
Why Is the Music of 1968 So Enduring? 'It Was Allowed to Be Art' - pseudolus
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/31/681227625/why-is-the-music-of-1968-so-enduring-it-was-allowed-to-be-art
======
b_tterc_p
I feel like the common idea that music nowadays is garbage compared to old
stuff peaked in the 2000s and is actually on its way out. The internet and
streaming services have allowed people to get exposed to any sort of music.
There's a lot of great stuff being made these days, and a lot greater variety.
For a while things had reached maximum commercialism with incredible money
being poured into promoting a small number of manufactured acts but it's very
easy to ignore that nowadays.

~~~
sonnyblarney
I disagree.

Crap music is more common than ever.

In 2000 the 'gatekeepers' of music were still trying to promote legit acts,
today, it's not the case.

Have a look at this (Trippie Red) [1]

It's truly crap and not just a function of age.

The very low barriers to entry have allowed for crap to come through -
secondarily, it means that young people don't spend years in their bedrooms
anymore honing their craft, so you don't get a lot of virtuosos either just
raw talent/creativity.

There is quite a lot of good stuff out there but it's hard to find.

There are very few good bands/groups that roll through town anymore.

Imagine if you went down to the local theatre and saw this (Heart / Barracuda)
[2] my god man that's raw.

I go to shows occasionally now and it's a 'rapper' who says some things over a
track. I saw BADBADNOTGOOD with Ghostface Killah, now that was spectacular,
but usually even live rap is usually just karaoke.

I went to a gig hailed as 'brazilian/european/american' fusion rap. It was a
DJ who played some tracks and the 'rapper' didn't even rap. He just said
'heya' 'whaaaat' and 'wassup' a bunch of times over the rap track. I was
incredulous. I wanted to go on stage and punch the talentless SOB. I felt so
sad for the generation.

1968 was a big year because a) Rock was _new_. Rock as we know it was
literally just being born. New instruments, new sounds. b) Lots of young
people c) social movement i.e. hippies, summer of love etc. etc. - first time
on tv etc.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrvN87l3s08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrvN87l3s08)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeMvMNpvB5M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeMvMNpvB5M)

~~~
AllenWell
I agree that there is more crap now than ever. Music production software being
available to basically everyone, along with platforms for their music to be
released, has allowed even the most basic first song someone tries to sing to
be viewed by anyone. But is that a bad thing? Some of these small artists
eventually turn into super talented industry giants, and it's so motivating
for kids to believe that they can be one of those people no matter who they
are! If there is more crap out there that's alright with me, it means artists
are being given the opportunity to at least try.

~~~
sonnyblarney
Who are these super huge amazing artists full of talent?

I can't think of any really.

Because of all the crap - the 'talent' is now gone into show, entertainment,
visuals etc, not anything remotely musical.

Example: When Justin Bieber was young, his producer/backer Usher hired him a
'swagger coach' \- to teach him how to be cool. Effectively - how to walk,
talk, be chill. So Bieber honed is 'swagger' instead of honing any kind of
musicianship, creativity or otherwise.

Kids unfortunately don't want to be 'music stars' so much as they just want to
be famous. 'Rapper/Musician' is just another form of Instagram star. Kanye is
not that different from Kardashian. (FYI I do think Kanye is actually
talented, and I also begrudgingly respect Kardashian's entertainment
sensibilities). When Ariana Grande was 13 she walked into the label's office
and told them she wanted to be a famous worldwide.

And yes - there is actually a lot of innovation in production - production is
now where a lot of the 'art' is as the producer matters more than anything
else these days.

The saddest part is that it's nary impossible for a 'good group' to make a
decent living, or maybe to earn a nice buck for retirement because of course
life is short for musicians. A few of them in the zeitgeist, but that's about
it.

Oh - a 'big name talent' I can think of is Bruno Mars. I thought his music was
ridiculous until I saw them at the super bowl and was very impressed, looking
into his background it's clear these guys are super talented, though fairly
commercial as well.

Low barriers + Commercialism have benefits: notably broader access and also
the money/backing to do stuff. But they have really taken over and it's a
problem sadly.

------
bitwize
Frank Zappa had some comments about this. Despite his outré reputation, he
actually preferred working with record companies that had conservative, old,
cigar-chomping executives -- who would say "we don't know what kids are
listening to these days, but the stuff sells!" According to Zappa, it was when
the young hip coolhunters took over that a record company would stagnate and
cease to sign innovative artists.

See: [https://youtu.be/xP4wsURn3rw](https://youtu.be/xP4wsURn3rw)

~~~
pirogen
>he actually preferred working with record companies that had conservative,
old, cigar-chomping executives

I think it's more of a general observation than his personal "preference".
Zappa only worked with two record companies early in his career: MGM and
Warner Bros., both of which he ended up in a bunch of legal battles with, so
in mid-70's he started his own label (Zappa Records, then Barking Pumpkin
Records) he exclusively released his music with.

"I prove to you that I am bad enough to get into hell, because I have been
through it! I have seen it! It has happened to me! Remember: I was signed for
Warner Brothers for eight fucking years!" \-- FZ to the devil in "Baby Snakes"
movie.

------
oldmancoyote
What is missing today is not superb music, it's the dynamic the brought
excellence together permitting its fusion and the evolution of a re-enforceing
and self-perpetuating identity.

The huge empowerment to make and distribute music today, as wonderful as it
is, has led to an overwhelming abundance that dilutes excellence and prevents
it from coming together to reinforce itself and perpetuate its creation.

There must be wonderful music out there, but I'll never hear it. Sigh!

------
AllenWell
I'm sure the romantic ideology of the politically shifting landscape at the
time also played a role. Freedom of expression is very important for this all
to have taken place, but being "real" tends to look different to different
people. To those complaining about current artists being "cookie cutter" and
simply copying the past, there are plenty of prolific composers and 60's bands
that have songs that are heavily influenced by other artists in which you
could easily tell where they got that material from. There have been terrible
"pop" artists that have gained recognition since the times of medieval taverns
to the 21st century (although their reach to the masses is much greater now).
Tchaikovsky began writing compositions very similar to his influencers, just
like some current artists have done with the music they grew up listening to.
And honestly, that's ok.

------
ranprieur
I agree that _popular_ music was better in the old days. But that's just
because the rise of indie labels, and then the internet, have enabled the more
creative artists to thrive on the fringes, instead of having to compete for
mainstream popularity.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
What was popular used to be determined by actual popularity and DJs with
control over what got played even in the face of payola. The vertically
integrated pop music industry now tries to decide who they will promote based
purely on analytics without any regard for actual talent. Nobody can sing
ballads on pop radio now except the one designee, Adelle.

~~~
cortesoft
isnt using analytics also taking into account talent? Analytics is just
measuring what people like, and people like talented artists. Why would using
analytics hurt the talent level?

~~~
nine_k
It's about concentrating the effort on the average, and cutting the long tail.

Imagine: "Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Led Zeppelin all target the same
audience segment; we should only choose one, and discontinue the other two."

~~~
cortesoft
But that makes no sense from a business perspective... I feel like
corporations actually do the opposite... "Oh, this band is really popular with
a profitable audience segment? Lets find and promote a hundred other bands
that sound just like them!"

They won't make more money by choosing one and discontinuing the others... you
are only going to buy a band's album once, you can only go to the concert when
they are in town.. a record label is going to want to give you multiple albums
to buy and multiple bands to go see.

------
JoeDaDude
This has been looked at scientifically, with measurements:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVME_l4IwII&sns=fb&fbclid=Iw...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVME_l4IwII&sns=fb&fbclid=IwAR2LidN6sLBl4OmHpoNCAVyt1_3cmB62gWpR9fNlfQYkT_zlqjXqODfxrXI)

------
mitchtbaum
How about the I.T. of 1968.. Why is it so enduring? This great talk is about
that:

(Beauty in Code 2018) Kevlin Henney — 1968

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjgvffBlWAg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjgvffBlWAg)

(aside: let's talk about its movies too...)

------
Arete31415
Unpopular opinion: The music of 1968 is so enduring because Baby Boomers have
had an outsize influence on culture for decades, and are obsessed with their
youth. Plenty of other musical periods were also important, but we almost
never hear about those.

Led Zeppelin? Joni Mitchell's Blue? Songs in the Key of Life by Stevie Wonder?
These are all incredible cultural touchstones from the 1970's, and we almost
never hear about them as "the sounds that evoked a generation" or whatever.

~~~
malvosenior
I think you hit the nail on the head. There are other issues at play (the "pop
music" medium was still new so it was super easy to innovate...) but this is
clearly subjective.

Here's another unpopular opinion: If you defrosted someone from the ice age
and had them sit down and listen to Bob Dylan, they'd not identify it as
listenable music. From a _musical_ perspective, it's pretty bad. Limited
melody, no harmonies, no counterpoint, limited syncopation, very limited vocal
range...

Baby boomers will tell you all of these artists are "great" but I think
they're unconsciously talking about the social context around the bands more
than the actual music.

~~~
krapp
>If you defrosted someone from the ice age and had them sit down and listen to
Bob Dylan, they'd not identify it as listenable music. From a musical
perspective, it's pretty bad. Limited melody, no harmonies, no counterpoint,
limited syncopation, very limited vocal range...

As you say, everything is subjective, but I've heard "tribal" music and
chanting (which is probably close to what someone from the ice age would be
familiar with), and it's a lot closer to Bob Dylan than whomever you would
consider "great." Complexity isn't the only valid measure of greatness, of
course.

>but I think they're unconsciously talking about the social context around the
bands more than the actual music

Maybe. Maybe they also actually like the music. Maybe it's a bit of both, and
what you're describing applies generally to everyone, that part of musical
taste is wrapped up in the nostalgia for the era it comes from.

~~~
malvosenior
You make a good point. Dylan is folk and that obviously has some similarities
to tribal music. That being said, I think social context is super important to
both styles, more so than musical aesthetic.

I would say that a lot of interesting concepts around poly-rhythms and
syncopation come from tribal music though.

> _Maybe. Maybe they also actually like the music. Maybe it 's a bit of both,
> and what you're describing applies generally to everyone, that part of
> musical taste is wrapped up in the nostalgia for the era it comes from._

I agree. My point was mainly that Dylan is a great example to show how
subjective "greatness" in pop music really is. There are a lot of cases you
can make that he's actually not very good from a musical perspective.

