Sorry if there already is a thread about this year (there is one for the year in music, but I didn't see a general one). Anyhow this is the year I was born so I may be biased, but it's my favorite year of the 70's.

YQvCNLIVydM

8-UJR2tip3c

I posted this in the 70s album thread, but I will repeat it here. If you really want to know 1978, listen to "Some Girls" by the Rolling Stones, which came out that year.

Though the Stones had been around well over a decade already when "Some Girls" was released, I remember thinking how FRESH it sounded. They achieved the near impossible with this album. They took ALL of the disparate, seemingly opposed elements of the late 70s; disco, punk, rock & roll, even country, as well as the dismal glitter of celebrity, and combined it into one cohesive, unified, utterly LISTENABLE album. I don't know how they did it, but they did. If you really want to know what the late 70s were like, this is the album for you. It even SMELLS like the late 70s.  Genius.

It's not for today's easily offended kind of person, either. The lyrics are often as gritty as the time and the place they reflect. In fact, some faint-of-heart people were offended even THEN. But nothing like today.

"Some Girls" back cover:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JHoijp-_Zfo/hqdefault.jpg

I posted this in the 70s album thread, but I will repeat it here. If you really want to know 1978, listen to "Some Girls" by the Rolling Stones, which came out that year.

Though the Stones had been around well over a decade already when "Some Girls" was released, I remember thinking how FRESH it sounded. They achieved the near impossible with this album. They took ALL of the disparate, seemingly opposed elements of the late 70s; disco, punk, rock & roll, even country, as well as the dismal glitter of celebrity, and combined it into one cohesive, unified, utterly LISTENABLE album. I don't know how they did it, but they did. If you really want to know what the late 70s were like, this is the album for you. It even SMELLS like the late 70s.  Genius.

It's not for today's easily offended kind of person, either. The lyrics are often as gritty as the time and the place they reflect. In fact, some faint-of-heart people were offended even THEN. But nothing like today.

"Some Girls" back cover:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JHoijp-_Zfo/hqdefault.jpg

Why did The Stones have an album that had women's brassieres on it?  ???

Why did The Stones have an album that had women's brassieres on it?  ???


You asked that EXACT same question about the "Sticky Fingers" album cover over on the album thread. "Why did the Stones have an album with a man's crotch on it?". I'm starting to thing you just don't get the Stones, Howard.

You asked that EXACT same question about the "Sticky Fingers" album cover over on the album thread. "Why did the Stones have an album with a man's crotch on it?". I'm starting to think you just don't get the Stones, Howard.

I like their music but sometimes I can get a bit curious, that's all.

John Travolta, Saturday Night Fever and Grease
Bee Gees and  younger brother Andy Gibb all over the music charts
Pete Rose's 44 game hitting streak
Yankees come back from 14.5 games back to win the American League East
First Test Tube baby born.

My memories of 1978.

Though the Stones had been around well over a decade already when "Some Girls" was released, I remember thinking how FRESH it sounded. They achieved the near impossible with this album. They took ALL of the disparate, seemingly opposed elements of the late 70s; disco, punk, rock & roll, even country, as well as the dismal glitter of celebrity, and combined it into one cohesive, unified, utterly LISTENABLE album. I don't know how they did it, but they did. If you really want to know what the late 70s were like, this is the album for you. It even SMELLS like the late 70s.  Genius.



Truth.