[gotaquestion]

I'm in my mid-50's. I missed the 1950's and 1960's in the US, but I recall the 70's and onward vividly. It is hard to impart to today's generations just how subversive MTV was in the 1980's. Being different in school in the 70's was a mortal sin, so people who did it were either truly weird or had immense self-confidence. "Alternative radio" didn't exist in most of the country, let alone cassettes and albums: department stores only sold what big labels offered. Punk and alternative had to be sought out by college students or people in cities. MTV changed all that radically. "Nonconformity" was a big word for teens in the 70's and 80's. It is all but gone now, today my friends teen-aged kids are about fitting in, not sticking out.

Because there is no more "sticking out". Everything has been commodified and accepted. There is no longer a way to differentiate yourself from the pack, because the pack is so diverse. I think that has really shaken things up: there's nothing to rebel against, and Gen-X cynicism/nihilism has left an identity crises for Mil/GenZ. Although it appears these groups are going back to tradition and don't give a f*k about nonconformity.

Steve Albini (legendary producer) wrote an essay in "Commodify Your Dissent" from the Baffler magazine around the time of the Dead Kennedys. He hits on the ability to buy anarchy patches in department stores as fashion items when in the past they were signs of a true counterculture. I highly recommend it, it captures what you are feeling up to a point, because it refers mostly to the 80's and 90's, and not the utter weirdness of today.

https://www.amazon.com/Commodify-Your-Dissent-Salvos-Baffler...

[InitialLastName]

>It is all but gone now, today my friends teen-aged kids are about fitting in,

Wait, doesn't that sound like the same thing? Presumably some kids are still non-conforming, and they are still the minority (because most kids of all generations have prioritized fitting in).

Be very wary of survivor bias when looking back in time, especially when there is a risk of nostalgia. There was plenty of popular garbage in the 70s and 80s, there is plenty of good music being made now. The only real difference is that we have yet to apply the "is this good enough to keep around" filter to modern culture.

[a_bonobo]

>Be very wary of survivor bias when looking back in time, especially when there is a risk of nostalgia.

Case in point: MTV of the 80s would play little to no black music. There's a famous 1983 interview bit of David Bowie where he asked the MTV VJ why they play no black music, and the VJ waffles a bit on the white suburban market. That does not sound very subversive to me.

Here's the excerpt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZGiVzIr8Qg&feature=emb_logo

[gotaquestion]

Another excellent catch. I'm obviously a white dude and I was addressing white dude issues: college radio was largely white punk bands; and rap and hip hop was being marginalized until it exploded in the mid-80's. I don't have perspective on underground black music as a black teen. Did it have the same contour as white experience? Is "nonconformity" just a wypipo problem? Thanks for comment.

[jeegsy]

Somewhat problematic to think of black music as 'subversive' or 'rebellious' in relation to white suburban kids

[ruined]

what do you mean by that?

you understand black americans have historically been repressed, right? this is pretty uncontroversial.

black american art, especially music, is absolutely saturated with themes of resistance, and even the mildest, most innocent examples have historically been perceived by racists and the establishment as dangerous and rebellious.

the 80s were at the tail end of white flight, when relocation of white people from diverse cities to majority-white suburbs was an explicit response to the desegregation and rebellions of the preceding years. mtv agents making a statement about suburban markets in that time has a clear meaning.

[burntoutfire]

MTV was just one of the first businesses trying to make money on (safe) rebellion tendencies of the youth. Now everybody does that, with for example large clothing brands scouting what the hippest kids are wearing on the streets, and quickly turning that into the next collection.

[nonameiguess]

It seems like there are serious sample size issues either way. When you're a teenager, assuming you're not home-schooled, you knows hundreds of other teenagers, being vaguely acquainted and introduced in some way to thousands, not exactly "randomly" sampled but a pretty broad cross-section of all teenagers at least in your region. As a person in your 50s, you might know 2 or 3 teenagers. personally, I know 0 teenagers. Trying to draw conclusions about what "kids these days" are like in general from personal experience seems unreliable when your experience is that limited.

There's also the issue of how well you know them. When I was a kid myself, as far as I could tell, all 40 year-olds had dull, shallow personal lives and were boring people. I don't have that impression now than I'm in my 40s and my experience of the lives of 40 year-olds goes beyond being told what not to do by them every now and again. How well do you seriously know and understand the inner motivations of your friend's kids?

[gotaquestion]

Good catch. I'm not sure how to internalize that.

[sonofhans]

I’m similar in age, and this rings true. Remember “conformist” being a derogatory term in the outgroups?

> “Conformist,” he sneered, averting his eyes in disgust and flipping his dyed black hair over his eyes. :D

[s1mon]

I assume this is the Albini essay:

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music