Generations 40 years apart enjoying the same (old) music

Cafe Society
21

[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
Or is rap like country music, i.e. not to my taste but quite durable and unlikely to disappear any time soon…like, I don’t know, herpes or Gilbert Gottfried?
[/QUOTE]

Here’s the deal with rap (or at least, the deal with rap according to Billboard):

It’s really not as popular and widespread as the Pop Culture Fairy would have you believe. Aside from a few major releases, most rap CDs sell terribly. Of course, the ones that sell, sell great. It may be popular with people as a radio format, but rap as the “dominant” form of music was a pure fad of the late 90s/early 2000s.

22

Country music today is what would have been classifed as “country rock” in the 70s (when the term was coined). I was taken aback here on the boards when someone described the Grateful Dead as “country rock” – no one thought of them as such back in the 60s and 70s. Their sound was nothing like country, or country rock, of the time. But country music keeps taking on more and more rock attributes, while droppping those that differentiated it (does anyone still use pedal steel guitars, dobros, or banjos any more?).

So if you like country, it’s the same as liking current pop music – you’re right at home with music from the 60s and 70s.

23

[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]

Or is rap like country music, i.e. not to my taste but quite durable and unlikely to disappear any time soon…like, I don’t know, herpes or Gilbert Gottfried?
[/QUOTE]

Rap/hip-hop have been around for about thirty years now. That’s one long “fad,” if you ask me.

24

[QUOTE=Gus Gusterson]

Now, kids like rock music because it’s all there is. They start, generally, listening to the manufactured crap that is being shoveled at them. But then they hear something good. It doesn’t have to be classic. It doesn’t even have to be terribly good. It just has to not be Hillary Duff. It could be Green Day. It could be Coldplay. But it gets them to drop the lame stuff (just like what happened when rock displaced the music of the 40s and 50s) and then they start really listening. Then someone plays Led Zep or The Who for them and that’s it - they’re hooked.
[/QUOTE]

This assumes that there’s something qualitatively better about rock than the music of the '40s and '50s, which is highly debatable. Most music afficionados of the early '60s would have disagreed. Rock was then widely considered a debased form of pop.

The real mystery as I see it is why younger generations have stopped embracing novelty in the musical realm. They do embrace novelty in things such as video games and fashion (although the wearing of jeans everywhere is really an idea taken from the baby-boomers & so arguably is the concept of adults wearing baseball caps).

As RealityChuck said, the standard rock (and R&B) instrumentation is different - as is its rhythmic feel - from what came before. But you would think that over time there would be such pressure from youthful listeners demanding novelty that new forms of instrumentation would replace the old. You would also think that young musicians en masse would get bored with reworking old rock ideas & originate something radically new.

25

I’ve noticed this too. I got my love for The Stones, The Who and The Beatles from my dad actually. He’s 72, I’m 45 and my 9 year old son is also a fan. He also likes Led Zeppelin, the Beach Boys, AC/DC, Rush, Aerosmith, Metallica, Van Halen, Kiss (God help us) and some other stuff I can’t remember. The stuff I can’t remember is from the 80’s at the latest. Anyway, Guitar Hero is responsible for some of this.

My mom was into Pat Boone and Connie Francis and that stuff did NOT carry over into the next generation at ALL. But you can’t convince her that this phenomenon exists.

26

[QUOTE=meenie7]
I’m 28 and I always listened to “classic rock” music as a kid (Beatles, Who, Rolling Stones, Moody Blues, etc.) because my parents liked it. On the other hand, I also listened to (and gained a frightening affinity for) stuff like Bread, Chicago, Barry Manilow, etc. because my mom liked them and I was exposed before I was old enough to realize they were lame and I shouldn’t like them :wink:
[/QUOTE]

Chicago in the early years was anything but lame. See Chicago Transit Authority, Chicago II, Chicago III. It can be argued that they were innovators up to the death of Terry Kath. Hendrix himself was in awe of Kath and shouted his name to the heavens every chance he had. Yes, the band is a mere shell of itself today and probably should have packed it in with the departure of Pete Cetera and before Diane Warren started writing their songs, but in the late 60’s and early 70’s, they were just as influental on rock music as the Beatles, Stones, or the Who. I wouldn’t lump them in with the likes of Bread or Manilow, at least not when Chicago was in their prime.

27

Some other thoughts. Pre-boomer generations didn’t have mass media saturation as exists now. Many had radio, but no television or omnipresent Muzak. Jazz was made more accessible to large market by Dorsey, Miller, Ellington et al. But the “rebellious” bebop which fueled the Beats wasn’t heard in the average home. BTW, this is when guitar, bass and drum came to the fore.
It was also an era when children were seen, not heard, by which I mean there was less parental interaction and attention given to the interests of the child. Parents today nod approvingly when the kid plays music they grew up with- it reminds them of their youth.
And that’s another thing. Chops, or musical facility. Rock has more foundation in folk music and simple chord structures than it does other forms; more practitioners mean more prevalence. It’s simply easier to play.

28

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
but rap as the “dominant” form of music was a pure fad of the late 90s/early 2000s.
[/QUOTE]

Huh?

I’m not a defender of rap, most of it sucks. But the style will officially be 30 next year, as it really is possible to point to a single event and fix the birth date*. Saying it’s a fad is simply not true. It’s been more or less popular during htese 30 years, with a noticable surge around the time Eminem entered the stage. I don’t think that pointing to album sales is a valid measure of popularity since the advent of napster and all that followed.
Back to the OP.
I did an OP a while back musing about how rock is going the way of the dodo. I still stand by that, since I think the genre is a closed cycle nowadays. Modern bands will get their influence from older rock acts and all seem so derivative, much as is the case with jazz. The thing is that the older acts weren’t influenced by rock. What did Lennon or Jagger listen to growing up?

It’s harder to pinpoint the birth of rock’n’roll. I think the difference between Elvis doing *Heartbreak Hotel * and Frankie doing Fly me to the moon, is smaller than between *Jailhouse Rock * and Crosstown Traffic. With hindsight, I think all the parts that were to become what we now consider rock (recorded in '71 or '07) had to move across the Atlantic in the early sixties where it merged with the attitude of young angry English kids. Satisfaction, My Generation and You Really Got Me cemented the sound of what is rock’n’roll. But rock isn’t just music, it’s an attitude and the Brit invasion (they invaded more than the U.S.) showed that a band, writing its own songs, was the true way to perform rock.

Fast forward to '77 and the last time I think music was truly dangerous. Punk splashed the headlines, taking the attitude from the mid 60’s a couple of steps further, mostly with the 'tude, since the music really wasn’t all that revolutionary. Still, parents of the time showed moral panic and that was enough for me to cut up a pair of 501s and buy a pair of Doc Martens.
There have been acts since then that have caused moral panic (Marilyn Mansoon) but not a whole genre. Maybe the closest is when rap invaded white suburbia. Hell, you got teenagers today who used to sing Hope I die before I grow old. It’s simply not possible to make teenage rebellion with music anymore, hence the prevalence of tats and piercings.
Kids today embrace older music on its own merit. Of course they’re gonna find Stones, Zep, Hendrix. The students (HS) I work with were most psyched about a Neil Young concert, before going on summer break.

Let’s not forget that rock wasn’t the only genre in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. While I’m happy that newer generations discover Roxy Music, I’m equally happy that they’re not raving about the Carpenters cover of Ticket to Ride.

*Now what you hear is not a test, I’m rapping to the beat.

29

I love that kids are listening to classic rock tunes these days. I applaud them for listening to that instead of Hannah Montana or the Jonas Brothers.

It also seems that a lot of them are listening to 80’s tunes right now as well.

30

[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
Huh?

I’m not a defender of rap, most of it sucks. But the style will officially be 30 next year, as it really is possible to point to a single event and fix the birth date*. Saying it’s a fad is simply not true. It’s been more or less popular during htese 30 years, with a noticable surge around the time Eminem entered the stage. I don’t think that pointing to album sales is a valid measure of popularity since the advent of napster and all that followed.
[/QUOTE]

Did I call the entire genre of rap a fad? No I didn’t.

I said that rap as “the dominant form of music” really only existed for a few years in the late 90s/early 2000s. Which you yourself call “a noticable surge around the time Eminem entered the stage.”

This is in stark contrast to the way the media portrays the rap genre, often painting it as the only thing the kids listen to today. Music sales, concert attendance and radio penetration prove this is untrue.

There are a few really big acts remaining in rap, but the majority of rap artists are as niche as your everyday Christian rock band.

31

[QUOTE=cochrane]
Chicago in the early years was anything but lame. See Chicago Transit Authority, Chicago II, Chicago III. It can be argued that they were innovators up to the death of Terry Kath. Hendrix himself was in awe of Kath and shouted his name to the heavens every chance he had. Yes, the band is a mere shell of itself today and probably should have packed it in with the departure of Pete Cetera and before Diane Warren started writing their songs, but in the late 60’s and early 70’s, they were just as influental on rock music as the Beatles, Stones, or the Who. I wouldn’t lump them in with the likes of Bread or Manilow, at least not when Chicago was in their prime.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t consider Chicago as influential as the other groups (other than adding a horn section, with Blood Sweat and Tears – which actually released their first album a year before Chicago). But you’re right in that the first couple of albums were quite good, and very rockin’. It was only later that they slid down the road to pure schlock.

32

[QUOTE=MGibson]
Is it possible that the intense dislike for the music of the parent’s generation was a strange phenomenon? I suspect that for the most part children grew up listening and enjoying music that was the same as what their parents listened to. Rock and roll came along and there was a pretty good generational split. Older folks didn’t like it much (yeah I’m generalizing) and younger people did. Now we’ve had rock music for over 50 years and many kids grew up listening to it while their parents had the radio on. I’m not surprised that people in their 20s enjoy the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, or Blondie.

Marc
[/QUOTE]

Actually, the generational split in music taste happened years before during the 1920’s with the rise of jazz. Young people embraced the new sound while older generations looked on in shock and shook their heads in disgust on how this dissonant cacophony (and the decadence that seemed to be part and parcel with it) had somehow seduced their children. If you do a comparison between an anti-jazz screed from the 20’s and an anti-rock screed from the 50’s and 60’s, you’ll find that, except for the type of music their talking about, the arguments and terminology are nearly identical.

As for now, rock stopped being “the music that threatens society” sometime in the 90’s. That mantle has passed to rap/hip-hop.

33

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
Did I call the entire genre of rap a fad? No I didn’t.

[/QUOTE]

No, but you responded to a question about it being a fad, and basically confirmed that to be the case.

I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but working as a HS in Sweden tells me that about half the kids are into r’n’b and rap, the other half into various forms of rock. You mention record sales (not an indicator of popularity), concert attendence (rap doesn’t lend itself to stadium sized venues) and radio penetration. Well, in the last case, it’s that weird black/white thing going on in the U.S. where a black artist making a pop song ends up on the r’n’b’ list, and a white guy doing r’n’b’ (J Timberlake) doesn’t. Maybe things have changed significantly since last I visited the U.S. nine years ago. I note that WBBM-FM markets itself as “Hits&Hip-Hop” (Not rap, they wanted that alliteration) but my guess is that rap mostly gets airplay on “black” stations in the U.S. Catering to blacks is not going to generate a lot of revenue outside large metropolitan areas.
Checking with radio locator, I see that the formats Urban+Hip-Hop have more stations than the format rock, about as many as Hot AC, top40 and fewer than Christian Contemporary, which by your reasong would put* Rock, pop, hit music*, and yes, rap. lower than Christian rock on the popularity scale. See how statistics can be slippery? But you knew that, you were trying to make a point which really doesn’t have a lot of support in reality.

BTW, the single largest format is country. Should we use that to infer that America’s teens are lining up :snort: to go line dancing?

34

[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
Checking with radio locator, I see that the formats Urban+Hip-Hop have more stations than the format rock, about as many as Hot AC, top40 and fewer than Christian Contemporary, which by your reasong would put* Rock, pop, hit music*, and yes, rap. lower than Christian rock on the popularity scale. See how statistics can be slippery? But you knew that, you were trying to make a point which really doesn’t have a lot of support in reality.
[/QUOTE]

I do see how statistics can be slippery. You fudged the numbers to make yourself look right. However, if you count it this way, I’m right:

Adult Album Alternative (125) + Alternative (196) + Classic Rock (516) + 80’s Rock (20) + Rock (362) = 1,039

Hip Hop (200) + Urban Contemporary (265) = 465

Taken from here: Radio-Locator.com

You counted only “Rock” stations, thus subtracting rock subgenres that are only differentiated from “Rock” stations because of radio format naming conventions.

[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
You mention record sales (not an indicator of popularity), concert attendence (rap doesn’t lend itself to stadium sized venues) and radio penetration.

BTW, the single largest format is country. Should we use that to infer that America’s teens are lining up :snort: to go line dancing?
[/QUOTE]

If record sales don’t measure popularity, what do they measure? Also, your subtle swipes at explaining my thinking away because American racism isn’t appreciated.

And “Country” is the largest radio format because middle-aged women who work in offices listen to the stuff all day long. That’s how “Country” became king. Although the number of teens that listen to country is surprising.

35

[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
Well, in the last case, it’s that weird black/white thing going on in the U.S. where a black artist making a pop song ends up on the r’n’b’ list, and a white guy doing r’n’b’ (J Timberlake) doesn’t.

[/QUOTE]

Just thought I’d mention that Justin Timberlake has placed eight of his own songs on the R&B chart and has appeared there four additional times as a featured singer on other artists’ records.

36

[QUOTE=cochrane]
Chicago in the early years was anything but lame. See Chicago Transit Authority, Chicago II, Chicago III. It can be argued that they were innovators up to the death of Terry Kath. Hendrix himself was in awe of Kath and shouted his name to the heavens every chance he had. Yes, the band is a mere shell of itself today and probably should have packed it in with the departure of Pete Cetera and before Diane Warren started writing their songs, but in the late 60’s and early 70’s, they were just as influental on rock music as the Beatles, Stones, or the Who. I wouldn’t lump them in with the likes of Bread or Manilow, at least not when Chicago was in their prime.
[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I lumped them in because my mom has collections of just their love songs, which is all I’ve heard of theirs, and they’re pretty soppy. :slight_smile:

37

To start off - I’m 57.
Well it seems there have been a lot of replies to this … and I’ll add some more.

Early Rock and Roll had a simple, basic type of structure such as “Hound Dog”, “Louie Louie”, “Satisfaction”, etc. But through that simplicity, a tremendous amount of energy and emotion could be heard flowing out of it. It was the perfect music for a young generation to express all the kinds of emotions they were going through. It was cathartic.

Plus, you could play these tunes just on a guitar alone and still get people singing along with you. As a matter of fact, it was in the mid-1960’s that I started playing guitar (and still do). How much attention would you get if you attempted to play “Fly Me To The Moon” or “Pennsylvania 6-5000” on just one guitar?

So, young folks (such as myself) realized you could just get a few musicians together and pretty much sound like the songs on the radio. (Much easier than trying to assemble an orchestra so you could play Glenn Miller’s songs).

Rock has certainly progressed since then. But still, rather than playing some Hell-raising speed-metal interpretation of rock, you can just get out a guitar and play a few notes of “Satisfaction” and everyone knows what the heck you are playing.

38

In 2001 Andy Williams was played in clubs in the UK. 'I took LSD three or four times. Maybe that's why I'm cool' | Andy Williams | The Guardian

Around 1990 Tony Bennett became popular among younger people. Tony Bennett - Wikipedia

39

I’m 62, and came of age in the '60s. I was in college from '63 to '70, and music was a huge part of everything that happened in those years.

But before that, as a child in the '50s, one of my most vivid memories is my mother, working in the kitchen, singing along with the “old standards” on the radio. Sinatra. Crosby. Ella Fitzgerald.

When my father was home he listened to classical music and show tunes. By an early age, I knew all the Beethoven symphonies and every word of My Fair Lady.

Now, as an adult, it’s amazing how my musical taste encompasses all the genres my parents listened to (in spades), in addition to my own generation. Kids can’t help hearing their parents’ music, and on some level it sticks. At least it did with me.

40

[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
If you listened to music in the 60s, you were hard-pressed to hear anything your parents listened to.
[/quote]
Except Frank Sinatra and lots of other singers, male and female, that did the same sort of stuff. Radio played Frank and Dean Martin and Bobby Darin and women torchette singers whose names I have mercifully forgotten, movie themes, novelties and every kind of crap, in domination over the relatively few rock/pop stations during the first half of the '60s. Later on FM started having an impact and Top 40 started becoming youth-oriented. Still, there were novelties with appeal to idiots of all ages, soft glop even Grandma could like, Lawrence Welk and clones were very big and swing was “making a comeback” every few years (it never quite made it).

I discovered Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis in my late teens and 20s. Never would have considered Tommy Dorsey and similar bands (I didn’t know about Louis Jordan).

The latter is nonsense, unless the species has suddenly and mysteriously evolved to the point that teenagers don’t want to separate themselves from their parents in style, politics and everything else important, as has been going on for thousands of years outside of odd situations like the Amish. I doubt that the phenomenon has excluded music, or even if it has that the trend will last. Some like to think that rock is the final, established stage of popular music. But of course it isn’t.

Rebellion will never die.

There you go! Hold that thought. :smiley: