There has been quite a lot of talk about how Generation X and the baby boomers seem to be lacking somewhat of a generational gap musically, or that the two generations were comfortable with listening to each other's music. Compared with the gap the boomers faced with their parents, any Gen X/boomer gap seems relatively small by comparison. Contemporary rock and folk bands have turned to the sounds of the 60's and 70's, and new Beatles fans are comparing notes with their parents. But yet I sense there is a schism yet to come. The garage band sound, in my opinion, was the dregs of 60's and 70's music. When Tom Hanks made _That Thing You Do_, he had to get all the Gen X extras to learn how to shimmy instead of headbang when they danced to the music. And then their was the challenge of figuring out how to cover up their tattoos, which most of the earlier generation didn't have. The new Beatle craze has had a very different edge to it-- it took off with the release of the Anthology. The tracks, as you remember, were lacking in studio polish, most being demo or unreleased versions. This has seemed to fit in with current tastes of raw, no-frills, and simpler music. For every band dipping into the sounds of the earlier generation, I see several more bands trying to pull away. (I don't mind retro in general, save I really wish retro-1979 would just keel over and die quickly.) Anyone else agree, or can you share insight on this?25 responses total.
It's been happening already. NIN, etc. and a lot of rap, metal, parents haven't liked. You'll probably find a few parents into that music, just like in the 60's. And all those tattoos and piercings are pretty obvious rebellion too.
Strangely, however, I feel a part of that rift. I just can't tap into that raw anger the current young generation seems so enamored with. I consider myself part of the first wave of Gen X for that very reason. I like the earlier moody sound-- Depeche Mode, The Smiths, The Cure, etc. Of course, I still like a little of today's music, but I find myself more and more alienated from the current stuff. Must be the manic-depression :P
Are you kidding? There's a big gap. My parents, and most of their peers, can't stand listening to the hard hitting angstified music that I usually listen to. It gives them headaches. There are parellels to every conflict in the fifties today. The anger isn't raw, and it's not binding. It's there, though.
For that matter, *I* can't stand some of said hard hitting angstified music. I don't think the gap is that clear - Jimi Hendrix was a lot harder than some of today's music, just as NIN is much harder than the Beatles were.
Some of today's music. There's stuff that isn't particularly hard. But there's stuff out there that makes Jimi sound like a harp player.
Parental comment here (well, I guess *someone's* gotta do the token parent/Boomer in this item!) -- I haven't had a lot of problems with a generation gap yet, though it still ticks me off that Gareth doesn't like Def Leppard. :-) Rhiannon seems to be quite happy listening to whatever we do, although she does tend to drift into Japanese anime soundtracks and Spice Girls. Gareth is starting to be much more into alternative (?) -- things like Prodigy and Third Eye Blind, etc. So far I haven't keeled over in disgust with anything he's liked. He and I will often listen to the radio together, with "his" station on.
Most of the stuff my parents like, I listen to, and some of the bands I've picked up from them - The Beatles, Joni Mitchell, Crosby Stills Nash & Young, MeShell Ndegeocello <sp?>, etc - I've ended up listening to more than they do. The only music of "mine" that they really like is Blues Traveller, although a lot more of it gets a semi-sincere "ohh...that's interesting". I don't really think either of us listens to anything the other hates.
To be honest, my gap is the fact that I am a *lot* more into music, and a serious study of it, than my parents are.
I'll withhold my disparaging comment about Third Eye Blind for the moment. People don't always notice the generation gap because a lot of the stuff parents would find objectionable belongs to kids who aren't particularly connected to their parents. Or anyone else, for that matter.
You make a good point, Steve.
It comes from experience. I'm disgusted at how mainstream society, politics irrelevant, gets so assured with itself that it leaves people to drop through the cracks like that.
I think the number of people in that category is growing, however-- 'tis a problem that has ebbed and flowed for decades, I'm sure.
Yeah, but people used to recognize its existence.
People still do recognize the existence of disconnected kids. Problem is, how does anyone re-conncet them, or forge connections that weren't there in the first place? Hard questions, all. As to the generation gap in music, I saw one forming today -- Gareth went to the music store on the corner of Stae and Liberty to get a CD single -- and he very carefully didn't get the two that "Dad would hate", nor did he get the Prodigy one he wanted since he laready knew Dad thought Prodigy is disgusting.
IMHO, better to listen to music your parents hate because it's good music than to listen to music you don't like as much because your parents like it. But then there's listening to music your parents hate because they're your parents and they hate it.
There definately is a large generation gap musically, even now. Most of it lies in the electronic mosic of the rave scene. I have frequently heard my parents telling me that the music I listen to (Drum 'n Bass, Hardcore) is noise.
I tend to be a musical glutten, so I used to sit in front of the stereo speakers for hours when I was little...This means that I love Neil Diamond, Kingston Trio, Oldies, 80's Soft Rock, everything that my parents would listen too. For the most part, I still like a lot of their music. :) They were never really never into any of my music, but they never had any problems with it...The stuff that I was listening too, if I hadn't leeched it from them, I got it from listening to my big brother's music, so by the time I really go into Rush and Pink Floyd, they were already quite familiar with it. Every now and then I'll introduce them to stuff that I think that they'll like, and usually I'm wrong. :) We will listen and enjoy most jazz together, as well as older folk (I've been trying to get them into somenewer folk, but they're just not going for it), and I used to have to keep my mothers grubby paws away from my Styx C.D's.
Well, this is an interesting item. Alow me to put in my 2 cents. Over the
past few weeks, while on vacation, I found I was stuck in out car with my Dad
and a fixed amount of music we had brought along with us (everything on the
radio would be country, which neither of us care for). Now, pretty much up
untill this trip I had assumed that all my parents liked was classical,
because, well, that's all they listened to, although I had learned that they
liked Beatles music.
I was somewhat anxious about playing my music around them, because I
really hate to play something that they don't care for. I did end up playing
a lot of my stuff, to find that my parents (my dad in particular. My mom
tends to classify a lot of rock music as "Thump thump...") actually liked a
lot of it, including Phish, Erick Clapton, and Blue Oyster Cult. What they
didn't actually like, I found, they at least didn't mind, like my Black 47
CDs.
I don't know what this might say about a generation gap or not, because
most of my prefered music is definately older music. Its not that I don't
care for todays music, I just don't buy it -<Smile>-. Anyway, thats my
experience.
That is curious. You have the younger generation today really digging the older music, well, some of them, at least, while others want something totally new. You do have to remember that the 90's is the recycled generation. Even "new" acts are acting on very tried-and-true formulas, even going so far as to draw comparisons to old acts. Rappers sample old recordings, rock and folk artists remake old tunes, and everyone tries on old styles.
I recall some quote about how the last decade of a century consists of everything that happened in the rest of the century. Seems to fit.
My parents really like the music that I listen to, there doesn't seem to be much of a gap there... My dad was jealous that I got to see a moody Blues show. But then again, that isn't really music of my generation. Pertaining to music of my generation, or personal tastes, my mom in particular really likes the barenaked ladies, and certain Ani DiFranco songs she really likes too. My moms favorite from high school and college - Simon and Garfunkel, are one of my favorite groups too. Really, not that much of a gap between us.
I've been told that some historians have noted that trends of the century begin to be repeated towards the final decades. I'm not sure if this is true or not, but the increased awareness of recycling has seemed to define this decade. Musicologists and critics of pop music have noted that not many new formulas have come out. They compare the sounds and feel of recent acts to popular artists of the past and suggest that there are significantly similar aspects between them. In other words, we're repeating the ideas of the past generation. Although interpretations may be slightly different, the material is basically the same. I knew the Beatles were rapidly gaining popularity with Generation Xers for quite a while as I noticed that it wasn't just the hippie children that were listening to them, and that their early material was very popular for a while, which had virtually no connection to the hippies. This was quite a while before the Anthology came out. However, I think it was a stroke of marketing genius for the producers to make such an anthology-- an anthology of popular songs without the studio polish, and some tunes that had not been heard before. A few songs were drastically different; the original concept had been changed. For example, I found the original cut of "Sgt. Pepper's" to be absolutely dreadful, but that was the character originally intended-- Paul McCartney was inspired by the hillbilly peddlers with the all-natural snake-oil tonics. It was supposed to sound earthy and homey, as he explained in the video portion. The critics thought the Anthology was pitiful at times, as it clearly showed them as struggling studio musicians in the first few volumes. It showed much of the process involved in recording; many mistakes and bloopers were incorporated. But that was probably why it became so successful-- this was a side of the Beatles the new generation hadn't heard before. Having the Beatles portrayed in a more realistic light probably endeared them more to us, as many have grown tired of studio wizardry. Indeed, many recent acts have been void of that polish, and a rawer Beatles sound was probably fresher in that light. In fact, some songs, particularly some of George Harrison's tunes, sounded lovely as acoustic guitar versions. (Note: but this too has been popular with the boomers as well.) It's interesting you should mention Paul Simon, Katy. He's one of the artists of the boomer era that has had incredible staying power. I think that may be why there is sometimes not much of a generational gap with some people-- artists of the boomer era have endured long enough to stay popular, and/or profoundly influence the artists of the next generation-- our generation. Joni Mitchell is another artist that comes to mind. I suppose we could debate if the Rolling Stones fit into that category later.
I can definately see how musicoligists would see that lots of different types of music from the past century have become popular again during this last decade of the century. You can see that in fasion too. I have a little trouble figuring out where the first three decades have come back (the "0's", teens and twentys), but over the past few years have seen the sixties and seventies come back, followed by the 80's, and somewhat in music, but moreso in fashion, the 50's, and then the 30's and 40's with the whole swing thing going on now.
I'd honestly rather not have to see a return of the clothes of the Eighties. <Shudder>
Hey, I rather agree, on most accounts. The 'fun' clothes were really scary. Dress clothes weren't too bad-- this decade's are over the top, sometimes. It all depends. Generally what was considered most popular is what we wretch at most. For example, I remember *boss* 70's clothes that you'd never see at a disco or on the Brady Bunch.
You have several choices: