyone should be concerned about, but I'll wager few in those unions' bureaucracies will have the concerns of their members.

 

I'm glad I won't be around in 20 years because we're in for some sad wakeup calls; and fingerpointing against any single segment of the economy and government ain't gonna tell the whole story.

 

m

[Edlo]

 

rct

She was my fav of Charlie's Angels.

[Edlo]

You Said it brother.