Comments on: Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be

By: Chuk

Chuk — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 21:22:47 +0000

I identify with that 5 years too late bit — my favourite band of all time is the Clash, but they never all played together at a show I could get to (I’ve seen most of the members with other projects since then).

I wonder if there’s some way to find out what kind of music/media/etc. is going to be popular with different age cohorts (seems to take less than a generation…maybe a decade?) As a father of teenagers, I certainly get exposed to stuff that I see absolutely no appeal in that is still very popular.

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:27:57 +0000

As in the joke:

1st Alien: Have the people of Earth received our message?
2nd Alien: Yes, but they’re calling it “Dubstep” and are dancing to it

If you laugh at that, it proves my point

By: Synthetase

Synthetase — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:22:28 +0000

“The counter to that is that todayâ€™s really groundbreaking and innovative music probably isnâ€™t on our radar screens. Itâ€™s probably music we find as strange and alienating to us as Jimi Hendrix must have sounded to fans of fifties crooners.”

Fair point.

By: David Meadows

David Meadows — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:08:28 +0000

Really nice post. I am in complete agreement with both of these (seemingly mutually exclusive) statements:

“the golden age of popular music is the era for which you were born five years too late”

and:

“There is so much great music around today thatâ€™s just a mouse click away, in every genre you can possibly imagine, that you can make a strong argument that weâ€™re living in golden age today. So what if a lot of the mainstream is formulaic sausage-factory stuff that wonâ€™t pass the test of time? It was just the same in 1967, 1973, 1977 or 1985.”

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:52:36 +0000

The counter to that is that today's really groundbreaking and innovative music probably isn't on our radar screens. It's probably music we find as strange and alienating to us as Jimi Hendrix must have sounded to fans of fifties crooners.

By: Synthetase

Synthetase — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:23:57 +0000

Certainly valid points, Tim, but I’m reminded of your post in honour of Black Sabbath’s first album a little while ago where you challenged us to think of anything nearly as radical that’s emerged in the last decade or so. My point is, that while great music is still being made, a lot of the genre defining and defying stuff has been done. I’m wondering how much more new ground there is to explore, at least from a rock point of view. We’ve all heard the heavy riff, the twin attack, etc.

By: Serdar Yegulalp

Serdar Yegulalp — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:49:16 +0000

I think that’s even more true of movies in some ways, at least in part because of the costs involved to make and distribute the average film.

For a fun experiment, go dig up the bestseller lists from 50 years ago. Be surprised at how many of the #1 items are either trivia questions or have vanished completely from public consciousness.

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:43:32 +0000

I think it applies to most media (What proportion of best-selling novels from 50 years ago are still in print?)

In music at least, there’s always a lot that never saw commercial success in its day because it was too far ahead of its time. Is that also true of film?

By: Serdar Yegulalp

Serdar Yegulalp — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:16:01 +0000

I make the same comments about movies. If I had to shrug off the last decade or so of filmmaking, that would mean doing without some of the most amazing experiences I’ve ever had with a movie: “Oldboy”, “Irreversible”, “Requiem for a Dream”, “Children of Men”, “Pan’s Labyrinth”, “Gojoe”, “Izo”, “Nobody Knows”, “Mind Game”, etc. That a lot of these are not mainstream commercial productions is a big part of why, but there you go.