The musical "generation gap" was a strange 20th century artifact brought on by the fact that the only music you could access freely was what was brought to the store in your neighborhood on a truck (or the ads that played on the radio to sell said music).
Modern day listeners can just type a name and follow a rabbit hole as deep as the history of recorded music. If you're just a kid exploring, you experience Lady Gaga and Duran Duran on equal footing and click both into you favorites with equal effort.
Its a golden age.
I'll wager most people have never heard of him.
There was a jazz/fusion/younameit FM station in Mountain View in the early 80s called KPEN. They got copies of Tibbetts' first two albums (eponymous, and "Yr") directly from him and gave them some airplay. I was hooked, told some friends, and I put together a group buy of his first two albums' self-pressings. So I have autographed self-pressings of his first two albums... with his own original cover art... from 1980!
For those who want to check out his early stuff, check out the song "Sure" on his first album, and the song "Three Primates" on Yr.
KPEN's license frequency, 97.7FM, is now KFOG's South Bay broadcast frequency. KPEN's studio was in the long-defunct Old Mill shopping center, later the big HP development on Central Expressway.
Is it 18-35 year olds? Is the people who grew up around the millennium? That group must be ageing by now. Then why millennials’ habits matter so much?
Start from the beginning, with "The Lonely Bull".
Alpert also gave The Carpenters their first record deal.
"If a book has been in print for forty years, I can expect it to be in print for another forty years. But, and that is the main difference, if it survives another decade, then it will be expected to be in print another fifty years. This, simply, as a rule, tells you why things that have been around for a long time are not "aging" like persons, but "aging" in reverse. Every year that passes without extinction doubles the additional life expectancy. This is an indicator of some robustness. The robustness of an item is proportional to its life!"
But in general, time is a pretty good filter for quality (you’ll miss some good stuff, but if you only look at the culturally remembered stuff, you’ve still probably got a lifetime of good media)
So many reasons. Pre 2000, music was tightly controlled, the bar was quite high, and though there was still crap, there was good stuff, and it was backed hard by the industry. Everyone knew what the 'top 10' was at the time and everyone was on the same page.
Now with so much diversity, it's hard for something to really break through.
There are countless other reasons as well we could go into, but we truly live in a different kind of era.
Take a look at Billboards Top 100 for the 80s and 90s and see how much you recognize. The bar wasn't very high at all.
It's been years since I've heard anyone listen to or talk about Nirvana, Pearl Jam...
> Millennials recognise songs from music's 1960s-90s more than new songs
Actual article title:
> Millennials' still recognise songs from music's 1960s-90s golden age, study finds
Actual article content:
> By contrast, their recognition of musical hits from 2000 to 2015, while higher overall than the previous era, diminishes rapidly over time.
Hmm, that sounds more reasonable.
> considerable correlation between the likelihood of recognizing a given song and its corresponding play count on Spotify
All of the Spotify top 100 are from 2011 or later, except for one from 1975. Readers would be better off with the opposite of the headline.
That song from 1975 is an interesting case. Bohemian Rhapsody received mixed reviews at the time, and though it charted, was not a number one in the US. I'm not sure it was even the most widely known Queen song until Wayne's World. The recent biopic (and associated promotion) is undoubtedly giving it a brand new bump.
Klosterman argues in "But What if We're Wrong?" that future generations will have a pretty random understanding of our pop culture, judging from how poorly we tend to understand the past.
Given enough time, some semi-random song like Bohemian Rhapsody will inevitably become a stand-in for all 20th century music, or at least all rock and roll.
1) It was the first time younger people were able to create music for younger people without the filter of older people (management) deciding what got released/heard who's focus was much more to be family friendly and not offend. Most of the 50's and earlier music (with a few notable exceptions... it did start to change with Elvis and a few others in the 50's) had much more of a filter in place. So a lot of the subject matter starting with 60's music is still somewhat timeless as it's a lot of the same stuff every generation deals with and can relate to.
2) Synthesizers started to appear in the 60's enabling some very different sonic options as opposed to the orchestra/big band/4-piece/solo that was typically the limit before then. So it just sounds (a bit) less dated. (i.e. people still like some of the sounds created back then and recreate them today with a twist using more capable synths)
I'm sure there are others, that's just what I came up with...
For example Keith Moon (big Gene Krupa fan) and John Bonham (his triplets and big boomy kick drum sound reminds me to Joe Morello). My exploration of rock leads me to jazz.
Bottom line: cool music is always cool, regardless of the year they were released at
For example, with the exception of Mariah Carey's Indestructable #1 song, the holiday 100  are predominantly from the 50s and 60s.
I'd love to understand why this is - the Lindy Effect just describes it, doesn't really explain it.
It's not too surprising that the 60's state of mind still resonates with youth today. "You might have had your fill but I feel it still."
In the 60s pretty much every teenager listened to rock. In the 70s disco came and you couldn't get away from it. 80s glam metal and rap started. All the youth watch MTV.
Now, you can listen to whatever you want to on YouTube, Spotify or Apple Music. There are tons of popular genres: edm, rap, hiphop, rock, pop, etc, etc. The reach of the biggest pop stars is much reduced. In the 60s everybody knew who the Monkeys were. I can't think of any modern manufactured band that has that name recognition. Last ones were probably NSync / Backstreet boys.
For example, so far as I can tell, these guys have gotten most of those likes from reshares of the video (I've seen it several times, from completely random people). Whereas if you did market research, I doubt that "Mongolian bluegrass folk" would rate highly, so finding a publisher might get tricky.
I can't name a single musician/band of today that stand up to sheer raw talent of the likes of Beatles, Abba, Queen and others from that time period. They were absolute titans of music with unparalleled achievements. There's no band that can make teenage girls go crazy and chase them like they did Beatles. There's no band like ABBA that could fill a concert hall 600 times if they sold all the tickets people wanted to buy when they only intended to do a single concert. There's no band that can make 300K people sing along during a concert like Freddie Mercury could. I laughed at a comment that I read on Youtube couple of days ago: "Year 1980 - Queen is the best band ever. Year 2180 - Queen is the best band ever.", but then I realized it could end up being a fact after all.
Music of today feels overly commercialized, cheap, forced and streamlined. There's also a "mathematical" problem where composers are running out of unique melodies for the classic 3 minute format.
Filling up concert halls isn't a viable way of measuring an artist's achievement in the internet age for me. People go to concert just because they know the band's name, because someone bought them a ticket or because the media built up the hype.
As for melodies - we won't run out of them anytime soon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAcjV60RnRw
There's still innovation and new stuff. People can make any sound they want on their laptops these days.
There's a lot less incentive to go into the business for talented people.
Just curious, what age were you when you first heard those tracks?
Pop music has always been trashy, but there's a big difference between The Monkeys and Cardi B. I hear pop songs from the past and hum along. Pop songs from the present inspire nothing but a frothing rage in me.
Thankfully there's a lot of great music that isn't popular! I just have to avoid the radio and television.
...said everyone in every time period.
There's good pop music being made today. But most music being made in any period is bad. If you look back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, there's plenty of bad music that lots of people loved. We just remember the good stuff. The classic example is Like a Rolling Stone ('65) and Engelbert Humperdinck, who was huge in '66 and '67. Guess who we remember today?
I'll go further and argue that the only viable definition of "bad music" is "music that is forgotten". We can't know if music is good until we wait a while and see if it sticks around. Any other definition of quality is based on personal taste which is, no offense, worthless.
Now try that with King Uszniewicz & The Usniewicztones instead of The Monkees.
What kind of music do you like? I can probably throw a few artists at you.
I just thought about one song I heard on the radio that stayed in my mind and the first one that came into my mind was "Portugal The Man - Feel It Still" and this is only because it's actually "The Marvelettes - Please Mr. Postman" from '61...
My personal taste is also stuck in the past somewhere around the time The Prodigy was rhythmic and MTV played actual music.