"Subpoenaed in Texas, Sequestered in Memphis ..."

[cruelnails]

Ok ... so I'm going to be a bit of a music snob for a second now ...
I subscribe to a number of podcasts including, All Songs Considered and NPR Live Concerts. Every once in a while one of the podcasts introduce me to something interesting and new (Orchestra Baobab, Fleet Foxes, and Kassin +2 to name a few recent favorite finds). However, the host

Comments

I will mock your Hootie and the Blowfish CD and I won't care

[christastrophe]

To be upfront, if I was ever on the radio ALL I'd be doing is making fun of people who don't buy Tom Waits albums. There are seven hundred million other radio stations praising Nickleback. I think we can handle the imbalance of somebody somewhere in a relatively tiny room sticking up for better music. But that's not the argument here.

The argument is over a correct reflection of the cultural landscape. I think you are right that there's a good discussion to be had about changing tastes and demographic data (although I don't think there's much mystery in the way all generations change their listening tastes from the ages of 12-25). And really this is just a discussion of fads vs. culture. Revisionism reclaims and remakes culture on both a macro and micro scale. Or, to put it another way, how many of your old NKOTB albums do you keep on a shelf in the living room where your guests can see?

Now, you are correct in that the artistic/commercial world was more aligned forty years ago (due, in my estimation, to an entirely different/smaller/more concentrated world of music acquisition and promotion, coupled with a more corporate business culture that is more risk-averse), but that doesn't mean that there aren't a few whoppers in there that the boomers are embarrassed about. Things they leave off the list when they talk about how great The Stones were. Just because Mancini outsold Elvis one year it doesn't endear him to more real estate in the cultural landscape. Not too many debates on the Beatles vs. Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass. And even then, I'd take Herb Alpert over Billy Ray Cyrus, who is our yoke to bear.

I would argue that something like Hannah Montana will not survive this generation's revisionism and, thus, will not come to define it culturally. From an empirical data perspective, yes. But from a purely storytelling perspective, it will be just another album given to a used record store or sold on a stoop. Cultural definition, I think, rests in the music that we keep and are proud of.

The Macarena sold a gajillion units, but nobody identifies with it or claims it as their own. And, OK, we have to face up to the fact that we bought it, and 90% of us will be embarrassed over it. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with that embarrassment or mockery, or with the subsequent disowning.

"Don't need no credit card to ride this train ..."

[cruelnails]

I'm totally cool with the embarrassment - and since we're both from San Antonio, I'm sure we can name a few people each who will claim the Macarena.

I once spent hard-earned money on Huey Lewis & the News cassettes and I'm embarrassed as hell about it. I'm not going to deny it or mock it (well, maybe mock it a little) because for whatever reason that does make up at least a bit of who I am or (more accurately) who I was.

I guess my whole problem is that - in my mind - the 'sound of a generation' can't be made up of the stuff that retrospectively we've decided is the coolest. To use your example, Mancini and Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass are every bit as much part of the sound of the 60's generation as Elvis and the Beatles.

Are they the whole story of that generation? No. The majority of the story? No. But it's just insulting to say, "Herb Albert? What the hell was wrong with those people! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!" Which was the equivalent of what NPR was doing and what pissed me off.

Because, I'm pretty damn Bob Boilen was grooving to 'The Power of Love' the same time I was. The only difference is that he would never ever admit it.