Post New

A gen-Z music guy listens to Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band for the first time.

It's kinda painful, in some ways. Some things he doesn't "get". Kind of interesting seeing how a different generations views it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1czIoVST9Lo

Love them or hate them, it still seems odd to me that someone in their 20s or 30s has never heard the album before.

Love them or hate them, it still seems odd to me that someone in their 20s or 30s has never heard the album before.

I told a car saleswoman (mid-20s) we wanted to buy the car to drive to San Francisco. She asked what the trip was for.

I said. 'To see Eric Clapton and Carlos Santana play at the new Chase Center.'

'Who are they,' she asked.

Sigh....

Sure, they aren't the Beatles, but when I was mid 20s I knew the major artists of the 40s 50s

Of course, we did not have the world wide web of global information competing for our attention.

'Who are they,' she asked.

Yeah. I think musically the Beatles were probably more significant. If any music from the 20th century survives in 300 years, they will be like Mozart is in our day.

I may have told this story before, I mentioned to a (very) young coworker that one of my favorite pieces of music was the medley on side two of Abbey Road. He looked at me with a straight face and said "side 2?". Wanted to smack him. :-(

At least he had heard of the Beatles.

Sure, they aren't the Beatles, but when I was mid 20s I knew the major artists of the 40s 50s

Is that the right comparison, though? Eric Clapton and Carlos Santana are major artists of the 1970's - more than fifty years ago. Sure, they continued to have the occasional hit into the 80's and early 90's - but that's really their era, where most of their major work is from. Just like Sinatra is a 50's and 60's era guy, even though Theme from New York, New York was one of his bigger hits and didn't come until the 1980's.

Unless you're a lot younger than I thought, the more apt comparison for you would be to the pre-WWII performers of the 30's or 20's.

You really up on all those Big Bands and Swing Orchestras?

You really up on all those Big Bands and Swing Orchestras?

The big names, yes.

When I was a teenager I couldn't stand big band music, or jazz in general. Then I learned to play the guitar, expanded my musical horizons and came to appreciate the great music of the first half of the 20th century.

Today I play in a small jazz combo, mostly playing standards from the Great American Songbook. Improvising over those tunes is so much more challenging and interesting than the rock and blues I grew up playing and still play sometimes today.

Today I play in a small jazz combo, mostly playing standards from the Great American Songbook.

Well, sure. As we get older, we learn more and have more awareness of stuff that came before us. But as you point out, when you were a youth that wasn't really on your radar.

It's not surprising that someone in their 20's isn't necessarily familiar with the second tier of the major artists from fifty years ago. If that person decides to pick up guitar later in life, I fully expect they'll know who Santana and Clapton are.

You really up on all those Big Bands and Swing Orchestras?

Music, ocean, food... these are a few of my favorite things ;-)

Josephine Baker, Al Jolson (Sittin on top of the world)..not to be confused with the version by the Missisippi Sheiks..., Louie Armstrong, The Dorsey's, Dizzy Gillespie, Gene Krupa, Bix Biederbeak.... you bet. The names of others don't roll off my tongue like the musicians who play blues derivative of Robert Johnson (Crossroads, 1932!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCisGFYDrKQ&list=R...

... and old Hawaiian, early country, opera back to Caruso's day, hot jazz ala Django...

But then again, I grew up on the LA west side where music and musicians were alll around me...

A few weeks ago we listened to Chris Thiele play 2 hours of mando Bach... solo

As we get older, we learn more and have more awareness of stuff that came before us. But as you point out, when you were a youth that wasn't really on your radar.

Santana and Clapton were great. No doubt. But they weren't really revolutionary. I think the Beatles will be remembered practically forever, just as Beethoven or Mozart are remembered today. Not that everyone will like them. I mostly don't like Mozart, even as I can recognize the genius in the music. It's just not my style.

I've been going down a rabbit hole recently. While tallying up my taxes, I'm listening to "reactions" on YouTube (as I've mentioned before)**. Rappers and other young people, and they all seem to be blown away by the Beatles. Which I find interesting, and may reinforce my point. I honestly didn't expect so much adoration. I figured I would be hearing a lot of "what is this crap?". But no. "It's amazing!" is much more common. It seems to transcend generations.

I am biased as I am a huge Beatles fan. I'm the guy who wins the Beatles trivia contests and "name that Beatles' tune" on cruise ships. Seriously, I crush it. I'm just reporting what the "reactors" are saying. Many seem mesmerized by Eleanor Rigby.




**I can listen without have to watch the video since it's music reaction (as opposed to movie reactions).

I’ve known for a long time that there is an ever diminishing knowledge of the past (in all things: historical events, art, history, etc.)

I know a lot about rock and roll. Less about crooners of the ‘40’s. Some, but not a lot about the jazz era of the 1920’s. If you asked me about Ragtime I’d say “Scott Joplin” and then stutter. Want me to opine on the traveling minstrel music of the era after the Civil War? Blank stare.

We learn about a few salient battles of the Romans or the Greeks, but they had a full, rich history which, were you alive at the time, you would have been steeped in. Now? It’s The Trojan Horse and Thermopylae and maybe a bit about Sparta and Athens.

So it will be with our era too. They’ll remember 9/11 for a while, and maybe the JFK assassination (“Camelot”). Perhaps Woodstock will last in the collective memory for some time, but I bet the Grassroots won’t last another decade. (I make a joke. They didn’t even last their own decade.) With each passing era we shed the next outer layer of knowledge until we are at last left with the core: Mozart, Rembrant, Shakespeare.

We have a collection of “art mugs” from MacIntosh, a Canadian company that wraps famous art around a ceramic cup, and we use them for coffee each morning. I’d rather go to a museum, but I live in Tennessee, where if you say “art” they think you’re addressing a guy named Arthur, not a creative endeavor that lifts the world.

Truth is, we’re all going to be erased. Maybe the Beatles will survive for a hundred years. Maybe not. It’s a distracted, self-absorbed society anymore. No telling what shiny object will capture the public these days.

I’ve known for a long time that there is an ever diminishing knowledge of the past (in all things: historical events, art, history, etc.)

Floyd Dominy, the Director of the Bureau of Reclamation during its era of big dam building projects, said that people's memories were a generation long, meaning that, though his attempt to build a dam in Grand Canyon had been defeated, within a generation's time it could be accomplished. Fortunately he was wrong about that specific case, but I do think he had a point about human memory.

How many remember when we lost Glen Canyon?

Truth is, we’re all going to be erased. Maybe the Beatles will survive for a hundred years. Maybe not. It’s a distracted, self-absorbed society anymore. No telling what shiny object will capture the public these days.

I'm of two minds about it. The distracted - and divided - cultural landscape might make things disappear faster, or it might give a little more lifespan to the superstars that preceded it.

On the one hand, you have Bing Crosby. Biggest entertainer in the world during his peak, but I don't think he has much recognition today among younger people other than the ritualization of his Christmas song. Subsequent "biggest entertainers in the world" (Elvis, Beatles, Michael Jackson) kind of displaced him in less than 100 years.

In my own experience, I developed awareness of the cultural icons from before my time not through experiencing their works firsthand, but through the echoes and parodies of them. W.C. Fields, Mae West, Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, even the Marx Brothers - they showed up as caricatures in my Bugs Bunny cartoons long before I was old enough to appreciate any of their content. They were so immensely popular in their day that you could use them in new cultural works pretty easily and assume most of your audience would understand the reference. But at some point after their initial superstardom and then the subsequent "echo" and ripple, they mostly disappeared - because they were replaced by then-new cultural touchstones.

We're a more distracted world these days, so maybe that hastens the degree of cultural erosion? Or maybe it might slow that cultural erosion, since there's not likely to ever be another Michael Jackson - a single most popular entertainer that's more famous than Jesus (to coin a phrase) and utterly dominates global music. In a world where it's a lot harder for a single cultural touchstone to exist, especially in music, maybe that lets the biggest ultra-mega-superstars of prior eras last a little longer? Pop music continues to change and evolve, but it doesn't seem to be able to throw up the same kind of "Biggest Star That Ever Was" that it used to. The Beatles catalog might have more value longer - and thus get recirculated into culture longer - if we aren't going to make those kinds of global superstars as regularly anymore?

Or maybe we just skipped a few decades with no ultra-mega-superstars but we'll continue to mint them - with the time between MJ and Tay-Tay just a brief hiatus...

But at some point after their initial superstardom and then the subsequent "echo" and ripple, they mostly disappeared - because they were replaced by then-new cultural touchstones.

You ever visit Hollywood (CA, not FL)? Walk of Fame. I didn't walk the whole thing, but I walked segments of it as we wandered the area. I didn't recognize most of the names. They rated a "star", and I never heard of them.

However, there is another factor. Most of those old names were before the information age. They were from a time where a theater would run a movie, and when the next movie came out, they burned the previous one. Tossed in the garbage, and lost to history. Today, that doesn't happen. And it's digitized and distributed. We never forget now, at least in that it is forever accessible today. We've lost the original performances of Mozart (since they had no recording technology), but we have Itzak Perlman doing Mozart forever. It's "out there" for anyone to find. A lot of Charlie Chaplin is lost because they didn't keep the reels.

So the next question is "is it worth finding?". Bing Crosby probably isn't worth finding. He had a nice voice, but that's it. He wasn't creative. He was just another singer. Same with Sinatra. Did either of them write/compose anything? Did they play instruments? No, they just sang. Singers are a dime a dozen. Tune in American Idol (1poorkid went through a phase where she liked that, so I was exposed to it), many of the contestants have really nice voices (or they wouldn't be there). A dime a dozen.

A hundred years from now the Rolling Stones, The Doors, The Beatles, plus films like 2001 and Saving Private Ryan, will be available.

I do have to concede that it's impossible to say what will appeal in the future. I think some things will be timeless. But I use Bogart as an example of someone that won't (in less than 100 years). Bogart was flat. His delivery was monotone. I'm not convinced he was a good actor at all (same with John Wayne, for that matter). Bogey could be delivering a line to a gangster, or a beautiful woman, and it was the same tone and cadence. Just flat. No range at all. I doubt he will ever experience a resurgence because there are so many better actors (Hackman, Hanks, the list is endless).

I do think that musically we are experiencing an era of sameness. Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, and more, are very talented. Good writers, good singers. Lots of fans, of course. But it seems to me that they lack that *something* that will endure for 100 years or more.

As I mentioned, while doing my taxes I went down a rabbit hole of videos of people who NEVER heard the Beatles, reacting to Abbey Road (for example). These Gen-Xers are still blown away, 60 years after the album was released. I can't say that won't happen with the immensely talented Taylor Swift, but I doubt it.

So the next question is "is it worth finding?". Bing Crosby probably isn't worth finding. He had a nice voice, but that's it. He wasn't creative. He was just another singer. Same with Sinatra.

I think that's more than a little unfair to Bing. He was instrumental in pushing for advances on the technical side as well, being one of the major forces pushing the industry into using magnetic tape and the entire practice of pre-recording performances. He pioneered his style of singing to take advantage of the technical development of the microphone, and his singing style (incorporating different phrasing techniques and practices from jazz) was revolutionary. He was enormously creative in his music - but much like Orson Wells, so much of what he created is now just "normal." it's just "singing" - it doesn't seem like anything creative. Also he was an Oscar-winning actor and one of the more successful box office draws of his time, FWIW.

But...I hear you. Writers and composers are going to have a longer "lifespan" of cultural relevance than performers, because what makes their work special can still exist in new forms long after they've passed. New performances by a performer can only come about during their lifetime, but new performances of a composed work by new performers can happen on an ongoing basis. Sure, students of music might dig out Perlman's performances of Mozart - but Mozart's cultural importance will be vaster than Perlman's, because Mozart's works will be being performed anew, while Perlman's are frozen in time.

I do think that musically we are experiencing an era of sameness. Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, and more, are very talented. Good writers, good singers. Lots of fans, of course. But it seems to me that they lack that *something* that will endure for 100 years or more.

Hard to say. Cultural penetration is important to lasting endurance, also. Returning to the thread topic, it's not at all surprising that an "ordinary" mid-20's person doesn't know who Carlos Santana or Eric Clapton are. Neither of them were "mega-superstars" even at their peak. Certainly not Santana. Probably not Clapton, either. Yes, he was an enormously successful artist, but didn't land as hard broadly as the mega-super-duperstars of the eras (Zeppelin, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, and still the Stones on the rock side, Bee Gees and Abba on the pop/disco side, Elton John and Queen somewhere less categorizable). You can certainly argue that Clapton had skills and talent that some or all of the performers in those groups lacked - he's probably one of the greatest electric guitar players of all time. But they had a level of stardom that leads to lasting impact and endurance that Clapton never hit. Not for lack of talent, but because what he wanted to do musically wasn't necessarily going to get him that type of commercial megastardom.

If Taylor Swift is going to still be culturally relevant in fifty years, I suspect that it will be because of that megastardom. The "Abba model," if you will. If you're one of the most popular performers on the planet for long enough to build up a massive discography of hits that people will still be humming well into their golden years, you can achieve that kind of legacy.

My husband, Beatle Bill, he called himself on the broadcast, was chosen as the guest DJ for the Sirius Fab 4 Show, last Sunday. He chose four songs from varioius times of his life, introducing each song with why they were meaningful to him, personally, and also a little Beatles trivia about each song: I Saw Her Standing There, If I Needed Someone, I Am The Walrus, and Let It Be.

He's a huge Beatle's fan. Plus, he's a thoughtful and entertaining writer, while sounding amazing as a DJ. He could do it for a living-- Who knew! And I thought he should really get some new music in his life! I don't know if you can get a replay but it was great. "Bill from L.A." Very proud!

Evidently when I was 12 to 14 this became my candidate for the most irritating song of all time. I cringed when it came on the radio, and the song became embedded in my mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4aIVEEc26c

Lyrics
Looking back in my diary
And reading 'bout the little girl that I used to be
Be young and foolish, wanting something new and exciting
Wanting to be loved, because it was the right thing
But how was I to realize I'd only bring tears to my eyes
Well I was such a young girl and so full of fun girl yeah
There are too many years, too much time to wait on
I thought I had to do what must be done, now now
I pushed the boy that I love to pretend he loved me
I made that same boy kiss me and hug me
What a young and foolish girl who couldn't wait on her real lovе
I should have known it takes two to feel love, now now
Looking back in that samе diary
And reading 'bout that little girl that I used to be
Be young and foolish
Now I was such a young girl, a full of fun girl
Couldn't wait on her real love
I didn't know how to feel loved, so young, so young...

What is the most irritating song from your youth? :)

One of the things I've noticed is that some younger folk don't understand the influence of the styles of flow of music over time. It's most noticeable in guitarists. If you ask me who's the most influential guitarist, to me, it's Jimi Hendrix. Inevitably they choose someone who came after him, who was heavily influenced by him, and just say they're much better than Jimi. Trying to explain to them their guitarist is heavily influenced by Jimi doesn't seem to work ever. I remember talking with one woman who insisted SRV (Stevie Ray Vaughn)was much better than Jimi. I was astonished that she didn't give Jimi any credit at all seeing that SRV developed his style imitating Jimi, and explained to her that if you watch his videos, he's playing and imitating Jimi, but he did such a masterful job on Little Wing I think that's the definitive version of it. She was from Texas and SRV was God. :) But I did detect that there was also some bigotry there, and SRV was also better because he was white, which saddened me.

One of the things I've noticed is that some younger folk don't understand the influence of the styles of flow of music over time. It's most noticeable in guitarists. If you ask me who's the most influential guitarist, to me, it's Jimi Hendrix. Inevitably they choose someone who came after him, who was heavily influenced by him, and just say they're much better than Jimi. Trying to explain to them their guitarist is heavily influenced by Jimi doesn't seem to work ever. I remember talking with one woman who insisted SRV (Stevie Ray Vaughn)was much better than Jimi.

I wonder if that's because those are two different questions. Who's the most influential guitarist vs. who's the better guitarist. It put me in mind of this observation from a different context:

Whoever does something first isn't likely to do it best, simply because those who follow after have the benefits of time and experience. So it shouldn't be surprising that viewers who see the new idea after other hands have shaped and polished it are not going to be impressed by the way it looked when it first came out of the ground.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Seinfe...

So it's not surprising that young folks interested in, say, electronic music might think that current artists are "better" than Kraftwerk, even though electronic music wouldn't exist (or wouldn't exist like it does today) if it weren't for Kraftwerk.

Plus, you have to take into account the generational effect that you alluded to in your post, as well as genre preferences. The best music in the world will generally be the music that you encountered between the ages of 13 and 26 (or so). That's the best music - other music is less good. It doesn't matter whether that's really the best music. That's going to be when the best musicians were:

https://thegenxmanager.com/2018/04/13/why-your-gen...

Someone who went through adolescence in the sixties will may think Hendrix is the best; someone who went through adolescence in the eighties may think it's SRV.

As for genre, Henrdix and Vaughn produced different types of music. Someone more partial to blues might lean towards SRV, while someone who favors rock would say Hendrix:

https://www.guitarworld.com/features/the-100-great...
https://www.guitarworld.com/features/the-100-great...

I wonder if that's because those are two different questions. Who's the most influential guitarist vs. who's the better guitarist.</i

You may have misunderstood my point, which is the point you repeated. Jimi changed the way the guitar is played. SRV plays guitar the way he does and it's based on Hendrix. Even after you explain to them that Hendrix pioneered many sounds - distortion, fuzz tone, psychedelics,etc., they will continue to insist that that SRV is more influential and the better guitarist. Somehow they are not able to understand that there was a difference in the music that Jimi made that changed music. SRV was a very good technical guitarist and you see his guitar creativity best on his posthumous Little Wing (even gets a little jazzy).

Jimi was a blues guitarist first. He legendarily killed God (Eric Clapton) by playing a supercharged version of Howlin Wolf's 'The Killing Floor' on stage after being invited up by Eric Clapton. Eric couldn't play that song (but if you listen to that song, you'll wonder why, because Eric was goood).

If you've ever seen Guitar Shorty, you'll recognize Jimi. He taught some things to Jimi.

But some Texans don't like Jimi or any of the other good black guitar players and are happy that SRV is white, sadly. Jimi beats SRV at creativity too. SRV wrote mediocre songs in collaboration with his band. Jimi was creative with good songs and revolutionized the way the guitar is played in just four years.

Whoa! That was an intense song. Wendy definitely influenced people. Whoa.
Amy Winehouse sounded exactly like her. Her band.
Hope Wendy did better than Amy. By her lyrics, sounds like she got wise.

Tom Waits' band also sounds like hers! Frank's Wild Years.

The longest drought in 1,200 years may be giving Glen Canyon back. A YouTuber that I follow hikes in remote areas he discovers on Google Earth. One of his recent posts take place in a series of side canyons that within this young man's lifetime were under many feet of water. He mentions some facts that I've read elsewhere. Lake Powell is dropping so low that it is nearing the level that the dam will not be able to generate hydroelectric power. It is conceivable that it may even drop so low that it is unable to to release water into the Colorado River below the dam meaning the Grand Canyon will be dry and Lake Mead will not receive any new water. He also mentions, and I have not verified this, that if all the water currently in Lake Powell was released, it would not be enough to fill up Lake Mead.

https://youtu.be/s9q-LJ0x8p0?si=a6Y4CzbWsEFUOqqB

I wonder if that's because those are two different questions. Who's the most influential guitarist vs. who's the better guitarist.

Exactly right.
Hendrix was innovative. SRV polished it.

Santana will be remembered for injecting rock into the salsa. There are now thousands of latin rock bands who gladly pay homage to Carlos. He'll be remembered for writing distinctive melodies..like Samba Pa Ti. Movie makers will always seek out pieces like that for their sound tracks. Like Bing's cover of White Christmas and Nessun Dorma, great pieces of music will stand the test of time.

Anybody who's into the blues will find Robert Johnson and probably Clapton's readings of his style... which will lead them to Cream, his association with George Harrison and...the Beatles.

Surprised nobody has mentioned Brian Wilson. The Beatles recognized his tormented genius. Just as Chris Thile bored me stiff with 2 hours of solo Bach mandolin, movie makers, singers, songwriters will keep the creations of great writers alive. (Aside: I'll still go see Thile play with others, just not another infernal 2 hr of scales.)

Anybody who's into the blues will find Robert Johnson and probably Clapton's readings of his style... which will lead them to Cream, his association with George Harrison and...the Beatles.

Definitely possible.

But some artists are truly extraordinary. We can't enjoy Mozart's symphonies conducted by Mozart because they couldn't record them. As albaby said, we can re-perform them today because the raw music was written down. Today, we can record them. So Yoyo Ma or Perlman or Clapton or Hendrix -in principle- can persevere. Not just their style and influence, but their actual performances could be listened to 100 years from now. I think it's possible that maybe some of them may be held in high regard 50 or 100 years hence. Others will fade away (K-Pop, please!).

And then there are some individuals/groups that seem to be a nexus (for lack of a better word). They were so pervasive, and they had that *something* intangible that they almost certainly will. Not just the music on the page, but the actual recordings. I sometimes wonder what it would have sounded like with Mozart (or Beethoven, or some of the other giants) conducting/performing their work. Would it be similar to today?

I've enjoyed watching Gen-Xers listening to the Beatles for the first time. Also, the Doors. I don't know if the Doors will have the same staying power as the Beatles (and I love the Doors!), but the Gen-Xers are blown away by them, too. They seem confused (the Oedipal references in "The End" throw them), but still blown away.

Not just their style and influence, but their actual performances could be listened to 100 years from now. I think it's possible that maybe some of them may be held in high regard 50 or 100 years hence.

We'll see. Or maybe we won't, since you and I are somewhat older folks. But I wonder if this will be true for artists who are notable because of their performances, rather than being composers.

This part of the discussion got kicked off by a poster being taken aback by a mid-20's person not knowing Clapton (or Santana, but Santana wasn't so widely known even in his day, so that's not all that surprising). Any student of guitar (or even of popular music generally) would know him, of course - but he probably doesn't have much cultural relevance or penetration these days.

I wonder - will any performers have that? Unlike the composers, whose works get performed anew by modern musicians time and again, someone who's notable for being a virtuoso performer only has the work as it existed during their actual performing career. It's recorded, but somewhat 'frozen' in time. Will those recordings get pulled out of the metaphorical vault to be listened to by a modern audience?

I think there might be a lifespan - that the actual performances can't outlive their audiences and find new ones the way composers can. Gen X is finding the Beatles and the Doors, but I don't think they're finding Benny Goodman or Duke Ellington or Al Jolson or Jimmy Dorsey, Dinah Shore or Doris Day or the Andrews Sisters. They'll know Crosby's Christmas stuff, but they're not pulling any of his other early works. Maybe Ella Fitzgerald or Nat King Cole.

I think the earliest artists that still has any enduring cultural footprint for hteir performances would be Holliday or Sinatra (and the latter because his career was so long - he was a contemporary of Elvis but had a new generational hit in New York, New York at the cusp of the 1980's). But I think any performer who was done by the fifties is mostly gone to modern listeners, other than the ones who are actively digging/researching.

Can you think of any others?

very narrow, but likely, any youngster jazz fans will know of pre-1960s jazz greats.

jazz was the punk and rock equivalent at various times.

Can you think of any others?

I was a bit surprised a few years ago when Nina Simone popped up in some pop-culture media (maybe a TV show?). I think she is sometimes used in other vehicles, even if people aren't buying her albums. She died in 2003 (age 70). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soid2JxdCsk

I'm not sure the ones you listed -for the most part- were really unique. Ella, Nat, maybe Aretha...they still seem to get play time on the radio. They were popular in their time, of course (Dinah, Doris, etc). But I wouldn't expect any of them to endure. They don't seem to have had a 'hook' that could pull them forward into the future. Same with the K-Pop phenomenon today...20 years from now, they will be mostly gone. Replaced with new "pop" ('pop' being short for 'popular'). The stuff we regard as "classic" seems to have more staying power.

Elvis continues to endure (even though I'm not really a fan...his stuff is "OK" to me, but I don't any discs/albums). He was revolutionary, though not as inventive/experimental as future groups.

I agree, "we'll see". I would think some performances will survive just because they're that good. Iconic. You almost can't remake them without a lot of fallout from potential audiences. Well...maybe we won't see. As you said, we're getting up there (me faster than you, I suspect, since you just had a baby a few years ago...1poorlady and I are well beyond that possibility). Maybe your grandkids will see.

I would think some performances will survive just because they're that good. Iconic.

I think there's a shelf life even for those. They're "iconic" within their cultural setting, but after a while that cultural setting is just no longer relevant.

There were iconic performers and performances, that were just that good in their time, back in the 1920's, 30's and 40's. But they're just not of much relevance to modern audiences, who aren't necessary firing up the youtube to watch Al Jolson or Count Basie or even Bing Crosby's old performances. At least, I don't think they are - maybe I'm wrong on that. Bing Crosby was the Beatles of the 1930's, who absolutely revolutionized popular music and dominated it (and culture more broadly) to a degree that no one had before...and he's basically disappeared from musical cultural relevance except as an artifact of Christmastime.

I wonder if performers and performances can last much past 80 or 90 years - basically when the last of the audience you built through the end of your mainline popularity have died off. Maybe changes in the style, production, and recording technology of popular music will just have moved too far past where you were for you to continue to be of interest to a modern audience, save when looking back to study past influences? Few of the big pre-WWII megastars seem to have held on. Even the iconic ones.

I sometimes wonder what it would have sounded like with Mozart (or Beethoven, or some of the other giants) conducting/performing their work. Would it be similar to today?

A composer/orchestrator/arranger/violinist cousin o'mine is as comfortable touring with hip-hoppers as he is arranging and playing for folk singers , rock bands, or major symphony orchestras. I believe that Mozart and Beethoven would take to electric instruments like ducks to water. Think Emerson Lake & Palmer or Pink Floyd with full orchestras.

Like you, it's heartening for me to see lots of teenagers at shows by the many Grateful Dead cover bands, and popular musicians like John Mayer and Billy Strings taking the catalog to heart (as opposed to the last Sting/Paul Simon tour we attended. Don't get me wrong... it was a great show, but the audience was a sea of grey.)

I would think some performances will survive just because they're that good. Iconic.

Again, I believe producers of movies, TV, music will keep iconic bands, songs, artists alive, even if only for episodic revivals. Heck...Irving Berlin has spotify channel.

Aretha owns "Respect." Whitney owns ayeeayeeaywillalwaysluvyouuuuuoooo Entertainment producers will know and use these and many others over and over just as they do 'White Christmas", "What a Wonderful World," .

They aren't just songs. They are legitimate art. Those creations are already demonstrating 'legs.'

In times of political strife, 'For What It's Worth" might survive air. They transcend; they speak to occasions.

Songs that resonate and tug at man's heartstrings just ain't a dime a dozen. Irving Berlin didn't just get lucky when he wrote God Bless America or White Christmas. Other songwriters recognize the skill/genius, like Willie Nelson putting Blue Skies into most of his set lists.

Hank Williams songs... they're too good for current and future artists to ignore.

We (most of the age group on this board) got to experience some amazing art.
Doris Day and her ilk were kinda analogous to modern corporate music that's designed by clones and algorithm. It's product; not art.

Maybe changes in the style, production, and recording technology of popular music will just have moved too far past where you were for you to continue to be of interest to a modern audience, save when looking back to study past influences?

Production, style, recording; sure.

But the range of human emotions will not change. Even if their songs and recordings are only resurrected as artifacts for holidays, classics will endure and the creators will be remembered.

One last thought.... recording has become so simple that virtually anybody can produce music in a home studio. BUT they cannot create a better song than some of the iconic pieces mentioned in this thread. THAT takes that je ne sais quoi that most people do not have. Those that can, do. Those that cannot do covers.

Doris Day and her ilk were kinda analogous to modern corporate music that's designed by clones and algorithm. It's product; not art.

A good way to put that. I agree. Most of what is churned out (in any era) is formulaic. Mass produced. It's the innovative, revolutionary, unique stuff that might be remembered. Or, as you said, the art.

Again, I believe producers of movies, TV, music will keep iconic bands, songs, artists alive, even if only for episodic revivals. Heck...Irving Berlin has spotify channel.

Aretha owns "Respect." Whitney owns ayeeayeeaywillalwaysluvyouuuuuoooo Entertainment producers will know and use these and many others over and over just as they do 'White Christmas", "What a Wonderful World," .

They aren't just songs. They are legitimate art. Those creations are already demonstrating 'legs.'

And they're all recent (save White Xmas). "What a Wonderful World" was recorded in 1967. As was "Respect." "I Will Always Love You" was recorded in 1992. Those performances are well within the living memory of millions and millions of people.

Irving Berlin was a composer and songwriter, and I have no doubt that his songs - and indeed the whole of the Great American Songbook - will continue to have cultural relevance for quite a while. But for performers, I think the lifespan is more limited.

It's possible, I suppose, that there were no performances prior to WWII (other than "White Christmas") that were "legitimate art." That would be one explanation why all of the performances of the 20's and 30's and early 40's have largely disappeared from cultural relevance even though they were recorded. Bing Crosby was every bit the musical juggernaut in the 1930's that Elvis and the Beatles and MJ were in their respective decades - but when we see today's youth getting "exposed" to "old" music, it doesn't seem to include anything that far back. Maybe that's just an artifact of the specific artists back then - there just wasn't anyone that good - and not the fact that there's just very few people alive that are old enough to have been a teen before WWII.

But I think it's probably the latter. Once all the people who were shaped and formed as adolescents by the popular music of a period are gone, the performances of that period are largely going to disappear from the culture. Which is why I think even a virtuoso performer like a Clapton isn't all that likely to last.

Bing Crosby was every bit the musical juggernaut in the 1930's that Elvis and the Beatles and MJ were in their respective decades...

Was he, though? He was a "crooner", yes? Pleasant voice, but was he groundbreaking? I don't deny he was very popular. He was. But that is a different thing than what sano described as "art".

"...... all of the performances of the 20's and 30's and early 40's have largely disappeared from cultural relevance even though they were recorded.

But recordings from those decades are being listened to and incorporated into contemporary compositions by young musicians. Whether the mass market understands where music came from is irrelevant to the fact that old recordings coupled with 'the oral tradition' are the roots of new music.

Hawaiian chants mingled with California electronics, Caribbean rhythms... you get Jawaiian music.

Willie K, the Hawaiian Jimi Hendrix whose sets included opera, rock, traditional Hawaiian...

Paul Simon spent time researching African music. Ry Cooder, latin rhythms and themes.
Clapton and SO MANY others are students of Robert Johnson, an artist who only wrote a handful of songs. His singing, guitar playing and songwriting on his landmark 1936 and 1937 recordings have influenced later generations of musicians. Although his recording career spanned only seven months, he is recognized as a master of the blues, particularly the Delta blues style, and as one of the most influential musicians of the 20th century. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame describes him as perhaps "the first ever rock star".

Maybe most people don't know the roots of the song theiy're streaming, but if they like a modern composition, it's most likely derivative of music that exists only on scratchy archived media that was heard by somebody and given new life.

Pleasant voice, but was he groundbreaking? I don't deny he was very popular. He was.

Bing made no secret of the fact that he only entertained to fund his real passion; golf. He died on the grass, walking to a Madrid clubhouse after completing 18 holes... against doctors advice.

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/10/15/archives/bing-c...

Ya know who was groundbreaking...and he wasn't a musician? Leo Fender. And it's a Hawaiian (Freddie Tavares) who can be credited for the solid body Strat and P Bass.... Freddie played with Bing, and he played the intro to every Looneytoon cartoon you've seen. !

Was he, though? He was a "crooner", yes? Pleasant voice, but was he groundbreaking?

Yes. He invented crooning as a pop music vocal style. He was the groundbreaker, which is why he was a massive phenomenon. Like any pioneer, once the innovation gets copied by everyone, later folks might wonder what the big deal is. To quote more from the Seinfeld isn't Funny trope:

It wasn't old or overdone when they did it. In fact, it wasn't done at all: this work was the first one to do that. But the result was so brilliant and popular, it became woven into the fabric of the genre. Its innovations were endlessly repeated, until the audience began to expect that every work of that type would include them. And so a work which was once genuinely novel has become the new status quo. It's basically the inverse of a Grandfather Clause taken to a trope level: some works can get away with a dated element because of age and tradition, but these works are dismissed as dated because they've drowned in the sea of their own imitators. The work has retroactively become a Cliché Storm.

There may be a good reason for this. Whoever does something first isn't likely to do it best, simply because those who follow after have the benefits of time and experience. So it shouldn't be surprising that viewers who see the new idea after other hands have shaped and polished it are not going to be impressed by the way it looked when it first came out of the ground.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Seinfe...

To put it another way, he's literally the source of not just "crooning," but the entire practice of intimate vocals (rather that belting or shouting), in recorded music. But seventy or eighty years later, that's just the status quo, so it seems utterly unremarkable.

To put it another way, he's literally the source of not just "crooning," but the entire practice of intimate vocals

I never looked into it, but wiki cites Crosby as one of several 'inventors' but credits Rudy Vallee for it's growth.

The microphone made a more personal style possible. Al Bowlly, Bing Crosby, Gene Austin, Art Gillham, and by some accounts Vaughn De Leath are often credited as inventors of the crooning style, but Rudy Vallée brought the style widespread popularity.

In his popular radio program, which began with his floating greeting, "Heigh ho, everybody," beamed in from a New York City night club, he stood like a statue, surrounded by clean-cut collegiate band musicians and cradling a saxophone in his arms.
— Ian Whitcomb

His first film, The Vagabond Lover, was promoted with the line, "Men Hate Him! Women Love Him!" while his success brought press warnings of the "Vallee Peril": this "punk from Maine" with the "dripping voice" required mounted police to "beat back crowds of screaming and swooning females" at his vaudeville shows.

Amusing story in today's trades.... America's hit, "Horse With No Name" has logged it's BILLIONTH stream. A two-chord wonder.

Amusing story in today's trades.... America's hit, "Horse With No Name" has logged its BILLIONTH stream. A two-chord wonder.

Appropro of nothing, I will just mention that I was Program Director of a Top 40 station when that came out.

Rarely maybe once a year, a song would hit the turntable and the lines would immediately light up. Most songs you had “Hitbound” for a week and then once enough of the audience heard it you would get some reaction. (Or not, some were stiffs even when you thought they would hit.)

Anyway, “Horse With No Name” was one of those, it literally exploded out of the gate. In fact, Warner Brothers had just released their first album which did not include the song. They quickly pulled all those back and re-released the LP with that single on it, and it was to the moon. I never got it, never heard it, and if you’d played it for me at the weekly meeting I would have given it a thumbs down.

Another one that did the “phone line explosion” was McCartney’s Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey from “Band on the Run”. We got a bajillion requests for “Haaaands across the water, haaaands across the sea”. One last one I remember was “Close to You”, the breakout single by the Carpenters. I “heard” the latter two, I never got “Horse with No Name”.

I never got “Horse with No Name”.

The lyrics seemed inane/nonsensical.

He invented crooning as a pop music vocal style.

I would argue that the invention of the microphone "invented" it. Without the microphone, that style wasn't do-able. With the microphone, it was an inevitable evolution. If Bing didn't pick up on it, someone else would have. I don't think the Beatles, or the Stones, or the Doors, were "inevitable".

Sano made a good point about Fender.

Clapton wasn't the first to play a Fender. He was one of the best, however. (He also played acoustic, so skilled in both 'forms'.)

Not to pick on him, but Bing wasn't much of a musician. He -to my knowledge- didn't play anything, he didn't compose anything. He just sang (with a pleasant voice). That's it. Color me not impressed. I have more respect for Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga because they write, play, and sing. Not particularly fond of their stuff, but I recognize the raw talent behind it. I have issues with putting singers into the same category as actual musicians who write, play, AND perform.

I never got “Horse with No Name”.

I don't think that song will live on for decades. I like it. I think I understand some of the symbolism and imagery in it. That probably is a song of that particular generation. I could be wrong about its staying-power, but I don't anticipate it.

Not to pick on him, but Bing wasn't much of a musician. He -to my knowledge- didn't play anything, he didn't compose anything. He just sang (with a pleasant voice). That's it. Color me not impressed.

Okay - then somebody.

Grab a hundred young'uns in their twenties today (not literally) and figure out the furthest back in time musical performer that they've heard a performance from within the last few months or so. Leave aside X-mas music or the kids who are studying music and deliberately seeking out old performers to learn from. Hust what's the furthest back artist a twenty-year old is likely to have encountered just as an enjoyer of music, in their ordinary listening pleasure?

I suspect the answer is Sinatra. No one older. They're not likely to have taken a moment to listen to Glenn Miller or Tommy Dorsey or Benny Goodman or Duke Ellington the Ink Spots or (as we've established) Bing Crosby. There's no "Millennials Discover Artie Shaw" series on youtube. Partially because of time, partially because of quality of recording, and partially because popular music has moved away from the specifics of Big Band and Swing and Jazz.

But it seems unlikely that none of them were amazing performers. That there was nobody who was "much of a musician" for the decades of popular music before Old Blue Eyes. That there were no legendarily talented artists before then whose recorded performances were "worth" lasting beyond their active years.

That's why I think that even the greatest of the great performers - an Elvis, a Clapton, a Whitney, a Diana, an Aretha - are likely to pull an Ozymandias. Composers can be timeless but performing excellence fades away.

Makes me think of stuff an old friend turned me on to many years ago, when i was green.
Henry Thomas and Robert Johnson, some others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8K96owvXQw

Above is a very nice anthology of some old blues players....

The classical music period lasted nearly 300 years, and is separated into three major eras. Three hundred years! . Obviously the world was different, there was no technology to instantly transport every composition to the masses, you had to be decent to get a commission from the King of Dukes and such, but still: 300 years!

And out of those we recognize a good half dozen composers, and with prompting maybe six more, and perhaps 20-30 “famous” compositions. There are three or four standouts from each 100 year period m(Bach, Beethoven, etc.) - and that’s with the culture keeping them alive; heck there are still “classical music” radio stations playing the stuff 24/7.

Does anybody think there will be a hip-hop station playing it in 100 years?

With the advent of technology and a fast moving culture, music cycles last from 4 to maybe 10 years. The big bands, jazz, and crooners lasted longer because everything lasted longer then.

Now it gets shorter and shorter:

1950-55 Balladeers & Pop (Patsy Kline, Jack Jones)
1955-60 Nascent rock ‘n roll (Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis)
1960-64 Crap Rock (Annette Funicello, Frankie Avalon)
1964-68 English invasion (Beatles, Stones)
1968-72 Woodstock, Singer Songwriter (CSNY, James Taylor)
1972-76 Heavy Metal (Led Zeppelin, J Geils)
1976-80 Disco!
1980-85 New Wave, synth pop (Sting/Police, Eurythmics)
1985-90 Grunge
1990-99 Hip hop emerges
2000-10 Rap

(Note: this is wildly approximate, and some artists were early, some lasted beyond; the chart is very approximate.)

With the coming of technology around 2000 (plus or minus, including Napster, iPod, etc.) things changed and I couldn’t be bothered. I lost interest around the time hip-hop and rap came to be, because I am melodically oriented. (There’s an interesting parallel from the 1950’s melody driven songs - which were “covered” by any and all performers at the time, and the rhythm/beat music of rock which maked a clear definition of generation.* [sidebar story]

Anyway, my theory is that most everyone hews to one of those eras (perhaps one and one adjacent), but came in on the one before and trailed out on the one after - which is why adults so rarely care about “today’s music” and get fixated on the oldies of their youth. Enter K-Tel some years ago, and PBS Fundraisers now.

All of this is to say: Most Music Doesn’t Last.

Some does, and few of the cream rise and last a good long time. We can still hear the occasional ragtime piece. Everybody recognizes “In Tne Mood” but few can go five deep in the Glen Miller catalog. (There are no 24/7 radio stations playing just 30’s swing, eh?)

And yet BigBand was the screaming teenage music of its day, it was original, it was art in the same way we think of the Beatles catalog. And it is fading. The farther we retreat down the timeline, the fainter the echoes - and so it will be with the Beatles, in my view. Great art, some truly timeless songs, but they will be narrowed and narrowed by the arrow of time as new “art” piles in on top, until eventually we will remember “Yesterday” and a couple others as we now know “Take The A Train” and a handful more of a different time.

{The End}
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*[sidebar story] I was with Westinghouse Broadcasting when we bought TCI, a cable giant from Colorado. (We belatedly realized that “cable” was a big thing, and threatened the radio/TV/production side of things. We were the 4th largest broadcaster in the country, and oops, new technology. Anyway…

Along with the purchase came MUSAK and a group of “beautiful music” radio stations. All of us (from the rock generation) yelled at the top of our lungs: “LOSER! Dump it!” The President, of the 1950’s “Your Hit Parade” generation didn’t think so, sure that new listeners would “grow into the format” as the old ones died off.

“We will never listen to that shit!!!” we said, with unusual frankness. “Oh yes you will, just wait,” he said. He assumed that since his generation, where “performer” didn’t matter and it was the melody of the song was key, that it would always be the same.

It wasn’t. Needless to say, both businesses were crap. The beautiful music station audience grew exactly one year older with every passing Christmas; the oldest listeners died and no new ones came in at the bottom. Agencies and advertisers noticed. Nobody was buying MUSAK for elevators anymore, and while they branched out into other genres for stores and such, it has face multiples of competitors and never been much of a thing since.

Moral of the story: don’t think your music is the one that’s going to last. Cripes, look at Rap! Who can listen to that shit? (“Hamilton” aside.) ;)

The classical music period lasted nearly 300 years, and is separated into three major eras. Three hundred years! . Obviously the world was different, there was no technology to instantly transport every composition to the masses, you had to be decent to get a commission from the King of Dukes and such, but still: 300 years!

And it's still going. Mozart and Beethoven were the latter half of the 1700s. Just a little thought experiment. Suppose they had recording technology. Do you think that Beethoven performing his Moonlight Sonata would still be played? Would others maybe be intimidated to perform it since you could -in this experiment- listen to the original?

Along with the purchase came MUSAK and a group of “beautiful music” radio stations. All of us (from the rock generation) yelled at the top of our lungs: “LOSER! Dump it!” The President, of the 1950’s “Your Hit Parade” generation didn’t think so, sure that new listeners would “grow into the format” as the old ones died off.

Some stuff lasts, but you're right. Most of the 20th century was a musical wasteland. Little pops here and there, but nothing with the staying power of some of the classical giants (as you point out, 200-300 years). Then came jazz, and that spawned rock. Most of which was forgettable. But not all, IMO. Even 20th century "classical" music mostly sucked (mom listened to the classical station, and occasionally they would play something composed in the 20th century that was complete rubbish -again, IMO (and mom's)).

Obviously, I can't know the future (or I'd be a lot wealthier!). Having gone down that rabbit hole that started with having some background stuff while I did our taxes, what albaby said wasn't going to happen is happening. Gen-Zers are finding music (not just Beatles), and listening to them for the first time, and being blown away. Many/most of them are commenting "I gotta find more". He was correct that as teens they never sought it out, didn't know anything about it, but in their 20s (from what I can tell) they are finding it 60 years later. Time will tell if that continues.

Please, god, spare the future from "mini-tunes".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DoyYn-k-M0

Having gone down that rabbit hole that started with having some background stuff while I did our taxes, what albaby said wasn't going to happen is happening. Gen-Zers are finding music (not just Beatles), and listening to them for the first time, and being blown away.

Correction - I didn't say it wasn't happening in general. I have no doubt that it is happening for music from the recent past. It is hardly surprising that a generation that's now beyond their adolescence would find the music that was made a few decades before they were born. I absolutely believe that they're now finding the Beatles - or the Stones or the Who or the Doors or the Kinks or the Beach Boys or whoever. As you point out, those performers are still very much in rotation for movie and video game soundtracks - and it's also music that most of their parents (and certainly their grandparents) would listen to regularly. Just like my poor kids get exposed to a lot of 70's and early 80's hits, for their sins.

What I don't believe is that Gen-Zers are out there finding performances from the 1920's and 1930's very much, and much of the 1940's as well.

What I don't believe is that Gen-Zers are out there finding performances from the 1920's and 1930's very much, and much of the 1940's as well.

I think because it mostly is worth finding. Also, depending on the era, it can be difficult to find accessible recordings.

But some is. Just a quick search:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=react...

She's worth finding (IMO). The Andrews Sisters? Not so much. They are the Beastie Boys of their generation (also not worth finding).**

You didn't comment on my thought experiment. Not that you're obligated to. Just curious about your thoughts on it.




**I think it was the Beastie Boys that I heard girls saying "they are our Beatles"; and a commenter said "no, they didn't write anything, they didn't play the music, they just sang...they are nothing like the Beatles". Or was it the Back Street Boys? Whichever...neither will endure. Neither has endured.

I think because it mostly is worth finding. Also, depending on the era, it can be difficult to find accessible recordings.

But some is. Just a quick search:

Feeling Good was released in 1965. Much closer in time to our Gen Z'ers than the music from the 20's and 30's.

You didn't comment on my thought experiment. Not that you're obligated to. Just curious about your thoughts on it.

I missed it! But the answer is that I think that it would depend on the quality of the recording.

Feeling Good was released in 1965. Much closer in time to our Gen Z'ers than the music from the 20's and 30's.

For some reason I was thinking it was the late 40s. My bad. It is much closer to the era of Beatles/Stones/Doors and the like.

I did a few searches for names I knew, but most endured into the 70s, and most recordings I could find (like Armstrong) were from the 60s and 70s. Very little from the 30s (actually, nothing from Armstrong, though I suspect he was active then since he was born in 1901). Maybe just a limit of the technology available at the time, so not much was recorded in a recoverable way. Perhaps a phonograph was a luxury item, and people got it all from the radio. Not sure.

Not counting re-recordings of classics, like TACO ("Puttin' on the Ritz"), or Michael Bubly (lots of songs). Though, "Puttin' on the Ritz" may now survive since TACO did it in 1982.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsGjFh1ke44

Very little from the 30s (actually, nothing from Armstrong, though I suspect he was active then since he was born in 1901). Maybe just a limit of the technology available at the time, so not much was recorded in a recoverable way. Perhaps a phonograph was a luxury item, and people got it all from the radio. Not sure.

I don't think the problem was lack of recording. The record industry really started to launch in the early 1920's, with sales getting over 100 million units per year towards the end of the decade. Records themselves started off as more like advertisements for the sheet music, with most of the money coming in from the latter than the former (which reads like music videos in the early days of MTV). The Great Depression, more than radio, really did a number on sales.

Those original recordings aren't unrecoverable - they're obviously lower quality than a modern recording, but still listenable. One of the earliest breakout recorded pieces of the early era was apparently Swanee as sung by Al Jolson in 1920 (and one of Gershwin's biggest hits), which is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T_ENByq-oc

...or legendarily talented Bessie Smith's Downhearted Blues from 1923:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y2JNOq0HVo

Which, again, I'd be shocked if too many Gen Z'ers are out there "discovering" Al Jolson's or Bessie Smith's material, even though he was one of the biggest stars of the early days of recorded music and she was one of the most talented singers of her era. It's just too far back, I think, to be relevant to a modern audience - even though the songs themselves - the compositions rather than the performances - might still work.

Time warp.

When I retired from my day job I started gigging again in local bars and restaurants. Our band was playing mostly songs from the 60's and 70's. At one of the first gigs I looked out at all the gray hairs in the audience and thought "oh, they are going to hate our song list". Wrong! Those gray hairs are boomers that grew up with that music, but according to my memory we were playing music that the 'older generation' did not like. They loved it. : ) I had somehow forgotten how old I had become.

When I retired from my day job I started gigging again in local bars and restaurants. Our band was playing mostly songs from the 60's and 70's.

I might be exaggerating (but I don’t think so) but in every TV commercial break there’s at least one spot that uses 60’s or 70’s music as a background, occasionally foreground as a major part of the ad. The rights to do this do not come cheap (as the headline catalog sales we’ve been reading about demonstrate)

Now the advertisers are (still) focused on the 25-54 demographic, the (mythical) mantra being “they’re in the accumulation years”, and the time when buying habits are set. Even worse, some narrow it down even younger: to the 25-34 bracket or something. (Teen habits are quite different, obviously, and are bought with that demographic in mind.)

And yet, as I look around, it’s us oldsters who have the money, and more important the disposable income to buy what we want when we want. The house is paid off, the kids are through school, and we’re just rolling in it (exaggeration.) Yet the ad agencies cut us off at the knees and pay no attention. Seriously.

I have always questioned the “set their habits” mantra; when I was poor I bought a VW or low end Toyota. Now it’s Infiniti or EV. That’s a “habit”? I don’t think so. Look thru my pantry or medicine cabinet you’ll see some familiar names: Coca Cola, Tropicana, etc. but you’ll also see plenty of recent creations like energy drinks, salsas, and so on.

If you grew up with the music of the 60’s and 70’s, you are likely between 60 and 80. So the agencies will commission the music, but then try to play it for people outside that demographic. Makes no sense. Then again, advertising never did.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Here’s one, for instance “The Daily Show” has the best ratings since 2018. In the age group 18-49. Like who cares about a 55 year old looking for furniture or a new car? I dont get it.

The Daily Show’ Posts Best Adults 18-49 Ratings in More Than Eight Years (EXCLUSIVE)

According to the network, for the first quarter of 2026, “The Daily Show” averaged a 0.579 rating among adults 18-49, its best mark in the demo since the fourth quarter of 2017 (0.593 rating).

Leading that demo surge is Monday night episodes of “The Daily Show,” hosted by Jon Stewart, which for that night is currently the No. 1 show in late night with adults 18-49. But also posting year-over-year growth are the Tuesday-through-Thursday episodes hosted on a weekly rotating basis by “The Daily Show” news team members Ronny Chieng, Josh Johnson, Jordan Klepper, Michael Kosta and Desi Lydic

https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/the-daily-show-ra...

Nobody was buying MUSAK for elevators anymore, and while they branched out into other genres for stores and such, it has face multiples of competitors and never been much of a thing since.

Thank his majesty the merciful lord Odin for that. Muzak distilled out everything that makes music good and just left the dregs. I find it about as soothing as a leaf blower. The death of Muzak is one of the major moments of civilization. Like the invention of the wheel or vaccines.

For a while, Muzak was based in Seattle and I worked in the same building as them. It was in the Fremont neighborhood, which at that time was pretty hip. It was a little seedy, but that's kind of what made it hip. Cool bars and coffee shops, junk shops, art galleries that would quickly go out of business, the odd recording studio and shipyard, illegal bars, that kind of thing. Anyway, the Muzak guys always wore letterman jackets that said Muzak on them. Which beggars the imagination why anyone would willing let people know they worked for Muzak. So there would be these surreal moments where we would go to the bar after work and see Stone Gossard and Peter Buck on one end of the bar, and the Muzak guys on the other. It was like something out of a Fellini movie.

I might be exaggerating (but I don’t think so) but in every TV commercial break there’s at least one spot that uses 60’s or 70’s music as a background, occasionally foreground as a major part of the ad. The rights to do this do not come cheap (as the headline catalog sales we’ve been reading about demonstrate).

* * * AND * * *

If you grew up with the music of the 60’s and 70’s, you are likely between 60 and 80. So the agencies will commission the music, but then try to play it for people outside that demographic. Makes no sense. Then again, advertising never did.

It makes a ton of sense, because of two words in your post:

Tee Vee.

If you're watching TV, you're probably old. Real old. TV is for old people. The median age for someone watching prime time TV - broadcast or cable - is 64.6 years old:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/tv-vi...

Old, old, old. That's why the music in TV commercials is aimed at us old people. Because the TV audience totally fits the music you're describing. Moreover, whatever TV you're watching is probably TV that you fit the demographic for. Since you're perhaps slightly older than median, the shows you're watching probably skew a little older than even that old median age.

If TDS now has a younger audience, that's a recent phenomenon. At the beginning of Stewart's return, the median age of broadcast viewers was...63.3 years old:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/holy-crap-look...

Old.

Now then, I've seen stories about how the younger generation is also starting to have an interest in music from the past because it is free from AI and commercialism and seems more authentic to them. But honestly, I think it's just that TV is for the old.

Bessie Smith isn't fading away.

Bonnie Raitt has kept her name alive, as have other famous musicians throughout the years.

Queen Latifah and Mo'Nique made a movie about her.

This thread is talking about 2 different groups: people who love music vs people who just listen to the current hits. Every generation -x, y, millenial, boomers- contains both.

Speaking of fading away, there's another creative force whose music, whether a new generation recognizes they're listening to it or not, won't fade away. Some call it the Bo Diddley beat, Hey Bo Diddley... 'Not Fade Away' was upcycled by Charles Hardin in Lubbock Tx, and numerous others ever since. That creative force; the African clave... that infectious ham bone rhythm!

The first link keeps reloading. So, I have to ask: define "TV".

I'll assume that refers to OTA and cable/satellite.

The newer generation watches content, but the stream it. Apple TV, Hulu, HBO. It seems none of 1poorkid's friends watch "CBS". We've been watching programs on Hulu that were created by one of the big 3. But we don't get any of the big 3 in our streaming (we could if we subscribed, but we don't).

That said, the ads we do see are usually for insurance or various drugs for conditions I never heard of. Probably not targeting a younger demographic.

This thread is talking about 2 different groups: people who love music vs people who just listen to the current hits. Every generation -x, y, millennial, boomers- contains both.

This.

While the latter outnumber the former, the people who love music (all forms) are a substantial group. I know a significant number of people who love Louis Armstrong, Billie Holliday, and songs by Cole Porter and George Gershwin, as much as the Beatles and Taylor Swift.

Pete

I know a significant number of people who love Louis Armstrong, Billie Holliday, and songs by Cole Porter and George Gershwin, as much as the Beatles and Taylor Swift.

Consider that birds of your feather flock together, and most people are not like this.

There are no Cole Porter radio stations, although in our splintered consumer universe there are a couple of audio or video channels you can see/hear. The audience numbers for them are not large, particularly in comparison with most other current-ish pop performers. Likewise with Louis Armstrong, Billie Holliday, etc.

Nobody is saying “they will disappear completely”, only that the edges will fade as the crush of new material lands on top. That’s why you can only name a dozen or so classic composers, even though there were 10,000 such composers during that era.

The great ones will last, but even Beethoven isn’t playing to stadiums anymore ;)

Consider that birds of your feather flock together, and most people are not like this.

There are no Cole Porter radio stations, although in our splintered consumer universe there are a couple of audio or video channels you can see/hear.

Agree in part, disagree in part.

Yes, certainly birds of a feather plays a role, but the movie and tv series culture alone carries music from generation to generation. Music from many past generations, from the baroque and classical eras through the swing and pop generations are constantly incorporated into movies and often generate renewed interest in that music. Sometimes this is stylistic and sometimes note for note. Historical movies will, of course, include music from the eras that they represent (see "1917", "The Great Gatsby", and "La La Land"), but also non historical movies and series are constantly incorporating Rachmaninoff, Beethoven, Bach, Gershwin, Porter, along with more current hip-hop and pop, sometimes side-by-side (see "Bridgerton", "Westworld", "Tron", "White Lotus").

Pete

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.