Are we the GB's?

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
Article on Wall Street Journal here. Text to article pasted below since WSJ articles often slip behind paywalls. Basic premise is that generationally biased (GB) listeners are missing out on a lot of new music. Sounds like some of us geezers to me :wink:

By JIM FUSILLI

It's 1955 and you're in a record shop. The proprietor puts on "Maybellene" by a newcomer named Chuck Berry. You're enjoying it, but a fellow customer saunters over: "That's nothing more than Roy Acuff's 'Ida Red' with different words," he says, pointing out that Acuff cut his track in 1939. "I wouldn't call that original."

Audiences with a generational bias are quick to dismiss new music. They probably would have dismissed Bob Dylan, too.

Or it's 1963 and you're listening to "Girl From the North Country" from "The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan." Someone says, "Dylan didn't write that. That's 'Scarborough Fair.' It's on Shirley Collins's 'False True Lovers,'" he adds, referring to the 1959 recording. "Dylan put new words to Martin Carthy's arrangement, that's all."

Or it's 2012 and there is a multitude of young singers, songwriters and musicians trying to develop their own sound. They're not quite there yet, so the music they make is still familiar to veteran pop and rock fans, some of whom dismiss them, often without reflection or musical expertise.

These naysayers among us demonstrate a kind of generational bias that can blunt a promising musician's career. It can be summarized thus: "The only valid music is what I liked when I was in my teens." They tend to be vocal about their disapproval and aren't likely to exploit new methods of dissemination, such as downloading or using Spotify, to hear new sounds. When they come across new music, it's usually pushed toward them by a critic or a friend, or they hear a snippet on television. Had they been around in 1955, or 1963, they might have dismissed Messrs. Berry and Dylan too.

Often aggressive and belligerent, the generationally biased—let's call them Gee-Bees—rarely attribute their affection for the music of their youth to tender memories. They present their argument as perceived wisdom: Popular music was better then. For you to disagree is to reveal a deficiency on your part. Cite examples of excellence among today's musicians and you too are dismissed. Here's a typical conversation:

Gee-Bee: "Go ahead. Name a band today that's better than (insert '60s or '70s act here)."

You: "Radiohead? Arcade Fire? TV on the Radio? Sigur Rós?"

Gee-Bee: "I never heard of them."

You: "You never heard of Radiohead?"

Gee-Bee: "I don't listen to new music. I don't need to. No one will ever be better than (insert favorite old-time artist or band)."

This kind of obduracy isn't new, but it does seem especially egregious among boomers. It may be because the recording industry in the era immediately following Woodstock was so powerful that even today some fans in their 50s and 60s still fail to realize their opinions were shaped by marketing prowess. Music back then was sold more as a lifestyle product than an art form, its performers presented as gods rather than gifted artists. At the same time, a Gee-Bee's loyalty to the music of his youth is often linked to a profound sense of identification with the period and its causes—opposition to the Vietnam war, for example, or support for equal rights for women and minorities. For some Gee-Bees, that identification is a form of validation. To say that there may be better music now isn't merely a challenge to a Gee-Bee's taste. It's a challenge to his self-perception.

It may be extreme to say the Gee-Bees are hurting the rest of their generation, but indie record labels, home to most of today's worthy music, do not aggressively market new sounds to boomers. Festival promoters have started to woo them with increasing fervor, but for the most part the closest that boomers might come to being targets of "current" music are the new albums put out by veteran artists who have been around for decades—retread recordings like the ones Rod Stewart releases, for example. At times, it feels like the recording industry thinks all boomers are Gee-Bees who listen to nothing but old vinyl and retrominded stations on the radio.

For most of us, our experience tells us that some of today's acts who use a retro sound as a foundation for growth may go on to do something great. Unlike Gee-Bees, we see these newcomers doing what countless now-iconic artists—including Messrs. Berry and Dylan, as well as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Stevie Wonder and others—did when they were struggling to find their own sound: building on what was done by their predecessors. This is how all artists evolve, not just rock and pop musicians.

In 2011 Laura Marling released "A Creature I Don't Know," a very fine album in which we hear echoes of Mr. Dylan, Leonard Cohen and Joni Mitchell. For that reason, Gee-Bees may turn away, but Ms. Marling is 21 years old and has the talent to suggest a potential for growth that can thrill us for the rest of our lives. She's one among many young musicians who may do so. In the arts, the immediate past is rarely the pinnacle. It may very well be prelude and it's certainly part of a continuum. Listen to Radiohead's 1993 debut "Pablo Honey," for example: It's a nice alt-rock album, but it doesn't come close to suggesting how dynamic and adventurous the band would become.

Gee-Bees are free to dismiss new music, but let's remember they do so not because they know something about music we don't. It's quite the opposite. We know something they don't—that new music is a joy that enriches our lives and will do so for as long as we choose to listen.

Mr. Fusilli is the Journal's rock and pop music critic. Email him at jfusilli@wsj.com or follow him on Twitter: @wsjrock.
 

AlohaJoe

Senior Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
2,967
Reaction score
2
Location
Ecotopia
That's interesting, but not the first 'your generation doesn't understand me" article I've seen. I think some of the current Pop music is great, but just like the Pop music of yesteryear much of it is also commercial junk. There was time when I thought stuff was cool/good because it was new. Fortunately I grew up.

fronobulax said:
By JIM FUSILLI
You're enjoying it, but a fellow customer saunters over: "That's nothing more than Roy Acuff's 'Ida Red' with different words," he says, pointing out that Acuff cut his track in 1939. "I wouldn't call that original." Audiences with a generational bias are quick to dismiss new music. They probably would have dismissed Bob Dylan, too.
Of course they would have, and they did... my Mom still does (at 88). My parents hated some of the music I listened to when I was 18, and I thought their stuff was old-fogey (although I like it now) and I don't care for some of the music 18-year olds listen to now. I'm not a big Rap or Hip-Hop fan but so what? Every generation has their own music that will forever evoke the feelings of their youth. It's also true that some folks are more open to new things than others. No big surprise there.

And it works both ways... at a music camp over New Years I heard "what's a Steely Dan?" and "who's Ella Fitzgerald" from younger attendees who fortunately were quickly set straight by more knowledgeable peers.

So when this author says "Audiences with a generational bias are quick to dismiss new music", he's missing the possibility that they have listened to it and just don't like it. Pop music, like so many other things in a commercial environment, is 80% junk and it will take a decade or two to see what survives and what doesn't. At least some of this author's "Generational Bias" can be more accurately attributed to knowledge and experience. The customer in the article who pointed out the sources of the music other folks were listening to knew something about pop music history.

Anyway, thanks for posting it Frono... food for thought and a reminder that 'generational bias' runs both ways.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,791
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Thanks Jamie. Interesting little tidbit of an article.
These naysayers among us demonstrate a kind of generational bias that can blunt a promising musician's career. It can be summarized thus: "The only valid music is what I liked when I was in my teens." They tend to be vocal about their disapproval and aren't likely to exploit new methods of dissemination
That might have a lot to do with why the "Classic Rock" radio format both dominates the airwaves and is an exclusive wasteland of perpetual top 40 song rotation.
However, in fairness, I have pondered the question of "why" before, and I think that a bigger majority of casual listeners DO simply want to hear something familiar. I think amajority of listeners DON'T actually consider music to be as important as the "G.B.'s" described in the article. In my personal experience, the folks who actually come out and say "NOBODY WAS EVER AS GOOD AS "XXX" are in the minority, compared to those who really do simply want something familiar that reminds them of what was probably the most carefree time of their life: high school.
For most of us, our experience tells us that some of today's acts who use a retro sound as a foundation for growth may go on to do something great. Unlike Gee-Bees, we see these newcomers doing what countless now-iconic artists—including Messrs. Berry and Dylan, as well as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Stevie Wonder and others—did when they were struggling to find their own sound: building on what was done by their predecessors. This is how all artists evolve, not just rock and pop musicians.
THAT's the best point in the article. Those of who truly love music continue to seek out new forms of it. The article raises vaild and interesting points, I just don't see them as being as big a factor in "boomer" musical tastes as the author seems to think. But definitely true for a hardcore minority. On a reread of the article, I realize the author is accurately describing describing a type we all recognize, but doesn't actuallly claim anywhere that "GeeBees" are a majority.
Fair enough.
Now if we could just get 'em to quit singing disco.
Oh wait, those were the Bee Gees... :oops: :lol:
I also came up with a hypothesis of my own quite a few years ago: that each new generation, every 5 years or so, embraces some new muscical style that's in part shoved down their throats by the profit-oriented recording industry BECAUSE they want to establish a generational identity of their own, and not be identified with last year's pop star.
What say ye?
 

Frosty

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
21
Location
New England, USA
Q: Are we the GBs?
A: No.

I am not a consumer of broadcast music. That is, the only radio I hear is NPR which is
news and one conversation after another. So any music that reaches my ears is a
deliberate choice - made by me or by someone in my home. With young adults around,
I hear a *lot* of new music and much of it is quite good! I guess I would say that there
is no "pop" in the mix... at least, what I remember as being commercial pop music when I
was younger. Some, off the top of my head, brought home by returning students: American
Analog Set, Andrew Bird, Black Joe Lewis, The Books, Iron and Wine, Bonnie Prince Billy,
Dirty Projectors, Buck 49, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, etc. It's a long list!

It's also true that my guys will just as likely play a recording of Skip James or a Philip Glass
string quartet. Very eclectic listeners - which I think is great.

So, no generational bias here.
 

AlohaJoe

Senior Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
2,967
Reaction score
2
Location
Ecotopia
Frosty said:
It's also true that my guys will just as likely play a recording of Skip James or a Philip Glass string quartet. Very eclectic listeners - which I think is great.
I totally agree and I think it's very positive thing! Most of the young musicians I deal with are better rounded that I was or my parents were at the same age. I think we can thank the internet for that.
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
I think the comments about exposure are interesting. One of the observations that has been made about print media being replaced by electronic delivery of news tailored to an individual has been that people are less likely to get exposed to something "new". "new" in this case means something we didn't know we would be interested in until we read it on a page of a newspaper we were already reading.

So I see the same going on with music. People who select their music are much less likely to get exposed to something new or "different generational" than people who have music thrust upon them. So, I at least, will plead guilty of bias because I do not always seek out new music and so claim ignorance when exposed to it.

When I look at my current digital music collection, I only find very little "pop" recorded since the 1980's - a now defunct band Wellbilt, some Wynton Marsalis and Matisyahu. I do have other music recorded and performed in this decade but most of it would fall under the classical label.

So when I hear something and compare it to Led Zeppelin it is probably not because I think Zeppelin did it better but because I just don't have anything newer in my frame of reference. That is definitely generational but I don't think it is a deliberate bias as much as a circumstantial one.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,791
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
fronobulax said:
So when I hear something and compare it to Led Zeppelin it is probably not because I think Zeppelin did it better but because I just don't have anything newer in my frame of reference. That is definitely generational but I don't think it is a deliberate bias as much as a circumstantial one.
Corrollary observation: I get most of my new discoveries from channel surfing the radio, and a bit more from MTV and VH1, and sometimes I deliberately sit through stuff I really don't like, to see if anything interesting will come up.
But how many people "of a certain age" search the radio dial for new little nuggets? Hint: college stations and NPR are great sources.
 

ladytexan

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
3,342
Reaction score
18
Location
Texas Hill Country
fronobulax said:
When I look at my current digital music collection, I only find very little "pop" recorded since the 1980's -
Looking at the current playlist on my iPod (below), I guess I'm not a GBer. Like several have stated, it's a matter of likes/dislikes, frame of reference, and exposure (not sure how to define this one accurately). Interesting article, Jamie.
 

griehund

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
1
Location
Ware MA
Wow Toni,

I'm impressed. From Aaron Neville to ELO to Mary Blige? Congratulations. Definitely no GB label for you.

Cliff
 

twocorgis

Venerated Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
13,923
Reaction score
6,520
Location
Lawn Guyland
Guild Total
18
I'm with Toni. There's TONS of great new music being made all the time, and with the explosion of the internet it just makes it that much more accessible. Just listen to "The Loft" on Sirius/XM to hear more great new singer-songwriters than you can shake a stick at.

There's only two kinds of music as far as I'm concerned: good and bad.
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
twocorgis said:
Just listen to "The Loft" on Sirius/XM to hear more great new singer-songwriters than you can shake a stick at.

So what's the free alternative, perhaps with a focus on ensembles and not just singer/songwriters?

adorshki said:
FNG said:
Free Bird!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who's "Bird"?

Charlie Parker.
 

twocorgis

Venerated Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
13,923
Reaction score
6,520
Location
Lawn Guyland
Guild Total
18
fronobulax said:
twocorgis said:
Just listen to "The Loft" on Sirius/XM to hear more great new singer-songwriters than you can shake a stick at.

So what's the free alternative, perhaps with a focus on ensembles and not just singer/songwriters?

Something like WAMU in your area would be good. Its format looks pretty similar to our WFUV here in NY, with lots of Americana and roots music. I was a longtime member of WFUV before going satellite, which thankfully the company pays for. 8)

Unfortunately, Mrs. Two found she liked it too, and I have to pay for that subscription.
 

Ridgemont

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
3,352
Reaction score
1
Location
Austin TX
I am absolutely not a GB. That being said, music began with Nirvana and the '90s is the only decade to really take seriously in terms of music. Everything before and after are just imitators. Mediocrity to merely fill the void of silence. :wink:
 

southernGuild

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
4,925
Reaction score
0
Location
South of South Sydney, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA
ladytexan said:
I'm really, really liking this group!!! 8)

Same here, They are just so talented, fun and quirky...a cool vibe and energy about them..how could they not succeed?
Thats a great Vid too. My wife and daughter have been enjoying them here as well, and looks like I'll order a Cd of theirs soon. I'm happy about that. I love new talent...especially when its this much fun. :D
Thanks Toni.
 
Top