1964 and The Beatles didn't just mark a change in music. It marked a change in entertainment in general. An episode of This American Life shows this beautifully: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/281/transcript, look for "Act One, Take My Break Please."
This tells the story of a vaudeville comedy act, a husband and wife team, booked on the Ed Sullivan show, on the day that The Beatles made their American debut. They were completely blindsided. They didn't have any comprehension of what was happening until they were in the middle of it. They didn't really get it until later. The story includes an encounter with John, surreal for the juxtaposition of the ordinariness of the interaction, and the symbolism -- these two completely different eras encountering one another without any awareness of what was represented.
To push the point too far maybe, what was changing was the very sound of life in the US. You hear these old timey comedians, and they have the rapid fire delivery, the tone of voice, the corny jokes, the style that characterized vaudeville and TV sitcoms. And then you have The Beatles, ushering in something brand new (to the vast majority of Americans). I think it's the same sort of difference you see in movies: Before the mid or late 60s you had this very stylized and artificial way of speaking, often with this weird and phony "mid-Atlantic" accent. And then you had much more realistic movies and ways of speaking, e.g. anything from that era with Jack Nicholson.
By 65 the neighborhood teens were all atwitter with the Beatles. Its one of my earliest memories. The girls laying claim to one Beatle or another. “I like Paul” “I like George!” I hadn’t heard any of the Beatles songs. My limited musical exposure was from church and The Wonderful World of Disney. By the late 60’s I listened to WPGC and Kasey Kasims countdown. Growing older this all became so annoying. The overt loudness. The repetition. Seeking solace in alternatives I embraced punk and new wave. The thing that cracks me up is hearing the clash sing about Supermarkets while in the supermarket. Oh man oh man the 2020s are a great time to be alive
The mid-Atlantic accent wasn't phony, it was actually quite a common accent at the time amongst a certain class of person. It was, at least, no more fake than the "BBC English" sort of accent - largely developed/taught in expensive fee-paying schools, but nevertheless not 'phony' as such, because it was the genuine accent of the people that spoke that way. They didn't speak differently at home.
Also, the general style of speaking in those movies wasn't any more artificial than the older style, it was just differently artificial. The older style was focused on portraying characters' motivations and feelings very clearly. The newer style is called realism, but still isn't actually how people speak, because the dialogue is still just dialogue (purely functional plot-progressing conversation), not realistic conversation. That's part of why Tarantino's movies were so revolutionary: much of the dialogue was much closer to how people actually speak, and that this was 40 years after 'realism' seems to have escaped the notice of many people. In reality, I think 'realism' has mostly been interpreted by actors as 'mumbling' to such an extent that I have to turn the volume up or put subtitles on to understand what the characters are even saying.
I'm not discounting at all that it was a revolutionary time, but the idea that the old style was basically fake and the new style was basically real is quite wrong. They're both quite fake. The new style is so ingrained that it has actually trained people into talking like that, though. The way Americans speak in real life sounds to me like they've been brought up watching movies - and I mean almost all of them. In older recordings they do not sound like this, they sound 'normal' enough (although still with strong accents).
I think this kind of change is maybe more common than we think. I mean, when Nirvana showed up and was juxtaposed next to the hair metal kind of vibe of the day you had the same weird juxtaposition. Or think how weird that 90s vibe of movies like the Goonies or Raiders of the Lost Ark feels compared to Marvel (so much so that Stranger Things was able to feel nostalgic).
I think of it like fashion. Outfits get slim/tight then the next generation comes and fits get roomy/baggy, then then next generation comes and they'll get slim/tight. There is a swaying back and forth from formal to relaxed, even in politics. Like a Boris Johnson in the UK.
I think it can just feel like "the big change" when our own generational cohort makes the break. And baby boomers have been dominating the conversation for so long, that the particular change that happened in the 60s is banged on about so much. In fact, in the article the author themselves tries to downplay the change that happened in the 90s as a change in how billboard ranked artists. I think that is actually partially just a desire to see the 60s as exceptional or legendary in a way that plays into boomer nostalgia.
I am a boomer, and I think that these two things are true:
1) The stuff that happens in your teens is special because of your age. That may well explain why I think The Beatles (and the music of that era) was so special.
2) The music from the 60s really was special. There was certainly rock and roll well before The Beatles, and it grew out of black music, and blues, and can be viewed as nothing really new. And yet: it really was a significant break from the past in the global adulation for their music and the quantum change in tastes that they ushered in.
Not to minimize Nirvana (whose music I love) or metal, or anything else, but the musical examples that you cite were simply not as globally shattering as The Beatles. They just weren't. They were variations within the world of rock and roll. The only comparable change I can think of is the rise of rap music. Which I cannot stand, but I recognize how it changed the world in the same way that The Beatles did.
Checking in from Europe. The rise of electronic music was a big deal here, it happened in the late 70s to 90s with "techno" taking off in the late 80s / early 90s. Electronic music in the US has had its ups and downs and has been over-commercialized as dubstep and "EDM" in the last 10-15 years - it will probably be over again at some point. It's been a thing constantly for decades on this side of the pond. Some people say Kraftwerk was as important as (or more so regarding influence on current music) the Beatles.
Electronic music also started in the US: Disco, Chicago house, Detroit techno - these just didn't take off as much or not permanently (Disco).
I love the Beatles and recognize their impact. But to say there was rock and roll before the Beatles as if Elvis wasn't a massive international thing is downplaying it, as if it was this underground phenomenon. The members of the Beatles themselves (or the Rolling Stones) all talk about what influence Chuck Berry and Elvis were. In fact, from the view of "rock'n'roll" I don't think the Beatles influence matches Elvis. Their real influence was bigger later with their experimentation and studio wizardry.
I was even thinking about the Rat Pack, you know Sinatra, Dean Martin, etc. and their antics. The Beatles were very much in that lineage. So this idea that they showed up on Ed Sullivan and wowed the world with their new nonchalance that had never been seen before is not an accurate view of the situation.
As you say, two things can be true. The Beatles were important and influential and were a defining sound in the 60s. And the kind of changes (and relative impact) that happened in the 60s have happened many times in the past and many times since. It isn't some singular moment in the cultural history of humanity.
My favorite band of all time is Led Zeppelin. A large number of their songs especially in the early albums were heavily influence by black blues artists or so close that they later had to give songwriting credits to the original black artist.
Elvis also sang lots of blues songs originally created by black Americans.
Not just influenced, Led Zeppelin stole tracks from black musicians.
Even worse (in my opinion), is Eric Clapton, who stole so much music from black musicians, and then went on to disparage them and go on racist rants about who he wants in his country. Even worse when you see how he gave and received praise from artists like Jimi Hendrix.
Part of the Beatles growth was also the growth of the home television. The next generational equivalent was probably MTV and Michael Jackson, that spawned the unfathomably large, entertainment icon level of pop star. After that it was anyone who has used Youtube to get billions of viewers without a media companies support.
It's important to consider that rap/hip-hop lyrics are deeply tied to social issues. For a middle-class white kid, it's not super important, but for the audience that was also making the music, this is why it took off. The music was new with a message, and even if you didn't understand the message, you could feel the power behind the music. Then you had producers like Rick Rubin, and labels like Def Jam, that knew they could market the music to white kids in the suburbs. I was one of those white kids in the suburbs, and my friends and I would listen to more "underground" hip-hop/rap radio stations in the very late 80s/early 90s to find music that had a message behind it and was honest (even if we weren't the target).
> The only comparable change I can think of is the rise of rap music. Which I cannot stand, but I recognize how it changed the world in the same way that The Beatles did.
Yea, I can't stand rap and hiphop either, but nobody can deny that its jump into the mainstream in the 90s disrupted and permanently changed the character and trajectory of popular music.
I agree with both of your points, and I was born in 1979. My dad was into the music of the 60s, like Jethro Tull, The Doors, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd. My mom was huge into the Beatles. I love all of the above mentioned bands, and while I listen to more metal than anything, the metal I love definitely take elements from all of the above, along with Black Sabbath. Now you need to really dig to find what you enjoy, it usually won't show up on radio, or even on a related Spotify playlist unless you make sure to constantly interact with and like music you are into.
Hip-hop and rap seem to be more divisive for boomers (not using the term as an insult, my parents are both boomers, who I respect), and I think it's more because the message was more in your face and violent (as far as what was publicized). There is a lot of hip-hop and rap that is much more socially conscious and aware from the 90s up to today, that aligns more with the messages from the 60s. I enjoy both, but I have gotten my dad into groups like the Beastie Boys and Cypress Hill/Wu-Tang Clan, while skipping over the tracks that I don't think he'd enjoy. I think it's fine to not like certain styles of music.
I don't enjoy modern country at all, but I like Bluegrass and Americana type music, with my favorite Grateful Dead album being Workingman's Dead (arguably quite a bit different from the rest of their catalog). You just have to search more for what you like now than in the past where you really could find good music on public radio.
I think what puts off a lot of boomers to rap are two things: a lack of a melody in the lyrics and unfamiliarity with samples music, and irreverent lyrics. When my parents complained about rap music in the 90s it was not about the social commentary aspect, it was specifically about lyrics about women and glorification of gang violence. Which to be honest listening to a lot of these songs again as an adult comes off as highly cringe usually. Ice cube’s “good day” for example did not age well from a lyricism standpoint, feels so juvenile like it was written by a horny teenager when you actually listen to what he says. Even Kendrick has some dumb lyrics like that.
I can appreciate the poetry of the Beatles, I feel a connection as Irish diaspora, but as music, it does nothing for me, and my friends who really loved them picked that up from their parents, reinforcing #1!
The Beatles and the 60s really were special. You may not like their music and that's fine, but that period and that band has not been replicated in later decades by later generations. What the Beatles achieved in particular is arguably unparalleled. If it was mostly #1 as you say then there'd be a Beatles perhaps every decade, but there's not been. There's not even yet been another Beatles since the Beatles.
That is a good point. But there is something else going on in addition. Music is a much smaller cultural force than it was in the 60s and 70s. Then it was arguably the core of all the social changes. That hasn’t been true since then. Instead there are PCs, cell phones, video games, apps. Music matters far less than it used to.
I asked my daughters what music, from their teen years, (aughts and tens) would be listened to fifty years later, similar to the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, etc. They said none of their music would be remembered, it’s all disposable.
I agree in and I think the Beatles can never happen again for reasons that are completely independent of the music itself. There was huge change happening at that time, you had this huge youth culture, that for demographic reasons the West has not seen the likes of since, and arguably never again can because of fragmentation due to the internet, and then finally you throw in the best band and some of the best songwriters in history. That's what made the Beatles special, it was also everything else that had nothing to do with them at all.
We used to have to buy music in stores on physical media. We had to pay money for that album so I think that helped develop an emotional connection to the artist because we were literally giving them our money. Unless you were rich you couldn't own every album that you wanted so you had to think more about whether you really wanted to buy it.
Today most people pay a monthly subscription to a streaming music service and get unlimited access to millions of songs. I think this decreases the personal connection to music.
There are still devoted fans to musicians that will pay a thousand dollars to see them in concert and younger fans buying music on vinyl records that want a more tangible physical experience but that's the minority.
As Kevin Kelly noted decades ago, "change changes change". There cannot be another Beatles, because several aspects of what made the Beatles special were because they were the first <something>. In particular they were the first music act to go "global" thanks to television, and the first music act to go "global" in an area of relatively affordable flight.
Like technological and social disruptions, I think usually the difference is that the new thing has a different agenda than the old - different goals. As a result, the old can't make sense of it - by their goals the new thing is obviously worthless. To the market-dominating Blackberry phone maker, obviously their phone was far superior for email, so why would someone in business buy an iPhone?
My working theory is that the new thing 60s rock'n'roll aimed for was personal expression. Vaudeville acts weren't expressing things about themselves (very much - it's always a matter of degree). There was no 'Let It Be' moment, or expressions of aggression or deeply felt love. Vaudeville and a lot of the pre-Beatles pop music was (very generally) entertainment, not so much art. Look at jazz too, going from Ellington to Coltrane. Look at the rise of folk music. 50's crooners mocked the singing voices of rockers because that was their goal - an aesthetically beautiful voice; they perhaps didn't see the point of rockers was personal expression.
Again, that's speaking very generally. There were many beautiful voices post-Beatles, and there was self-expression before them, and the dividing line isn't perfect.
Now it seems to me that we are leaving behind personal expression. If true, I think partly it's an outcome of culture wars: it's associated with liberalism, so many reject it; and real personal expression can be uncomfortable and non-conformist, and that's divisive and provocative to many. But I am building speculation on speculation.
What personal would there be left to express in a world reduced to a market of bespoke customers—not only their tastes, but their very spectra of conceivable interior experiences preemptively curated by adaptive recommender systems?
Pop music was always the instrument of creating such consumers; the inevitable replacement of subsistance farmers by sub-subsistence factory workers; the media industry as a core tool in the toolbox of the infinite growth death cult, robbing people of certain things previously considered essential human, by channeling their personal experiences through the designated—the Japanese have a great word for it—idols.
You can't have global power projection without an unidirectional informational channel to common working folk, you see, to make sure they know which way the wind is blowing, and to keep them unable to imagine an alternative to what they're trapped in. We're just on a new level of that, one where the expression of that reality which any of us personally experiences is left perpetually in the rear view mirror; all that remains in the here and now is "content production", and its layers upon layers upon layers of technical facilitators in cutthroat competition for the largest crumb of the donut hole.
It's the reification of post-post-post-so-far-post-that-it's-kind-of-meta-modernism: it's all about how it's about nothing at all! And yet it's massive. The kids, those ultimate judges of practicing vs preaching, have spoken: can't sell out of your "authenticity" if you were authentically in it for the money and fame in the first place. There's still room in all that for originality, even creativity, but it's explicitly just business, never anything personal because that'd be bad taste; drawing a line between the interior world and the social game—or worse, trafficking in those goods which can only be found in the former—has completed its transformation into a social taboo.
Hence, the exquisitely crude, the blatantly false, the unapologetically predatory, has won the battle for the hearts and minds, and is now officially in control of the planet. If you think anything else is going on, you just don't know it yet, and we wish the best of luck to you and yours.
> nd to keep them unable to imagine an alternative to what they're trapped in.
Feels like this is all of human history and not just now.
> can't sell out of your "authenticity" if you were authentically in it for the money and fame in the first place.
I have to say i think it's better that way. At least they don't have to pretend to care. Makes them easier to avoid.
> never anything personal because that'd be bad taste;
I guess you and i live in totally different internet bubbles. I've not really seen this.
> Hence, the exquisitely crude, the blatantly false, the unapologetically predatory, has won the battle for the hearts and minds, and is now officially in control of the planet.
Definitely believe this. I'm not sure it's permanent though.
Much of this is because there is not much of a recorded music industry before 1950.
Miles Davis Kind of Blue was one of the best selling albums of the 50s. The #1 best seller though of the decade is the Elvis Christmas album.
By the 60s, Sinatra and the Rat pack were considered lame. That was your dad's music. The Beatles are the Beatles because of the size of the baby boomer generation and that someone had to be the stars of the new generation. As great as the Beatles are, the marketing of the Beatles albums was just as great.
In fact it was notable for not being anyone's native accent! Although it was supposed to capture some of the perceived "classiness" of some British accents.
> According to voice and drama professor Dudley Knight, "its earliest advocates bragged that its chief quality was that no Americans actually spoke it unless educated to do so".
You could think of it as an effort to unify the way people speak English in the US. Not a bad idea I think, if it works. Less "otherness". I read somewhere that many people with Brooklyn accents were taking lessons to get rid of their accent.
I had som much fun when I met this girl who spoke like the girl in "My Cousin Vinny". It was so "authentic". The cool thing about US is that there are so many immigrants who speak English but they speak it in their own accent. But I think it is only natural that eventually they will all speak more like each other.
Certainly there were people who spoke similarly to movies and radio, like my grandmother. However, the full truth is rather sad: Anglo-American speech at the time comprised many beautiful and very diverse accents. As media became ubiquitous, these began to die off and most seem extinct today.
This tells the story of a vaudeville comedy act, a husband and wife team, booked on the Ed Sullivan show, on the day that The Beatles made their American debut. They were completely blindsided. They didn't have any comprehension of what was happening until they were in the middle of it. They didn't really get it until later. The story includes an encounter with John, surreal for the juxtaposition of the ordinariness of the interaction, and the symbolism -- these two completely different eras encountering one another without any awareness of what was represented.
To push the point too far maybe, what was changing was the very sound of life in the US. You hear these old timey comedians, and they have the rapid fire delivery, the tone of voice, the corny jokes, the style that characterized vaudeville and TV sitcoms. And then you have The Beatles, ushering in something brand new (to the vast majority of Americans). I think it's the same sort of difference you see in movies: Before the mid or late 60s you had this very stylized and artificial way of speaking, often with this weird and phony "mid-Atlantic" accent. And then you had much more realistic movies and ways of speaking, e.g. anything from that era with Jack Nicholson.