When I was a kid in the 60s probably the most common way for me to discover new music was not radio or charts. It was when a friend invited me over to have a listen to a new album they had just bought. This happened frequently, with many different friends. For me the memory of first hearing a particular album is associated with a particular person who introduced it to me. The listening experience had social context. Disraeli Gears played at a friend's dance party, a truly transporting experience. Ron had the first two Led Zeppelin albums, I could hardly take in what I was hearing. Over the years my next door neighbor Larry introduced me to a long line of, what were at the time, rather esoteric albums by the likes of Funkadelic, Mothers of Invention, Blue Cheer and an actual bootleg of live Hendrix that I've never come across since. My friend Mark invited me over one day. His older brother had a copy of "a double album by the Beatles!" just released the day before, which we were allowed to listened to all the way through! Magic. Some friends in a local garage band had an actual jukebox in their practice-space/garage, which they kept stocked with the latest singles, I remember Chicago Transit Authority, for one. My point again is the social aspect of the experience. Quite a bit of this music was on the radio, mostly on FM. But kids, young and older discussed music all the time. I heard the first Velvet Underground album in my eighth grade music class, on Friday's "bring your own record" day And art classes were frequently like going to a concert. Fun times.
Great comment syater. I was one of those kids in the 1970s bringing my 45s to art class and Mrs. Donald allowed me to play them! I was also turned onto bands like Rush, Supertramp and Styx in my buddy's basement. People would bring records to parties - it was communal. The digitization of music has separated us.
Well said syater! That was exactly my, and all my friends, experience. Someone had an album, a single, or a tape. A friend sent me home one weekend with the White Album. I sent him back with Kansas. Someone's older brother or sister had this or that. This was happening all over the country and we learned to listen to entire albums.
@@Neal_Schier Yes, nice to hear your similar story. Because it was my experience I just assumed everyone shared music they loved. It's different with algorithmic music files that are essentially being rented out to listeners.
That’s great to hear. There are many variables involved in assessing and comparing music today against music of 30-60 years ago. I have to think the meaning of music "charts" of the radio era were different from the meaning of the present era of streaming. Also, I'm not sure there was one all encompassing chart back then. Were Billboard and Melody Marker the true standards? Weren't there several different music charts for the US and UK? This is an actual question, I actually don't know. Spotify users think of "number of listens" as a meaningful assessment of song popularity. In years past it was number of units sold, people actually parted with their money for a "unit" single or album, and that was the measure for the industry, not really to the fans. But this is all about the commercial side of music. And to be honest, caring that artists get paid for all the time, effort and talent so they can continue making music is what really matters.
@syater, I recognize this somewhat. In 1968, in my town a small library was opened, but they didn't lend books: vinyl LP's. The discotheque started out with a collection of mainly classical and jazz music, but the pop corner grew explosively. I often borrowed records without knowing what was on it, or had heard someone talking about "this great new band". I found out which lauded bands I didn't like much, and which - relatively unknown - ones were a revelation. And for a few dollars (guilders) for a whole week! I made the owner a fortune! Of course I taped a lot of them. The shop became a tremendous source, particularly because the radio seldom played Underground/Psychedelia. Or not enough! O, those were the days...
Although we loved the music of the 60s and 70s at the time, we also kind of took it for granted as it turns out. I think the movie industry has gone the same way. They churn out formula garbage movies and some umteenth remake of a movie that was actually good when first version came out and is now laughable. Of course, that is because it's easier to rehash something already successful than actually come up with something original and good.
Thanks for this. In 1979 Neil Young sang "hey hey, my my, rock and roll with never die," which is ironic because rock and roll was already in decline. It is now dead. (I suppose I should qualify this by saying that there are a few mostly unknown artists doing very creative work.). I agree very much that the commodification of rock music did a lot to destroy it as a popular art form. But also to some extent it may have simply run its course. And even during rock's heyday, much of popular rock music was derivative and unoriginal. That said, the music (if you want to call it that) that has replaced rock and roll has none of the creativity and spirit of rock and roll at its best. Which is sad.
All you need to know about the music these days is, my 9 year old grandson comes over and asks me to put on the Beatles. Enjoyed another great video Matt!
My opinion is that the '60's were the greatest period of rock and roll, and soul and everything in between. The only good stuff these days are the artists that you don't hear on mainstream stations. I have discovered a lot of different artists from living in Knoxville the past few years on channel WDVX. Great stuff 👏
Thanks Matt, love the comments, wish I could match them. Aged 20 in '67 and the beginning of a Golden Age. With the Beatles and fine chart music in the UK, the American invasion of magical albums began. John Peel's radio shows took a lot of credit as he was introducing new sounds and bands with weird names every week - he could often be seen visiting London's import shops. We had seen Cream, Hendrix, Fleetwood Mac and Mayall and now had visits from Love, Spirit, Taj Mahal, Canned Heat, Beefheart and others. College classes would reap the benefit of my import shopping, though Trout Mask Replica produced some funny looks!
Great video. It's a very interesting topic for sure. Love hearing everyone's takes on this. I'm of the opinion that we are very culturally stagnant and have been for a while now.
Some great points made, Matt. I think a song's lifecycle on the charts is also driven by so many newer elements these days that didn't exist in the 60s and 70s, such as additional marketing/inclusion in films, commercials, tv series, etc. and, of course, streaming, which slowly exposes the artist to individuals all around the world who aren't just listening to their favorite radio station and falling in love with the new songs that the disc jockey decided to play. IDEA: How about a special episode called "Pop Goes The 20s", spotlighting some of the new music you've found that you think the older generation, such as ourselves, might enjoy? 🙂
Great listen on the other video stating the case, this one was super fun because you read comments from my people , the ones that have the passion derived from music experience, listen to an honest written and performed some is an experienced that transforms the the listener , you are never the same again. As a musician , current trends have made my life easier. I can almost do not wrong, the kids eat it up because of my “ honesty” . It’s like they are starving or protein but don’t know it until they hear protein.
The willingness of 60's execs to throw lots of money at bands and artists is a big part of the reason why there is so much great music from that era. Groups that only had one hit still were supported and could put out 6,8 or more, materially diverse albums. Also, the mainstream artists of the 60's had a lot of the same awesome backing bands: ie. the Wrecking Crew, Funk Brothers, Booker t and the MG's, etc. As a Gen Xer, I gave up on 'the music of the day', in the mid 80's. The synthesized sounds and bland sameness, and hair metal . I could not relate to guys with bleach blond Perms wearing white leather. It had no relationship to my life. Grunge was for a short time a breath of fresh air, because it was influenced by 60's and seventies music and mixed with punk. It has been downhill ever since.
The computer! Is 1 reason. The play for pay changed to Rap, Hip/Hop. Laundrying $, drug cartels changed. Form The Boyz 50's/80's to The Russian's 90's/20's to now Colombian/ Mexican cartels ❓
We are all living longer, and it's up to us (older folks like me) to make sure younger generations hear what we thought was good. Keep an open mind and ear. I did, and everyone should. I grew up listening to what my parents were playing too, and at 58, I'm a fan of everything from Glen Miller to Gorillaz!
Yes! Smells Like Teen Spirit was my first clash with pop. Nice song, but it got revered ever since, like the Lord God himself composed and produced it. "Legendary!" Really? Britney Spears; Baby One More Time. Middle-of-the-road singalong, but o the artificiality of the production, it's a sky scraper of autotune. And the video is totally meaningless, super bland eye candy. On the other hand; I found Snap's "I've got the power" sensational. But it has already gone the Golden Oldies route! And don't get me started on Rap. It destroyed every other progress in pop music. Hip hop - if it still carries that name, is much more interesting. Goldfrapp's first album, delightful (full of subtle references to Ennio Morricone.) They never met that standard again. Coldplay, Radio Head, Muse? I think only Muse is still tied to "pop" music. But of all three I got all the records. And I'm a frigging 73! The rest? No longer interested. I mostly indulge in 80s, 70's 60's, and 50s.
"We are all living longer, and it's up to us (older folks like me) to make sure younger generations hear what we thought was good." Yes, so they can hate us and become better than we could ever hope to be.
I work as DJ doing private events and last few years music has gone down. I need songs so my client and their guests dance. I have to use songs from 5 to 10 years ago sometimes mix in music from 40 to 50 years ago. Kids don't dance they are program for 60 second TikTok music and instead of the teenager boys meeting and talking to girls they text each other on the dance floor. You run a great channel and you are right music has declined and western world. Keep up the great work and don't let anyone make you feel bad there are many like myself that agree with you.
Regardless of the era, the notion of art imitating life has always been present. Since we now live in an age where technology reigns over creativity and humanity, we cannot be surprised that it's come to this.
Great idea Matt and some excellent feedback from the comments. I would also add there are very few groups anymore. It's mostly solo artists these days . Tam Impala for example is just one guy but it sounds like a group name. There's no give and take musically like you get from playing in a band with each member bringing their own tastes to the overall sound.
As a younger person, I recall being amazed at the seemingly infinite stream of great pop songs, week after week, year after year. I came to believe that new great pop music would be produced forever - but I was wrong. Ultimately, the talent faltered, the harmonies withered, the machines ate the musical soul, and alas, the music died.
when the rhythm of a song is snapped to a grid & forced to follow a computerized click track, and vocals and instruments are autotuned, and every song has a half dozen writers, it's over. the result is what it is, but calling it great music is delusional
Spurred on by the ever changing climate of the past two years means Van Morrison not only taking a brave stand, yet doing some of his best ever material to date.
Another thought I had after your original video is that before the current iTunes/Spotify era the whole catalogue of record labels was not readily available. It was physically hard to find old records and the music industry mode of operation was to push something new constantly given the limited distribution channels. So new music today has a unfair competition with the past! The other side of the laptop music argument is that some new acts try deliberately to replicate old sounds at the cost of originality due to this invisible competition.
This channel would be a great music appreciation class if schools would allow music to be taught in schools again. The movie Mr. Holland’s Opus is a great example of how to get kids interested in music or get kids to practice playing a REAL instrument. That’s how great bands started out. Gone are the days of jamming with friends and trying to learn that one guitar riff of their favorite song. I think the younger generation is missing the foundation of music from the 50’s through to the 90’s. The 90’s being the last era for good music I believe. The guys or gals singing today all sound the same. I haven’t heard any unique voices on any new songs I hear. For example Jim Morrison, Janice Joplin, Freddie Mercury, Grace Slick, Elvis (to name a few), are unique and you can tell who they are by the voice. Bands like the Doors, Boston, Rush, ELO (to name a few) have different sounds as well. The techno music today all sound alike. The guys that are singing all sound like the same dude to me. I do apologize for the long text. I just feel it’s a shame all the new music coming out now doesn’t leave a lasting impression. We won’t be talking about the great music made in 2022 in 20 years.
My class would probably be cancelled after one semester! I doubt that today's music will be talked about or listened to in 20-30-50 years because it lacks artistic qualities. Time will tell. Thanks for the comment!
There are many other, Mr Poets Dreams. Chicago, Blood Sweat 'n Tears, 3 Dog Night, Nazareth, The Grass Roots, Mark Lindsay, Boney M, Jennifer Rush, Pat Benatar, Reo Speedwagon, Badfinger, Bad Company, Fleetwood Mack, ....on and on....John Denver, etc etc
@@petersack5074 Hi Peter. You named ALL great bands. I have vinyl on all but one of them. However I did say in my comment “to name a few” because my comment was already long enough as it was. Thanks for adding the extra bands. Oh and it’s Ms. Poets Dreams. 😉🤘
@@popgoesthe60s52 I don’t think your class would be cancelled! It’s fantastic! I totally agree with you about todays music. I’m just not a huge fan. I’ll listen to it to give a fair listen but it falls short for me.
Love how you’re exploring this topic lately, it’s like a re education about music and I’m here for it! it should be explored in a documentary or has it already and I’ve missed it?
I think the documentaries are being formed on youtube by guys like Rick Beato. We've seen the folly of all the major awards shows and now people like myself are calling "bullshit" on all of them. The idea that there is still a 'Rock N Roll Hall of Fame' that has to resort to adding popular figures like Dolly Parton and rap music proves the point that the artistic element is only to be found in the past or in new underground music. More to come, Lizza!
Wow I had no idea current music like Lil Nas was doubling the #1 charts of a classic like Hey Jude. That really blew my mind. For me when rap became more mainstream in the culture that’s when I stopped listening to current music. I long for the days of great melodies and harmonies.
I would argue there is just as good or even better melodies and harmonies in rap as 60s pop music I’m guessing you heard one rap song and decided you didn’t like the whole genre of rap that’s like only listening to wild honey pie and saying you don’t like the Beatles
@@michealmorris3437 Sorry to disagree with you. The only time I listen to rap is when cars go by with their windows open and this horrendous repetitve wailing noise known as rap is bursting out from them. Its all samey and not singing just wingey talking over a repetitive bass line. Give me Tamala Motown. Soul. Rock n Roll. Country. Ska/Blue beat. Prog Rock. 50's 60's 70s 80s 90s. Blues. Heavy Metal. In fact anything but rap 😵
I'm a year late to this great vid, but here goes---I'm 66 and every time I feel that depression taking root about the sorry state of today's crap music, I spend a few afternoons listening to my local college's station (KUTX/Austin/NPR) and all's well again. You were spot on mentioning good music still out there, just not mainstream and harder to find. There's SO much good new groups/music, literally fills my heart discovering a new band's song that captures that spirit, or at least comes within shouting distance, of what we had non-stop in the 60's and 70's. Cheers!
Hey Randy! I just finished a playlist for my upcoming wedding and I was delighted to add many "new" songs (for me that is in the last 10-12 years!) Feels good to have some fresher stuff.
Hello Matt, good work on your videos. I feel sorry for the young people today, at least they have the timeless old stuff. BTW it sounds like you guys haven't discovered "Americana", there's tons of fantastic new stuff out there
Excellent discussion, excellent video. I'm struggling to remember the last time I bought a record by a living artist, ok, well I do listen to a lot of jazz. But I really hope more younger people hear comments by you and your listeners and check out 60s music. Another alleged Zappa quote: "Rock journalism is written by people who can't write, for people who can't read." Definitely not true at Pop Goes the 60s.
I wholeheartedly agree with most of these comments. The last two years, music on the radio has been lackluster and haven't found any songs that speak to me. Thanks to the Get Back Documentary, I rediscovered The Beatles only knowing a thin layer in regards to their background and only knowing word of mouth on their rumors (Lucy in the Sky = LSD, Paul is Dead, etc). After watching and learning from the Peter Jackson documentary, I went and watched John Lennon's 1988 documentary "IMAGINE" and "The Beatles Anthology" and began to realize how much camaraderie they had. I think the record industry needs to start shaving off the fat and start providing better talents and hopefully a change is coming sooner than later.
I love the Zappa quote because it really sums up how the industry has become for the most part homogenized, vs the 60’s and 70’s where there was so much musical diversity. Another note that has to be mentioned here tho here too is that charts nowadays don’t really reflect the real listening population. I say that because of how they are calculated. If I’m not mistaken, I believe it’s not just music sales anymore, but also incorporates streams, which can drastically inflate a song - especially when people just loop a few songs all day. I could be wrong on that but if I am correct, it essentially makes the charts mostly useless as far as a reflection of the listening public, which explains the 5% of Spotify streams being new music. The big labels are just out of touch. And the big artists for that matter
Yeah, I'm not sure how the streaming affects the charts. I know that the Billboard Top 100 calculated radio airplay and sales. Seems like the streaming would be easier to manipulate. Thanks for the comment, Stephen.
@@popgoesthe60s52 That's interesting, in that case then it definitely has to do with the lack of competition that you mentioned. But you could also argue simply lack of work ethic.. The Beatles had an album every 6 months and a single every 3 (more or less). Led Zeppelin I and II were released in a matter of months. Nowadays you might get an album once every year or every other year, or even some are only 3-4 years - which might explain the longer chart time. There just isn't as much consistent releases -- Edit: I did some looking around and it seems they do include streaming in the billboard hot 100 calculation. They have a ratio tied to it to weight it compared to single sales, but still I think would definitely inflate pop music, since their audiences typically are listening to a few songs on repeat more often.
Your original post and this subsequent one has highlighted what many of us have been aware of for quite some time and you’ve done an excellent job bringing this subject up. Interesting chart facts there. Unfortunately I don’t see the Music Business turning itself around, so many companies and their artists(?) have already done the damage by ‘dumbing down’ music. We now have a generation of so many who of no fault of their own like and accept “bland”. Frank Zappa was so right
Thank you, Nick. That is why I view the 20th century music phenomenon as by gone art movement. I don't see music evolving into an art form again base on the trends of the last 20 years.
I used to have a friend who lived in a pub and upstairs was a huge room that he had installed big speakers in all around the room. We would sit in the middle and play Pink Floyd very loudly. This was about 1967 ish Saturday afternoons we would pile into the listening booths in the local record shop and listen to Led Zepplin for about an hour. We never brought the album as we couldn't afford it. So glad I was young in these times.
In 1960 my father purchased a Sony AM/SW radio for the godly price of$2.99 for my 12th birthday and that was my first step into alternative music via short wave international broadcasting stations. When not busy the radio was continuously on usually tuned into WTIX Radio. The semi-climax of the day was to listen to Paul Harvey. While a recon pilot in Vietnam, I would routinely tune my ADF radio and listen to music. What I have read which has stifled todays music,is the Nashville Song Writers Association who does not care about innovative music, but rather a well tested musical algorithm.. I have forced myself to listen to the top ten to be miserably bored I would like to recommend two radio stations (internet) which plays nothing but innovative music-FIP Radio, Paris, FR(Genera Groove and funk) and WWOZ, New Orleans--24 hours of spellbinding music. Excellent tutorial!
People hang on to music from the past because it is attached to memories. Memories of the 21st century (generally speaking) have been based retroactively. Nick Lowe explained how when you had 8 tracks to work with in the studio, you had to really make those tracks count and put what was best for the song on the final cut. That lead to creativity in recording techniques. Now you have unlimited tracks and can fix it all in post. What I do not understand is that instruments still sound great live, but with recording technology everything sounds homogeneous. You can't tell the difference between a great drumkit and mediocre one and these new microphones being used are the culprit. The tipping point has been reached. There is so much more at play but these I truly believe these issues are at the core.
I love almost all types of music made between the mid-1950s and early 2000s, so if people want to call me all day if I want to make fun of new music, I point out I have been a fan of nearly 60 years worth of music, and it’s only been the last 15 or more years that I think Music has gone downhill and the number one culprit is autotune and the tendency for artists to get Albums to debut at number one that nobody in America except for their fans know about. When an album used to go to number one back in the 70s and 80s, even if you hated the group or artist, you knew who they were. Now only a small cross section of the United States knows who these people are.
Another good point, Michael. There was a time in the last 30 years when I was passionate about "new music" which is now considered "old." Yes, many of us aged 45-80 have supported new music for decades.
Great take on music of today and yesterday. Love the picture of Zappa with his parents (?) and that Alice Cooper cover behind him. Something that I’ve not seen discussed before is all the artists he put out there on his Straight / Bizarre label in the late 60s and early 70s. The GTOs, Wild Man Fischer etc.
I'm older than almost anyone. And I love the music of my era. But I know there is lots of wonderfull music being created today. But it won't be presented to you on a silver platter. Quoting those old guys, the Grateful Dead, "You just gotta poke around!"
Yes they are and they will never get signed because labels are only interested in signing effeminate men autotune crooners and women who wear next to nothing…Labels used to have talent scouts going all over the United States for new talent going into every CD bar around to see who the next big thing would be. That’s how Stevie Ray Vaughan was discovered
yea this is nothing but old men screaming at clouds. The music biz is making more money today than it ever has, and live music is more popular and more accessible than its ever been before, especially post-cvd19. I can see Red Rocks from my apt, its booked up solid 2-3 years out and is always packed with people of all ages for all different types of acts. There are also more artists making music now than ever before because anyone with a computer can record and post their tracks online without a record label or any connections in the industry.
That is the difference though. In the heyday of the music industry music surrounded everything. It was a part of life, it was part of the culture.. There was no need to "poke around" to find good music. That's the difference.
I don't think it matters much anyway that new music is mostly GMO garbage, since there's so much music from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's to discover and listen to all the time (at least for me).
And for Heaven's sake, the fantastic music which came before rock and roll: The Great American Songs, jazz, European and American folk music, classical music.
@@bobtaylor170 Way, way back in the '70s, there was a radio station that was going to start playing big band music. They did some advertising on TV and we were excited to have some new music we hadn't heard on the radio. You know, you get tired of the same music all the time. Our group, young kids in our early 20s, all listening intently. First hour, we were really enjoying it. Second hour, they started playing the same songs they played the first hour. ? Forty years of big band and there was only an hours worth of music worth hearing? I think they were trying to treat it like top 40 radio. Didn't work. The big problem with radio is they have a strict format and they play the same songs over and over again.
@@debjorgo , yeah, that's just dumb. There are hundreds of hours, maybe more, of well recorded big band music from The Great Era. I have about fourteen hours of Artie Shaw's stuff, several hours of Benny Goodman's. Then, there's Basie, Ellington, the Dorseys' various bands - as I said, hundreds of hours, at least. There is probably a hundred hours' worth of V - discs, alone. That station had absolutely no clue.
Great as usual and great writing, my friend! I forwarded it to my son I raised on albums and the 60s and he loved it as well. He did ask, "how come he printed it out to reads it? How come he didn't just read it off his phone?"...ah, generations - their music and technological differences!
Hello Michael - bless you. You are the first to request Strawberry AlarmClock! Yes I have videos planned for them and the Blues Magoos. The Count Five may be covered in a video with other bands... not sure yet but stay tuned!
Excellent overview & perspectives. I dont follow the charts, whats considered "commercial" and really havent done so since the early 80's, having grown up late 50's through the 60's & 70's. FM changed everything for me personally, drifting away from AM Top 30's though I still followed it sporadically. The whole industry changed so much, radically with retro-grade Punk, Ska & Reggae, the birth of MuchMusic; video did kill the radio star & industrial programmers laid waste to FM, playing to death seminal anthem and Progressive Rock from the glory days of Pink Floyd, Zeppelin & so on..... "New Music" today, some seriously brilliant stuff from the 90's to the 2020's is out there, be it Porcupine Tree, Gazpacho, RadioHead, Deutsch-Nepal and on & on & on. Some of the new releases from acts I'd long since tuned out & or never cared for in their prime like Bruce Springsteen comes out with a beauty called Western Stars... As music lovers & or players, we live for "new music". Its something to look forward to. A new aural experience. I listen to everything & anything thats good. Art, music, its subjective . Whats broken, whats busted is the business model of the industry itself. It didnt adapt well to the new modes of delivery in the 80's & 90's, music video's, paying obscene advances to a handful of artists, internet, napster & all thats followed. I have hope for a brighter future but sadly, terrestrial radio, Top 10, 50 or what have you, not happening. Country has been holding its own but even there some serious cracks in the foundations.
'' some serious cracks, in the foundations....'' CORRECT, Mr. Scott. Take that MILLENIUM TOWER, for example, in San Fran. IT IS SINKING, AND SLIDING northeasterly. The whole bay area, is sinking. 3 inches and counting. That tower, is leaning about 2 feet at the top. Any, ANY attempt to 'correct ' it, will ultimately fail. Anyway, that is where this society is going.....OVER. 10th story windows, now cracking, as is the sidewalks, sewer drainage trouble. BUILDING SAYS '' i'm in need of something ''.......Engineers, forced by investors, NOT LISTENING. Cracks, in that foundation, and all around. 686,000,000 pounds, and no piles, into bedrock. JUST INTO MUD AND SAND, CLAY. oh well, try to keep the pool table level, honey.
Yes, the business model in music was greatly harmed with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 where mergers, takeovers and acquisitions became the norm and allowed the consolidation of decision-makers. This eliminated smaller labels and companies that were the ones that took chances on bands and broke many major acts. Globalism is the current foundation and I don't know how that will change. A cataclysmic event perhaps....
Thanks for your great commentary. Lots of strands in this discussion. Consider that songs were an important medium by which we reacted to and interacted with the world. When a new song appeared on the radio and in record stores, we "bought" it because the artists were presenting musical AND lyrical ideas that were only available on record and the radio. Success enabled artists to spread new ideas. We bought records because we believed in these ideas --- and moreover because there were limited outlets for us to participate and support these ideas. Of course, we also attended shows and bought merchandise to underline our "support" for these ideas. With the growth of the internet and social media, everything changed. There were many more ways to connect and to express our support for ideas. People no longer had to rely as much on mediums like record stores and radio because the content was virtual and freely available. If social media made it easier for artists to "enter" the dialogue, it also made it difficult for groups to gain mass appeal. As consumers, we don't share common understanding of what the "top artists" are. Things are way too fragmented. Meaning that artists who have content with mass appeal don't reach mainstream levels. In actuality, corporates have more control of what "makes it" and artists with interesting things to say have to live in the backwater underground. They don't get the corporate support for their stuff even when their material is superior to less interesting content.
Yes, and there is such a separation between today's genres that though one artist can have huge sales of an album, he/she could be completely unknown to many other music fans. Divide and conquer! Thanks Mark!
In bygone eras there was limited visual access to music - one’s choice was primarily radio and records - so the artist’s job was to capture ears, with beautiful lyrics, harmonies, and melodies being the primary tools. These days, with visual devices everywhere, resources shift to capturing eyes and the emphasis on lyrics and melodies, unfortunately, shrinks accordingly.
The only time I am exposed to new music nowadays is as a captive audience with a radio station in the background, such as dental appointments (talk about double torture!). It's always the same songs. It amazes me that I can go in for a cleaning and hear a "new" song. Six months later I am at my next cleaning and hear the same song!
I am curious about the humber of "records" sold, and how many "record" sales it takes to attain the number one spot on the charts, or to stay n the charts. Anther thought, us do subscription services contribute to the disposable nature of todays music. If I don't have to buy it, is it worth remembering.
I did a video on McCartney III and how roughly 43K units was all that was needed to make that a #1 album in the UK. In the past, an artist would need to move 200K units to get to #1 so how the charts are designed have changed. Thanks Bill!
Well done and well reasoned as I've come to expect. Rick Beato did a video commentary a couple of years ago about how the modern digital recording and processing in today's music is killing popular music by taking the human quality out of it. Software such as ProTools allows for the erasure or correction of pitch, timbre, and rhythm to get a digitally "perfect" product that doesn't account for human imperfection, thus taking the soul out of the music. Even a person with limited talent and ability can be made to sound like a seasoned pro. It becomes sterile and lacks connection to the human spirit.
The best fix for all this is alternative rock and modern college radio. There are so many relatively recent and current bands, brilliant; ignored by mainstream radio, but still on iTunes, etc - including: Alvvays, Hatchie, Dum Dum Girls, RVG, Acid Dad, The Beths, Fazerdaze, Say Sue Me, The Reverberations, Angel Olsen, Crystal Stilts, Minus 5, Well Wishers, Parquet Court, Fallen Leaves, Ugly Beats, Orange Peels, Real Estate, Twerps, Band of Horses, Kaiser Chiefs, Satelliters ….. some are gone and some still record. Many of these are influenced by early Who, The Beatles, The Kinks, 60s garage rock. There is hope.
Agreed. I do find new music that I like but since I don't have people close to me to influence me on anything new, I have to either stumble upon it, or seek it out, which can be laborious - at least for me anyway. Thanks for the comment!
The Byrds had a song called "So You Want to Be a Rock and Roll Star," which summed up how record companies cash in on the latest musical trends. Much of the attitudes towards today's music is primarily generational. And I like today's music (and I am a GenXer). People seem to forget that with the latest technologies, comes the changes and parental attitudes toward the younger generation. If you look at the history of recording, it seems that is the pattern. From the gramophone to digital, technology has brought music to the masses while presenting new challenges and new attitudes in subsequent generations. I remember my maternal grandmom (RIP) embracing Elvis, who was my late Mom's idol, while many of her contemporaries condemned him for singing the "devil's music" and swinging his hips on TV. And she loved Herman's Hermits (especially Peter Noone), she was in her 40s at the time of the British Invasion. I wish that many people would be more understanding towards the younger generation instead of complaining about their music, and saying that "rock is dead." People have forgotten that in 1959, Buddy Holly, Big Bopper and Ritchie Valens died in a plane crash, Elvis was stationed in Germany, Jerry Lee Lewis' career was marred by scandal (he married his 13-year old distant cousin), Little Richard found religion, and Chuck Berry was facing legal issues; it seemed the end, by many, of Rock and Roll, and the genre was being replaced by teen idols who emphasized more on looks than sound. However, between 1959 and 1964, there were stirrings of the next generation of architects. In southern California, three brothers (Brian, Dennis and Carl Wilson) along with a cousin and two of their friends, formed a band which became the Beach Boys, created a sound that would eventually pave the way for Laurel Canyon and San Francisco sounds. In Detroit, a former autoworker named Barry Gordy, would bring R&B sounds to the masses with his Motown label, along with prominent songwriters such as Holland, Dozier Holland and Smokey Robinson. A hotshot producer and music prodigy named Phil Spector would revolutionize studio production techniques, creating the "wall of sound" and gave girl groups such as the Ronettes a streetwise edge to their looks and sound; he also used songwriters from the Brill Building such as Carole King, Gerry Goffin, Ellie Greenwich, Jeff Barry, Cynthia Weil, Barry Mann, Neil Diamond and Neil Sedaka. A Minnesota-born singer-songwriter named Bob Dylan would revitalize the folk genre with his songs and making Greenwich Village in NYC the hub of the folk scene, and later became an innovator of folk rock when he went electric. The Beatles were the final ingredient needed to bring Rock and Roll back to prominence (and they were influenced by the innovators mentioned), and with that everything gelled and influenced rock for the next three decades. I strongly believe that rock will come back around; genres comes and goes in cycles, and a new generation IS interested in playing instruments and using technology to promote the music without the middle management of record companies that goes with it. There are artists right now that are doing that while bypassing the record companies, and those are not on the radio or digital, but on YT or Spotify, or other music playlists. Record companies are more to blame for promoting style over substance, and of course radio is also to blame for compartmentalizing music into different genres. I remember in the 60s and 70s, radio, especially AM radio, would play songs that appealed to everyone, one song would be country, the next song rock, the next pop, and the next easy listening (which became Adult Contemporary), and FM was a new format, mainly the stereo sound made it feasible for rock music, especially AOR (album-oriented rock). As the 70s and 80s progressed, FM became the standard for playing music and AM became the station for talk, sports and news. Then deregulation gave license for media corporations to take over radio and instead of DJ spinning discs, there were playlists that dictate what type of music to play and they began to segregate music into genres. But there are also independent stations such as the college radio stations and non-profit stations that still play different genres and new music untouched by corporate record companies, you have to look hard for those. Change is very hard to accept, but music and technology have gone hand-in-hand. Sure, there is trial and error, and parents and older generations will complain about the music of younger generations, but those kids will have kids, and their kids will most likely listen to something different and their parents will complain. Have patience, folks.
It seems to me that catalog revenue has probably always been big for the industry. So it accounts for 70% of revenue today, but what was it in, say, the early 1990s? Those were the industry’s peak years in terms of revenue. Surely catalog sales were at least 50% then? I mean, Dark Side of the Moon spent like 15 years straight in the Billboard Top 200.
I think another important consideration is how algorithm-driven music consumption is now. Among younger generations, you largely don't discover new music from your friends anymore, or from what the record store guy recommends, or from hearing a cool new single on the radio. It's more based on what a streaming service decides you might like based on your listening patterns (and the listening patterns of people with similar tastes to your own). and if it's not algorithms, it's curated playlists by these big streaming services that fit particular genres, decades, or "vibes". A couple problems with both of these formats: (1) it isn't very transparent what actually dictates what you end up listening to. Is it just what these algorithms think you like, or could there be more to it? There's a conflict of interest in that these streaming services could be promoting to you songs with lower licensing costs. Or they could be promoting things they're being paid to promote. Or maybe certain record labels have a stake in your streaming service and they have a financial incentive to promote songs on their own label. (2) it doesn't lend to active listening. Most people I know in my generation are passive listeners. They throw on music to fill silence or set a mood or make something mundane less boring. They're not actively listening because they don't actually care about music that much. Which when paired with point one makes them more susceptible to this subtle manipulation. (3) There's more segmentation, as in you're never going to stray too far away from what you know you already like. If you're apathetic towards music, you're probably going to be enjoying the least common denominator pop stuff because it's tailored to you. So it creates a cycle of you just listening to the same stuff all the time. (4) from an artist perspective, it incentives you to stay inside certain boxes that are more marketable and take less risks. Nothing worse than having a band you like sell out to make safe, boring, marketable vibe music. In summary I just find the idea of algorithms recommending me music just as nefarious as computer-made music. It seems to be all too easy to abuse, with very little transparency, and pushes us towards a more apathetic, passive listening experience. Lots of shady stuff goes on there-the more I read about it the more creeped out I get.
I appreciate the essay! I agree with you. I recently was in a record store and a 60s artist that I never heard was playing. I recognized the writing style and period so I asked what was playing. It was a 60s artist named Margo Guryan. I bought it. What algorithm would bring someone that obscure to me? I'm sure those algorithms are being written but I'm also sure that low-selling niche artists will remain obscure.
also are there any modern bands or singer songwriters u like? there are many i like such as mac demarco or alex g that rlly hit me deep inside but to each their own
Yes I like King Gizzard, La Feline, Aloe Black, On And On, The Laminanas, to name a few. Some of what I call "new" have already been around a long while like Radiohead and Broken Bells. I may do a video on new stuff I like. We'll see....
Maybe songs stay on the charts a long time because there's nothing on the queue to replace them. I haven't heard anything new in the last ten years, much less the last ten weeks or last ten months
It was great hearing all these opinions, and the chart info you pointed out. I do think one difference today, is that remixes of a song now qualify for the same chart inclusion. So, if a song catches on, you can sell a remix of it, and people will keep the song at the top of the chart. I think "Old Town Road" had several remixes, which helped hold it in the number one spot. Each time sales began to fall off, a new remix would cause people to buy it again. It's a disingenuous scam they pull these days, to keep songs' placements on the charts. I still liked, "Old Town Road", though.
Curious what you think of artists like Father John Misty, the Decemberists, the New Pornographers, Belle and Sebastian. Those are more modern acts which still make decent music. But perhaps not too much in the main stream
@@popgoesthe60s52 I'm new to the party here, having just discovered your channel because of the very interesting talk you just did on David Crosby (I'm a massive fan). I agree with much of what has been said here. I do hope you do something on new music, because there is great stuff out there. Father John Misty and Weyes Blood are exceptionally good, as is Sufjan Stevens ( albums Carrie and Lowell and A Beginner's Mind, are heartrendingly beautiful, although I find some of his other music melodically uninteresting). Far more obscure are singer songwriters Will Stratton and Raoul Vignell, but both their most recent albums are well worth a listen. Whether any of these artists are doing something new and cutting edge is another matter entirely. Oh, and on the subject of David Crosby, let's not forget that he did some outstandingly good albums in the years just preceding his death. Unlike many artists of that era, he was still writing great songs right up until the end.
Lots of great comments here. I believe (like DEVO predicted) we have De-evolved as a culture and so has the music and the arts. But don't forget there was plenty of bad music in the past. Its just there was great music too. The 1950''s through the 1970's was maybe a 20th century musical golden age?
Here's a thought: If The Beatles emerged today as a new group and She Loves You was released as their first single, could they challenge Billie Eilish or Young Thug for chart dominance? Sadly, probably NOT!
A thing to remember is that past chart positions were based solely on sales. Today streaming and UA-cam views go into chart positions. An interesting take would be if streaming was around in the 50s through 80s what would the charts look like? Same for today: what would the charts look like if it was based on just sales and not streaming. I think it would look much different. Most kids don't actually buy music, they stream it. If based on pure sales I think you would see much less rap and more diversity. Then again who knows?
Actually Billboard Top 100 based chart placement on sales and radio airplay, so there were 2 distinct criteria. You are correct that kids don't buy music, they simply buy access to it. Thanks for the comment, James!
Thanks! First of all, I "thank God" that I didn't have to grow up with the "pop" music from the last decade or so. Mindless electronic "percussion", no melodic-ness, Vegas-like rote stage shows, minimal talent. I'm 70 and my concert experiences started with Cream in Chicago in 68', followed by $5 concerts of big name acts at the Kinetic Playground and Aragon Ballroom and more. I went from Top 40 on my transistor radio around 1960 and the evolution from that. I was so lucky. But I can go back to the 40's/50's and find great standards, when the brilliant melodic song writing was happening, backed by fantastic arrangements. Sinatra, Bennett, Fitzgerald, etc etc. And then the straight ahead jazz of the 50's and 60's - so much wonderful music and it'll always be available. I will say, there are a lot of very very talented musicians out there now, most of them "residing" on UA-cam. Some of these guitarists and other musicians must practice 8 hours a day in their bedrooms, for years, have never seen so many highly competent players. Other instruments and groups too, the live studio shows on KEXP, and AudioTree, etc .... we never had all of this music available when I was young, so there is at least that for a good compensation and the keeping alive of good music until we get through this rough patch of pop.
Btw, sorry, I did the thing here that I try and avoid - complain about today’s pop music, even though comparisons are inevitable. Suffice to say, was lucky to be young when the 60’s and 70’s music was happening and to have seen the evolution of that.
Thank you for that request. I may delve into that but it's not one of my stronger areas. I do have a buddy that did some restoration of old master music tapes from the 1970s by baking the tapes and making the tape stock more pliable so work could be done on them. I'll have to give Mike a call!
@@popgoesthe60s52 I mention that topic because of the very different listening experience CDs can give to my ears. A large proportion of mastering engineers are pretty heavy handed with compression, EQ, hiss removal that swallows upper harmonics, artificial stereo from original mono… and it's just no longer the music we know from vinyl records anymore, but something else, more in phase with the modern idea of how recorded music should sound. Most of the time I'm disappointed with remastering. The Beatles, Doors, Who… have the luxury of being available in both old style and decent modern style versions, but they're exceptions. We're being stolen of pop music history.
I was born in 1977. I think the best era of hit songs was 65-67. Other than that, it is mostly deep cuts or indie bands. Radiohead might be the last great progressive rock band that is also popular. The Flaming Lips were big for indie standards and also quite unique. Recently, I really like Princess Chelsea. The Fleet Foxes are great, but not original. Similar to the Byrds, Beach Boys or Simon and Garfunkel.
Lots of great new music, but , of course, some of it, from my old heroes. Dylan’s last record, Todd Snider, Ray willie Hubbard ! All great. David Gray recorded his first record on a computer in his bedroom.. “ the one I love “ …ever generation has to have music it’s parents hates !
Hi matt.will there be a program on Simon and Garfunkel? Hearing the beautiful piano on Bridge Over troubled Water played by the Legendary Larry Knetchtel of the Wrecking Crew and later Bread would be a real treat. Cheers. Rog .Pacific Sunset Records.
Matt, I just watched something on UA-cam after posting my comment to you, and am wondering if you're aware of it. Three or four days ago, Julian Lennon sang John's song "Imagine", for some sort of benefit for the Ukranian people. It said that it's the first time he ever sang the song. Thought he did a very good job with it. It'd be interesting to hear and see both your and John Heaton's reaction to this (especially John's).
Matt ; Check out a band called Game Theory (then later changed to Loud Family) . I think you will love them. 1980s into 1990s. Very overlooked band- should have been the indie darlings of early to mid 1990s -- and it just did not happen. They have a HEFTY backlog of music !
Perhaps the length of time at #1 and length of time in the top 100 is influenced by how the metrics are gathered, given the difference between purchasing the physical media vs streaming. If the data is available, it might be instructive to compare the chart timings to the rising popularity of digital over time. If you see that as the sales of physical media fall and streaming numbers rise, that the length of time on the charts increases, then you might be able to conclude that how the metrics are gathered is at least partially causing the disparity. On another topic, it is true that "old school" music is not entirely dead, but is merely driven to the fringes. You might want to consider doing a segment on International Pop Overthrow (IPO - easily googled). I acquired the volume 22 CD at one of their NYC shows - it is terrific.
I go and see local bands, we have a great live music scene here in Melbourne,have for years, but I don't listen to the radio much or watch TV ever, to be fair we have some great community radio stations in Melbourne. I just buy records all the time, usually jazz rock blues progressive, 60sand70s mainly,I'm very out of touch with contemporary music, except some underground bands., But I didn't really like eighties music either, a lot of my mates were into old stuff, sixties seventies punk psych etc even back then but we were probably up with what was going on in the local scene.
60s, 70s and most of the 80s...you heard the top 100 and couldn't get the melodies or words out of your head. Since then it all sounds the same and you have to hear a song 5-6 times in order for it to be tolerable, but not a necessity.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I used to drive by the billboard (not Billboard Mag) for "Hotel California" on Sunset in W Hwd all the time and it seemed to be up there forever--LOL!
@@deirdre108 is there or was there a Hotel California in real life. I think that's what you mean? For some reason I think of the Shinning and Hotel California playing going on and on for-ever, (like after a while will the song ever end can I leave) with nobody in the place.
I never really followed the charts very much. I don't know why not? But man those songs were on the radio all through the highschool years. At least the first six of them. Slow learner and rebellious. I thought Norm MacDonald's joke about getting a free LSD flashback was my own original joke until I started watching Norm MacDonald on UA-cam. Maybe they were right after all. Maybe the mind IS a terrible thing to waste? 🤷♂️ About record sales and production, Negativland's 'Perfect Cut' and Negativland,'Timezones' about how many Timezones are in the Soviet Union or Casey Kasem Rant- Negativeland American Top 40 caught on a hot mic
That first comment you read out got me thinking - perhaps a key 'then and now' difference is that digitally supplied music requires virtually no effort to acquire and frequently no cost. Therefore, it doesn't require the investment in effort and expenditure it once did and that imposed careful selection. I don't buy the 'music made by computer' argument because there are still very talented musicians and composers coming through.
Yes, a tangible purchase feels like more 'investment' but it seems to be an artistic question more than anything. There are probably more "great players" than there ever has been, yet we don't hear much of them. Thanks Robutube1!
I perform with bands and when we run across bored crowds, we play '60s-70s covers. DAY TRIPPER, SATISFACTION, HEY BULLDOG (?? how did 20-somethings find THIS one?) SteelyDan's REELING IN THE YEARS. There must be a 100 or more songs that are guaranteed surefire crowd-pleasers. If a band wants a guaranteed encore, they'll do Beatles to close out Encore #1 (GETTING BETTER, for example) or Spirit's I GOT A LINE ON YOU - a quick 3-min number that is guaranteed to fire up a 10 minute chant for more more more.
There was a time when an artist lasted two years. The difference between liking an artist when you are 14 and liking the same artist when you are 16 was huge. Now they seem to last twenty years. Big companies own them.
For me, there are facts to be remembered here: 1 - Although it's possible to find in each time good artists and music, the problem is how many of these works really reach the public. An analysis of the sixties' music will easily reveal the great quality of songs that arrived at record companies and after effectively reached popular taste. Of course the popular taste could be changed in recent times. But I think this question has another roots. Could the taste of the current audience in more elaborate music be currently being underestimated? 2 - Equally, the question of access to music it's a fact to consider in the number of new songs reaching high points in the hit parade. In my opinion, in addition to the lower amount of good music being released, currently, in most countries, doesn't exist anymore the culture of buying "singles" or "EPs" of a great artist or band almost monthly and "Lps" from the same source sometimes twice (or even more) a year. I remember, for example, my father's habit to buy a new "LP" almost weekly in those today missing record stores. In most cases, in present time, the only way to find new and good music is using internet, a medium, for reasons of time or opportunity, not accessible to all lovers of good music. 3 - I sincerely don't agree with these ideas about a decadence of some culture. The quality and inspiration is always there, in the mind and work of the great composers, musicians, singers, producers, etc. The question is the good music has more and more opportunity to be revealed. That'a all!
Zappa also said the mind is like a parachute if it's not open it won't work. Which is to say thier is great contemporary music it's just not mainstream. Saying that I for most part stopped searching in appx 2000 but that's on me. The problem is also blanket media and people not willing to dig and look outside what's offered on a platter.
The "time spent in the charts " question is simply explained. Back in the day, the charts were based on record SALES. These days no-one sells anything so the charts are based on streaming, i.e. PLAYS. A person who bought a record might play it a million times, but that does not influence "the charts" it was just a single sale. But today each play would be counted because it would be streamed. - if "old music" was counted by plays, a great many songs would have been in the charts for the last forty plus years ! Buying a record was a commitment. Usually you had heard the material on the radio or from listening to a friend's album and then you opted in and handed over your cash. Or in some cases, you just bought it because you followed the artiste themselves and trusted them to have produced music you would relate to and enjoy. In modern times there is no commitment. Now it seems that there is a much shorter attention span and a demand for immediate gratification. A listener pays their fee to a streaming service and can listen to anything they want. There is no investment at all in a particular artiste, if a song hasn't grabbed them in the first few seconds, they flit to another track and see if that is more appealing. "The People" as a whole get the music they deserve. The reason that most songs for the last twenty years have used the same four chords is simply down to people keep buying The Product. If you keep buying it, they'll surely keep selling it to you. The reason it takes a dozen people to write a song these days is because they basically have nothing to say. Writing now is about Optimisation, the dry analysis of what succeeded last time and how to repeat that in the next project.
I just turned 65 and was thrilled with a Beatles gift box from a friend. Beatles forever! But I got a kick out of 'Old Town Road" and 'Sail on is one of my favorite songs, I have it on my phone! Are they timeless classics? No. They are of their time. The music of my parents time represented the war years with their longing for hearth, home and a 'normal' life with love, marriage and kids. The fifties music was fun, energetic and reflected those post-war kids now teenagers. Those songs from the war years and before were called Standards. This included songs in the 50's that weren't too jumpy. If Sinatra sang it the song had a good chance of becoming a standard. Then comes the 60's and the Love years. We were in a cold war and worried about the bomb. Remember 'Duck and cover' anyone? I still have my Dog Tag. War in Viet Nam and registering for the draft. What else will music be about but anti-violence or love? Then Sinatra sings 'Something', 'Hey Jude' etc. They become Standards. My Dad who didn't want that Beatles garbage where he could hear it, tells me he likes 'Something'. I think 'Standard' means they have staying power. I think younger kids hear our music in movies, commercials and video games (Glenn Miller in the one with Vault Boy). "Maybe everything old is new again"?
The LAST GASP was late 1990s / early 2000s: that "return to rock" wave : The Hives, Mooney Suzuki , White Stripes and ...yeah The Strokes (least talented of the bunch- HOW on EARTH did they fill Madison Square Garden way way after they were super hot? I smell a scam). That was IT. End of Culture. Also happened with MOVIES: Last Gasp late 1990s / early 2000s: Ghost World, Being John Malkovitch, Fight Club, Mulholland Drive, etc. WE ARE AT THE END OF CULTURE FOLKS : Nuttin' to do but LOOK BACK. (I was pretty lucky to be born and live thru the 1970s , 1980s, 1990s, so I can say NOTHING is as bad as it is now).
I'm an 80s kid, an Xer if you will. Stuff I listened to on KROQ like Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, OMD, Echo and the Bunnymen, etc was considered sterile, soulless, etc cause of all the synth usage (never mind them all being influenced by Kraftwerk, Bowie, his Low album, etc). Now, it's all heart and soul music with synths. Lol funny how times change. Everybody Wants To Rule The World, for example, was a pop hit and now it's joined the ranks of all time classics. To be fair, Martin Gore does write a lot of songs on guitar and used the Emulator as his expression. DM just did it differently. (Btw, I'm still in a Todd Rundgren binge, whether with Utopia, Nazz, solo, etc. Him and Toto. I haven't listened to a newer song than 1982 in weeks)
Matt, Another fascinating session. Your followers made a lot of good points, but I will bombard with some more. When you talk about changing culture, I am reminded of TV and music in the sixties versus the current twenties. Back then, there were 3 channels to choose from (PBS came along circa 1970), with no copying technology, so TV became 'appointment viewing.' Now there are so many choices that no program can draw audiences as big as the time as there were only 3 choices. In the mid-sixties, AM radio, for teens at least (aka pop ... goes the 60s), the charts had the English invasion, Motown, surf, girl groups, Stax r & b, etc hanging around the top ten. By the seventies, radio was no longer wide open, but each station focused on music for 'its audience.' Labels were trying to make their ad money focus on the buying group that a release might appeal to. Labels also learned how to rig the charts, and that was important when albums passed singles as the main revenue stream. Charts were determined by the weekly shipment of product (and a lot of it was 'product') to retailers and wholesalers. The Bee Gees "Sergeant Pepper" became the poster child of chart manipulation as it shipped platinum - and was returned platinum. But it was #1. Soundscan was a sea change as stores turned their cash registers into computerized machines and thus a record of ACTUAL customer purchases became available. But the sales were of physical objects. It would be interesting to compare the number of purchases per week of a current hit versus the purchases of the sixties. I doubt any current hit would last long at #1 if it even got there. In my strictly subjective view, people who buy physical objects invest more time with therm than the multi-tasking listener of today does. Your followers obviously care more about the music they care about than do most current listeners. The disposability of digital downloads just does not create the connection that serious, sit down listen does. And, yeah, I had this discussion multiple times when working in a store. And since it is much easier to create and distribute music than the days of vinyl with stampers and all, the volume of music created makes promotion hard to do.
Yes part of the problem is too much variety. The 3 channel TV format of my youth and the limited radio stations made the cream that rose to the top more visible and shared communally. There is an insular experience now of binge watching a tv series or listening to electronic dance music with earpods with a hoodie covering most of your head. The sharing is what's missing now.
lots of good stuff in these comments. however, friendly reminder that there is good stuff if you're willing to look for it. My Morning Jacket and Dr Dog are two bands that clearly get inspiration from music of the 60's tho they have both been around since the early 00's. also King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard are rarely uninteresting and they put out two more albums in the time it took me to write this comment. edit to add: millennial viewer here, came to this channel first because I'm a Beatles die hard and was really interested in the Let It Be vids you were making pre Get Back. and while I know plenty about the Doors the Who Jimi Hendrix CCR etc, I stuck around to learn about other great bands of the 60s I'm less knowledgeable about. love the channel keep up the great work
I have music by King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard and was turned onto them listening to my local alternative radio station. Bone was the song. My buddy loves My Morning Jacket and has turned me on to other bands as well. I do have more 60s bands coming - up next: the Byrds.
right its not in the mainstream,but i can see the merits of someone like bilie eilish,i find her work inspiring and remember too that young people now are not going to sound as the sixties/seventies artists did they will use new technology,if the beatles had had pro tools they would have used them.jpj.old feller of nearly 70
As I commented on "new music is faltering": I believe that in as little as twenty years there's going to be a serious shortage of true artists. You know - artists that actually have musical talent. A person who actually can write on and play a musical instrument. Beyond my disdain of all cRAP music - where music is computer generated and merged with lyrics a two year old could write. The music industry has been slowly getting lazier since the mid to late 80s. Granted there's been the odd classic since 85 : - Ok Computer - Radiohead - Automatic for the People - R.E.M. - The Joshua Tree - U2 - Definitely Maybe - Oasis But I can honestly say - I have not purchase any "new" music since the early 2000s. Mostly due to I hear nothing inspiring, hell music today, has nothing to say. I'm a believer in the 10,000 rule. Even if someone is a musical genius - they still must put in the time to learn the craft. Opening the laptop and creating a perpared tune - is not and will never inspire or produce pure talent. You miss the most important fact about the todays faltering music. The inability of most current "artists" to play a musical instrument, and to write (understand) music. Usually your videos and opinions are pin point. Dropped the ball.
We know that these songs stay on the charts because these songs are just streamed.I found that there are alot of really good bands in Europe and Sweden.It seems over here all they care about are having a pretty boy or a half naked woman singing but they can't tour because they can't sing or they lip sing.Radio helps keep the older songs alive because nobody plays new songs,but even they play the same old stuff.I'm more into the deep tracks stuff you don't hear on the radio.You bring up alot of these songs in your videos which I really enjoy.Keep it up Matt
Consider that the song “To Love Somebody” by The Bee Gees only reached No. 17! Everybody loves the song. Can you imagine the great songs that may have kept the song from reaching number one? It’s a song many would be certain reached number one in any era.
hahaha, I assure you, not EVERYONE likes that song. ;) It's all down to personal opinion; there's not one song that everyone likes; everyone different!
I am a "Mid" '73 Gen X and take your point 👉 ...however: Alicia Keys Vampire Weekend St. Vincent H.E.R. The Roots Foo Fighters I get they are not always all #1s like swedish manufacturered synth pop; but those and many other musicians/artists/performers give me hope 💪
Radio is also much less important to younger people. They are finding the older music on UA-cam and from old people like me (my grandkids love the music I play for them). They also find artists like Lindsey Stirling and Pentatonix. The "Machine" of music making doesn't work the same anymore.
Thanks Matt for another interesting video. As others here have pointed out, back in the 60s/70s there was greater willingness on the part of the record companies to give new bands a chance, oftentimes even when their first single(s) or album(s) didn't sell. I think that's a big reason that there was such a creative explosion of music at that time. It allowed promising artists to find their voice. I can think of many great bands of that era whose initial album did not make much of an impression, but who later went on to greatness -- Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Elton John, Yes, Rush, etc. Thankfully, the labels saw their potential and stuck by them. Also, there were some good bands in the 60s that had few if any hits, but their labels continued to release their albums/singles for years, even though the bands never really attained the success they deserved -- Zombies, Left Banke, Yardbirds, Buffalo Springfield, Kaleidoscope, Merry-Go-Round, and many others. I'm glad that you, Matt, are doing histories of some of these lesser-known 60s bands. I'm a big fan of this channel.
Thank you for your support, Amanda. Yes, what Zappa said was quite true and execs took many a chance on the most unlikely of artists. They also nurtured them and allowed them to grow and improve. Even U2 had like 5 albums before they broke through big.
When I was a kid in the 60s probably the most common way for me to discover new music was not radio or charts. It was when a friend invited me over to have a listen to a new album they had just bought. This happened frequently, with many different friends. For me the memory of first hearing a particular album is associated with a particular person who introduced it to me. The listening experience had social context. Disraeli Gears played at a friend's dance party, a truly transporting experience. Ron had the first two Led Zeppelin albums, I could hardly take in what I was hearing. Over the years my next door neighbor Larry introduced me to a long line of, what were at the time, rather esoteric albums by the likes of Funkadelic, Mothers of Invention, Blue Cheer and an actual bootleg of live Hendrix that I've never come across since. My friend Mark invited me over one day. His older brother had a copy of "a double album by the Beatles!" just released the day before, which we were allowed to listened to all the way through! Magic. Some friends in a local garage band had an actual jukebox in their practice-space/garage, which they kept stocked with the latest singles, I remember Chicago Transit Authority, for one. My point again is the social aspect of the experience. Quite a bit of this music was on the radio, mostly on FM. But kids, young and older discussed music all the time. I heard the first Velvet Underground album in my eighth grade music class, on Friday's "bring your own record" day And art classes were frequently like going to a concert. Fun times.
Great comment syater. I was one of those kids in the 1970s bringing my 45s to art class and Mrs. Donald allowed me to play them! I was also turned onto bands like Rush, Supertramp and Styx in my buddy's basement. People would bring records to parties - it was communal. The digitization of music has separated us.
Well said syater! That was exactly my, and all my friends, experience. Someone had an album, a single, or a tape. A friend sent me home one weekend with the White Album. I sent him back with Kansas. Someone's older brother or sister had this or that. This was happening all over the country and we learned to listen to entire albums.
@@Neal_Schier Yes, nice to hear your similar story. Because it was my experience I just assumed everyone shared music they loved. It's different with algorithmic music files that are essentially being rented out to listeners.
That’s great to hear. There are many variables involved in assessing and comparing music today against music of 30-60 years ago. I have to think the meaning of music "charts" of the radio era were different from the meaning of the present era of streaming. Also, I'm not sure there was one all encompassing chart back then. Were Billboard and Melody Marker the true standards? Weren't there several different music charts for the US and UK? This is an actual question, I actually don't know.
Spotify users think of "number of listens" as a meaningful assessment of song popularity. In years past it was number of units sold, people actually parted with their money for a "unit" single or album, and that was the measure for the industry, not really to the fans. But this is all about the commercial side of music. And to be honest, caring that artists get paid for all the time, effort and talent so they can continue making music is what really matters.
@syater,
I recognize this somewhat. In 1968, in my town a small library was opened, but they didn't lend books: vinyl LP's. The discotheque started out with a collection of mainly classical and jazz music, but the pop corner grew explosively. I often borrowed records without knowing what was on it, or had heard someone talking about "this great new band". I found out which lauded bands I didn't like much, and which - relatively unknown - ones were a revelation. And for a few dollars (guilders) for a whole week! I made the owner a fortune! Of course I taped a lot of them.
The shop became a tremendous source, particularly because the radio seldom played Underground/Psychedelia. Or not enough!
O, those were the days...
You have a very thoughtful and knowledgeable audience Matt. That is a real feather in your cap. Thanks for all you do. Regards, RNB
Thank you, Rick! I'm quite pleased overall.
I love your channel name. Great guitars.
Although we loved the music of the 60s and 70s at the time, we also kind of took it for granted as it turns out. I think the movie industry has gone the same way. They churn out formula garbage movies and some umteenth remake of a movie that was actually good when first version came out and is now laughable. Of course, that is because it's easier to rehash something already successful than actually come up with something original and good.
Thanks for this. In 1979 Neil Young sang "hey hey, my my, rock and roll with never die," which is ironic because rock and roll was already in decline. It is now dead. (I suppose I should qualify this by saying that there are a few mostly unknown artists doing very creative work.). I agree very much that the commodification of rock music did a lot to destroy it as a popular art form. But also to some extent it may have simply run its course. And even during rock's heyday, much of popular rock music was derivative and unoriginal. That said, the music (if you want to call it that) that has replaced rock and roll has none of the creativity and spirit of rock and roll at its best. Which is sad.
What’s even more sad is you’re tired outlook because you’re wrong there is plenty of fantastic new rock ‘n’ roll. You just gotta look for it.
All you need to know about the music these days is, my 9 year old grandson comes over and asks me to put on the Beatles. Enjoyed another great video Matt!
My opinion is that the '60's were the greatest period of rock and roll, and soul and everything in between. The only good stuff these days are the artists that you don't hear on mainstream stations. I have discovered a lot of different artists from living in Knoxville the past few years on channel WDVX. Great stuff 👏
Umm. How come when I say there's still good music out there today, everyone craps all over me?
By the way, thank you for reading my letter and going into an in-depth discussion about it! Love your channel
You gave me some great stuff! I thank you.
Thanks Matt, love the comments, wish I could match them. Aged 20 in '67 and the beginning of a Golden Age. With the Beatles and fine chart music in the UK, the American invasion of magical albums began. John Peel's radio shows took a lot of credit as he was introducing new sounds and bands with weird names every week - he could often be seen visiting London's import shops. We had seen Cream, Hendrix, Fleetwood Mac and Mayall and now had visits from Love, Spirit, Taj Mahal, Canned Heat, Beefheart and others. College classes would reap the benefit of my import shopping, though Trout Mask Replica produced some funny looks!
Thanks for the comments, Bob - always appreciated.
Great video. It's a very interesting topic for sure. Love hearing everyone's takes on this. I'm of the opinion that we are very culturally stagnant and have been for a while now.
Some great points made, Matt. I think a song's lifecycle on the charts is also driven by so many newer elements these days that didn't exist in the 60s and 70s, such as additional marketing/inclusion in films, commercials, tv series, etc. and, of course, streaming, which slowly exposes the artist to individuals all around the world who aren't just listening to their favorite radio station and falling in love with the new songs that the disc jockey decided to play. IDEA: How about a special episode called "Pop Goes The 20s", spotlighting some of the new music you've found that you think the older generation, such as ourselves, might enjoy? 🙂
I've thought of showcasing some new music that I really like... we'll see. Thanks for the request!
Great listen on the other video stating the case, this one was super fun because you read comments from my people , the ones that have the passion derived from music experience, listen to an honest written and performed some is an experienced that transforms the the listener , you are never the same again. As a musician , current trends have made my life easier. I can almost do not wrong, the kids eat it up because of my “ honesty” . It’s like they are starving or protein but don’t know it until they hear protein.
The willingness of 60's execs to throw lots of money at bands and artists is a big part of the reason why there is so much great music from that era. Groups that only had one hit still were supported and could put out 6,8 or more, materially diverse albums. Also, the mainstream artists of the 60's had a lot of the same awesome backing bands: ie. the Wrecking Crew, Funk Brothers, Booker t and the MG's, etc.
As a Gen Xer, I gave up on 'the music of the day', in the mid 80's. The synthesized sounds and bland sameness, and hair metal . I could not relate to guys with bleach blond Perms wearing white leather. It had no relationship to my life. Grunge was for a short time a breath of fresh air, because it was influenced by 60's and seventies music and mixed with punk. It has been downhill ever since.
Video did kill the radio star. Those hairband were really the beginning of the end. Thanks for the comment, Jason!
The computer! Is 1 reason. The play for pay changed to Rap, Hip/Hop. Laundrying $, drug cartels changed. Form The Boyz 50's/80's to The Russian's 90's/20's to now Colombian/ Mexican cartels ❓
@@popgoesthe60s52 ...awww Matt!...Platinum Blonde were good "Boy Toy" Singers!...😃🤭🙄!...
@@barbbowen3572 I actually liked some of that music, but it got a bit over the top. :)
@@popgoesthe60s52 ...My Daughter Loved them!...LoL!!!...Take Good Care Matt!...
We are all living longer, and it's up to us (older folks like me) to make sure younger generations hear what we thought was good. Keep an open mind and ear. I did, and everyone should. I grew up listening to what my parents were playing too, and at 58, I'm a fan of everything from Glen Miller to Gorillaz!
Love Jazz,Black Sabbath and the Byrds,Wire, Joni Mitchell,KRS-1, .......... everything!
YES. Mr. Mitch Miller, as well.....i will always love this pure, good and organized, MUSIC. perfect match, recordings. Perfect amount of 'echo '.
Yes!
Smells Like Teen Spirit was my first clash with pop. Nice song, but it got revered ever since, like the Lord God himself composed and produced it. "Legendary!" Really?
Britney Spears; Baby One More Time. Middle-of-the-road singalong, but o the artificiality of the production, it's a sky scraper of autotune. And the video is totally meaningless, super bland eye candy.
On the other hand; I found Snap's "I've got the power" sensational. But it has already gone the Golden Oldies route!
And don't get me started on Rap. It destroyed every other progress in pop music.
Hip hop - if it still carries that name, is much more interesting. Goldfrapp's first album, delightful (full of subtle references to Ennio Morricone.) They never met that standard again.
Coldplay, Radio Head, Muse? I think only Muse is still tied to "pop" music. But of all three I got all the records. And I'm a frigging 73!
The rest? No longer interested. I mostly indulge in 80s, 70's 60's, and 50s.
"We are all living longer, and it's up to us (older folks like me) to make sure younger generations hear what we thought was good."
Yes, so they can hate us and become better than we could ever hope to be.
@@FernieCanto
If you are looking for hate, you are at the wrong platform. Try a far-right one.
I work as DJ doing private events and last few years music has gone down. I need songs so my client and their guests dance. I have to use songs from 5 to 10 years ago sometimes mix in music from 40 to 50 years ago. Kids don't dance they are program for 60 second TikTok music and instead of the teenager boys meeting and talking to girls they text each other on the dance floor. You run a great channel and you are right music has declined and western world. Keep up the great work and don't let anyone make you feel bad there are many like myself that agree with you.
Thanks Bubba. I'm amazed to find that boys and girls text each other on the dance floor! Wow. Thanks for watching.
Regardless of the era, the notion of art imitating life has always been present. Since we now live in an age where technology reigns over creativity and humanity, we cannot be surprised that it's come to this.
Great idea Matt and some excellent feedback from the comments. I would also add there are very few groups anymore. It's mostly solo artists these days . Tam Impala for example is just one guy but it sounds like a group name. There's no give and take musically like you get from playing in a band with each member bringing their own tastes to the overall sound.
I didn't even know Tame Impala was just one guy. Yeah, why split the profits 4 ways?
As a younger person, I recall being amazed at the seemingly infinite stream of great pop songs, week after week, year after year. I came to believe that new great pop music would be produced forever - but I was wrong. Ultimately, the talent faltered, the harmonies withered, the machines ate the musical soul, and alas, the music died.
I couldn't agree more, JoAnne. Thanks for weighing in.
when the rhythm of a song is snapped to a grid & forced to follow a computerized click track, and vocals and instruments are autotuned, and every song has a half dozen writers, it's over. the result is what it is, but calling it great music is delusional
Spurred on by the ever changing climate of the past two years means Van Morrison not only taking a brave stand, yet doing some of his best ever material to date.
OK Mr. Trump. Go infect somebody else with your cough.
Another thought I had after your original video is that before the current iTunes/Spotify era the whole catalogue of record labels was not readily available. It was physically hard to find old records and the music industry mode of operation was to push something new constantly given the limited distribution channels. So new music today has a unfair competition with the past! The other side of the laptop music argument is that some new acts try deliberately to replicate old sounds at the cost of originality due to this invisible competition.
Great points Chauncey - thank you!
The point about songs hanging around the charts so much longer now is mind-boggling.
This channel would be a great music appreciation class if schools would allow music to be taught in schools again.
The movie Mr. Holland’s Opus is a great example of how to get kids interested in music or get kids to practice playing a REAL instrument. That’s how great bands started out. Gone are the days of jamming with friends and trying to learn that one guitar riff of their favorite song.
I think the younger generation is missing the foundation of music from the 50’s through to the 90’s. The 90’s being the last era for good music I believe.
The guys or gals singing today all sound the same. I haven’t heard any unique voices on any new songs I hear. For example Jim Morrison, Janice Joplin, Freddie Mercury, Grace Slick, Elvis (to name a few), are unique and you can tell who they are by the voice. Bands like the Doors, Boston, Rush, ELO (to name a few) have different sounds as well. The techno music today all sound alike. The guys that are singing all sound like the same dude to me.
I do apologize for the long text. I just feel it’s a shame all the new music coming out now doesn’t leave a lasting impression.
We won’t be talking about the great music made in 2022 in 20 years.
My class would probably be cancelled after one semester! I doubt that today's music will be talked about or listened to in 20-30-50 years because it lacks artistic qualities. Time will tell. Thanks for the comment!
There are many other, Mr Poets Dreams. Chicago, Blood Sweat 'n Tears, 3 Dog Night, Nazareth, The Grass Roots, Mark Lindsay, Boney M, Jennifer Rush, Pat Benatar, Reo Speedwagon, Badfinger, Bad Company, Fleetwood Mack, ....on and on....John Denver, etc etc
@@petersack5074 Hi Peter. You named ALL great bands. I have vinyl on all but one of them. However I did say in my comment “to name a few” because my comment was already long enough as it was. Thanks for adding the extra bands.
Oh and it’s Ms. Poets Dreams. 😉🤘
@@popgoesthe60s52 I don’t think your class would be cancelled! It’s fantastic! I totally agree with you about todays music. I’m just not a huge fan. I’ll listen to it to give a fair listen but it falls short for me.
Love how you’re exploring this topic lately, it’s like a re education about music and I’m here for it! it should be explored in a documentary or has it already and I’ve missed it?
I think the documentaries are being formed on youtube by guys like Rick Beato. We've seen the folly of all the major awards shows and now people like myself are calling "bullshit" on all of them. The idea that there is still a 'Rock N Roll Hall of Fame' that has to resort to adding popular figures like Dolly Parton and rap music proves the point that the artistic element is only to be found in the past or in new underground music. More to come, Lizza!
Wow I had no idea current music like Lil Nas was doubling the #1 charts of a classic like Hey Jude. That really blew my mind. For me when rap became more mainstream in the culture that’s when I stopped listening to current music. I long for the days of great melodies and harmonies.
Eminem at the start was so good
I would argue there is just as good or even better melodies and harmonies in rap as 60s pop music I’m guessing you heard one rap song and decided you didn’t like the whole genre of rap that’s like only listening to wild honey pie and saying you don’t like the Beatles
@@michealmorris3437 Sorry to disagree with you. The only time I listen to rap is when cars go by with their windows open and this horrendous repetitve wailing noise known as rap is bursting out from them. Its all samey and not singing just wingey talking over a repetitive bass line. Give me Tamala Motown. Soul. Rock n Roll. Country. Ska/Blue beat. Prog Rock. 50's 60's 70s 80s 90s. Blues. Heavy Metal. In fact anything but rap 😵
I'm a year late to this great vid, but here goes---I'm 66 and every time I feel that depression taking root about the sorry state of today's crap music, I spend a few afternoons listening to my local college's station (KUTX/Austin/NPR) and all's well again. You were spot on mentioning good music still out there, just not mainstream and harder to find. There's SO much good new groups/music, literally fills my heart discovering a new band's song that captures that spirit, or at least comes within shouting distance, of what we had non-stop in the 60's and 70's. Cheers!
Hey Randy! I just finished a playlist for my upcoming wedding and I was delighted to add many "new" songs (for me that is in the last 10-12 years!) Feels good to have some fresher stuff.
@@popgoesthe60s52 right on Matt, and congrats on the wedding too
Hello Matt, good work on your videos. I feel sorry for the young people today, at least they have the timeless old stuff. BTW it sounds like you guys haven't discovered "Americana", there's tons of fantastic new stuff out there
Thank you Richard, I’ll check that out.
Thanks for another interesting video, Matt. Acknowledging your viewers comments is very much appreciated!
Thanks, Tom!
Excellent discussion, excellent video. I'm struggling to remember the last time I bought a record by a living artist, ok, well I do listen to a lot of jazz. But I really hope more younger people hear comments by you and your listeners and check out 60s music. Another alleged Zappa quote: "Rock journalism is written by people who can't write, for people who can't read." Definitely not true at Pop Goes the 60s.
Thank you, Joe - much appreciated!
I wholeheartedly agree with most of these comments. The last two years, music on the radio has been lackluster and haven't found any songs that speak to me. Thanks to the Get Back Documentary, I rediscovered The Beatles only knowing a thin layer in regards to their background and only knowing word of mouth on their rumors (Lucy in the Sky = LSD, Paul is Dead, etc). After watching and learning from the Peter Jackson documentary, I went and watched John Lennon's 1988 documentary "IMAGINE" and "The Beatles Anthology" and began to realize how much camaraderie they had. I think the record industry needs to start shaving off the fat and start providing better talents and hopefully a change is coming sooner than later.
Thank you for the comment, John-Mark! Glad to hear of your rediscovery.
I love the Zappa quote because it really sums up how the industry has become for the most part homogenized, vs the 60’s and 70’s where there was so much musical diversity. Another note that has to be mentioned here tho here too is that charts nowadays don’t really reflect the real listening population. I say that because of how they are calculated. If I’m not mistaken, I believe it’s not just music sales anymore, but also incorporates streams, which can drastically inflate a song - especially when people just loop a few songs all day. I could be wrong on that but if I am correct, it essentially makes the charts mostly useless as far as a reflection of the listening public, which explains the 5% of Spotify streams being new music. The big labels are just out of touch. And the big artists for that matter
Yeah, I'm not sure how the streaming affects the charts. I know that the Billboard Top 100 calculated radio airplay and sales. Seems like the streaming would be easier to manipulate. Thanks for the comment, Stephen.
@@popgoesthe60s52 That's interesting, in that case then it definitely has to do with the lack of competition that you mentioned. But you could also argue simply lack of work ethic.. The Beatles had an album every 6 months and a single every 3 (more or less). Led Zeppelin I and II were released in a matter of months. Nowadays you might get an album once every year or every other year, or even some are only 3-4 years - which might explain the longer chart time. There just isn't as much consistent releases -- Edit: I did some looking around and it seems they do include streaming in the billboard hot 100 calculation. They have a ratio tied to it to weight it compared to single sales, but still I think would definitely inflate pop music, since their audiences typically are listening to a few songs on repeat more often.
can you recommend some streams to experience good new music ( underground / prog/ etc. )?
Your original post and this subsequent one has highlighted what many of us have been aware of for quite some time and you’ve done an excellent job bringing this subject up.
Interesting chart facts there.
Unfortunately I don’t see the Music Business turning itself around, so many companies and their artists(?) have already done the damage by ‘dumbing down’ music. We now have a generation of so many who of no fault of their own like and accept “bland”.
Frank Zappa was so right
Thank you, Nick. That is why I view the 20th century music phenomenon as by gone art movement. I don't see music evolving into an art form again base on the trends of the last 20 years.
Good is good.. and crap is crap. Doesn't matter if it's the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s or now.
I used to have a friend who lived in a pub and upstairs was a huge room that he had installed big speakers in all around the room. We would sit in the middle and play Pink Floyd very loudly. This was about 1967 ish
Saturday afternoons we would pile into the listening booths in the local record shop and listen to Led Zepplin for about an hour. We never brought the album as we couldn't afford it. So glad I was young in these times.
In 1960 my father purchased a Sony AM/SW radio for the godly price of$2.99 for my 12th birthday and that was my first step into alternative music via short wave international broadcasting stations. When not busy the radio was continuously on usually tuned into WTIX Radio. The semi-climax of the day was to listen to Paul Harvey. While a recon pilot in Vietnam, I would routinely tune my ADF radio and listen to music. What I have read which has stifled todays music,is the Nashville Song Writers Association who does not care about innovative music, but rather a well tested musical algorithm.. I have forced myself to listen to the top ten to be miserably bored I would like to recommend two radio stations (internet) which plays nothing but innovative music-FIP Radio, Paris, FR(Genera Groove and funk) and WWOZ, New Orleans--24 hours of spellbinding music. Excellent tutorial!
Thanks for the comment, Bob!
People hang on to music from the past because it is attached to memories. Memories of the 21st century (generally speaking) have been based retroactively. Nick Lowe explained how when you had 8 tracks to work with in the studio, you had to really make those tracks count and put what was best for the song on the final cut. That lead to creativity in recording techniques. Now you have unlimited tracks and can fix it all in post. What I do not understand is that instruments still sound great live, but with recording technology everything sounds homogeneous. You can't tell the difference between a great drumkit and mediocre one and these new microphones being used are the culprit. The tipping point has been reached. There is so much more at play but these I truly believe these issues are at the core.
I love almost all types of music made between the mid-1950s and early 2000s, so if people want to call me all day if I want to make fun of new music, I point out I have been a fan of nearly 60 years worth of music, and it’s only been the last 15 or more years that I think Music has gone downhill and the number one culprit is autotune and the tendency for artists to get Albums to debut at number one that nobody in America except for their fans know about. When an album used to go to number one back in the 70s and 80s, even if you hated the group or artist, you knew who they were. Now only a small cross section of the United States knows who these people are.
Another good point, Michael. There was a time in the last 30 years when I was passionate about "new music" which is now considered "old." Yes, many of us aged 45-80 have supported new music for decades.
Great take on music of today and yesterday. Love the picture of Zappa with his parents (?) and that Alice Cooper cover behind him. Something that I’ve not seen discussed before is all the artists he put out there on his Straight / Bizarre label in the late 60s and early 70s. The GTOs, Wild Man Fischer etc.
I'm older than almost anyone. And I love the music of my era. But I know there is lots of wonderfull music being created today. But it won't be presented to you on a silver platter. Quoting those old guys, the Grateful Dead, "You just gotta poke around!"
Agreed.
Yes they are and they will never get signed because labels are only interested in signing effeminate men autotune crooners and women who wear next to nothing…Labels used to have talent scouts going all over the United States for new talent going into every CD bar around to see who the next big thing would be. That’s how Stevie Ray Vaughan was discovered
yea this is nothing but old men screaming at clouds. The music biz is making more money today than it ever has, and live music is more popular and more accessible than its ever been before, especially post-cvd19. I can see Red Rocks from my apt, its booked up solid 2-3 years out and is always packed with people of all ages for all different types of acts. There are also more artists making music now than ever before because anyone with a computer can record and post their tracks online without a record label or any connections in the industry.
That is the difference though. In the heyday of the music industry music surrounded everything. It was a part of life, it was part of the culture.. There was no need to "poke around" to find good music. That's the difference.
I don't think it matters much anyway that new music is mostly GMO garbage, since there's so much music from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's to discover and listen to all the time (at least for me).
And for Heaven's sake, the fantastic music which came before rock and roll: The Great American Songs, jazz, European and American folk music, classical music.
@@bobtaylor170 Way, way back in the '70s, there was a radio station that was going to start playing big band music. They did some advertising on TV and we were excited to have some new music we hadn't heard on the radio. You know, you get tired of the same music all the time. Our group, young kids in our early 20s, all listening intently.
First hour, we were really enjoying it. Second hour, they started playing the same songs they played the first hour. ? Forty years of big band and there was only an hours worth of music worth hearing? I think they were trying to treat it like top 40 radio. Didn't work.
The big problem with radio is they have a strict format and they play the same songs over and over again.
@@debjorgo , yeah, that's just dumb. There are hundreds of hours, maybe more, of well recorded big band music from The Great Era. I have about fourteen hours of Artie Shaw's stuff, several hours of Benny Goodman's. Then, there's Basie, Ellington, the Dorseys' various bands - as I said, hundreds of hours, at least. There is probably a hundred hours' worth of V - discs, alone. That station had absolutely no clue.
Popular music had it's peak then. Just like Jazz in the 50s 60s.
Great as usual and great writing, my friend! I forwarded it to my son I raised on albums and the 60s and he loved it as well. He did ask, "how come he printed it out to reads it? How come he didn't just read it off his phone?"...ah, generations - their music and technological differences!
My eyes aren't what they used to be! I can read better on paper.🙂
@@popgoesthe60s52 LOL...understood. Just habit with me...they laugh because all I use my cell for is calls and texts...and a pretty cool flashlight!
Planning to do any videos on bands: "Count Five", "The Blues Magoos" and "The Strawberry Alarm Clock"?
Hello Michael - bless you. You are the first to request Strawberry AlarmClock! Yes I have videos planned for them and the Blues Magoos. The Count Five may be covered in a video with other bands... not sure yet but stay tuned!
Excellent overview & perspectives. I dont follow the charts, whats considered "commercial" and really havent done so since the early 80's, having grown up late 50's through the 60's & 70's. FM changed everything for me personally, drifting away from AM Top 30's though I still followed it sporadically. The whole industry changed so much, radically with retro-grade Punk, Ska & Reggae, the birth of MuchMusic; video did kill the radio star & industrial programmers laid waste to FM, playing to death seminal anthem and Progressive Rock from the glory days of Pink Floyd, Zeppelin & so on..... "New Music" today, some seriously brilliant stuff from the 90's to the 2020's is out there, be it Porcupine Tree, Gazpacho, RadioHead, Deutsch-Nepal and on & on & on. Some of the new releases from acts I'd long since tuned out & or never cared for in their prime like Bruce Springsteen comes out with a beauty called Western Stars... As music lovers & or players, we live for "new music". Its something to look forward to. A new aural experience. I listen to everything & anything thats good. Art, music, its subjective . Whats broken, whats busted is the business model of the industry itself. It didnt adapt well to the new modes of delivery in the 80's & 90's, music video's, paying obscene advances to a handful of artists, internet, napster & all thats followed. I have hope for a brighter future but sadly, terrestrial radio, Top 10, 50 or what have you, not happening. Country has been holding its own but even there some serious cracks in the foundations.
'' some serious cracks, in the foundations....'' CORRECT, Mr. Scott. Take that MILLENIUM TOWER, for example, in San Fran.
IT IS SINKING, AND SLIDING northeasterly. The whole bay area, is sinking. 3 inches and counting. That tower, is leaning about 2 feet at the top. Any, ANY attempt to 'correct ' it, will ultimately fail. Anyway, that is where this society is going.....OVER. 10th story windows, now cracking, as is the sidewalks, sewer drainage trouble. BUILDING SAYS '' i'm in need of something ''.......Engineers, forced by investors, NOT LISTENING. Cracks, in that foundation, and all around. 686,000,000 pounds, and no piles, into bedrock.
JUST INTO MUD AND SAND, CLAY. oh well, try to keep the pool table level, honey.
@@petersack5074 Ha!..... Okee Dokee then. 😅
Yes, the business model in music was greatly harmed with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 where mergers, takeovers and acquisitions became the norm and allowed the consolidation of decision-makers. This eliminated smaller labels and companies that were the ones that took chances on bands and broke many major acts. Globalism is the current foundation and I don't know how that will change. A cataclysmic event perhaps....
Thanks for your great commentary. Lots of strands in this discussion. Consider that songs were an important medium by which we reacted to and interacted with the world. When a new song appeared on the radio and in record stores, we "bought" it because the artists were presenting musical AND lyrical ideas that were only available on record and the radio. Success enabled artists to spread new ideas. We bought records because we believed in these ideas --- and moreover because there were limited outlets for us to participate and support these ideas. Of course, we also attended shows and bought merchandise to underline our "support" for these ideas. With the growth of the internet and social media, everything changed. There were many more ways to connect and to express our support for ideas. People no longer had to rely as much on mediums like record stores and radio because the content was virtual and freely available. If social media made it easier for artists to "enter" the dialogue, it also made it difficult for groups to gain mass appeal. As consumers, we don't share common understanding of what the "top artists" are. Things are way too fragmented. Meaning that artists who have content with mass appeal don't reach mainstream levels. In actuality, corporates have more control of what "makes it" and artists with interesting things to say have to live in the backwater underground. They don't get the corporate support for their stuff even when their material is superior to less interesting content.
Yes, and there is such a separation between today's genres that though one artist can have huge sales of an album, he/she could be completely unknown to many other music fans. Divide and conquer! Thanks Mark!
In bygone eras there was limited visual access to music - one’s choice was primarily radio and records - so the artist’s job was to capture ears, with beautiful lyrics, harmonies, and melodies being the primary tools. These days, with visual devices everywhere, resources shift to capturing eyes and the emphasis on lyrics and melodies, unfortunately, shrinks accordingly.
The only time I am exposed to new music nowadays is as a captive audience with a radio station in the background, such as dental appointments (talk about double torture!). It's always the same songs. It amazes me that I can go in for a cleaning and hear a "new" song. Six months later I am at my next cleaning and hear the same song!
I would switch dentists 😆
I am curious about the humber of "records" sold, and how many "record" sales it takes to attain the number one spot on the charts, or to stay n the charts. Anther thought, us do subscription services contribute to the disposable nature of todays music. If I don't have to buy it, is it worth remembering.
I did a video on McCartney III and how roughly 43K units was all that was needed to make that a #1 album in the UK. In the past, an artist would need to move 200K units to get to #1 so how the charts are designed have changed. Thanks Bill!
Well done and well reasoned as I've come to expect. Rick Beato did a video commentary a couple of years ago about how the modern digital recording and processing in today's music is killing popular music by taking the human quality out of it. Software such as ProTools allows for the erasure or correction of pitch, timbre, and rhythm to get a digitally "perfect" product that doesn't account for human imperfection, thus taking the soul out of the music. Even a person with limited talent and ability can be made to sound like a seasoned pro. It becomes sterile and lacks connection to the human spirit.
Yes, Beato has really been a leader is this discussion. Thanks for the comment, Gus!
The best fix for all this is alternative rock and modern college radio. There are so many relatively recent and current bands, brilliant; ignored by mainstream radio, but still on iTunes, etc - including: Alvvays, Hatchie, Dum Dum Girls, RVG, Acid Dad, The Beths, Fazerdaze, Say Sue Me, The Reverberations, Angel Olsen, Crystal Stilts, Minus 5, Well Wishers, Parquet Court, Fallen Leaves, Ugly Beats, Orange Peels, Real Estate, Twerps, Band of Horses, Kaiser Chiefs, Satelliters ….. some are gone and some still record. Many of these are influenced by early Who, The Beatles, The Kinks, 60s garage rock. There is hope.
Agreed. I do find new music that I like but since I don't have people close to me to influence me on anything new, I have to either stumble upon it, or seek it out, which can be laborious - at least for me anyway. Thanks for the comment!
The Byrds had a song called "So You Want to Be a Rock and Roll Star," which summed up how record companies cash in on the latest musical trends. Much of the attitudes towards today's music is primarily generational. And I like today's music (and I am a GenXer). People seem to forget that with the latest technologies, comes the changes and parental attitudes toward the younger generation. If you look at the history of recording, it seems that is the pattern. From the gramophone to digital, technology has brought music to the masses while presenting new challenges and new attitudes in subsequent generations.
I remember my maternal grandmom (RIP) embracing Elvis, who was my late Mom's idol, while many of her contemporaries condemned him for singing the "devil's music" and swinging his hips on TV. And she loved Herman's Hermits (especially Peter Noone), she was in her 40s at the time of the British Invasion. I wish that many people would be more understanding towards the younger generation instead of complaining about their music, and saying that "rock is dead."
People have forgotten that in 1959, Buddy Holly, Big Bopper and Ritchie Valens died in a plane crash, Elvis was stationed in Germany, Jerry Lee Lewis' career was marred by scandal (he married his 13-year old distant cousin), Little Richard found religion, and Chuck Berry was facing legal issues; it seemed the end, by many, of Rock and Roll, and the genre was being replaced by teen idols who emphasized more on looks than sound. However, between 1959 and 1964, there were stirrings of the next generation of architects. In southern California, three brothers (Brian, Dennis and Carl Wilson) along with a cousin and two of their friends, formed a band which became the Beach Boys, created a sound that would eventually pave the way for Laurel Canyon and San Francisco sounds. In Detroit, a former autoworker named Barry Gordy, would bring R&B sounds to the masses with his Motown label, along with prominent songwriters such as Holland, Dozier Holland and Smokey Robinson. A hotshot producer and music prodigy named Phil Spector would revolutionize studio production techniques, creating the "wall of sound" and gave girl groups such as the Ronettes a streetwise edge to their looks and sound; he also used songwriters from the Brill Building such as Carole King, Gerry Goffin, Ellie Greenwich, Jeff Barry, Cynthia Weil, Barry Mann, Neil Diamond and Neil Sedaka. A Minnesota-born singer-songwriter named Bob Dylan would revitalize the folk genre with his songs and making Greenwich Village in NYC the hub of the folk scene, and later became an innovator of folk rock when he went electric. The Beatles were the final ingredient needed to bring Rock and Roll back to prominence (and they were influenced by the innovators mentioned), and with that everything gelled and influenced rock for the next three decades.
I strongly believe that rock will come back around; genres comes and goes in cycles, and a new generation IS interested in playing instruments and using technology to promote the music without the middle management of record companies that goes with it. There are artists right now that are doing that while bypassing the record companies, and those are not on the radio or digital, but on YT or Spotify, or other music playlists. Record companies are more to blame for promoting style over substance, and of course radio is also to blame for compartmentalizing music into different genres. I remember in the 60s and 70s, radio, especially AM radio, would play songs that appealed to everyone, one song would be country, the next song rock, the next pop, and the next easy listening (which became Adult Contemporary), and FM was a new format, mainly the stereo sound made it feasible for rock music, especially AOR (album-oriented rock). As the 70s and 80s progressed, FM became the standard for playing music and AM became the station for talk, sports and news. Then deregulation gave license for media corporations to take over radio and instead of DJ spinning discs, there were playlists that dictate what type of music to play and they began to segregate music into genres. But there are also independent stations such as the college radio stations and non-profit stations that still play different genres and new music untouched by corporate record companies, you have to look hard for those.
Change is very hard to accept, but music and technology have gone hand-in-hand. Sure, there is trial and error, and parents and older generations will complain about the music of younger generations, but those kids will have kids, and their kids will most likely listen to something different and their parents will complain. Have patience, folks.
It seems to me that catalog revenue has probably always been big for the industry. So it accounts for 70% of revenue today, but what was it in, say, the early 1990s? Those were the industry’s peak years in terms of revenue. Surely catalog sales were at least 50% then? I mean, Dark Side of the Moon spent like 15 years straight in the Billboard Top 200.
This is so spot on I have nothing to add. 100%. Every word. Great job Matt.
Thank you David!
I think another important consideration is how algorithm-driven music consumption is now. Among younger generations, you largely don't discover new music from your friends anymore, or from what the record store guy recommends, or from hearing a cool new single on the radio. It's more based on what a streaming service decides you might like based on your listening patterns (and the listening patterns of people with similar tastes to your own).
and if it's not algorithms, it's curated playlists by these big streaming services that fit particular genres, decades, or "vibes".
A couple problems with both of these formats: (1) it isn't very transparent what actually dictates what you end up listening to. Is it just what these algorithms think you like, or could there be more to it? There's a conflict of interest in that these streaming services could be promoting to you songs with lower licensing costs. Or they could be promoting things they're being paid to promote. Or maybe certain record labels have a stake in your streaming service and they have a financial incentive to promote songs on their own label. (2) it doesn't lend to active listening. Most people I know in my generation are passive listeners. They throw on music to fill silence or set a mood or make something mundane less boring. They're not actively listening because they don't actually care about music that much. Which when paired with point one makes them more susceptible to this subtle manipulation. (3) There's more segmentation, as in you're never going to stray too far away from what you know you already like. If you're apathetic towards music, you're probably going to be enjoying the least common denominator pop stuff because it's tailored to you. So it creates a cycle of you just listening to the same stuff all the time. (4) from an artist perspective, it incentives you to stay inside certain boxes that are more marketable and take less risks. Nothing worse than having a band you like sell out to make safe, boring, marketable vibe music.
In summary I just find the idea of algorithms recommending me music just as nefarious as computer-made music. It seems to be all too easy to abuse, with very little transparency, and pushes us towards a more apathetic, passive listening experience. Lots of shady stuff goes on there-the more I read about it the more creeped out I get.
Sorry for the essay Matt you just brought it out of me! haha
I appreciate the essay! I agree with you. I recently was in a record store and a 60s artist that I never heard was playing. I recognized the writing style and period so I asked what was playing. It was a 60s artist named Margo Guryan. I bought it. What algorithm would bring someone that obscure to me? I'm sure those algorithms are being written but I'm also sure that low-selling niche artists will remain obscure.
also are there any modern bands or singer songwriters u like? there are many i like such as mac demarco or alex g that rlly hit me deep inside but to each their own
Yes I like King Gizzard, La Feline, Aloe Black, On And On, The Laminanas, to name a few. Some of what I call "new" have already been around a long while like Radiohead and Broken Bells. I may do a video on new stuff I like. We'll see....
Maybe songs stay on the charts a long time because there's nothing on the queue to replace them. I haven't heard anything new in the last ten years, much less the last ten weeks or last ten months
Of course, I’m old school and love 60’ , 70’ music…but lots of great new music. Rough &Ro
It was great hearing all these opinions, and the chart info you pointed out. I do think one difference today, is that remixes of a song now qualify for the same chart inclusion. So, if a song catches on, you can sell a remix of it, and people will keep the song at the top of the chart. I think "Old Town Road" had several remixes, which helped hold it in the number one spot. Each time sales began to fall off, a new remix would cause people to buy it again. It's a disingenuous scam they pull these days, to keep songs' placements on the charts. I still liked, "Old Town Road", though.
I didn't know that about the remixes adding to chart life. Thanks Nathan!
Curious what you think of artists like Father John Misty, the Decemberists, the New Pornographers, Belle and Sebastian. Those are more modern acts which still make decent music. But perhaps not too much in the main stream
I really like Belle and Sebastian. The other two I'm not familiar with. I may do a video on newer music that I have found, so we'll see.
@@popgoesthe60s52 please do!
@@popgoesthe60s52 I'm new to the party here, having just discovered your channel because of the very interesting talk you just did on David Crosby (I'm a massive fan). I agree with much of what has been said here. I do hope you do something on new music, because there is great stuff out there. Father John Misty and Weyes Blood are exceptionally good, as is Sufjan Stevens ( albums Carrie and Lowell and A Beginner's Mind, are heartrendingly beautiful, although I find some of his other music melodically uninteresting). Far more obscure are singer songwriters Will Stratton and Raoul Vignell, but both their most recent albums are well worth a listen. Whether any of these artists are doing something new and cutting edge is another matter entirely. Oh, and on the subject of David Crosby, let's not forget that he did some outstandingly good albums in the years just preceding his death. Unlike many artists of that era, he was still writing great songs right up until the end.
Lots of great comments here. I believe (like DEVO predicted) we have De-evolved as a culture and so has the music and the arts. But don't forget there was plenty of bad music in the past. Its just there was great music too. The 1950''s through the 1970's was maybe a 20th century musical golden age?
Here's a thought: If The Beatles emerged today as a new group and She Loves You was released as their first single, could they challenge Billie Eilish or Young Thug for chart dominance? Sadly, probably NOT!
She loves you wouldn't be written today....just like bad guy wouldn't have been written in 1962.
Clearly you have not seen "Yesterday"! Lol...I kidd, I kidd.
A thing to remember is that past chart positions were based solely on sales.
Today streaming and UA-cam views go into chart positions.
An interesting take would be if streaming was around in the 50s through 80s what would the charts look like?
Same for today: what would the charts look like if it was based on just sales and not streaming.
I think it would look much different. Most kids don't actually buy music, they stream it.
If based on pure sales I think you would see much less rap and more diversity.
Then again who knows?
Actually Billboard Top 100 based chart placement on sales and radio airplay, so there were 2 distinct criteria. You are correct that kids don't buy music, they simply buy access to it. Thanks for the comment, James!
@@popgoesthe60s52 oh wow I really didnt know that... I thought it was purely sales.
Thanks! First of all, I "thank God" that I didn't have to grow up with the "pop" music from the last decade or so. Mindless electronic "percussion", no melodic-ness, Vegas-like rote stage shows, minimal talent. I'm 70 and my concert experiences started with Cream in Chicago in 68', followed by $5 concerts of big name acts at the Kinetic Playground and Aragon Ballroom and more. I went from Top 40 on my transistor radio around 1960 and the evolution from that. I was so lucky. But I can go back to the 40's/50's and find great standards, when the brilliant melodic song writing was happening, backed by fantastic arrangements. Sinatra, Bennett, Fitzgerald, etc etc. And then the straight ahead jazz of the 50's and 60's - so much wonderful music and it'll always be available.
I will say, there are a lot of very very talented musicians out there now, most of them "residing" on UA-cam. Some of these guitarists and other musicians must practice 8 hours a day in their bedrooms, for years, have never seen so many highly competent players. Other instruments and groups too, the live studio shows on KEXP, and AudioTree, etc .... we never had all of this music available when I was young, so there is at least that for a good compensation and the keeping alive of good music until we get through this rough patch of pop.
I too have delved into 30s and 40s music and find a wealth of great material. What at time to be in Chicago - 1968! Thanks Wally.
Btw, sorry, I did the thing here that I try and avoid - complain about today’s pop music, even though comparisons are inevitable. Suffice to say, was lucky to be young when the 60’s and 70’s music was happening and to have seen the evolution of that.
As a side topic… could you post your views about the mastering of old tape recordings ?
Thank you for that request. I may delve into that but it's not one of my stronger areas. I do have a buddy that did some restoration of old master music tapes from the 1970s by baking the tapes and making the tape stock more pliable so work could be done on them. I'll have to give Mike a call!
@@popgoesthe60s52 I mention that topic because of the very different listening experience CDs can give to my ears. A large proportion of mastering engineers are pretty heavy handed with compression, EQ, hiss removal that swallows upper harmonics, artificial stereo from original mono… and it's just no longer the music we know from vinyl records anymore, but something else, more in phase with the modern idea of how recorded music should sound. Most of the time I'm disappointed with remastering. The Beatles, Doors, Who… have the luxury of being available in both old style and decent modern style versions, but they're exceptions. We're being stolen of pop music history.
I was born in 1977. I think the best era of hit songs was 65-67. Other than that, it is mostly deep cuts or indie bands. Radiohead might be the last great progressive rock band that is also popular. The Flaming Lips were big for indie standards and also quite unique. Recently, I really like Princess Chelsea. The Fleet Foxes are great, but not original. Similar to the Byrds, Beach Boys or Simon and Garfunkel.
I do like Fleet Foxes and Radio Head, but I haven't sought out much new music since the 90s. Thanks for the comment!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Check out: Princess Chelsea, Radar Bros, Grandaddy, and the Polyphonic Spree. 😀
Lots of great new music, but , of course, some of it, from my old heroes. Dylan’s last record, Todd Snider, Ray willie Hubbard ! All great. David Gray recorded his first record on a computer in his bedroom.. “ the one I love “ …ever generation has to have music it’s parents hates !
Hi matt.will there be a program on Simon and Garfunkel?
Hearing the beautiful piano on Bridge Over troubled Water played by the Legendary Larry Knetchtel of the Wrecking Crew and later Bread would be a real treat. Cheers. Rog .Pacific Sunset Records.
Matt, I just watched something on UA-cam after posting my comment to you, and am wondering if you're aware of it. Three or four days ago, Julian Lennon sang John's song "Imagine", for some sort of benefit for the Ukranian people. It said that it's the first time he ever sang the song. Thought he did a very good job with it. It'd be interesting to hear and see both your and John Heaton's reaction to this (especially John's).
Thanks for that tip - I was unaware of Julian doing it. I will certainly check it out.
Amen to the electric comment.Still l hear some purity in the voices of young artists.
I try to keep an open mind.Really enjoy your programme. b.p
Thank you, Barbara!
Matt ; Check out a band called Game Theory (then later changed to Loud Family) . I think you will love them. 1980s into 1990s. Very overlooked band- should have been the indie darlings of early to mid 1990s -- and it just did not happen. They have a HEFTY backlog of music !
Perhaps the length of time at #1 and length of time in the top 100 is influenced by how the metrics are gathered, given the difference between purchasing the physical media vs streaming. If the data is available, it might be instructive to compare the chart timings to the rising popularity of digital over time. If you see that as the sales of physical media fall and streaming numbers rise, that the length of time on the charts increases, then you might be able to conclude that how the metrics are gathered is at least partially causing the disparity. On another topic, it is true that "old school" music is not entirely dead, but is merely driven to the fringes. You might want to consider doing a segment on International Pop Overthrow (IPO - easily googled). I acquired the volume 22 CD at one of their NYC shows - it is terrific.
I go and see local bands, we have a great live music scene here in Melbourne,have for years, but I don't listen to the radio much or watch TV ever, to be fair we have some great community radio stations in Melbourne. I just buy records all the time, usually jazz rock blues progressive, 60sand70s mainly,I'm very out of touch with contemporary music, except some underground bands., But I didn't really like eighties music either, a lot of my mates were into old stuff, sixties seventies punk psych etc even back then but we were probably up with what was going on in the local scene.
Thanks for the comments, Richard!
60s, 70s and most of the 80s...you heard the top 100 and couldn't get the melodies or words out of your head. Since then it all sounds the same and you have to hear a song 5-6 times in order for it to be tolerable, but not a necessity.
would love to see a Procol Harum history
If I remember correctly, Dream On & Hotel California was on the charts for over a year? From memory. Good to see you Matt.
Your memory is a little hazy 🙂. Hotel California was on the Billboard Top 100 for 19 weeks and Dream On was on for 20 weeks.
@@popgoesthe60s52 damn LSD,
@@popgoesthe60s52 I used to drive by the billboard (not Billboard Mag) for "Hotel California" on Sunset in W Hwd all the time and it seemed to be up there forever--LOL!
@@deirdre108 is there or was there a Hotel California in real life. I think that's what you mean? For some reason I think of the Shinning and Hotel California playing going on and on for-ever, (like after a while will the song ever end can I leave) with nobody in the place.
I never really followed the charts very much. I don't know why not? But man those songs were on the radio all through the highschool years. At least the first six of them. Slow learner and rebellious.
I thought Norm MacDonald's joke about getting a free LSD flashback was my own original joke until I started watching Norm MacDonald on UA-cam. Maybe they were right after all. Maybe the mind IS a terrible thing to waste? 🤷♂️
About record sales and production, Negativland's 'Perfect Cut' and Negativland,'Timezones' about how many Timezones are in the Soviet Union or
Casey Kasem Rant- Negativeland American Top 40 caught on a hot mic
That first comment you read out got me thinking - perhaps a key 'then and now' difference is that digitally supplied music requires virtually no effort to acquire and frequently no cost. Therefore, it doesn't require the investment in effort and expenditure it once did and that imposed careful selection. I don't buy the 'music made by computer' argument because there are still very talented musicians and composers coming through.
Yes, a tangible purchase feels like more 'investment' but it seems to be an artistic question more than anything. There are probably more "great players" than there ever has been, yet we don't hear much of them. Thanks Robutube1!
In today's musical landscape, the biggest room in the music world....is the room for improvement!
I perform with bands and when we run across bored crowds, we play '60s-70s covers. DAY TRIPPER, SATISFACTION, HEY BULLDOG (?? how did 20-somethings find THIS one?) SteelyDan's REELING IN THE YEARS. There must be a 100 or more songs that are guaranteed surefire crowd-pleasers. If a band wants a guaranteed encore, they'll do Beatles to close out Encore #1 (GETTING BETTER, for example) or Spirit's I GOT A LINE ON YOU - a quick 3-min number that is guaranteed to fire up a 10 minute chant for more more more.
All those songs would get my attention!
There was a time when an artist lasted two years. The difference between liking an artist when you are 14 and liking the same artist when you are 16 was huge.
Now they seem to last twenty years. Big companies own them.
Great research! It's a Drive through society! Short attention span's $150ea.to watch them lip sync, do gymnastics with fireworks at the end!
For me, there are facts to be remembered here:
1 - Although it's possible to find in each time good artists and music, the problem is how many of these works really reach the public. An analysis of the sixties' music will easily reveal the great quality of songs that arrived at record companies and after effectively reached popular taste. Of course the popular taste could be changed in recent times. But I think this question has another roots. Could the taste of the current audience in more elaborate music be currently being underestimated?
2 - Equally, the question of access to music it's a fact to consider in the number of new songs reaching high points in the hit parade. In my opinion, in addition to the lower amount of good music being released, currently, in most countries, doesn't exist anymore the culture of buying "singles" or "EPs" of a great artist or band almost monthly and "Lps" from the same source sometimes twice (or even more) a year. I remember, for example, my father's habit to buy a new "LP" almost weekly in those today missing record stores. In most cases, in present time, the only way to find new and good music is using internet, a medium, for reasons of time or opportunity, not accessible to all lovers of good music.
3 - I sincerely don't agree with these ideas about a decadence of some culture. The quality and inspiration is always there, in the mind and work of the great composers, musicians, singers, producers, etc. The question is the good music has more and more opportunity to be revealed. That'a all!
Access to music is a good point. In the old days, if you bought a single, it was counted as one sale. Now if you stream it 30 times, that's 30 sales.
Zappa also said the mind is like a parachute if it's not open it won't work.
Which is to say thier is great contemporary music it's just not mainstream. Saying that I for most part stopped searching in appx 2000 but that's on me.
The problem is also blanket media and people not willing to dig and look outside what's offered on a platter.
The "time spent in the charts " question is simply explained.
Back in the day, the charts were based on record SALES.
These days no-one sells anything so the charts are based on streaming, i.e. PLAYS.
A person who bought a record might play it a million times, but that does not influence "the charts" it was just a single sale. But today each play would be counted because it would be streamed.
- if "old music" was counted by plays, a great many songs would have been in the charts for the last forty plus years !
Buying a record was a commitment. Usually you had heard the material on the radio or from listening to a friend's album and then you opted in and handed over your cash. Or in some cases, you just bought it because you followed the artiste themselves and trusted them to have produced music you would relate to and enjoy.
In modern times there is no commitment.
Now it seems that there is a much shorter attention span and a demand for immediate gratification.
A listener pays their fee to a streaming service and can listen to anything they want. There is no investment at all in a particular artiste, if a song hasn't grabbed them in the first few seconds, they flit to another track and see if that is more appealing.
"The People" as a whole get the music they deserve. The reason that most songs for the last twenty years have used the same four chords is simply down to people keep buying The Product.
If you keep buying it, they'll surely keep selling it to you.
The reason it takes a dozen people to write a song these days is because they basically have nothing to say. Writing now is about Optimisation, the dry analysis of what succeeded last time and how to repeat that in the next project.
I just turned 65 and was thrilled with a Beatles gift box from a friend. Beatles forever! But I got a kick out of 'Old Town Road" and 'Sail on is one of my favorite songs, I have it on my phone! Are they timeless classics? No. They are of their time. The music of my parents time represented the war years with their longing for hearth, home and a 'normal' life with love, marriage and kids. The fifties music was fun, energetic and reflected those post-war kids now teenagers. Those songs from the war years and before were called Standards. This included songs in the 50's that weren't too jumpy. If Sinatra sang it the song had a good chance of becoming a standard. Then comes the 60's and the Love years. We were in a cold war and worried about the bomb. Remember 'Duck and cover' anyone? I still have my Dog Tag. War in Viet Nam and registering for the draft. What else will music be about but anti-violence or love? Then Sinatra sings 'Something', 'Hey Jude' etc. They become Standards. My Dad who didn't want that Beatles garbage where he could hear it, tells me he likes 'Something'. I think 'Standard' means they have staying power. I think younger kids hear our music in movies, commercials and video games (Glenn Miller in the one with Vault Boy). "Maybe everything old is new again"?
I think drums “sounds” being on a perfect digitized grid has removed that thing that grabbed so many which was “swing and swagger”.
The LAST GASP was late 1990s / early 2000s: that "return to rock" wave : The Hives, Mooney Suzuki , White Stripes and ...yeah The Strokes (least talented of the bunch- HOW on EARTH did they fill Madison Square Garden way way after they were super hot? I smell a scam). That was IT. End of Culture. Also happened with MOVIES: Last Gasp late 1990s / early 2000s: Ghost World, Being John Malkovitch, Fight Club, Mulholland Drive, etc. WE ARE AT THE END OF CULTURE FOLKS : Nuttin' to do but LOOK BACK. (I was pretty lucky to be born and live thru the 1970s , 1980s, 1990s, so I can say NOTHING is as bad as it is now).
Early this century a 'hip-hop' artist sampled Boliwood music; others have included North African/ Near and Middle Eastern sounds. . .
I'm an 80s kid, an Xer if you will. Stuff I listened to on KROQ like Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, OMD, Echo and the Bunnymen, etc was considered sterile, soulless, etc cause of all the synth usage (never mind them all being influenced by Kraftwerk, Bowie, his Low album, etc). Now, it's all heart and soul music with synths. Lol funny how times change. Everybody Wants To Rule The World, for example, was a pop hit and now it's joined the ranks of all time classics. To be fair, Martin Gore does write a lot of songs on guitar and used the Emulator as his expression. DM just did it differently.
(Btw, I'm still in a Todd Rundgren binge, whether with Utopia, Nazz, solo, etc. Him and Toto. I haven't listened to a newer song than 1982 in weeks)
Matt, Another fascinating session. Your followers made a lot of good points, but I will bombard with some more. When you talk about changing culture, I am reminded of TV and music in the sixties versus the current twenties. Back then, there were 3 channels to choose from (PBS came along circa 1970), with no copying technology, so TV became 'appointment viewing.' Now there are so many choices that no program can draw audiences as big as the time as there were only 3 choices. In the mid-sixties, AM radio, for teens at least (aka pop ... goes the 60s), the charts had the English invasion, Motown, surf, girl groups, Stax r & b, etc hanging around the top ten. By the seventies, radio was no longer wide open, but each station focused on music for 'its audience.' Labels were trying to make their ad money focus on the buying group that a release might appeal to.
Labels also learned how to rig the charts, and that was important when albums passed singles as the main revenue stream. Charts were determined by the weekly shipment of product (and a lot of it was 'product') to retailers and wholesalers. The Bee Gees "Sergeant Pepper" became the poster child of chart manipulation as it shipped platinum - and was returned platinum. But it was #1.
Soundscan was a sea change as stores turned their cash registers into computerized machines and thus a record of ACTUAL customer purchases became available. But the sales were of physical objects. It would be interesting to compare the number of purchases per week of a current hit versus the purchases of the sixties. I doubt any current hit would last long at #1 if it even got there. In my strictly subjective view, people who buy physical objects invest more time with therm than the multi-tasking listener of today does. Your followers obviously care more about the music they care about than do most current listeners. The disposability of digital downloads just does not create the connection that serious, sit down listen does. And, yeah, I had this discussion multiple times when working in a store. And since it is much easier to create and distribute music than the days of vinyl with stampers and all, the volume of music created makes promotion hard to do.
Yes part of the problem is too much variety. The 3 channel TV format of my youth and the limited radio stations made the cream that rose to the top more visible and shared communally. There is an insular experience now of binge watching a tv series or listening to electronic dance music with earpods with a hoodie covering most of your head. The sharing is what's missing now.
Well said - at least to myears and eyes.@@popgoesthe60s52
lots of good stuff in these comments. however, friendly reminder that there is good stuff if you're willing to look for it.
My Morning Jacket and Dr Dog are two bands that clearly get inspiration from music of the 60's tho they have both been around since the early 00's.
also King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard are rarely uninteresting and they put out two more albums in the time it took me to write this comment.
edit to add:
millennial viewer here, came to this channel first because I'm a Beatles die hard and was really interested in the Let It Be vids you were making pre Get Back.
and while I know plenty about the Doors the Who Jimi Hendrix CCR etc, I stuck around to learn about other great bands of the 60s I'm less knowledgeable about. love the channel keep up the great work
I have music by King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard and was turned onto them listening to my local alternative radio station. Bone was the song. My buddy loves My Morning Jacket and has turned me on to other bands as well. I do have more 60s bands coming - up next: the Byrds.
@@popgoesthe60s52 ooh what I know of the Byrds story is very interesting, looking forward to it!
right its not in the mainstream,but i can see the merits of someone like bilie eilish,i find her work inspiring and remember too that young people now are not going to sound as the sixties/seventies artists did they will use new technology,if the beatles had had pro tools they would have used them.jpj.old feller of nearly 70
I went on a 10 hour road trip with my grandson. He's 13 I'm 69. He/we listened to classic rock the entire trip.
As I commented on "new music is faltering":
I believe that in as little as twenty years there's going to be a serious shortage of true artists.
You know - artists that actually have musical talent. A person who actually can write on and play a musical instrument.
Beyond my disdain of all cRAP music - where music is computer generated and merged with lyrics a two year old could write.
The music industry has been slowly getting lazier since the mid to late 80s. Granted there's been the odd classic since 85 :
- Ok Computer - Radiohead
- Automatic for the People - R.E.M.
- The Joshua Tree - U2
- Definitely Maybe - Oasis
But I can honestly say - I have not purchase any "new" music since the early 2000s. Mostly due to I hear nothing inspiring, hell music today, has nothing to say.
I'm a believer in the 10,000 rule. Even if someone is a musical genius - they still must put in the time to learn the craft.
Opening the laptop and creating a perpared tune - is not and will never inspire or produce pure talent.
You miss the most important fact about the todays faltering music.
The inability of most current "artists" to play a musical instrument, and to write (understand) music.
Usually your videos and opinions are pin point.
Dropped the ball.
Matt you nailed it cultural decay drives the lack of art in today’s music.
We know that these songs stay on the charts because these songs are just streamed.I found that there are alot of really good bands in Europe and Sweden.It seems over here all they care about are having a pretty boy or a half naked woman singing but they can't tour because they can't sing or they lip sing.Radio helps keep the older songs alive because nobody plays new songs,but even they play the same old stuff.I'm more into the deep tracks stuff you don't hear on the radio.You bring up alot of these songs in your videos which I really enjoy.Keep it up Matt
Thank you, Thomas!
Consider that the song “To Love Somebody” by The Bee Gees only reached No. 17! Everybody loves the song. Can you imagine the great songs that may have kept the song from reaching number one? It’s a song many would be certain reached number one in any era.
hahaha, I assure you, not EVERYONE likes that song. ;)
It's all down to personal opinion; there's not one song that everyone likes; everyone different!
That song get covered over and over - even in the American Idol performances! Competition was fierce.
@@popgoesthe60s52 true, that! geesh, i used to play it in a cover band i was in. ;)
Agreed, and so many more songs from the 60’s that didn’t chart high could have and should have reached #1.
I am a "Mid" '73 Gen X and take your point 👉 ...however:
Alicia Keys
Vampire Weekend
St. Vincent
H.E.R.
The Roots
Foo Fighters
I get they are not always all #1s like swedish manufacturered synth pop; but those and many other musicians/artists/performers give me hope 💪
Radio is also much less important to younger people. They are finding the older music on UA-cam and from old people like me (my grandkids love the music I play for them). They also find artists like Lindsey Stirling and Pentatonix. The "Machine" of music making doesn't work the same anymore.
Thanks Matt for another interesting video. As others here have pointed out, back in the 60s/70s there was greater willingness on the part of the record companies to give new bands a chance, oftentimes even when their first single(s) or album(s) didn't sell. I think that's a big reason that there was such a creative explosion of music at that time. It allowed promising artists to find their voice. I can think of many great bands of that era whose initial album did not make much of an impression, but who later went on to greatness -- Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Elton John, Yes, Rush, etc. Thankfully, the labels saw their potential and stuck by them. Also, there were some good bands in the 60s that had few if any hits, but their labels continued to release their albums/singles for years, even though the bands never really attained the success they deserved -- Zombies, Left Banke, Yardbirds, Buffalo Springfield, Kaleidoscope, Merry-Go-Round, and many others. I'm glad that you, Matt, are doing histories of some of these lesser-known 60s bands. I'm a big fan of this channel.
Thank you for your support, Amanda. Yes, what Zappa said was quite true and execs took many a chance on the most unlikely of artists. They also nurtured them and allowed them to grow and improve. Even U2 had like 5 albums before they broke through big.
Enjoying This Channel Matt!...TY!...From Air Supply (?!) to the Zombies!!!...👍😃!...
Thank you, Barb - more to come!
Today's music ain't got the same soul. I like that old time rock and roll.