I’d hesitate to say that ANYONE is being ignored by the media these days… with the possible exception of poor people; why cater to a demographic with no money?
Hell, we live in an age where entire CHANNELS focus specifically on given topics and events and shows and stuff that only a small portion of the country might actually be interested in.
We have sports channels, decorating channels, music channels, Monster Truck channels, cartoon channels, science fiction channels, horror channels, the Hitler Channel… man, freakin’ *National Geographic * has its own channel, now!
Who CARES about the freakin’ boomers? LET the media cater to them, if they think they can make a buck! It’s not like your objections will STOP them!
Maybe Fish has a point. I don’t watch television so I haven’t seen what the networks are doing, but it isn’t a revelation to me that whatever it is, it sucks.
On the other hand, it isn’t the case that everything “boomer” is promoted into the ground. Those who take a pointed interest in the oldies radio industry, for example, know that 1950s music has all but disappeared from playlists in favor of '60s and '70s hits. So whatever attention early rock receives on the anniversary of its birth–which is what provoked this thread–is fine with me because it really isn’t in the air much anymore.
Not everyone agrees with that date range. When people did start speaking of Gen X, some considered it to start later, around 1960, because it represented the people who were old enough to go out to clubs, and so on, by the early 90’s.
And you’ll probably see the 50th anniversary of the Beatles’ Ed Sullivan appearances in 2014. Contemporary music has, for the most part, become so compartmentalized that it would be almost impossible for something like the Beatles to happen again. With them, you had the edge of rock and roll, good group musicianship, well written lyrics, composed by themselves, and the unbelievable popularity that now seems to attend only vapid boy bands and the
likes of Britney Spears.
This doesn’t mean that contemporary music isn’t as good, it’s just that back when you had most of pop and rock music amalgamated into the same format, it was easier for a musical act to arise that was artistically groundbreaking and wildly popular at the same time.
This’ll amuse you: when my wife, who’s a few years older, and I are out driving, she always wants the classic rock station on; for my part, I’ve just about drained out all the enjoyment I can get out of that style. Oh sure, I still like the Doors and Stones and so on, but if I never hear Foreigner or Bad Company again it’ll be too soon. For my part, I’d rather hear something newer on the left side of the dial…
[/quote]
If anything, I think I’m most frustrated at the laziness implicit in “baby boom” shows, as if it’s a magic key to increased Nielsen ratings.
[/QUOTE]
Well, thanks for the warning. Never considered a tank top, myself, but its good to know. Got enough trouble without a kicking rack. So, if you sneak up on someone, does that make you a stealth Boomer?
Who is this “Elvis Presley” person of whom you speak?
Ooops, my Irony Detector is going off Big Time. I know it’s around here somewhere, but my senses aren’t what they used to be.
Good. It’s reset now.
Poor Fish, I hate to break it to you, but this latest artificial celebration doesn’t appear on my radar (or video) screen. Elvis came along too early for me, and even if he hadn’t, what more can possibly be said now? Except for the gaggle of worshippers who trudge over to Graceland every year (more than a few of whom, I suspect, are veterans of AARP), few are preoccupied with this stuff. I might wear a black armband when Chuck Berry goes (if he’s not already dead), but that’s about it. Let these rotting corpses decompose in peace.
I’m afraid, though, that you may hardly have begun to suffer these sorts of tribulations. I can’t tell you how many commercials I had to endure before the days of remotes and the mute button, featuring overplayed wretched primeval dance band and country crap, and to hear over and over again about how Swing really was making a comeback this time. There are a lot of Stones collections yet to be marketed.
If you want to bitch about a stupid media construct, I’ve got a good one for you - the 18-49 demographic.
Now there’s a unified age group to which advertisers can pitch their wares.
And speaking of people on the dark side of that demographic, I hereby congratulate elucidator for his contributions in this thread - simple, eloquent, understated and with no reference whatsoever to the phrase “Katie bar the door”, whatever that means.
Yeah, it’s not like you ever see under-35-year-olds on TV shows, in ads, getting the few available jobs, being marketed toward for clothing and movies . . .
I personally guaruntee that if James Hetfield or Kerry King were to die today you wouldn’t see one retrospective or rememberance on the Today show or whatever other new program you can conjure up. Yeah, all of us know that those guys inspired a HUGE generation of rock and rollers, but their music wasn’t ever owned by the BB generation so its not celebrated by mainstream media like Eric Clapton or Led Zepplin or whatever other dusty rock band you can think of from the 70’s/60s.
There is a fascinating book called GENERATIONS – The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069 by William Strauss and Neill Howe.
It proposes that a generation lasts roughly 20 years and that there are four generations to a cycle. Each cycle of four generations follows a similar pattern. People born in 1982 and up until 2003 should have much in common with the Lost Generation of 80 years ago, for example.
The lines on the changes are not carved in stone by this book. According to Strauss and Howe, the Boomer Generation (Idealist Type) began in 1943 and ended in 1960.
According to this particular book, the generation after the Boomers was born between 1961 and 1981. They are referred to here as "Thirteen Generation and are “Reactive Type.”
The generation born in 1982 until 2003 is labeled “the Millennial Generation.” They are designated the “Civic Type,” but there is a question mark after that. :dubious:
The book explores the other generations since the earliest European settlers in America. They do point out that the 80 year cycle was broken once – during the Civil War.
Whether you buy into it or not, it is great reading for those interested in this particular subject.
BTW, it was Gertrude Stein who came up with the label “the Lost Generation.” Hemingway hated labels – particularly that one.
For those of you who are tired of all the attention paid to Boomers: Better learn to live with it. We’re still kicking and will live longer than the GI Generation. And we don’t care that you’re sick of us! Your chance for revenge will come later when you get to live forever.
As for “rock and roll” and Boomers – I’d rather take credit for the popularity of the Bossa Nova (mostly jazz sambas) – although its finest musicians were a little older.
Yes, Eve dear, I reserved a special portion of my rant for the way the media constantly crows about the newest Young Thang of dubious adulthood. I happen to agree with Jackmannii that trying to market to people simply because of age is a feeble shorthand for pigeon-holing people’s tastes: in fashion, in music, in food, in everything. If only it’d stop, ha ha, but y’know, sometimes I just feel like venting about it.
And I did point out that in Generations (the boomer mag), there were actual, y’know, articles that complained—actually complained—that there were 18-35 year-olds on TV instead of more damned boomers. How dare we younger people get any attention?
If something is good, be it a food, a service, a band, or a fashion, then I guess I think it should stand on its merits, and not because it “belongs” to a certain generation. Of course, I’m just railing against the weather now. (God, do I wish I was born during the ragtime era!)
And Jackmannii, I’ll say it again: I’ve nothing against baby boomers individually, or even against the idea that rock ‘n’ roll as an art form deserves some celebration for its longevity. You’re not interested in it? Lovely. I’m annoyed that the media thinks we asked for another remembrance of that time period.
IMHO the Baby Boom generation, by definition, can’t start any sooner than 1946. It was set off, of course, by the men returning from WWII, affirming life and making up for lost time. Those born during the war years had a very different first few years of life – shortages, rationing, men away at war, much uncertainty. The world as it existed at their birth ceased to exist by the time they went to kindergarten.
In contrast, the true BBs got their start in a world full of hope, confidence, optimism and increasing plenty. Sure, there was the shadow of the A-bomb over us, but parents could go right out and buy leather shoes, metal bicycles and other toys, cars, sugar, butter, and all kinds of other things they’d been doing without for years. New homes and new industries were sprouting like mushrooms after a spring rain. There had been a lot of sorrow and hardship, and parents were determined to give their new families all the goodies they could, including lots and lots of new schools.
I’m gonna have to side with Master Wang Ka. The media is hardly making that big a deal of this. I watch more TV than Homer Simpson and the only place I’ve heard about this is here. Maybe you’re just watching the wrong channels. Whatever your tastes, theres programming aimed at you, specifically.
If James Hetfield were to die today, you may not see anything on the Morning Show with Katie Couric. But you can be damn sure that there are some channels that would devote a lot of time a retrospective, that his face would be plastered on many a magazine, and we heard about it on radio, ad nasueum.
Y’know, I’ve been thinking sort of the opposite…lately I’ve noticed how many retrospectives and such are catered to my generation. I am 26, born in '77, and I consider myself the tail end of Gen X. (I’m not sure where most would actually place me generationally.) But I notice things like I Love the 80’s and think about how they’re just beginning to idealize Generation X. All of the retro flashbacks I hear on the radio are flashing back to stuff like The Smiths and The Cure. The cover songs coming out right now are often covers of stuff that I grew up with. And usually, when I hear about the arrival of Nirvana, it’s treated like the second coming of Christ.
Meanwhile, there’s no longer any radio station here that plays 50’s and 60’s “oldies”. The oldest rock & roll I hear is Led Zeppelin.
I don’t have a problem with any of the retrospectives. I am aware of the music that came before my generation, and I appreciate it. Hell, I’ve always liked Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, The Doors, etc. so I’ve never minded the Baby Boomer nostalgia. I certainly won’t mind the Gen X nostalgia. I just don’t want anyone born after me to remain unaware of the music that preceded them. The other day I referred to Lennon and McCartney, and a 20 year old said “Who are they?” I shit you not. So I’m beginning to think that anything that prevents that ignorance, no matter how cheesy, is ok with me.
Born in '72 then. We’ve done this to death but the eagerness which kids born in the 70’s are trying to become part of GenX is a sad thing to see. Add ten years to your age and you hit the spot.
Hey, I’ve inspired a pit thread! I feel such pride.
Good OP. I agree with it.
I’ve got to disagree with you. Someone born in 1982 was 9 years old when Nirvana’s expression of GenX angst, ‘Smells Like Teen Spirit’ came out. A little young, I feel. The 1983 GenXer would have been 12 when Pulp Fiction came out. They wouldn’t have been able to legally see it by themselves until 1999. I think '72 would be far more likely to be the quintessential Xer birthyear. Once you get past 1977, you can’t really be called a genXer.
