POLL: What year should I "box" next: 1979, 1980, or 1982?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Given that I'm still spending a large portion of my non-working hours making copies of the 1981 set, and given that getting to the point of production on that one took a year, it will likely be a while before I start "serious" work on another box set.

But now that I know there's interest and an appreciative audience justifying all the geekily employed hours (and money), I'm pretty sure it's a matter of when, not if, I'll start the next one (though I'm secretly hoping others here will claim each of the other years '78-'83 before I start).

So, the question at hand: yet again focusing on "post-punk" and "new wave" in the broadest definitions, which year do you think would best sustain the box-set treatment? My initial inclination was 1982, but I think I may be letting my love for the Comsat Angels' tune "After the Rain" cloud my judgement. My current leaning is 1979--looking over Simon Reynolds' "post-punk time line" and seeing the months of September through December alone get me excited to begin. (Random aside: I don't recal 'Drums and Wires' being in the time line. . .)

I figure if there's anyone geeky enough to take the bait and have this discussion, it's you (and I mean that in the fondest sense possible).

― I.M. (I.M.), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 01:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh--I'm also considering "cheating" and doing a joint 82-83 set.

― I.M. (I.M.), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 01:56 (twenty-one years ago)

i vote for '79, but i'll take what i can get!

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 01:58 (twenty-one years ago)

joint set!

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 01:58 (twenty-one years ago)

and are you still taking requests for that '81 set? B & P or what?

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 01:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Blackmail --

Given that I'm using a really specific sort of CD-R (for thermal printing purposes, and reliability) and that there is fairly extensive packaging, B&P isn't really practical. I've just been doing cost of materials and postage. Drop me an email and I'll put you on the waiting list.

Did you mean joint 82-83?

― I.M. (I.M.), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 02:07 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm in favor of the joint 82-83 set, although i understand your inclination from following the reynold's book.

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 02:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, '79 is where my heart of hearts is--my first attempt at any of this sort of mixmaking was a 3-disc '1979' mix a little over two years ago. But '82 might be more of a challenge. . .

― I.M. (I.M.), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 02:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd like to see 1979.

― Xii (Xii), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 02:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Please include Van Halen's "Dance the Night Away"

― Stupornaut (natepatrin), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 02:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey, you making the set or him? ;-)

(Another vote for 79)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 03:03 (twenty-one years ago)

'79.

― The Good Dr. Bill (The Good Dr. Bill), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 03:12 (twenty-one years ago)

― jmeister (jmeister), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 03:25 (twenty-one years ago)

79 (the year of my birth) gets my vote! (it's also a good year for music).

― tylerw, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 03:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow, I expected to have my ambivalence compounded!

'79 could probably be covered to a similar depth as the 1981 set in, say, six proper mixes and an appendix disc. . . Maybe I could pull that off by year's end. . . But can I possibly afford to be so in depth?

― I.M. (I.M.), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 03:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Dude, don't rush yourself. Personally I'd love to see something as rich and detailed as the 1981 box, same amount of discs even if you think it could be done. But I am content to wait until you're ready to finish it, rather than seeing you think you have to rush to complete it.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 03:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Another vote for '79. What Ned says - don't stress yourself though! I don't want a music lover to suddenly find that listening to music has become work.

― daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 04:01 (twenty-one years ago)

79 definitely. some bands who released albums in 79: joy div, gang o four, pil, wire, specials, costello, talking heads, undertones, ramones, pop group, b-52's, xtc, joe jackson, stiff little fingers, germs, residents, cheap trick, damned, gary numan, jam, slits, police, buzzcocks, madness, raincoats, blondie, throbbing gristle, nick lowe, david bowie, magazine, devo, ruts, cure, durutti column, tangerine dream, stranglers, fall, philip glass, human league, japan, robert fripp, simple minds, james chance, this heat, iggy pop, patti smith.

there seems to be a strong majority for uk acts in 79. i suppose in 81 the ratio uk/us was less obvious. did you do the counting, i.m.? i am still very much intrigued about this.

― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 04:31 (twenty-one years ago)

At a quick count, I come out to 200 by non UK bands/musicians on the 1981 set. Of those ~146 are by American artists, 54 by German/NZ/Australia/Japan/Austria/Benelux/France/Canada/others.

That puts 287+/- UK, ~20 of which are Scotland/Ireland/Northern Ireland (None Welsh that I can remember).

― I.M. (I.M.), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 05:47 (twenty-one years ago)

1979 all the way. more experimental, simply more "out there". ps - when are you going to send me a want list from my archives? i'm simply desperate to pay you back.

― phil turnbull (philT), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 06:34 (twenty-one years ago)

so there are

- 410 bands altogether, of those
-- 146 are US
-- 54 non-US/non-UK/non-Ireland
-- 210 (not 287?) UK plus Ireland, of those
--- 190 are England
--- 20 Scotland, Ireland etc.

― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 06:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Hello, Mark Grout here saying 1979.

I think a joint 82-83 is a good idea, as things were beginning to tail off around then.

Oh, and Liliput's "Eisiger Wind" on the briefcase is top ten in my ever ever singles list.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 07:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Go for your heart of hearts. And take your time. We'll wait.

― Douglas (Douglas), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 07:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I''d love to see 1980 too, pumping up the punk-funk, though 1979 (tipping point) and the 82/83 are equally promising. You the man!

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 09:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd like to see 82, then 79, then 80. I'd say stick to a single year. 83 things may have been tailing off, but there's many strands and styles bubbling up which probably wouldn't fit the brief of an 82 box.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 10:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I.M., I have to say I love the whole concept of '81 box existing all by its lonesome — unsullied by immediately neighboring (inferior?) years. I'd love to see you tackle some comparably representative year from another era — say, 1966! (Anyone...?)

That said, '79!

― Dr. Gene Scott (shinybeast), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 11:00 (twenty-one years ago)

(I'll be grateful & frothing at the mouth for whatever you go with...)

― Dr. Gene Scott (shinybeast), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 11:17 (twenty-one years ago)

And of course whatever year you do, we'll all be able to furnish you with some good material.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 11:18 (twenty-one years ago)

1972.

Oops...I meant '79!

― 57 7th (calstars), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 11:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm with Douglas - dowhatchalike. I'll send my $$ when it's done.

― mike a, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 11:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Be brave, do like 1962 or something.

― Keith C (kcraw916), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 12:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't have any deep familiarity with any other single era/movement, only a reasonable general knowledge of most. So '86 or '62 would be out of my league. But I hope someone else does them!

Billy ---

Haha ILM should just make these sets collectively, and manage to be truly definitive between us all.

Phil ---

I thought I had sent you a list, must've slipped it. Thanks for the reminder!

― I.M. (I.M.), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 12:10 (twenty-one years ago)

phil, 8 cds in and fantastic ! messers gibson and tee are genius !

1979 to 1984 would be a good collective set. 5 years set

― frenchbloke (frenchbloke), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 12:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I doubt I could manage doing 5 of these things. . .

― I.M. (I.M.), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 12:34 (twenty-one years ago)

This all sounds fascinating but could someone please point me to the thread which'll make it all make sense?

― D.G. Jones (D.G. Jones), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 13:45 (twenty-one years ago)

1981 box set thread.

― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 14:36 (twenty-one years ago)

'82, for the challenge.

― Ian Riese-Moraine has a grenade, that pineapple's not just a toy! (Eastern Mantr, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 14:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Left to my own devices I would probably would have said 1980, but 1982 sounds like a great idea as well. I continue to be a firm believer in the "one unchanging set for all" philosophy, though I respect that others may feel differently.

― The Silent Disco of Glastonbury (Bimble...), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I like 1982 for the intermingling of post-punk turned new wave/dance and dance. You can have Klein + MBO's Dirty Talk and the Associates Party Fears Two etc

But 79 is good.

Also 1966.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm with DS; as one of the lucky owners of said box--which is a staggering, incredibly rewarding piece of work--I think most of the choices for '79 could be a mite too obvious, there's more room for surprises in going to '82, more varied paths to follow.

― Jim Allen, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

79! funny i was just going to ask what year you were going to do next

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 17:46 (twenty-one years ago)

omg 1982 was da da da by trio! alone for that, i beg you, i.m. choose 1979.

― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmm. 1979's "must includes" are probably obvious, but they're obvious for the right reason--because they're just unequivocably good. '82 calls me because of things like "After the Rain," which isn't exactly the sound/mood most people associate with ascendant New Pop. But--'Cut,' 'Drums & Wires,' 'Buy,' 'Raincoats,' 'Y,' 'Entertainment,' and on and on. . .

Alex ---

It is weird that "Da Da Da" is their known (outside of Germany) track, given that they were such a badass, muscular band (though it does accurately reflect their playfulness).

― I.M. (I.M.), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)

they actually had some songs which were much better but mainly because of the funny lyrics. but somehow i have more or less erased them from my memory...

― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Alex ---

I really recommend that you track down the self-titled 'Trio' from 1981. Not what you'd expect if you've heard them from '82 onward. One of the most underrated post-punk albums.

― I.M. (I.M.), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 22:48 (twenty-one years ago)

just relistened to a best of. they had some good songs, actually. i liked

from 81
- los paul (propulsive neu-ish punk with samples on a live football game program, los paul = go on paul)

- kummer (which is on the box set, the bells fading into a guitar riff which is repeated many times and then improvised upon with synth)

- nur ein traum (more punk with some screaming and hilarious lyrics. partly german, partly english. with the rolled "r".)

from 82
- anna - lassmichreinlassmichraus (probably my fave by them. very basic and repetitive but addictive at the same time. and the lyrics just mirror this perfectly. "let me in let me out". and what a blissful distorted guitar jam in the 2nd half.)

- broken hearts for you and me (dada cabaret start changing into an irresistible groove. yayayay. so bad and so good.)

they were having a good laugh when recording those tracks, that's for sure.

― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Thursday, 28 April 2005 15:03 (twenty-one years ago)

If you liked those tracks, you'll like the actual album 'Trio' even better. Aren't you in Germany? You shouldn't have trouble finding the fantastic reissue from a couple years back.

("Broken Hearts" is actually from the debut album.)

There's a great combination between simplified Can-and-Neu-ish drive, breezy slightly dubbed pop, and playful rock'n'roll, all recorded really cleanly with interesting staging.

― I.M. (I.M.), Thursday, 28 April 2005 15:33 (twenty-one years ago)

MCMLXXIX

― ZionTrain, Thursday, 28 April 2005 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Is it too late to get the 1981 set?

― Leon Jones Reynolds (Ex Leon), Thursday, 28 April 2005 15:46 (twenty-one years ago)

on the other thread i read you sent out another twenty 1981 sets, i.m. i didn't even get an e-mail. am i still on the waiting list? looking so much forward to your set.

― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Thursday, 28 April 2005 16:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Leon ---

Not necessarily. At least, I'm still taking requests and adding to the waiting list. So drop me an email.

Alex ---

I sent you the ordering info on the 7th of March---guess it didn't reach you? Drop me a reminder and I'll make sure you're in the next email.

― I.M. (I.M.), Thursday, 28 April 2005 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha ILM should just make these sets collectively, and manage to be truly definitive between us all.

we HAVE, though; see various CD-R Go! threads.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 28 April 2005 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't mean any disrespect to the CD-R GO!s--I didn't realise they were done communally--I thought individiausl "called" a given year and then made the mix. Also, I was thinking in terms of the 400-500 songs, 300-400+ bands range. The CD-R Go!s are very cool. Maybe once every year, say, 1955-1995 is covered, there could be a boxed set of those, Merzbox style.

― I.M. (I.M.), Thursday, 28 April 2005 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

(If there's another thing I want to add about I.M. and his marvellous work, it is his unfailing politeness. :-) )

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 28 April 2005 16:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Thanks, Ned. I've worried I might have come across as mawkish--but seriously, this has been a pleasure and I'm genuine in trying to be fair to everyone and reply to every email, even if I don't always having something interesting to say.

The only thing I haven't liked is using "I.M." as opposed to my name--feels awfully stiff. But I have to be at least a tiny bit careful.

― I.M. (I.M.), Thursday, 28 April 2005 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

i sent you an e-mail. did you get it?

― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Thursday, 28 April 2005 19:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Yep, got it. Thanks.

― I.M. (I.M.), Thursday, 28 April 2005 21:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I vote 1978 or 1983... for obvious reasons.

― donut debonair (donut), Thursday, 28 April 2005 21:55 (twenty-one years ago)

CONTRARIAN

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 28 April 2005 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Oops. Let me try that again.

I vote 1978 and 1983... for, now, obvious reasons.

― donut debonair (donut), Thursday, 28 April 2005 22:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I vote 1978 or 1983... for obvious reasons.

Well done! *You* should do one of those years--you've got a hell of a start on them both.

Not that I need to add people to the list but--did you want a copy of my 1981?

It's just so nice to know there are other people as pathetic as me about this kind of mix-making ; )

― I.M. (I.M.), Thursday, 28 April 2005 22:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I.M., if you're offerin', I'll gladly accept :)

Another thing you should look out for, as I've just started some groundwork on it.. the MINE THE GAP series.

Essentially, it was devised as a way to do a CD-R comp of half-decades, to fill in the gaps one though was missing in one or more of the CDR Go!s for a set of years...

I'm starting my 1978-1982 (inclusive) MINE THE GAP very soon.
Each year will be an 80 minute CD.

My goal for the 1981 portion is to include artists that have NOT been included in neither Andy K3llman's CDR Go! 1981, the 1981 Streets comp, nor yours... the latter of which will be the most difficult, as you've maximalized about 94% of 1981's total musical output. :) I'm doing that just to see if I can do it, not so much to out-obscure anybody...(in fact, that portion would be quite the opposite as far as obscureness factor, I'm guessing)

― donut debonair (donut), Thursday, 28 April 2005 22:20 (twenty-one years ago)

whats the 81 streets comp donut d?

― mullygrubbr (bulbs), Thursday, 28 April 2005 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

didn't scott p do a 78-82 mine the gap?

― mullygrubbr (bulbs), Thursday, 28 April 2005 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Donut --

Drop me an email if you want a copy of mine.

Your Mine the Gap sounds great. And as your CD-R Go's were definitely much more inclusive, there should be *plenty* of great stuff to cover for '81--I didn't cover any hip-hop, r&b, jazz, reggae/dancehall/etc. etc. since that wasn't the charge I gave myself. I look forward to seeing the results!

I've seen ScottPl's 78-82 mix through another messageboard, and I didn't realise it was a gap-miner.

― I.M. (I.M.), Thursday, 28 April 2005 22:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Scott's wasn't. It was the inspiration, actually.

I'll have to talk to Nate, but Scott's 78-82 may have been an inspiration to him doing 1972... which was the first ever CDR Go!

Matos would know the story.

― donut debonair (donut), Thursday, 28 April 2005 23:05 (twenty-one years ago)

In essence, the breakdowns of the MINE THE GAPS (at least as I plan it) will fall into the time line calibrated to Scott's compilation.

'68-'72
'73-'77
'78-'82
'83-'87
..
'98-'02
'03-'07 when we get that far.. etc.

― donut debonair (donut), Thursday, 28 April 2005 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

i blame matos

― mullygrubbr (bulbs), Thursday, 28 April 2005 23:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Why hold blame in your heart?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 28 April 2005 23:21 (twenty-one years ago)

i thank matos

― mullygrubbr (bulbs), Thursday, 28 April 2005 23:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I hold Blam! in my heart.

― donut debonair (donut), Friday, 29 April 2005 01:32 (twenty-one years ago)

1982!!!!!!

― corey c (shock of daylight), Friday, 29 April 2005 04:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, 1982 is my preference as well in the end. But I think a joint 82/83 would ruin things. As challenging as 1982 might be, surely 1983 would be more so. Just my opinion.

I'd just like to say I must tip my hat to people who can even find the time to go about doing these comps. I'd love to do one but just don't have the time right now.

I must admit that I made an attempt to acquire that Trio '81 album about a month ago but found it ridiculously expensive (I'm hesitant to spend upwards of $30 on something I don't even know if I will like that much) and also difficult to get ahold of on slsk.

― The Silent Disco of Glastonbury (Bimble...), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 01:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Hard to search for, isn't it? I'm not gonna buy this right now, so here's a hard-sought link for it at the low low price of $8.88:

http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/inv.cgi?offer_id=1296178244

Maybe someone will gmail me mp3's of it after they buy it... The 2-disc set is very pricey, one-disc not so.

― These Robust Cookies (Robust Cookies), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 03:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, the 2nd disc and bonus tracks on the main album are not essential, Bimble, so if you can find the single disc, go for it--just make sure it's not some similarly-titled best-of or the 1983 'Trio & Error' (which is a grower, but nothing near as good as 'Trio'). Though, to me it's such an essential album that I gladly paid $30ish for the 2-disc.

― I.M. (I.M.), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 04:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Can one still acquire these CDR-Go comps, if one is willing to pay hard cash for them?

― Mr Deeds (Mr Deeds), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 05:01 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.