And it’s a little aggravating to me, I confess, because I simply can’t understand how someone could consider the top-40 stuff alongside (some) more “obscure” stuff and not immediately judge (some) more “obscure” stuff as being of an utterly distinct and better class of work.
I can’t take the presently cool attitude of appreciating the top-40 stuff because there’s nothing there to appreciate. It’s terrible music, simple as that. :mad:
Your wording was a little vague, yes. You’re saying you’ve never heard songs including Yellow Submarine, In My Life, My Generation, The Sounds of Silence, or Purple Haze, just for starters? Can I ask where you grew up?
That’s because the great and enduring things he mentioned are albums, not song titles. I’d be surprised if you’ve never heard a single song off of Revolver (e.g. Eleanor Rigby or Yellow Submarine):
And thank goodness, by the way. I always found the popular music/obscure music divide to be maddening simply because it’s impossible to maintain the distinction without someone maintaining that the former is inferior to the latter, which it isn’t. I frequent a number of hipster-y music sites, and I always roll my eyes when albums that practically nobody has ever heard of and are frequently of middling quality are lauded over albums that are genuinely fantastic but have the nerve to be enormously popular and thus lesser.
But, like you say, I think that’s changing. Among people who I regularly talk about about music with (with an age range of roughly 20-27), the distinction between popular and “indie” music is practically nonexistent. I find it refreshing, because that distinction is stupid.
Especially when such a distinction seemed to result in annoying and pointless “hipper than thou” contests.
In any case, there’s one factor responsible for this that’s been kind of danced around in this thread but not really directly addressed: audience fragmention. Since at least the 1920s with the rise of jazz, the public’s musical tastes have been divided and sub-divided many times. Initially, age was the biggest dividing line between the type of music you listened to. However, since the late 60s, so many lines have developed that audiences became more-and-more balkanized. The introduction of MP3s and the internet, in turn, increased this sub-division to the point where the borders have become numerous and weak. Basically, nearly every type of recorded music from the last century is now easily accessible to anyone with fast modem. As a result, music tastes are more individual and eclectic.
In that the only actual songs he listed in his post were the last five (the biggest hits of 1966). The other references were to bands and albums, not specific songs.
Eh, I’m an Elvis fan (“(Marie’s the Name) His Latest Flame” is probably my most-listened-to track by any artist over the past few months), but I think I get what Beware of Doug is saying.
Just as an example, when I was in high school it was common and “cool” for kids to listen to, say, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, and The Who. Not so much Elvis. Music from the fifties and earlier is old in a way that music from the sixties isn’t yet.
I don’t think that says anything about the quality of the music one way or the other, and I don’t think that’s the last word in “cool,” but I do get the sentiment.
The Man in Black, you realize you are just one data point, right?
FWIW, I was also born well after 1966 (in 1978) and I’m familiar with most, although not all, of the albums. I’m sure I’ve heard songs off of all of them. Moreover, I’m kind of of the opinion that if you haven’t, you live in a cultural vacuum.
oooooh, my data point invalidates yours. Whatever shall we do.
I think it was because back then, 50s music likely was your parents’ music and no teen would be caught dead listening to–let alone (gasp)* liking*–your parents’ music. Also, radio programming had a lot to do with that demarcation. Album-oriented or Classic rock stations generally never played anything before the British Invasion (i.e., 1964).
Maybe I should have said “before the 50s.” But a lot of 50s music is gone and ain’t coming back (think chart-topping fluff like Eddie Fisher), or only comes back for a subset of urban hipsters (think bachelor pad stylists like Esquivel).
Even the early/late 60s is now a kind of divide, with 1966 a kind of Great Flood year when megaconcerts start to flower and psychedelic really starts to challenge mainstream pop.
And I was giving a data point as a person who is not a fan of the Beatles, or any of the others listed. I did not know that only fans of the bands listed where wanted for replies. I am sure I have heard many of the songs on those albums. But I do not know them. I am sorry that this is a problem.
If you poll only fans of those bands, you will get get an answer that those bands are the biggest. If you take a bigger sample, you may find otherwise.
I can’t imagine that a bigger sample would ever indicate that the Beatles were anything other than one of the – probably THE – biggest pop groups of all time. And I say this as someone who has never liked the Beatles. I don’t believe I’ve ever voluntarily listened to a Beatles song…but I know plenty of them anyway.