It was 40 years ago today that the Fifth Dimension received a Grammy Award for Record of the Year for "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In."
Briefly, for those who don't know the finer points of the Grammy Awards, a Record of the Year is given for the best recording of the year — not necessarily the best song (composition) or album (collection of songs), which are two other categories, although there has been some overlapping over the years. Record of the Year often seems to go to the most commercially successful recording of the year — or, at least, to the recording that is perceived to be the most commercially successful.
Performers who have won more than one Record of the Year have been somewhat rare since they started giving out Grammy Awards in 1958, but at the time that "Aquarius" was the recipient, it wasn't as unusual as it has become. Henry Mancini received two in the 1960s, and the Fifth Dimension's Record of the Year for "Aquarius" was its second in three years (the group won for "Up, Up and Away" two years earlier).
For that matter, "Aquarius" was bookended by two Simon and Garfunkel Record of the Year winners — "Mrs. Robinson" in 1969 and "Bridge Over Troubled Water" in 1971 — and Roberta Flack won back–to–back Record of the Year awards in the mid–1970s.
More recently, U2 duplicated that achievement (in 2001 and 2002), but, for the most part, Record of the Year winners have been honored only once. You might be surprised at the acts that never won Record of the Year (in spite of being nominated numerous times) — the Beatles, Elvis Presley, James Taylor. And Bob Dylan was never nominated for Record of the Year at all.
Anyway, it seems to me that "Aquarius" is often remembered as being something of an anthem for the so–called "hippies." I've always thought there were several songs for which one could make valid arguments for deserving that designation, and I have often wondered why "Aquarius" often appears to be the default winner.
Perhaps it is because it was featured in the hit musical "Hair," which was controversial in its day for many reasons and was strongly linked, in the public's mind, with the counter–culture. There was a scene in the musical, which lasted only about 20 seconds, during which members of the cast were nude — and, while it would probably be regarded as tame today, it was disturbing for many at the time — and symbolic of the divide between the generations.
"Hair" was made into a film in the late 1970s. By that time, I guess, the nudity wasn't as shocking.
But I always wondered if the nudity wasn't a smokescreen concealing what was really bothering those who so strenuously objected to "Hair" in the late 1960s — its adherence to astrology and mysticism.
Many people find it hard to reconcile faith in astrology with faith in God — and, after spending several years in the newspaper business, I can understand that.
After all, whether one believes the writings of the Bible or the Torah or the Qur'an, one must concede that they never change — not really, although, at least in the case of the Bible, translations do vary. And interpretations of passages in all three can vary, depending upon who is doing the interpreting.
I guess that the late 1960s and early 1970s were the heyday, in my lifetime, of public belief in astrology and regard for the notion that the movements of the planets influence events on earth. I hadn't been in the newspaper business very long before I discovered that newspapers subscribe to different syndicated horoscope columns — and those columnists never seem to come up with the same interpretation of celestial activity. Some will tell you that Monday will be a good day for you while others will warn you not to leave the house on Monday.
So my assessment of astrology has evolved into one of skepticism, I suppose, and that probably isn't too surprising. But you probably would be surprised to learn who is not a skeptic. I remember that astrology was taken very seriously by many of the "hippies" — which is why there were guffaws a–plenty when it was revealed in the 1980s that first lady Nancy Reagan had consulted an astrologer when planning her husband's daily schedule in the White House after the attempt on his life in 1981. President Reagan, after all, had his share of run–ins with the "hippies" when he was governor of California.
Anyway, according to the New Age movement (which was the apparent inspiration for "Hair"), the world would be entering an age of love, light and humanity in the second half of the 20th century. This would be the "age of Aquarius," which would be radically different from the age that preceded it, the "age of Pisces." As I say, though, the authors of horoscopes almost never agree in their astrological interpretations so it really should come as no surprise that, while many astrologers agreed that an "age of Aquarius" really was coming, there was considerable disagreement about when. There was at least one astrologer who thought it was still seven centuries away.
I don't think there was anything particularly mystical about the song "Aquarius" — or "Let the Sunshine In," which was the second part of the medley. I'm reasonably sure the Fifth Dimension didn't think there was anything mystical about it. They knew it was one of a string of hits for them, probably their biggest.
Was it proclaiming the dawn of a new age? I guess history will need more time before rendering its verdict — unless, of course, the Mayan calendar proves to be right and the end of the world is only a couple of years away. If that is the case, the "age of Aquarius" may be over almost before anyone fully realizes it was here.
The song has certainly done its part to herald the arrival of other new ages in our culture. The "Let the Sunshine In" portion of the medley was used by Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and the song has been part of several commercial ventures in the last four decades.
