A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
lovetorun wrote:Lots of good discussion re: music preferences in this thread...but I have to say it's interesting (and slightly frustrating to me) that, except for the first of 86 responses, no one really addressed the thesis of my post!
To wit:
lovetorun wrote:the 1960's and 70's produced the greatest music.
By and large, we are all stuck in the music of our teens and 20s, and since the 60s-70s represent exactly that to me, of course I agree. But what you're reading in this thread is that not everyone is a Baby Boomer with post-50s/pre-90s (I love the 80s stuff too) predilections. As it should be.
Marlow wrote:By and large, we are all stuck in the music of our teens and 20s
That's probably true, but at some point some of us find music that is timeless. I was very, very much into the popular music of my time until about when I was 15. At that point, I discovered classical music. Then about 6-7 years later, I discovered opera. I've listened to almost nothing else since. I think classical jazz may be a similar genre that can hook anyone, regardless of age or generation.
Marlow wrote:By and large, we are all stuck in the music of our teens and 20s
This is largely, but not entirely true. It is clear that we are strongly SHAPED by what was current when we "came of age" mentally. There's no getting around that. However, there is never any need to STOP there, and many folks obviously do not. I certainly agree that there is a "comfort factor" with the music that was hip when I was 14 to 20 years of age. However, as others have stated, any larger interest in music will (or "should") lead to many more discoveries--including the vitality of what's happening NOW and the "timeless" appeal of classical, jazz, opera, and any number of other great genres. It's the sheer variety & quality of any/all of this that is so exciting.
Marlow wrote:By and large, we are all stuck in the music of our teens and 20s
This is largely, but not entirely true. It is clear that we are strongly SHAPED by what was current when we "came of age" mentally. There's no getting around that. However, there is never any need to STOP there, and many folks obviously do not. I certainly agree that there is a "comfort factor" with the music that was hip when I was 14 to 20 years of age. However, as others have stated, any larger interest in music will (or "should") lead to many more discoveries--including the vitality of what's happening NOW and the "timeless" appeal of classical, jazz, opera, and any number of other great genres. It's the sheer variety & quality of any/all of this that is so exciting.
How true. As tandfman notes, you get introduced to new music like classical, jazz and the Ring, stuff I never listened to much when I was a teenager. It is like saying the friends you are stuck with for life are the ones had when you were 20.
Conor Dary wrote:the "timeless" appeal of classical, jazz, opera, and any number of other great genres. It's the sheer variety & quality of any/all of this that is so exciting.
I guess I suffer from severe aesthetic arrested development, because in college I tried to cultivate an appreciation for all three and failed miserably, primarily because none of them have given me the visceral effect that classic rock does. Rock . . . rocks me like nothing else . . . my father listened to swing and jazz, my mom listened to classical, folk and contemporary pop (Sinatra, etc. ), but all of that leaves me cold. C'est la vie.
On the other hand, I love this, which is classical, pop and jazz!
Marlow wrote:By and large, we are all stuck in the music of our teens and 20s
That's probably true, but at some point some of us find music that is timeless. I was very, very much into the popular music of my time until about when I was 15. At that point, I discovered classical music. Then about 6-7 years later, I discovered opera. I've listened to almost nothing else since. I think classical jazz may be a similar genre that can hook anyone, regardless of age or generation.
Yes, for me it is classical, opera and classical jazz.
Marlow wrote:I guess I suffer from severe aesthetic arrested development, because in college I tried to cultivate an appreciation for all three and failed miserably, primarily because none of them have given me the visceral effect that classic rock does.
That may be just fine. No one HAS to like everything, obviously! Our larger point is that tastes can grow/evolve with age. You're not the same person now that you were in college--right?. Is your taste in other things (food; movies; books; whatever) the same as it was then? I hope the answer is no!
kuha wrote:You're not the same person now that you were in college--right?. Is your taste in other things (food; movies; books; whatever) the same as it was then? I hope the answer is no!
If you mean - have I grown up? Absolutely not! Exhibit A: my taste in in food, movies, TV, etc., has not 'evolved' at all! My only 'improvement' is my ability to fully appreciate the simplest things in life like family, friends and TRACK & FIELD!!!!!
Allow me to suggest that both "sides" are correct here. There are all kinds of timless music (classical, jazz, opera) that if people don't like when young they can grow into.
Then there's "popular" music and that's tougher/impossible to grow into. And I think you tend to stay stuck with the music that was popular when you were most impressionable. So there's about a 20-year stretch (5-25) that will remain in your wheelhouse forever.
A music lover should always seek music to love but we didnt create the term Renaissance for no reason did we? and if we did, I would like to argue that the 60's were special. Explosions in creativity are not linear.
gh wrote:Allow me to suggest that both "sides" are correct here. There are all kinds of timless music (classical, jazz, opera) that if people don't like when young they can grow into.
Then there's "popular" music and that's tougher/impossible to grow into. And I think you tend to stay stuck with the music that was popular when you were most impressionable. So there's about a 20-year stretch (5-25) that will remain in your wheelhouse forever.
gh wrote:One of the great track moments ever was when the greatest Metallica cover band of all time, Apocalyptica, played at the opening ceremonies of the '05 World Championships in Helsinki.
Or how about Helmut Lotte and Isinbayeva singing the Russian National anthem at the Van Damme Memorial in 2004 after her 4.92WR? (see "Isinbayeva nationalhymne" on youtube).
Also awesome (no track reference) was Apocalyptica performing "SOS (Anything But Love)" with Cristina Scabbia of Lacuna Coil. Total heaviosity, as Alvy Singer might have said. I think that video is on you tube as well.
Either the 60's are special in the history of music or we will see every decade boast bands as good and memorable as these- Beatles, Stones, Cream, Pink Floyd, Beach Boys,Stevie Wonder, Hendrix, Janis Jopin, Procal Harem, Bob Dylan, Ray Charles, James Brown, The Animals, The Temptations,The Doors, Otis Redding,Simon and Garfunkel, The Who ect ect.
If it was Just the Beatles it would be a special decade.
gh wrote:I can listen to Flogging Molly, the Real McKenzies and the Dropkick Murphys endlessly. (even if it costs me another marriage )
I agree. Anyone who hasn't listened to Flogging Molly should check them out. There are some good videos of them out there like "Seven Deadly Sins". It's like drunk Irish slam-dancing. Frenetic.
Marlow wrote:By and large, we are all stuck in the music of our teens and 20s...
I love my '80s music, but I also love '60s, '70s, '90s and '00s music. I even have some CDs by artists whose prime was earlier. (I don't have any favorite artists who debuted in this decade... yet. I think that will eventually change.) I never stop discovering something interesting... both old and new.
And I have to agree with gh as well. Some of the "pop" music could eventually become timeless classic. Some CDs from '60s and '70s still have strong catalog sales, and they are not just bought by old people who used to listen to their music back in the days. Some old songs are also repeatedly covered by contemporary artists, and given "new life" every now and then. I bet that 50 years from now there will still be people who are listening to some of the "pop" songs from the 20th century either in original recordings or in some cover version.
SQUACKEE wrote:Either the 60's are special in the history of music or we will see every decade boast bands as good and memorable as these- Beatles, Stones, Cream, Pink Floyd, Beach Boys,Stevie Wonder, Hendrix, Janis Jopin, Procal Harem, Bob Dylan, Ray Charles, James Brown, The Animals, The Temptations,The Doors, Otis Redding,Simon and Garfunkel, The Who ect ect.
If it was Just the Beatles it would be a special decade.
By definition, it is harder for later generations to be "ground breaking" because there are already more things done by previous generations. I think Mendelssohn once said something to the same effect regarding his generation compared to Mozart. I mean, how could Usher or Chris Brown possibly do anything that has not been already done by Michael Jackson?
And the Beatles might have been unique in the same way Mozart was unique. But that did not mean the classical music maxed out in 1790s, and everything composed in the 19th century was meaningless. The same goes for the Beatles and all the rock bands since 1970s.
SQUACKEE wrote:Either the 60's are special in the history of music or we will see every decade boast bands as good and memorable as these- Beatles, Stones, Cream, Pink Floyd, Beach Boys,Stevie Wonder, Hendrix, Janis Jopin, Procal Harem, Bob Dylan, Ray Charles, James Brown, The Animals, The Temptations,The Doors, Otis Redding,Simon and Garfunkel, The Who ect ect.
If it was Just the Beatles it would be a special decade.
Refine that a little, shift the frame of reference a half-decade and look at 1965 to 1975. Whoa! What percent of truly relevant, ground-breaking, legendary, memorable, they'll-still-be-playing-it in 50 years rock/pop/R&B music was recorded then?
most of the music crafted in '60, '61, '62 (Beach Boys notable exception) and most of '63, I would posit, is undistinguishable from the stuff of the second half of the '50s.
in other words, '60s = British Invasion (and what it spawned).
DrJay wrote:Refine that a little, shift the frame of reference a half-decade and look at 1965 to 1975. Whoa! What percent of truly relevant, ground-breaking, legendary, memorable, they'll-still-be-playing-it in 50 years rock/pop/R&B music was recorded then?
DrJay wrote:Refine that a little, shift the frame of reference a half-decade and look at 1965 to 1975. Whoa! What percent of truly relevant, ground-breaking, legendary, memorable, they'll-still-be-playing-it in 50 years rock/pop/R&B music was recorded then?
DrJay wrote:Refine that a little, shift the frame of reference a half-decade and look at 1965 to 1975. Whoa! What percent of truly relevant, ground-breaking, legendary, memorable, they'll-still-be-playing-it in 50 years rock/pop/R&B music was recorded then?
from an xmas day post by me earlier in this thread
<<...Then there's "popular" music and that's tougher/impossible to grow into. And I think you tend to stay stuck with the music that was popular when you were most impressionable. So there's about a 20-year stretch (5-25) that will remain in your wheelhouse forever.>>
Apropos of something, here's where I have to re-admit that I (gasp!) watch American Idol. Check out this performance if you think there ain't no music(ians) of merit. It gave me chills.
She actually sang it even better in the Final and that wasn't even her best performance on the show. This is probably the best thing in all 12 seasons........
lonewolf wrote:Or, Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys...
The WORST music is the bubble gum pop of the late 6os, precisely because it IS so infectious you can't get it out of your brain, so it just burrows through your cranium like a worm, until it's eaten all your brain cells. I DARE you to listen to this one, the worst of the worst, and then TRY to forget it!!
Not so fast amateur musicologists. I'm unashamedly a fan of Bob Wills, The Monkees, Partridge Family and yes...even the Archies.
Did you know that a chap by the name of Ron Dante had two songs simultaneously in the Billboard Top Ten but didn't get credit for either until recently. Dante did the lead vocals on "phantom bands" the Archies' "Sugar, Sugar" and the Cuff Links' "Tracy". That's not the record though. It's on another Things Not T&F thread as England's Tony Burrows had 3 songs in one week (5 in his career) all under different phantom band names.
The worst Pop music in the world? Voila, Eurovision Song Contest Winners 1956 - 2010:
)
