Comment by zoogeny | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zoogeny | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think this kind of change is maybe more common than we think. I mean, when Nirvana showed up and was juxtaposed next to the hair metal kind of vibe of the day you had the same weird juxtaposition. Or think how weird that 90s vibe of movies like the Goonies or Raiders of the Lost Ark feels compared to Marvel (so much so that Stranger Things was able to feel nostalgic).

I think of it like fashion. Outfits get slim/tight then the next generation comes and fits get roomy/baggy, then then next generation comes and they'll get slim/tight. There is a swaying back and forth from formal to relaxed, even in politics. Like a Boris Johnson in the UK.

I think it can just feel like "the big change" when our own generational cohort makes the break. And baby boomers have been dominating the conversation for so long, that the particular change that happened in the 60s is banged on about so much. In fact, in the article the author themselves tries to downplay the change that happened in the 90s as a change in how billboard ranked artists. I think that is actually partially just a desire to see the 60s as exceptional or legendary in a way that plays into boomer nostalgia.

I am a boomer, and I think that these two things are true:

1) The stuff that happens in your teens is special because of your age. That may well explain why I think The Beatles (and the music of that era) was so special.

2) The music from the 60s really was special. There was certainly rock and roll well before The Beatles, and it grew out of black music, and blues, and can be viewed as nothing really new. And yet: it really was a significant break from the past in the global adulation for their music and the quantum change in tastes that they ushered in.

Not to minimize Nirvana (whose music I love) or metal, or anything else, but the musical examples that you cite were simply not as globally shattering as The Beatles. They just weren't. They were variations within the world of rock and roll. The only comparable change I can think of is the rise of rap music. Which I cannot stand, but I recognize how it changed the world in the same way that The Beatles did.

I guess I’ve never really considered it before but that’s so true. If you observe mainstream music the influence of rap has been absolutely colossal.

It's important to consider that rap/hip-hop lyrics are deeply tied to social issues. For a middle-class white kid, it's not super important, but for the audience that was also making the music, this is why it took off. The music was new with a message, and even if you didn't understand the message, you could feel the power behind the music. Then you had producers like Rick Rubin, and labels like Def Jam, that knew they could market the music to white kids in the suburbs. I was one of those white kids in the suburbs, and my friends and I would listen to more "underground" hip-hop/rap radio stations in the very late 80s/early 90s to find music that had a message behind it and was honest (even if we weren't the target).

Part of the Beatles growth was also the growth of the home television. The next generational equivalent was probably MTV and Michael Jackson, that spawned the unfathomably large, entertainment icon level of pop star. After that it was anyone who has used Youtube to get billions of viewers without a media companies support.

I love the Beatles and recognize their impact. But to say there was rock and roll before the Beatles as if Elvis wasn't a massive international thing is downplaying it, as if it was this underground phenomenon. The members of the Beatles themselves (or the Rolling Stones) all talk about what influence Chuck Berry and Elvis were. In fact, from the view of "rock'n'roll" I don't think the Beatles influence matches Elvis. Their real influence was bigger later with their experimentation and studio wizardry.

I was even thinking about the Rat Pack, you know Sinatra, Dean Martin, etc. and their antics. The Beatles were very much in that lineage. So this idea that they showed up on Ed Sullivan and wowed the world with their new nonchalance that had never been seen before is not an accurate view of the situation.

As you say, two things can be true. The Beatles were important and influential and were a defining sound in the 60s. And the kind of changes (and relative impact) that happened in the 60s have happened many times in the past and many times since. It isn't some singular moment in the cultural history of humanity.

"Before Elvis, there was nothing" - John Lennon

There was Black music.

My favorite band of all time is Led Zeppelin. A large number of their songs especially in the early albums were heavily influence by black blues artists or so close that they later had to give songwriting credits to the original black artist.

Elvis also sang lots of blues songs originally created by black Americans.

https://msbluestrail.org/blues-trail-markers/elvis-presley

Not just influenced, Led Zeppelin stole tracks from black musicians.

Even worse (in my opinion), is Eric Clapton, who stole so much music from black musicians, and then went on to disparage them and go on racist rants about who he wants in his country. Even worse when you see how he gave and received praise from artists like Jimi Hendrix.

Checking in from Europe. The rise of electronic music was a big deal here, it happened in the late 70s to 90s with "techno" taking off in the late 80s / early 90s. Electronic music in the US has had its ups and downs and has been over-commercialized as dubstep and "EDM" in the last 10-15 years - it will probably be over again at some point. It's been a thing constantly for decades on this side of the pond. Some people say Kraftwerk was as important as (or more so regarding influence on current music) the Beatles.

Electronic music also started in the US: Disco, Chicago house, Detroit techno - these just didn't take off as much or not permanently (Disco).

It’s more #1.

I can appreciate the poetry of the Beatles, I feel a connection as Irish diaspora, but as music, it does nothing for me, and my friends who really loved them picked that up from their parents, reinforcing #1!

The Beatles and the 60s really were special. You may not like their music and that's fine, but that period and that band has not been replicated in later decades by later generations. What the Beatles achieved in particular is arguably unparalleled. If it was mostly #1 as you say then there'd be a Beatles perhaps every decade, but there's not been. There's not even yet been another Beatles since the Beatles.

That is a good point. But there is something else going on in addition. Music is a much smaller cultural force than it was in the 60s and 70s. Then it was arguably the core of all the social changes. That hasn’t been true since then. Instead there are PCs, cell phones, video games, apps. Music matters far less than it used to.

I asked my daughters what music, from their teen years, (aughts and tens) would be listened to fifty years later, similar to the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, etc. They said none of their music would be remembered, it’s all disposable.

We used to have to buy music in stores on physical media. We had to pay money for that album so I think that helped develop an emotional connection to the artist because we were literally giving them our money. Unless you were rich you couldn't own every album that you wanted so you had to think more about whether you really wanted to buy it.

Today most people pay a monthly subscription to a streaming music service and get unlimited access to millions of songs. I think this decreases the personal connection to music.

There are still devoted fans to musicians that will pay a thousand dollars to see them in concert and younger fans buying music on vinyl records that want a more tangible physical experience but that's the minority.

I agree in and I think the Beatles can never happen again for reasons that are completely independent of the music itself. There was huge change happening at that time, you had this huge youth culture, that for demographic reasons the West has not seen the likes of since, and arguably never again can because of fragmentation due to the internet, and then finally you throw in the best band and some of the best songwriters in history. That's what made the Beatles special, it was also everything else that had nothing to do with them at all.

As Kevin Kelly noted decades ago, "change changes change". There cannot be another Beatles, because several aspects of what made the Beatles special were because they were the first <something>. In particular they were the first music act to go "global" thanks to television, and the first music act to go "global" in an area of relatively affordable flight.

> The only comparable change I can think of is the rise of rap music. Which I cannot stand, but I recognize how it changed the world in the same way that The Beatles did.

Yea, I can't stand rap and hiphop either, but nobody can deny that its jump into the mainstream in the 90s disrupted and permanently changed the character and trajectory of popular music.

I agree with both of your points, and I was born in 1979. My dad was into the music of the 60s, like Jethro Tull, The Doors, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd. My mom was huge into the Beatles. I love all of the above mentioned bands, and while I listen to more metal than anything, the metal I love definitely take elements from all of the above, along with Black Sabbath. Now you need to really dig to find what you enjoy, it usually won't show up on radio, or even on a related Spotify playlist unless you make sure to constantly interact with and like music you are into.

Hip-hop and rap seem to be more divisive for boomers (not using the term as an insult, my parents are both boomers, who I respect), and I think it's more because the message was more in your face and violent (as far as what was publicized). There is a lot of hip-hop and rap that is much more socially conscious and aware from the 90s up to today, that aligns more with the messages from the 60s. I enjoy both, but I have gotten my dad into groups like the Beastie Boys and Cypress Hill/Wu-Tang Clan, while skipping over the tracks that I don't think he'd enjoy. I think it's fine to not like certain styles of music.

I don't enjoy modern country at all, but I like Bluegrass and Americana type music, with my favorite Grateful Dead album being Workingman's Dead (arguably quite a bit different from the rest of their catalog). You just have to search more for what you like now than in the past where you really could find good music on public radio.

I think what puts off a lot of boomers to rap are two things: a lack of a melody in the lyrics and unfamiliarity with samples music, and irreverent lyrics. When my parents complained about rap music in the 90s it was not about the social commentary aspect, it was specifically about lyrics about women and glorification of gang violence. Which to be honest listening to a lot of these songs again as an adult comes off as highly cringe usually. Ice cube’s “good day” for example did not age well from a lyricism standpoint, feels so juvenile like it was written by a horny teenager when you actually listen to what he says. Even Kendrick has some dumb lyrics like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com