Subject: Thread about the generational aspects of music preferences
Date: Sun Jan 19 19:45:16 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:Ok, as suggested by BuzzClik, chime in....
I'm not sure how much more I can add beyond what I wrote in the other thread:
"In one music thread some time ago, Denny postulated (and I'm paraphrasing, of course) that it seems that often one gets "stuck" in whatever musical era one comes of age in. If you grew up when R&R was coming on strong, that's your flavor. My parents never got out of the big band era, for example. While I think Denny's comment is sometimes wrong, it's since come back in my headbone many times, wondering how/why that happens. I think there's some truth there. However, I don't consider myself "stuck", as I go see live music very frequently. But I think it's *truly* the fact that there's very little good, *original* R&R being created today, which is why I find very little of that genre interesting now. I think "youngsters" these days simply missed out on *the* 'great' body of work, and are naturally filling up their lives with what's new to them, the vast majority not knowing any better. Certainly "SNL" now appeals to the generation younger than myself, musically. It's pretty sad that *maybe* 1 out of 10 musical acts on "SNL" is interesting to me, or is even anything I would consider quality music, regardless of the genre. So much of it is more dance, posturing, and choreography than music, which I guess is connected (somehow) to the video aspects as discussed above."
"Sorry for the rambling...................it's just too bad that there's very little quality music coming out these days, or shall I say that what quality there is doesn't seem to be commercially successful, for the most part. There's probably at least 20 to 50 times as much music available now as in, let's say, 40 years ago; but the average *quality* of it is (imo demonstrably and incontrovertibly) just sooo poor. I'm thankful I got what I got, when I got it."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Another key aspect of the music I grew up with was that back then it really "meant something". Maybe many wanted it to mean more than it did at times, but much of it truly did mean something. It was a social and political force, and there's no denying that. I think that the absence of that (largely) in more recent times is a hurdle that prevents more modern music from equaling it. But does that fact "lock" one into that mindset? I don't think so. But I think political outrage spurs creative juices, as we've seen around the world throughout history. I'm a child of the late '60s and early '70s, before (it was known that) J. Edgar Hoover infiltrated, before Watergate, before McGovern's unsuccessful campaign, and significantly, before disco (see Brothers Gibb, etc.) took hold.
Lastly, for now, I'll say that rather gigantic ticket prices to some extent keep the live aspect of music from many of the masses. It's become too much of a business. Yes, it always was to some, but now that often takes the forefront, leading to the business-first horrors of Back Street Boys, Spice Girls, and whoever it is now. But there's still plenty of great, live, inexpensive (or free) live music; you just have to care enough to seek it out.
Link: "My Generation"
Date: Sun Jan 19 20:53:39 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:That is a very rich post, TN. I will not try to respond to all of it now, but I will address various parts as the thread progresses.
The generational aspect of music is a phenomenon I have pondered my entire adult life -- my mother is stuck in a Frank Sinatra rut and has been since I've been alive; my brothers and sisters (all older than I) value only the music that they danced to in high school and college. It is something I have seen in people I barely know. I recall seeing a discussion board asking people to list their top 100 songs, and all of the respondents listed songs from a single era. One guy listed every song from his favorite albums and nothing else.
I have no doubt that some people will chime in on this thread and declare that they follow today's music with the same passion as they embraced the music of their teenage years. However, we have seen several times on this board that people love to talk about the music of their younger years and have friendly arguments about which classic rock band was the best. In other words, I believe that you, TN, are totally in the norm.
This is not the case for me. I equally treasure recordings from the 20s as those from this decade and every decade in between. So many gems! I have also known a few people who have explored other genres of music when they are adults. My brother, for instance, dabbled in country music, and I know that Belle on this site has fallen in love with classical music (no idea if she always loved it).
I have always felt that the music a person loves provides a lot of insight into who that person is; but what possible insight can be provided when a person hasn't bought a record or downloaded a tune in 20 years?
Date: Sun Jan 19 21:00:52 2014
User: The_Inquisitor
Message:Can't you two just email each other and save the server capacity for others?
Date: Sun Jan 19 21:10:00 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:Feel free to contribute, xeena. When you add video links to threads, they are often classic rock, but some are more contemporary.
Date: Sun Jan 19 21:10:21 2014
User: StephenGM
Message:Business has always come first, there were plenty of manufactured Elvis copy-cats like Fabian, Bobby Darin. Then when the Beatles took over USA TV responded with the Monkees.
The more things change the more they remain the same. Keeping up with the latest music really takes time and effort that most of us don't have. And its mostly not about the quality of the music, its about the fact that it IS different.
Personally I'm stuck in the 60's and 70's era of the singer songwriters like Dylan, James Taylor, van Morrison, Jim Croce, Kris Kristofferson, Jimmy Buffet, Leonard Cohen. Of that bunch Cohen is the only one still producing stuff worth listening to. Basically they have said it all, but each new generation needs to here it from someone their own age, sung their own language.
Date: Sun Jan 19 21:46:01 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:Great post, StephenGM.
Actually, keeping up with music is not all that hard. I listen to satellite radio with new music every moment I'm in my car. That's about an hour a day. My son in his mid-20s is a musician and music producer/concert promoter, so I get lots of exposure and inside info from him.
And .... speaking of new music, Bob Dylan put out a new album in September 2012 (Tempest), and I downloaded it to my phone. His voice hasn't exactly improved over the years, but he's still Bob Dylan.
Cohen is still a treasure and still getting awards and touring. Awesome!
Date: Sun Jan 19 22:21:49 2014
User: Denny
Message:Anybody else like Avicii? I like his mix of acoustic instruments with house. I listen to it in a totally different way from Derek and the Dominos but I still like it.
Denny
Link: Avicii on Wikipedia
Date: Mon Jan 20 00:41:25 2014
User: joeygray
Message:Thanks guys, for making me think.
Not that it did any good. I don't know why I like the Carpenters and Steely Dan, or Led Zep and the Spinners, or Jason Mraz and Rob Thomas, or Allison Krause and Debby Harry. It doesn't seem generational, it doesn't seem stylistic. (I like the Stylistics.) I like the Bee Gees and think it absurd that anybody considers them the downfall of anything. I like David Gates and I like Jim Steinman, both over the top in their own ways.
And so far I can't think why.
Date: Mon Jan 20 00:43:39 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:I really do not follow electronic dance music, but Avicii has mad quite the splash. I have listened to his True album and a couple so singles. I like "Heart Upon My Sleeve" and a couple others.
Date: Mon Jan 20 03:40:24 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:Good point, StephenGM, about business aspects being present even "back in the day", the Monkees, etc. However, I disagree with your last sentence in the second paragraph. I have no interest in "liking" music just because it's "different". I suspect, however, that there are those to whom that applies. But what determines "quality". Obviously, it's in the ear of the beholder, but is there more to it than that?
I somewhat blame the media for foisting on the public the "next big thing". Thus we have Lady Gaga, and Miley, etc., etc., etc. (And yes, I know, Bruce had to start his career with the "The Next Dylan" albatross hung around his neck for many years, and he ended up doing ok....) But ultimately, the public apparently deserves the crap it gets served, as the 265 million views of that Robin Thicke song makes clear. I'm still just totally dumbfounded by that.
Similarly, I would (respectfully) disagree with BuzzClik about me being stuck on classic rock. Hardly. I *do* have some (very minor) tendency towards his description of "the norm", but I essentially never listen to classic rock, although I have quite the collection. But would I say that the music of Jimi or Led Zep is 'better' than that of most "rock" music of the last 30 years? Yes. But that is not my taste now, nor has it been for probably 25-30 years. Why not? Well....to some extent it's lost a lot of it's relevance. And there's a big dose of "been there; done that". I could say more, but that's probably enough. Classic rock served it's place, and served it's time.
Like Buzz, I enjoy a broad spectrum of music, and certainly find great worth in Django, Hot Club-type stuff, or many of the old blues greats. Heck, I often listen to the "Blues Before Sunrise" syndicated radio show out of Chicago, which is mostly jazzy blues from the '40s and '50s, with some big band aspects thrown in. My favorite stuff the last 20-30 years, however, is roots reggae, zydeco, Cajun, and Afrobeat, along with blues, of course. But with my late-adoption lifestyle, until recently it's been hard for me to find much of that stuff on the air. I now get probably about 90% of my (non-live) musical exposure from radio, and that only recently (since I got a new computer) includes internet radio.
Point being, mostly by default and by my location, I've been neck-deep in high-quality Americana, or "roots" music for over 35 years. There is really an embarrassment of riches in terms of that stuff in this area, and it's one of the factors why I've never moved away. And that's why I'm also puzzled by the recent success of Mumford & Sons, as they seem to me to be Mumfords-come-lately to the show. And just to clarify, I loves me some reggae and all that other stuff I list above, but it's hard to beat a hot progressive newgrass band laying it on thick (not to be confused with "Thicke").
And yeah, I can listen to "Saturday Night Fever", "The Bee Gees Greatest Hits", or the Stylistics, too, although I haven't in a while.
I'm really handicapped, when seeing information like that huge "Interesting New Music" thread, because until youtube began allowing clips longer than 3 minutes (or whatever it used to be), I had little chance of learning of new stuff except from radio. I don't do mp3s; I don't do satellite (Is that Sirius?); I don't do file sharing; etc. So I've got a lot of catching up to do, and I know I've missed out on some good stuff. On the other hand, I know I've missed out on probably tons more *bad* stuff. "All hail Rock and Roll...."
Date: Mon Jan 20 11:40:22 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:Diana Krall and Elvis Costello are my fave super couple.
Music has to speak to me for me to like it or spend money on it. No speak, no listen.
I like the classical, and I hate the country. But I watch "Nashville".
Blues actually is my fave.
I hate rap and dunno why it's still around.
I do know some young people who love classic rock.
Black gospel trumps white gospel.
Don't like christian rock.
Hate Jason Mraz.
Date: Mon Jan 20 11:44:15 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:And I wouldn't exactly call the BeeGees "disco", although they did enough of it...
Date: Mon Jan 20 11:58:49 2014
User: gretchen2
Message:For all you music lovers, I have a fine independent film for you to rent if you can find it. "Muscle Shoals". Lots of fun and lots of music.
Date: Mon Jan 20 12:01:12 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:OMG the comments under this story are priceless. These peeps actually have wit and sense of humor.
example: Snidely Q. Dooshbaghe Dikachu • 5 months ago −
I had a neat thing called a Walkman and I was the Master of my Musical Domain. I listened to the radio in the 80's only for news of the imminent Apocalypse.
Link: Before they went disco, Bee Gees were wonderfully sad bastards
Date: Mon Jan 20 12:09:47 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:BTW, I was never a big Bee Gee fan and really didn't like Andy Gibb, either. But I loved them in Sgt. Pepper's movie, doing Beatles music - and the disco stuff grew on me after awhile, because it actually is good.
Date: Mon Jan 20 19:53:25 2014
User: StephenGM
Message:I've got a bit of personal connection to the BeeGees. They emigrated from the UK to Australia in the 50s and settled in my home town, Redcliffe.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=-27.2267,153.10873&spn=0.095401,0.169086&t=h&z=13
They attended the same schools as my older brothers and were continually bullied because they were English and liked to sing. They were also very adept shoplifters. My brother described them as "thieving little bastards, you couldn't turn your back on them". Although, I must admit, for a little while I was also part of a gang that regarded shoplifting as a legitimate way to spend a Saturday afternoon.
Anyway, at some point they made the decision to give up shoplifting and focus on singing. They began to sing during intervals at the local speedway and were eventually "discovered" by a DJ called Bill Gates.
Link: Redcliffe Honours BeeGees
Date: Tue Jan 21 00:43:13 2014
User: mildcat
Message:"stuck" in whatever musical era one comes of age in."
My mother was a concert pianist and music teacher. Before I was 10 I heard more classical music than Bing Crosby. I became “stuck” in acapella because vocal singing worked for me. In the early fifties when I was going to college, did not have time for Elvis or other pop music, but I sang in an all men’s chorus. Basically I was interested in personal performance participation not so much a listener. Joan Baize and Enya were my favorite female vocalist, Neil Diamond was the only male singer I heard in person.
Date: Tue Jan 21 01:51:34 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:Wow. Boy was I wrong (along with probably almost everybody else not from Oz) about where their name came from. (Read the linked story from StephenGM carefully.)
Date: Tue Jan 21 09:14:59 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:The reason we got it wrong is because that is what we were told. Someone lied (maybe) and it became "common knowledge" that was wrong, according to that story. But why should that one story cancel out what we thought we "knew"? I would not discount what we all previously believed so easily.
Date: Tue Jan 21 09:21:47 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:That story also got the name of the song (from the album of the same name) "Spicks and Specks" wrong. They called it "Specks and Specks". Maybe it was just a typo, but they lose some credibility right there.
Date: Tue Jan 21 09:40:05 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:Quote from the biography channel
The group had a new name for themselves, The B.G.s – made up from the common initials of Barry Gibb, Bill Goode, Bill Gates. A few years later, the name evolved into The Bee Gees, which came to mean the Brothers Gibb. Recognition was slow in coming, and the Bee Gees decided to move to England to try their luck there.
There's also cool current info at Barry Gibb's page. His band includes his son Stephen and Maurice's daughter Samantha.
http://www.barrygibb.com/newsarticle.asp?id=40
Link: http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/the-bee-gees.html
Date: Tue Jan 21 11:16:44 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:Try as I might, I can find no link to the "Barry Gibb Talk Show" on his site. Don't know how he can leave that out...
Also, if one clicks on "Collaborations", one will get a mild surprise.
Date: Tue Jan 21 13:32:30 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:Back to Avicii and his "True" album.
I listened to the album a second time. I definitely liked it better the second time, but it still has not sold me on the genre.
What I liked about the album is the use of different vocalists to front the music. All the vocalists were talented, so I explored a bit to find out more. Avicii sought out his vocalists and landed some big names: Nile Rodgers, Mac Davis, Mike Einziger of Incubus, soul singer Aloe Blacc, Dan Reynolds of American rock band Imagine Dragons,Dan Tyminski of bluegrass band Alison Krauss and Union Station, singer and songwriter Sterling Fox, and Adam Lambert. In this way, Avicii manages to gain a broader appeal for his music while not abandoning the basic structure and style of his electronica.
You can check out several of the tracks on SoundCloud:
Link: Avicii -- SoundCloud
Date: Sun Jan 26 23:10:58 2014
User: Dr.Bombay
Message:Hmmm. Do this year's Grammy's reflect the generational aspect of music or was that opening act just bad? Insipid is the word that came to mind.
Date: Sun Jan 26 23:17:44 2014
User: hotnurse
Message:Just bad pretty well sums it up.
Date: Mon Jan 27 02:43:52 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:The Grammys have been essentially irrelevant all along. Rarely are they any true reflection of the reality they purport to represent.
Date: Mon Jan 27 07:08:11 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:Not sure what reality the Grammys are supposed to represent.
The awards are voted on by the Recording Academy members only, so the selections reflect their views.
The show itself is, well, a tv show and represents what all tv show represent: a revenue source.
Date: Mon Jan 27 09:33:21 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:I did not watch the Grammys, but I was thrilled to read that Vampire Weekend won "Best alternative music album" for Modern Vampires of the City. The other nominees were Neko Case (frequent guest vocalist for such notables as Jakob Dylan and The Dodos), The National, and Tame Impala -- all subjects of posts this year right here at the Freecell discussion board.
Maybe the Grammys miss the mark with other genres, but they nailed it with indie.
Date: Mon Jan 27 10:43:45 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:The "reality" they purport to represent is allegedly "best", in whatever categories they proclaim such. I'll take your word for it that they got that one right, but in general, it's more a popularity contest, as the decisions are indeed done by vote. I'm sure they've gotten other ones right through the years, too.
Date: Mon Jan 27 11:00:42 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:Just curioius, TN -- what method other than voting among the members of those in the business would be better?
The reason I ask is because there are a ton of awards given every year for various forms of entertainment, and (to the best of my knowledge) they all rely on some group of hopefully informed and engaged people voting on them.
Date: Mon Jan 27 12:25:59 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:Oh, I'm not saying there's a better method than voting (but see more below). As we know, everyone has an opinion. What I'm trying to say is that not all music released last year was considered by the voters - and that furthermore, many of the voters are unqualified to make informed choices outside of their area(s) of expertise. You have X number of people, or bands, or music, chosen for the final vote. (Although I'm admittedly somewhat ignorant of such details.) Was every single album reviewed prior to said vote? I'm not saying there's a better way; only that it's so nebulous as to be questionable at best, or nearly meaningless in some cases. The media have a strong influence in what the choices are, not the inherent reality of "best", which of course is nebulous as well. Do you think the people who voted for best reggae, or roots albums for 2013 actually listened to all the possible choices? I would submit that many voters are too far out of their field of knowledge to intelligently make such choices. All that doesn't bother me, other than I just know that the choices may not reflect what I've called "reality".
Just now, totally at random, I went and looked at the Grammy nominees for 1999. For example, here are the (final) nominees for "Best New Artist":
Lauryn Hill
Backstreet Boys
Andrea Bocelli
Dixie Chicks
Natalie Imbruglia
You want to tell me that Backstreet Boys should be in the top 5 of *anything*? That, in and of itself, makes all the choices extremely suspect. On top of that, Bocelli had an album out at least as early as 1995.
I just think too much fuss is made about something which is, empirically, unknowable. That's all.
Link: the filtering process for the Grammys
Date: Mon Jan 27 12:54:43 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:I have no idea, TN. People seem to like the Grammys because folks like getting excited about the possibility that their favorite song or album or artist might be recognized as THE BEST. We see it with the Oscars and the Heisman and the People's Choice and Hall of Fame (for a slew forms of entertainment).
If you'd like to make an argument that the Backstreet Boys are the worst group of all time to sell a million records, I'd certainly listen. But, I might argue that the honor belongs to the disco incarnation of the Bee Gees. And xeena would disagree.
I was just asking -- not really arguing.
Date: Mon Jan 27 13:18:03 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:I know; it's cool....
And yes, the same faulty process is valid for the Heisman and the Oscars (etc.). But for the Oscars, at least the number of films is relatively much smaller, so that the potential for grievous errors of omission is somewhat less.
For the record, I also love the album "Saturday Night Fever". (And I think the movie even works well as a period piece.) Think of that what you will. And in general, I am NOT a fan of disco, in case you were wondering.
Date: Mon Jan 27 13:28:49 2014
User: BuzzClik
Message:TN, music is personal taste. I might be a bit shaken if you dressed like Disco Bee Gees, but liking their music is fine with me.
Date: Mon Jan 27 14:20:29 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:"Stayin' Alive" has been going through my head...
Fallon and Timberlake are sexay in their white suits. That's why they start out with a butt shot.
Date: Mon Jan 27 15:25:19 2014
User: hotnurse
Message:I flipped through the Grammy's today and saw one performance that caught my eye. Metallica and Lang Lang...awesome!
Last year I read the bio of Lang Lang...incredible, and driven by his father who was hell-bent on him becoming a famous musician under the direst of circumstances. Some critics say that he is too flamboyant and egotistical...so...he worked for it.
Date: Mon Jan 27 16:21:17 2014
User: joeygray
Message:I'm interested in what criteria you might use to opine the Bee Gees belong at or near the top of a worst list. Of course if its just 'Because I hate them so much' (much like our Glen Beck disagreement of the distant past) then of course, carry on. But you got anything objective?
I consider it pluses, that they wrote catchy memorable tunes with familiar, sensible chord progressions and three part harmonies. Maybe you think those are minuses?
Date: Mon Jan 27 17:07:58 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:They are kind of like ABBA. After a while you just give in.
Date: Mon Jan 27 17:10:16 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:I was picturing TN in the white suit. I might be a bit shaken too if I saw that.
Date: Mon Jan 27 17:32:42 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:There exists................nah........not gonna go there.......other than to say it was in 1976. 'Nuff said.
Date: Mon Jan 27 17:34:26 2014
User: hotnurse
Message:I like both ABBA and The Bee Gees for what they represented during those times.
Btw, TN in a white suit? I have only seen him in black leather pants and a turquoise suede bomber jacket...and silver silk socks; quite boring for him. ;)
Date: Mon Jan 27 18:15:30 2014
User: joeygray
Message:Well, I like them right now. Why not? If one liked them once, what would make one not like them some time later?
Date: Mon Jan 27 18:17:50 2014
User: joeygray
Message:I'm only talking about their music, by the way. I did not then or now care about their costumes or their private lives or whatever else maybe makes you dislike them.
Date: Mon Jan 27 18:36:42 2014
User: The_Interpreter
Message:Date: Mon Jan 27 17:15:30 2014
User: joeygray
Message:
Well, I like them right now. Why not? If one liked them once, what would make one not like them some time later?
The music may not change, but people do change their tastes as they mature (or just age) and acquire other experiences.
Date: Mon Jan 27 18:39:02 2014
User: Dr.X
Message:Should go without saying that when talking music that the term "I like" or "I don't like" only refers to the music, not the people doing the music. But Ditto what Joey said. I was giving some actual thought to that the other day.
Date: Mon Jan 27 19:00:18 2014
User: hotnurse
Message:Joey, I still *like* them today, but I have to be in the right mood to "enjoy" their music. Their costumes?............funny now, cool back then.
Date: Mon Jan 27 20:46:35 2014
User: TNmountainman
Message:Uh, hotnurse .......uh......as to my leather pants and bomber jacket when we went out partying, uh, did you forget the "what happens at Cellstock *stays* at Cellstock" adage? Better be careful.....
Date: Mon Jan 27 20:49:35 2014
User: hotnurse
Message:Well, that was just the boring outfit. And, nothing compared to Buck's!
Date: Mon Jan 27 21:31:41 2014
User: joeygray
Message:>> The music may not change, but people do change their tastes as they mature (or just age) and acquire other
>> experiences.
Buzz, I find in my case my tastes expand. I like more things, but I don't like the old things any less. With some few exceptions, of course, one being the movie Caddyshack. But I actually can't think of an example in music...
Post follow-up