|
|
|
|
|
by spfzero
1404 days ago
|
|
Re: selection bias. I remember FM radio in LA in the early 70s, there weren't really a lot of mediocre songs in the playlists. It wasn't just Classic Rock as we refer to it now, but a bunch of BB King and other blues artists, along with some of what you'd today call Country Rock. But the "Country" Rock was Allman Brothers, CCR, The Band, and later ZZ Top, etc. The Blues were BB King, John Mayall, Hendricks, etc. The rock was Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, on and on. There was just so much that you didn't really need to fill out the playlists. And all of these bands were cranking out an Album a year in that 5-6 year period. |
|
Do you think (remember) that the incentives for bands were different? I know people listened to more full albums because it'd be tedious otherwise, but was consuming music more of a dedicated activity than it is today?
If so, with record sales being viable income streams, it'd make sense why it'd optimize for more varied, blended, complex, and interesting listens (indexing on FM play for comparison; we're awash with incredible music elsewhere).
I enjoy some music for accompaniment or sing alongs, and then some as a captivating experience (like a movie or even more so a roller coaster).
The blues, jazz, and fusion scenes were vibrant as well and had the same _music as activity_ feature distinct from a dance floor. The audience is expected to actively respond mid song to leads and fills that were moving.
(I know I riffed on my own question but it's not intended to be rhetorical)