If I try to quote quotes my head will explode, so let me just try to distill my view into a more concentrated sludge.
Yes, when I wrote, “Remarkable?, yes; extraordinary?, no.” , I meant it as a distinction with a difference—a gradation difference. The British Invasion was big, good, and unique but not extraordinarily so.
I didn’t mean to imply that the British Invasion of America was fought by English Skiffle bands. But most of the British Invasion bands did cut their teeth on American-style Skiffle (including John Lennon) and Blues music, and then they made the music their own.
Many musical fads, crazes and movements swept across nations and sometimes continents for centuries. But, it was hard to sweep the world before radio came along in the early 20th century and TV came along mid-century. Elvis exploded on the scene when TV was in its infancy and radio was approaching middle age and “records” meant 45 singles; the Beatles exploded when TV was a toddler and radio was getting grey around the temples and records meant 45’s and albums.
Today, music can reach around the world immediately in a large variety of media formats. So today’s music penetrates much deeper than any music beforehand, but that doesn’t make it better or more extraordinary. I can post a video of my cat doing something idiotic and if it goes viral it could probably garner 10’s of millions of views in mere hours. What if Beethoven could have gone viral on YouTube when he debuted his 9th? Music from days gone by simply had no way to extend around the globe. Sad, but true.
Lizstomania swept Europe in the mid-19th century, without TV or radio or records—just sheet music, scantily read press, and live performances. I think Liszt’s popularity penetration is actually more impressive than the level of fame the Beatles achieved.
How world-famous would the mop-headed Liverpudlians & company be today if not for radio and TV and records? Girls fainted when the Beatles played on Sullivan and in stadiums; but, girls and women and even some longshoremen fainted when Liszt played. Women used to throw their panties on stage when Tom Jones sang, but husbands used to throw their wive’s panties and keys to the bedroom onstage when Beethoven conducted his 9th (ok, I just made that up…but, who knows??).
Getting back to the OP question “Will there ever be music as good as or better than music from the late 1960’s and early 1970’s?”. As others have alluded to: by what metric are you measuring? Global domination? Then the answer is “yes”. As media penetration continues to grow, my cat could become more famous than the Beatles, and in less time.
The metric of Rock & Roll being better than other genres of music? No. It’s not. Being more popular doesn’t make it better. Then, how do you compare R&R to other genres of music? Well, you can either say, “you can’t accurately compare them”, or you have to use some criteria that everyone can agree on. For simplicity sake, let me just discuss R&R (and all its sub genres), Jazz (and all its flavors) and Classical (including baroque and romantic). Which one evokes a more emotional response from the average listener?
Rock and roll can’t compete against classical music on an emotional level. An hour+ long, 4-movement symphony can twist your heart in many more directions than a 4 minute top 40 pop hit. Compare Ludwig’s 9th symphony, or Rachmaninoff’s 2nd (or 3rd, , 4th, or 5th) piano concerto, or even Chopin’s top forty, 4+ minute hit, Nocturne in C minor, to one of the Beatles most emotional songs, Day in the Life. I love the Beatles, but the depth of emotion just doesn’t compare. Frédéric’s tune didn’t even require lyrics. In fact, I’ve banned myself from listening to it because I don’t like my daughters to see their dad cry. Here’s another Chopin tear jerker… I like Jimmy’s electric version, too. But, I warn you, don’t even try to click this link, it’ll wipe you out!
Ok, maybe comparing R&R to Long Hair music isn’t fair; should we instead compare it to other modern musical genres? Jazz, blues, Boogie Woogie, etc., etc.? For every R&R masterpiece you can cite, I bet I or someone else can come up with a comparable Jazz, Blues, or other genre masterpiece that is just as good, or better than the R&R tune.
Want to stay entirely in the R&R universe? Ok. Who are the best modern R&R artists? The late 60’s to early 70’s British Invasion contingent, or the studio musicians who cut their albums quickly and easily for chump change, and who felt like they sold out because they’d really rather be playing something more challenging, like jazz?
Don’t get me wrong, I still love classic R&R, but I don’t try to make it more than it is: fun, and sometimes somewhat emotional. The Beatles and Simon & Garfunkel can make me tear up, but Chopin and Beethoven can make me a mess.
I’m as proud of my English ancestry (mother: British WWII war bride)as my American ancestry (father: American WWII GI) and nothing would make me happier than to declare British influenced R&R from the [early] 60’s through early 70’s the greatest music of all, because it’s the music I grew up with and have the fondest memories of. The first album I owned was Meet the Beatles. My mom was so proud: “those lads are from where I grew up!” And, my second album was Sgt. Pepper. Mom was a little taken aback: *“those boys have gone a bit too far, now. Don’t play that so loud in front of your father; he thinks they’re communist.” *
But, I can’t honestly make that declaration, because it’s not true by any valid criteria other than, “it’s the music I like best, so it must be the greatest.”
What criteria can we list? Global appeal? Yes, it had that, but so what?..all music from now on will circle the globe—even the crap. Complexity? Sure, it was the most sophisticated type of R&R up to that point. But, so what?..it’s not nearly as complex as classical, jazz or other genres. Emotional depth? Again, it was the best R&R could muster up to that point. But, so what? It doesn’t come close to reaching the emotional depth classical music can attain. Dance-ability? Well, it’s got classical beat there, but it doesn’t come close to boogie woogie that came before, or disco that came after. The London (and burbs) musicians were the most technically advanced musicians in the world? Not when you compare them to the LA session musicians.
I don’t like being on this side of the argument. My bubble started to burst when I started seeing my favorite musicians in studio photo shots being replaced with session musician’s years ago. *What, Ringo Star and Carl and Dennis Wilson didn’t actually play on this or that track? *That sucks.
Enjoy the music you like, but don’t try to claim supremacy. Music shouldn’t be a competition.