[Arete31415]

Unpopular opinion: The music of 1968 is so enduring because Baby Boomers have had an outsize influence on culture for decades, and are obsessed with their youth. Plenty of other musical periods were also important, but we almost never hear about those.

Led Zeppelin? Joni Mitchell's Blue? Songs in the Key of Life by Stevie Wonder? These are all incredible cultural touchstones from the 1970's, and we almost never hear about them as "the sounds that evoked a generation" or whatever.

[dvtrn]

we almost never hear about them

Uh, pardon my take but but who is the "we" in your assessment here? I honestly had Sir Duke playing last night at my NYE party, and I'm in my thirties.

How wide is this "we" you speak of?

[freehunter]

Yeah I'd like to know who in Western civilization doesn't know of Led Zeppelin. That's pretty standard "baby boomer" music.

[dvtrn]

If "the kids" didn't before they surely do now after the amazing use of "Immigrant Song" in a certain recent Marvel movie. (Also featured in School of Rock)

[Arete31415]

Yes, we have all heard of Led Zeppelin. That is not my point -- my point is that I've seen roughly one million "Music from 1968/1969 is The Best!!!!111" articles / essays / etc in my life, and zero "Music from the 1970's changed the World!" articles, even though Led Zeppelin 4, Joni Mitchell's Blue, Songs in the Key of Life, Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, and a bunch of other amazing stuff all came out then.

[ferongr]

The baby boomer boogeyman strikes again.

[emerged]

The generational "they are responsible for everything bad" makes any sort of discussion about these sorts of things impossible. It's tiresome.

[dvtrn]

I blame my baby boomer parents precisely for getting me interested in their generation's music, if it weren't for them I wouldn't be jamming out to The Temptations right now.

shakes fist mightily

"Damn you, Boomers!"

Also, from the GP:

Baby Boomers have had an outsize influence on culture for decades, and are obsessed with their youth.

I have ZERO reason to believe Millennials will be ANY different when they're old and their time has passed. Us Generation Xers don't care one way or the other. It's our trademark :P

[Arete31415]

As a fellow Gen Xer, I think we've got a healthy approach to our glory days. Did I like Nirvana and Red Hot Chili Peppers? Yes, yes I did. Do I insist that the world stop so I can indulge in early 90's nostalgia? No.

[dvtrn]

But will we blast some Foo Fighters or Smashing Pumpkins in the car during rush hour traffic and jam like nobody's watching?

Absolutely.

....brb digging out my iPod heh

[malvosenior]

I think you hit the nail on the head. There are other issues at play (the "pop music" medium was still new so it was super easy to innovate...) but this is clearly subjective.

Here's another unpopular opinion: If you defrosted someone from the ice age and had them sit down and listen to Bob Dylan, they'd not identify it as listenable music. From a musical perspective, it's pretty bad. Limited melody, no harmonies, no counterpoint, limited syncopation, very limited vocal range...

Baby boomers will tell you all of these artists are "great" but I think they're unconsciously talking about the social context around the bands more than the actual music.

[krapp]

>If you defrosted someone from the ice age and had them sit down and listen to Bob Dylan, they'd not identify it as listenable music. From a musical perspective, it's pretty bad. Limited melody, no harmonies, no counterpoint, limited syncopation, very limited vocal range...

As you say, everything is subjective, but I've heard "tribal" music and chanting (which is probably close to what someone from the ice age would be familiar with), and it's a lot closer to Bob Dylan than whomever you would consider "great." Complexity isn't the only valid measure of greatness, of course.

>but I think they're unconsciously talking about the social context around the bands more than the actual music

Maybe. Maybe they also actually like the music. Maybe it's a bit of both, and what you're describing applies generally to everyone, that part of musical taste is wrapped up in the nostalgia for the era it comes from.

[malvosenior]

You make a good point. Dylan is folk and that obviously has some similarities to tribal music. That being said, I think social context is super important to both styles, more so than musical aesthetic.

I would say that a lot of interesting concepts around poly-rhythms and syncopation come from tribal music though.

> Maybe. Maybe they also actually like the music. Maybe it's a bit of both, and what you're describing applies generally to everyone, that part of musical taste is wrapped up in the nostalgia for the era it comes from.

I agree. My point was mainly that Dylan is a great example to show how subjective "greatness" in pop music really is. There are a lot of cases you can make that he's actually not very good from a musical perspective.

[wool_gather]

Bob Dylan is a bit of a cherry-pick there, though. He's definitely not a great musician (he's a good songwriter), but The Band, just to pick another example, absolutely are.

But you're right, a huge part of music is the time, place, and people where it came forth.

[malvosenior]

I agree Dylan is an extreme example and The Band are very good musicians. That said there’s a Dylan like quality that a lot of the music at the time had. Joplin and even Hendrix are pretty rough sounding from a purely musical perspective.

Counter examples would be bands with heavy use of harmony such as Crosby, Steel, Nash and Young or the Mommas and the Papas.