(I’m putting this in Cafe Society because it deals with music. If a mod prefers to move it to IMHO, that’s cool.)
My local PBS station showed the whole of the History of Rock and Roll a couple days, and as usual, I watched most of it. (It’s one of my favorite documentaries, I’ve seen it three or four times now.) For the first times, though, I was struck by an apparent hypocrisy - the poppy music put out by Motown and Phil Spector et all in the 60s is considered to be classic rock, while today’s poppy boy and girl groups are considered schlock, stuff only for kids who don’t know better. Is this really fair? These record companies forty years ago really had music factories going on, with songwriters, producers, choreographers, etc. Motown even had an etiquette school for its artists! The groups and singers were only the public face of a complicated assembly line that produced hits. Not too different from NSync, Britney Spears, or the Backstreet Boys, who don’t write their own songs, and do lots of choreographed dances onstage. I’ve heard people on the SDMB and IRL explain that the reason they don’t like, or respect, these teen-market artists is because they aren’t real musicians. If that is the basis of comparison, then should the earlier boy and girl groups be accorded the level of respect they are?
As one who turned 12 years old when Bill Haley’s Rock Around The Clock hit the juke boxes, I’ll give you my take on your idea about hypocracy: I think that whatever rock ‘n’ roll time period we are talking about, what’s popular at the time has always been: “considered schlock, stuff only for kids who don’t know better.” I can remember people a generation older than me saying similar things about Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Elvis(early), and all the other unpolished rock ‘n’ roll artists of the late 50’s. The record companies quickly realized that much money was there to be made, and the polishing process started early in Rock’s development.
So you are correct, the groups of today are no more polished or promoted that those of the early 60’s. It seems that the distain of earlier generations may be a constant throughout the history of Rock. (Some few of us like it all, but in a pinch; Gimme’ some Bo Diddly!! )
BTW, I also like the PBS documentaries, they have done some great shows.
Some of the artists in groups back in the 60’s developed tremendous talent, such as Diana Ross, Marvin Gaye, Smokey Robinson, and Lionel Richie. Do you see any Backstreet Boy or Spice Girl today even matching the breakout talent the above had? Secondly, back then they usually build groups based on talent, not necessary on good looks. The Monkees, for all its pick-up origins, were a very talented bunch. Today’s music it is all about looks. They would reject someone like Bob Dylan today, these fashion police people masquerading as record producers.
I hope you are being overly pessimistic,capacitor. If a Bob Dylan type person showed up, and his song was heard by the industry, surely it would get air time?(One would hope)
Although good looks haven’t always been the only thing, good looks has always played a part. Some early performers of questionable talent that were heavily promoted because of appearance would be: Fabian, Connie Stephens, and Bobby Vee, for a short list. Also, Elvis, Ricky Nelson, and the Shirelles had both looks and talent, which never hurts.
For information: There is an excellent documentary produced by the History Channel: “Birthplace of Rock ‘n’ Roll, Sun Record Company and Sam Phillips.” Anyone that enjoyed the PBS documentaries should watch for this one to be aired again.
I think you raise a good point. I’m not convinced the early Beatles stuff was any “deeper” artistically than what Britney Spears inflicts on us today. So I’m willing to concede that Ms. Spears may grow into a full-fledged artist…but I ain’t holding my breath for her answer to Sgt. Pepper’s. Maybe she needs to start experimenting with hallucinogens.
Motown is a somewhat different story however. You had people of unquestionable talent, geniuses like Holland & Dozier, behind the scenes writing the songs for artists that were in themselves fairly talented. I don’t hear the same level of songwriting talent in the newer acts that I hear in many of those songs.
capacitor- Aww. You’re in my good books, now. Not that you were ever in my bad ones ever, but I agree, the Monkees had talent. One thing I like about them that I don’t see in other boy bands of this era- this era being the 90’s and 00’s- is that the Monkees at least were trying really hard to break away from their company and do things on their own. Nowadays, I don’t think anyone really goes into the boy band business looking for more than fame and money.
Anyway, even if it isn’t “good” it’s fun to listen to. Like The Partridge Family (yes, I actually bought one of their CDs for my birthday :))…whom I like, although I regularly eschew modern boy/girl bands. Maybe there’s a nostalgia factor involved?
