[QUOTE=GuanoLad]
I’d just like to point out that the “Baby Boomer” generation are post WWII babies, i.e. they’re now in their 60s. I don’t think they’re much of an influence on business and pop culture anymore.
[/QUOTE]
BabyBoomers - Approximately 1946-1964.
That puts them right now from 44 to 62. In other words, the 77 million out of 300 million age bracket that controls the wealth, business, politics and direction of the country.
You’re correct. Not much influence.
1962? Really? That’s a lot wider swathe than I thought. Hard to imagine there would still be a “boom” of babies by then.
In any case, I really think their time is waning, and the next generation along is the one that really matters to advertisers right now.
[QUOTE=Pel2na]
Excuse me. “Safe music that didn’t rattle any cages” (?) Have you ever read anything about Rock ‘n’ Roll in the fifties? Does the phrase “National campaign to stamp out this satanic devil-music!” ring any bells? There were laws proposed in congress to try and make rock ‘n’ roll illegal. Spittle flew from every pulpit in the country. The singers and groups you named kicked in the doors, brother.
If, on the other hand, your definition of “rock music” is The Bee Gees and The Eagles, well perhaps you have a point. And may God have mercy on your soul.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not saying the music of the 50’s was bad, I’m saying that it is somewhat anachronistic. There’s not a lot of music like that being made anymore. Occasionally you’ll get a group like the Stray Cats doing some Rockabilly or a crooner like Harry Connick, Jr., but they’re not in the mainstream anymore. Likewise, before 1965 you couldn’t really find anything like The Beatles, or the Who, or the Rolling Stones. You can hear their precursors in the electric blues and groups like Buddy Holly and the Crickets, but it was a different musical scene.
Since then, however, Rock has soldiered on and in the same form. Bands like Oasis and Fountains of Wayne are making music not much different than what the Beatles were doing (just not as well). You could place the Raconteurs in any decade since the 1970’s and they’d fit in fine.
But maybe the better point is that ‘classic rock’ stations don’t just survive on boomers. Young people like it too. The Stones and The Who are still selling out every venue they perform in. The last time I went to a Who concert, the audience average age was probably 25-30. The music is essentially timeless in a way that popular music from the first two thirds of the 20th century is not.
.
[QUOTE=Pel2na]
Excuse me. “Safe music that didn’t rattle any cages” (?) Have you ever read anything about Rock ‘n’ Roll in the fifties? Does the phrase “National campaign to stamp out this satanic devil-music!” ring any bells? There were laws proposed in congress to try and make rock ‘n’ roll illegal. Spittle flew from every pulpit in the country. The singers and groups you named kicked in the doors, brother.
[/QUOTE]
Amen. Just to eleborate – I have a pamphlet put out by some religious organization about that time called “Rhythm, Riots and Revolution”, that claimed that both Rock and Roll was the cause of everything from socialism to unwed mothers and all inbetween. The Beatles were Satan’s henchmen and heralded the imminent apocalypse. It surely was the devil’s music, and they were dead serious.
pkbites, are you sure you’re listening to a Top 40-format station and not an adult contemporary-format station? There are differences between the two; IME, Top 40 rarely plays older music, and AC will play current songs mixed in with the classic stuff.
The demographics may skew young, but programming directors tend to be older Gen-X/Baby Boomers who have warm fuzzy memories about the music they grew up on and who have the ultimate say-so on what gets played on their stations. They also know that classic stuff gets ratings, so they’ve got incentive to keep the older music in the rotation.
Robin